I am now writing my dissertation on use of social media to launch new technology products to the market. I find it difficult to write a proper academic paper, as my theoretical framework on symmetrical communication and relationship management is more often than not poses a barrier for my writing.

I think public relations is in a desperate need for a new theory. It’s one of the biggest reasons why we are not being taken seriously as a profession after hundreds (if not thousands) years of practice.

I think its an issue that there are over 500 definitions on PR all over the world. Maybe I’m thinking as an academic now, but I think while practice might and even should vary from culture to culture, the main concept of public relations should be unanimously agreed on.

After taking part in EuroBlog 2008 conference and listening to smart people talking, I made a conclusion, which was my personal conviction from before. Public Relations is solely about building and sustaining excellent relationships with publics. We don’t need more definitions than this one (with clear precision on WHY we do it) . It says it all, and it perfectly separates PR from any confusion with other disciplines.

This concept is the most important aspect of public relations as a profession, and yet it has been undermined in practice all along. Why? Because on the other hand (well, in fact, on the same one), the most important function of PR (note the difference between function and aspect, that’s where the problem lies) is a selling function.

Without it’s selling function, whether we sell a product, an idea, a cause or a brand, public relations will stop existing as an industry altogether. There simply won’t be a need for it. This practical aspect of public relations is often undermined by the academics, who are more interested in finding an ethically correct theory for PR. It often results in PR being squeezed into the theory, which is too small (obviously not in size, but in conceptualisation) and inadequate for it. And then we complain why everybody is laughing at us. Its because we look ridiculous.

So, a new definition of PR could sound something like that: Public Relations is (forget about the management function btw, I never understood why we should underline it, isn’t it up to the individual companies to decide?) a maintained effort to SELL a product or a cause BY establishing and sustaining excellent relationships with stakeholders through a two-way (drop symmetrical, it’s a myth) communication.

I think it might be time to be truly transperent and say it out load what we do and why we do it. I think PR will get much more respect for being truthful rather than being accurate (that we are so good at).

Have anyone seen the definition of PR on Wikipedia? I don’t know how about you, but I feel embarrassed.

{ 3 comments }