Public Relations Redefined…Supposedly

If you’re in the PR industry, then you probably didn’t miss this New York Times article by Stuart Elliot regarding the latest official definition of public relations. As Stuart’s article states, this initiative to redefine public relations began this past November out of the supposed need to redefine out practice in the era of social media and “spin doctors” – his words, not mine. The initiative drew a lot of interest from PR professionals, organizations, critics and the general public. Gerard Corbett, the 2012 chairman and chief executive of the Public Relations Society of America, led the initiative that resulted in three final options to be voted on this past February. Those three definitions are below, and the second definition was declared the winner:

• “Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.”
• “Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”
• “Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.”

Most PR practitioners would agree that all three are solid definitions of our field and what we do every day. Particularly, I’m glad to see that ‘strategic’ made it into two definitions, and ‘relationships’ into two as well. Still, I need to beg the question – what has changed? To be fair, I only graduated from the Newhouse School at Syracuse University less than two years ago, so maybe the difference is unclear to me because I learned it so recently. For the veteran PR pros out there – is this not what you learned was the definition? Has it changed all that much?

That being said, has the rise of digital and social media actually created the need to redefine our industry? Our role remains the same: we are the communications professionals that develop and maintain relationships with our clients and their publics. It’s true, how we communicate with those publics has changed. It’s not all about picking up the phone anymore – though we don’t forget the importance of that tactic as well. Often, these relationships are built through social media and engaging in new ways – over Skype, through a Tweet, group discussions on LinkedIn, etc. Our role has not changed and therefore, the definitions above are not as evolved as this attention makes it seem.

That’s not a bad thing; it’s because the time-tested best practices of public relations will always remain effective – the medium to how we implement those best practices and build relationships may change with new media, but not the practices themselves. That's my PR thought for the day.

What do you think – has the rise of social media created the need to redefine our practice? And if so, did the chosen definition fulfill that need? Drop a line in the comments and let us know.

A version of this post originally appeared on prSPEAK, a blog from PAN Communications.

Election 2012: Staying Informed via Mobile Apps

I guess you could say I love apps, well all things mobile. I'm fascinated by all the opportunities it brings to innovators, marketers, entrepreneurs and pretty much anyone who chooses to pick up a mobile device and have an idea. Some of these ideas come from great brands who already have an established fan and/or client base. But they're improving how they interact with consumers by leveraging mobile as a channel.

So today, let's talk about the New York Times. I have their mobile app, and I like it. I prefer the layout and design of Boston.com's app, but I'm not too picky about it - it fulfills it's main purpose by providing me with the top stories while I'm on the train or waiting in line somewhere. But what I am a fan of, however, is the NYTimes' Election 2012 app. It's an election year, and I've vowed to be more involved in the issues this year so that by the time November comes around, I'm not calling my best friend and asking her to tell me about all the candidates. This year, I'll make an informed decision. Sure, my best friend and I have similar political views, but we're not the same person and she shouldn't be my only source for the issues and candidates.

What's great about this app is that it aggregates the stories for the top six topics - not just the top six stories, but the top six topics and then the top issues for each topic. Unless you're a NYTimes digital subscriber, you can only access the top six stories in each topic, but to be honest - that's plenty of news for me. Admittedly, the flaw of this app is that the stories only come from one source - the NYTimes. An even cooler app would be an election 2012 app that aggregates all of the top stories, sorted by topic, from across a variety of sources. Still, I'm not complaining.

Here's why I think this is an app worthy of attention. Too often, many people that vote don't make informed decisions, and I'll lump myself into that at times. We focus on the party we identify with most, or the issues that are important to us. We don't pay attention to all the candidates and their stances on a variety of issues that affect Americans. This app is a way to get a high-level overview of all of the issues and each candidate's stance on them.

I try to stay away from my political opinions on this blog, so I'm not giving an opinion on the issues or the candidates, just that I think this is a great app that provides real value. I've checked it out and have been using it for a few weeks now, so I recommend it to anyone looking to make an informed decision this election year. That's my PR thought for the day.

Anyone else have any app recommendations, without party bias, that are useful for staying informed?