Monday, 8 October 2012

Part One: PR, an ever-changing industry.



Public Relations (PR) can be defined in several different ways. Rex Harlow explored 472 definitions of PR. ‘Building a Public Relations Definition’ (1976) outlines how environmental factors have affected the meaning of the word and the industry throughout the years. One thing we can be sure about is that Mr Harlow’s definition count would have certainly doubled over the last three decades.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) explains that “public relations is about reputation - the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you.” The Public Relations Society of American (PRSA) challenged this definition earlier in the year, suggesting the internet, in particular social media has influenced the way in which PR is practiced. The PRSA’s definition leans towards the importance of relationships and communication rather than focusing on the issue of respect. Keith Butterick believes this inconsistency “is used by critics to demonstrate its fundamental weakness”

The simplest way to describe the primary function of PR is to ‘deliver a message’. It is the legitimacy of the message in question that has led to much debate on the credibility of PR and fronted its association with propaganda and spin. 

Paul Holmes, founder of the ‘Holmes Group’ disagrees with the PRSA’s proposal in his blog stating “public relation is not communications”. Without communication there is no way in which your publics can respond. Taking into consideration Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) ‘four models of public relations’ could this be seen in the modern day as propaganda? In any industry communication is important – us modern day folk want to be informed and we want our opinion to be heard.

In times before both crossed so much there was little difference in meaning between propaganda and PR. The word ‘propaganda’ came to light before the term ‘public relations’. Before the days of the world wide web, the only flow of information was through influential figures thought to be respected. The origin of the word came about in the 17th Century within the Roman Catholic Church. Within this period the Congregation of the Propaganda was formed, whose mission it was to turn unbelievers into converts. Although in 1914, during World War I the word claimed its fame, it was during World War II that wartime propaganda became most recognisable. Governments throughout Britain, America and Germany used media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasts as a form of controlling information and emphasising the necessity of war. 
http://www.webdoodles.org/webimages/sundayherald22may2011.jpg

Today the truth is easily uncovered and lies and scandals are easily released to the general public. In 2011, despite footballer Ryan Giggs being granted a super-injunction to ban media reports on his affair with Imogen Thomas, social media took precedence and ultimately the truth was revealed on Twitter. 

Now PR is used in both the public and private sectors and information is provided on a global scale. Despite this there are still those who choose to practice propaganda as a tool to influence opinion for personal gain through manipulation and lies, a trait unseen in a credible PR practitioner. A PR practitioner will seek to influence only through information of a truthful nature. Whether you believe this is right or wrong, PR is a highly adaptable profession. It can be exactly what it needs to be, when it needs to be and for who it needs to be, however this all depends on whether the practitioner or organisation uses this for the greater good.   

I am inclined to agree with Butterick’s quote, that an inconsistency in definitions has ultimately led to uncertainty among publics. Respect? Communication? Building a Relationship? – In my opinion, these are all important tools that should be acquired and utilised by a PR practitioner.

Why is it then that not one organisation or practitioner can agree on a single definition for Public Relations? Would it be fair to say that is because the definition of PR is in the eyes of the beholder?

This is where ethics comes into play.

Tweet, review, discuss.

Over and Out
Rhi  [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

9 comments:

  1. Organisations use PR to make them selves look better than they really are. Is that ethical:no is that good business:yes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would any Business or organisation ever consider giving any negative PR, look at the case of Gerald Irving Ratner. He was formerly chief executive of the major British jewellery company Ratners Group. Who said all our jewellery is crap. It caused a storm in the media, share prices fell and he has never lived it down. He is now known as Mr Crapner. A good example that all PR should be positive never negative

      Delete
  2. Due to the fact that PR can be used in a number of different contexts in order to sway public opinion, it could be argued that propaganda is a simply a negative, untruthful form of PR.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is an interesting point Tony - certainly a topic within my next blog. What makes you believe this to be true?

    James, I completely agree propaganda is the baby and PR is the 40 year older, more mature adult. This is something I will certainly explore deeper within Part Four.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You've made some really interesting points, particularly bringing in current cases such as super injunctions. I read a blog earlier on a similar topic and could you consider that, given that the code of ethics are an optional guideline this gives people the power to manipulate the truth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is certainly an interesting point. One I look to cover in my next blog.

      May believe the code of ethics is simple. We make a choice, if you choose not follow the codes you can't really claim to be practicing true PR.

      But as you and I both know, it's never that black and white!

      Delete
  5. Public Relations is a rather sinister and cynical medium because it only flows with positives, be they about a corporation or person they are never going to relate the negatives. I particularly find this hard to absorb when about a politician because it is not just PR about the man but his politics and position. However, PR definitely has its place in all our lives, for example, when we attend a job interview we all become our own PR practitioner!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "when we attend a job interview we all become our own PR practitioner!" - this is an extremely creative and fair point.

      Delete
  6. I agree with you about inconsistency in PR definitions may lead people to be cynical. You mention about PR is the public and probate sector do you think there are any differences between the way it is used within sectors?

    ReplyDelete