Unlike the famous line in the 1956 film The Gray Flannel Suit where Tom Rath exclaims ‘I don't know anything about public relations!’ with Bill Hawthorne earnestly replying ‘Who does? You've got a clean shirt and you bathe everyday. That's all there is to it’, public relations is a complex and integrated practice.
When a public relations internship class was instructed to produce a video entitled “PR is…” it was interesting to observe most individuals could not describe a consolidated definition of the practice and theory of public relations. They did however list words associated with the roles and characteristics of the industry, with no two people interviewed producing the same answers. I guess you could say the best definition of public relations can be created through what an individual believes is the most effective way to produce a desired result in any given particular situation.
From its modest beginnings earlier in the 20th century, public relationships suffered an identity crisis – largely due to time, space and evolution. There is no broadly accepted definition to encompass public relations ‘fundamental purpose, its dominant metaphor, its scope, and its underlying dimensions’ (Hutton, 1999).
To further develop the evolution of the public relations industry first looked at by Bianca, let’s start at the beginning shall we? One of the earliest pioneering practitioners of public relations, Edward L, Bernays first defined public relations as, ‘exactly what it says, relations of an organization, individual, idea, with the publics on which it is dependent for its existence. The public relations counsel is the practitioner, a professional, equipped by education, training and experience to give counsel to client or employer on relations with the publics on which the subject depends. He sets about this task by analyzing the relations of the subject and the public on which it depends, for its social goals. He finds out the adjustments and maladjustments between the subject and these publics. He then advises on the attitudes and actions necessary to attain the social goals, and then interprets the subject to the public. Public relations counsel functions on a two-way street. He interprets public to client and client to public,’ (The Later Years: Public Relations Insight)
Reviewing public relations’ journey throughout the century we have seen the practice shakily commenced with Ivy Lee who established public relations’ reputation as one of an honest, understanding and compromising information provider. His mantra was to sustain a ‘proper adjustment of the interrelations’ (Hutton, 1999) of publics and businesses. Hallow uses an interesting metaphor in his article likening Ivy Lee to a lawyer who represented ‘his clients in the court of public opinion’ (1999).
Not long after, the common theme of public relation practitioners turned to one of manipulating communication and media to create and maintain favour in the eyes of the public at all costs. In the 1920’s and 30’s publicity and propaganda concreted its association with the industry. The 1940’s saw words such as; social and political engineers, creators of public opinion, motivators and persuaders, being formed around public relation practitioners. This was further expanded upon in the 1950’s and 60’s through characteristics reminiscent of; pilot, catalyst and interpreter catching on. Finally, the 1990’s paralleled public relations with educator, publicity doctor, perception manager and middleman.
Less we forget the stigma of public relation officers being called spin-doctors, devils advocates, hacks, spin-doctoring and of course, who can forget the oh so popular BS artist as Bianca’s father affectionately calls it. But the main point here is why does the public mistrust the public relations industry? Without trust unfortunately customers become unapproachable, consequently how are we then suppose to gather information, disseminate it and give the customer what they want? In short, how can we listen when they don’t want to talk to us?
Even in today’s society, all definitions shrouding public relations provided to us through academic articles or textbooks are ambiguous and altogether elusive. They can portray its roles and characteristics well but none allow for a ‘true convergence’ of definitions, only spilling out words to do with management, events, reputation and organisation.
Just look at how different countries define public relations, they are also not unified. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) defines the practice through functions of; analysis, management counseling, research and evaluation, planning and implementation, management of resources for performance and knowledge acquisition. Where as the World Assembly of Public Relations Associations in Mexico City state public relations is, ‘the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action which serve both the organization and the public interest’.
So how can we create trust if the public relations industry is not unified? Society and organizations will continue to view our practice and its application as a guessing game of ‘hit and miss’. It will be interesting to see that with the formation of another dimension of time, space and community if this will further diminish hopes of discovering the essence of what public relations or will be have the opposite effect?
Bernays, E. (2006). Definition of Public Relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 51(4), 27. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Hutton J.G. The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations (1999) Public Relations Review, 31 (2), pp. 199-214.
Sharpe M.L. Developing a Behavioral Paradigm for the Performance of Public Relations (2000) Public Relations Review, 26 (3), pp. 345-361.no
No comments:
Post a Comment