‘Tis the season, but we’re not talking about the amount of time left on a holiday sale.
On Nov. 21, PRSA opened the “Public Relations Defined” conversation, in which we, along with our global partners, are helping to guide the profession in a collaborative effort to develop a modern definition of public relations; one that will be owned by any public relations professional who cares to express his or her thoughts on how a modern definition of public relations should read.
With the submission period closing at 11:59 p.m. EST Friday (Dec. 2), you have less than three days remaining to have your voice heard. How would you define public relations in the modern, digital age?
\u2018Tis the season, but we\u2019re not talking about the amount of time left on a holiday sale.<\/p>\n
On Nov. 21, PRSA opened the \u201cPublic Relations Defined\u201d<\/a> conversation, in which we, along with our global partners<\/a>, are helping to guide the profession in a collaborative effort to develop a modern definition of public relations; one that will be owned by any public relations professional who cares to express his or her thoughts on how a modern definition of public relations should read.<\/p>\n With the submission<\/a> period closing at 11:59 p.m. EST Friday (Dec. 2)<\/strong>, you have less than three days remaining to have your voice heard. How would you<\/em><\/strong> define public relations in the modern, digital age?<\/p>\n A review of the latest snapshot word cloud<\/a>, which visually represents the more than 700 definitions submitted thus far, shows that the words \u201corganization\u201d (present in 222 submissions), \u201cpublic\u201d (201), \u201ccommunication\u201d (163) and \u201crelationships\u201d (123) appear most.<\/p>\n As you might imagine, \u201cPublic Relations Defined\u201d (hashtag: #PRDefined<\/a>) has generated an interesting and spirited debate within the profession.<\/p>\n On the CIPR Conversation<\/em> blog, Philip Sheldrake<\/strong> writes<\/a> that a proper modern definition of public relations should focus more on the \u201cwhy\u201d and less on the \u201chow.\u201d Meanwhile, Crenshaw Communications<\/a> CEO Dorothy Crenshaw<\/strong> voices her support, saying<\/a>, \u201cThere has never been a time of faster change \u2014 or greater relevance \u2014 for our industry. And shouldn\u2019t \u2018better PR for PR\u2019 start with us?\u201d<\/p>\n Writing on her blog<\/a>, Jane Wilson MCIPR<\/strong>, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations<\/a>, sets out why the CIPR officially joined the initiative<\/a>: \u201cBy inviting PR professionals to share their insights and perspective on what defines the modern practice of public relations, a process which has already produced some excellent contributions, PRSA is facilitating a timely debate.\u201d<\/p>\n If you have a moment, take a look at additional commentary and discussion<\/a> that\u2019s been written about this initiative.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve also received a few questions regarding the structure and timing of the initiative, and I wanted to take the opportunity to address those.<\/p>\n As far as timing the launch for the Monday before Thanksgiving<\/strong>, that was partly out of our hands. We offered an exclusive on the announcement<\/a> to New York Times<\/em> columnist Stuart Elliott<\/strong>, and in doing so, ceded some control over the timing of its public introduction. We also wanted to be respectful of our partners\u2019 role in this effort and ensure they had the proper time to inform their members of the initiative\u2019s purpose and scope.<\/p>\n We are grateful to Mr. Elliott and The Times<\/em> for breaking the story<\/a> in the paper\u2019s Nov. 21 edition, giving it greater exposure than it might have otherwise received.<\/p>\n The Thanksgiving holiday also was less of a concern because the initiative is global in scope. In fact, we saw terrific input and feedback from the U.K., Canada and other countries over the Thanksgiving holiday. We hope for great participation from all corners of the profession throughout the rest of the week and beyond as the debate around the definition of public relations continues to unfold.<\/p>\n As far as using a submission field, which some see as limiting their creativity, <\/strong>PRSA’s Definition of Public Relations Task Force, along with the industry organizations we have partnered with on this initiative, felt it best to adopt a structure similar to those of well-regarded definitions of marketing<\/a> and advertising<\/a>.<\/p>\n An equally important consideration was practicality. In order for this process to be as open and collaborative as possible, we need to keep things relatively simple, with some parameters, so that we can accurately and objectively collect and analyze the data. What\u2019s more, some of the greatest criticism of existing public relations definitions is that they are too long, chock-full of words (strategic, management function, two-way, symmetrical, mutually beneficial, science, etc.) that over-complicate things and impede comprehension.<\/p>\n Frankly, it would be great if we could limit the definition to 140 characters! But that\u2019s not for me to decide; it\u2019s for you to decide.<\/p>\n So, what are you waiting for? There are only three days left to have your say. Don\u2019t miss out. Submit your definition of public relations <\/strong>here<\/strong><\/a> before the Dec. 2 deadline. <\/strong><\/p>\n Rosanna M. Fiske, APR<\/a>, is chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/g>\n\nSubmit Your Definition of Public Relations Here<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n