Public Relations Redefined: 2012

What are Public Relations and to what standards should a P.R. professional be held accountable?  How should the criteria be established? What body or organizations should have ultimate responsibility?  Should there be required training and/or certification for individuals, groups, and organizations?  Is legislation necessary?  If so, for what purpose and who will draft it?  These are just some of the questions that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is considering.  The simple, old, one line, ambiguous definition of Public Relations, from 1982, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” is going to be replaced.  The definition is archaic and needs to be honorably retired.  A new definition of Public Relations is overdue.

The new definition is needed because the definition’s content is outdated and it is not flexible enough to be applied to issues prevalent in 2012.  The definition seems to start with Public Relations occupying a one-sided position, acting as the hub for dispensing and controlling information.  This stance does not recognize the impact technology has had on the roles of consumer and P.R. professional.  No longer does the P.R. professional control the arena, the consumer is an equal in the process.  Along with this is the issue of adaptation, which generally means change over time.  However with the advent of new technology time has been compacted, change is rapid, and the change reflects the consumer’s response to the P.R. used.  The consumer is likely to force a change in Public Relations strategies rather than P.R. changing the consumer.  The consumer now influences P.R. decisions, content, and methods used.  The immediacy of the interaction between consumer and P.R. decisions has repercussions. 

The “old” definition leaves out more than it includes. The definition lacks clarity and does not address any major issues such as privacy, ethics, certification, professional standards and regulations.  Therefore, lines get drawn and then blurred.  People and organizations, if anyone cares, have a lot more gray area than black and white in which to work, and since less than 10% of P.R. professionals belong to a professional organization, it is hard to imagine that change is going to be voluntary.  Systemic change is required.

Elliott and Corbett’s articles, November 20^th and 21^st, 2011, respectively, articulated reasons change is necessary.  I agree with their positions and with PRSA, which is spearheading the drive to establish more professional and unified standards for all P.R. professionals.  But, how should the new definition be worded?  Noting that Elliott and Corbett’s articles were not current, and because Elliott provided a Dec. 2^nd date for final submissions for new definitions, I checked to see where PRSA was in the process of determining the new definition.  In Corbett’s January PRSA post, the new decision-making timeline was revealed and with it, the three finalists for the new P.R. definition.  Rather than draft my own competing model, I evaluated the three finalists and chose a “winner” I feel should be adopted.  Definition No. 1:  Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.

This definition is clear, concise, and identifies the position and responsibilities of the P.R. professional.  It includes ethics and points to a less manipulative approach to P.R. by indicating that both parties should profit from the relationship.  This simultaneously honors and protects both parties.  Additionally, this definition will allow PRSA to address inconsistencies around terminology, standards for professional conduct, and codes, standards, regulations and laws.

The fundamental reason for a new PRSA definition is certainly ethics, including the need for formal and consistent structure to use in evaluating ethical dilemmas and decisions.  The drafting of the new definition has highlighted other significant “tangential issues” that have to be addressed.   The questions currently outweigh the answers.  But, the stakes are high for everyone.  We will all be impacted, directly or indirectly, P.R. professional and consumer alike.  Therefore, to protect all stakeholders it is essential that a formal Board be established, and a Code of Conduct, Certification and review process, and uniform rules and regulations be drafted and enacted.  Without such structure, P.R. will remain nebulous and unprofessional, and the industry and its practitioners will continue to suffer when scrutinized.

The need for these guidelines is escalating.  Ethical breaches appear to be significant and their exposure contributes to the frequently low opinion the public has toward P.R. activities.  One could argue that there are many levels of inappropriateness and degrees of ethical violations.  However, I feel that once that line is crossed the degree of the transgression is irrelevant.  Once a professional strays, harm has been done.  “Harm” is the umbrella under which all other breaches can be lumped.  Every ethical choice actually has harm, or do no harm, as its guiding principle.  When ethics are ignored, privacy, justice, transparency, autonomy, and/or community are sacrificed with what some would view as a graduated level of harm occurring as a result of the decision.  Again, I see no gray.  Harm or damage is done and the ethics of the individual practitioner, all stakeholders, and the profession itself are compromised.  This perspective reinforces the drive toward uniform and systemic requirements for all P.R. professionals and the profession.

How should these changes be wrought?  PRSA is a great place to start.  PRSA is the industry’s standard-bearer and it is, therefore, appropriate for the organization to be instrumental in crafting the necessary changes.  However, it is somewhat questionable as to whether the fox really can watch the chicken coop.  Creating your own guiding principles is tricky at best and suspect at worst.  Transparency in this process, and in the resulting guidelines, is integral to initial and long-term success.  Will it be enough or is legislation necessary?  It is one thing to have a code of conduct and another to have the means to require, monitor, and enforce compliance.

Individuals and organizations will continue to be faced with ethical challenges and decisions.  Some of the issues will be familiar, yet other new ones will unfold.  I’m sure that no matter what system is put in place there will be the consummate professionals who adhere to ethical principles without guidelines and others who will not be confined by such requirements.  I agree with PRSA that “ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member” and I also agree that this will not occur without systemic change.  The process begins with the drafting and adoption of a new definition of P.R., and it should continue with a complete overhaul of the profession itself.