If you can't take the heat... sign off of Twitter

While reading Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article discussing the need to change the definition of public relations, I cannot help but think that the conversation is not completely necessary. While things have certainly changed in that field, and most fields, since the Internet has grown to such prominence, sticking to traditional fundamentals is something that should always work. I think of the US Constitution. While some changes need to be made, the concepts still work.

In the “redefining Public Relations” article in the New York Times, Adam Lavelle says, “ Before the rise of social media, public relations was about trying to manage the message an entity was sharing with its different audiences. Now PR has to be more about facilitating the ongoing conversation in an always-on world.” This is true. However, the first sentence in the quote is still true also. It is all about “managing the message.” If that is a burden with expansive social networking platforms, then companies shouldn’t participate in them. Some companies like GE, for example, utilize every possibility for exposure. More importantly, each of those pages is monitored to protect from spammers and defamatory comments.

When trying to create a new public relations definition, the two approaches that can be made are to try an inclusive approach that mentions the ever-changing aspects of the industry or a simple concept. After attempting to come up with different ideas, l like what I said in the last paragraph. Public relations is the act of managing the message. It improves on the other definition because it allows for broad interpretation and a focal point to use when handling controversial issues.

The implication of my definition is that there would need to be more interpretation on individual matters by the practitioners. I recognize the inherent problems with that. In “Time For Resolution” author Gerard Cobett discusses some of the issues that will be monitored in the New Year. However, issues like the strong stance taken against PR firms representing dictators, are not as inherently wrong as one may think. Those working in public relations usually hold a commitment to their client. If they disagree with a client’s actions, they should not represent them. If they do represent them then that’s their call. The PRSA Board of Ethics is not in a position to decide who represents whom. So the use of my broad definition will allow for options. I, of course don’t support dictators, but there surely are people who do.

The biggest ethical violation mentioned in Corbett’s article is “maintaining PR’s ethical standards in the digital age.” While I would argue the positives to this expansion outweigh the negatives, there is a danger to instant information. Since an error can be easily corrected after being posted to the internet, I see less urgency with getting facts 100 percent correct on the first try. If you get it wrong, it only takes a moment to update it. There seems to be a disinterest in how many people read that false fact in the meantime.

The talk of the PRSA and FTC monitoring public relations practices and their effectiveness is more of a political question. Regulating professionals just puts more power in the hands of the individuals doing the regulating. Then that opens the door to unionizing and regulation that would severely limit both positives and negatives to the PR industry. THE PRSA and FTC can monitor practices all they want. They could even create optional licenses that would have the holders abide by their recommended practices. From my outside perspective, public relations is managing fine without such strict parameters.