#PRDefined only helps if it’s a definition everyone can understand

Posted by Justin Goldsborough | 1 comment

Last year I spoke to a group of strategic communications students at Mizzou. When it came my turn to answer audience questions, I was ready for anything. Except the question I got asked.

How would you define public relations?

Really, I thought? Shouldn’t these students already know that? Then I stumbled through an awkward answer I’m quite sure no one — not even my fellow panelists — understood.

PR needs an updated definition. An elevator speech. So kudos to PRSA for starting the #PRDefined conversation. The debate is good, so long as there’s a helpful result. Because when the chief executive of PRSA feels the need to joke with the New York Times that her mother is still trying to figure out what she does for a living, this issue stops being funny and starts being, well, an issue. And one we as PR professionals need to take some ownership of.

I know we’re supposed to think of Edward Bernays as the father of PR and all. But have you checked out the way he defined PR back in the day?

A public relations counsel is an applied social scientist who advises a client on the social attitudes and actions he or she must take in order to appeal to the public on which it is dependent. The practitioner ascertains, through research, the adjustment or maladjustment of the client with the public, then advises what changes in attitude and action are demanded to reach the highest point of adjustment to meet social goals.

Sorry, Eddie. But no one talks like that. And that is what we have to keep in mind when developing our industry pitch. It does no good if we develop a definition only PR professionals understand. Look, we as PR pros should understand the value of perception. And if we look at #PRDefined as a campaign, our barrier isn’t that PR pros don’t understand PR — although there is some truth in that. It’s that business leaders, journalists, marketers and even our parents don’t understand PR or the value it provides. That’s the scary part.

So recently, I tried to define PR. It was actually in preparation for a question on #pr20chat and just a coincidence that #PRDefined is covering the topic on a broader scale. When stars collide, like you and I…

In thinking about a definition, there were few do’s and dont’s I considered:

- DO include a focus on the value of brand perception and how it’s formed

- DON’T use buzzwords

- DO emphasize the chance to tell your brand story

- DON’T focus solely on publicity

- DO keep the definition short and sweet so it’s easy to understand

- DON’T forget that your brand is what your customers say it is

Here’s where I ended up:

PR is the opportunity to connect with your customers, understand their perception of your company, and influence that perception by telling your brand story.

What do you think? The part I didn’t get in there was the positive effect PR can have on business results. But as I thought through it, that benefit is a direct result of embracing the approach above, IMO.

For example, if I connect with a brand on Twitter and provide feedback, I feel like they are interested in  my opinion. Plus, that brand is now top of mind to me. Therefore, I am more likely to click on their links and think of them when I have a need their products can meet. In addition, if the brand is engaging with other customers the same way, I am more likely to see trusted third-party endorsements of the brand from said customers.

So that’s how I’d define PR. What’s your definition? Do your parents understand what you do for a living?