There have been a lot of new definitions and suggestions coming to the fore over the last 12-18 months about what PR stands for. The traditional version is Public Relations, and has been since as long as anyone can remember.
However, solid PR folks like David Mullen suggest it should be People Relations, as does online marketer and social media guy Ari Herzog in a post from earlier this year. Often it’s called Press Relations or Print Relations. I had a little look at the topic last year and there are plenty more views out there.
But you know what?
Who really cares? Let’s take the emphasis off the P, and concentrate on what’s left – the R, or relations, because this is surely the one constant out of all the PR acronyms. For, without relations (and the conversations that spring from these relations), is there any point left to any of the P, whether it’s public, press, people or similar?
S. Neil Vineberg, President of Vineberg Communications, offers his take in a series of excellent little video snippets. What’s yours?
If you enjoyed reading this post, please feel free to share with your networks using the social icons above. You can also leave your thoughts in the comments below and/or subscribe to danny brown to ensure you receive the latest updates.
Twitter: ariherzog
Heh, you abandoning your comment back there that PR is Personal Recommendations, too?
Thanks for the shout.
While I admire your gut to go with Relations over any modifying clauses about it, is that the best word? Is “relations” the best word to describe the synergy between customer/constituent and agency?
It’s a good question, Ari, and one that I think has lots of merit. Perhaps it’s time to take out all acronyms and just say we’re in the “people business” full stop. Because that’s all it boils down to at the end of the day.
Thought-provoking, Danny. As I continue to learn and study, this new world I've ventured into seems to be all about conversations and community. I like the exchange between you and Ari too… I think there's a lot of confusion out there as to what is marketing, what is PR, what drives the customer to make a buying decision, and I think it will continue to evolve. But I think this post exemplifies the change in the thought-process.
At last. A post that doesn't suggest that PR = press release!
Still think the public bit is applicable, because we're talking about audiences – be they internal, external etc – with an 'official' hat on.
It's an exciting time for all media types, be they social, print, broadcast, which we, as PR people, will need to roll with, innovate with, and learn with.
But if it’s internal, is it truly “public”?
It's true when all is said and done, relations or relationships are what truly matters. You can have all the publicity in the world but without properly formed relationships there's nothing to build off of.
Well you do have to have a relationship with someone. The old term simply meant that the private company would somehow connect with the outside world, ideally controlling or at least influencing the messages as much as possible. Those days are gone. So it's now about developing all different kinds of give and take relationships with multiple constituencies. We now have the tools to do that along with the willing if not insistent participation of those communities. PR pros just need to learn how to use them, for the mutual benefit of both parties.
Thankfully you good folks over at Mullen understand this so much better than many, Edward. Here’s hoping more follow.
From my background in the manufacturing world, we would talk about achieving a “lot size of one”, which meant that every product could be unique, made specifically for one customer, and that's how I've always approached “relations”, at the end of the day it's one-on-one.
I like that approach a lot, Mark. After all, even the most successful business folds if it has no customers. Treat each one as your last.
Regardless of who your audience is, the key is being able to relate to that audience. Whether you’re dealing with media, consumers, what have you, the way to speak to them, write to them, communicate with them is of the utmost importance.
Although, I do agree with Ari and say we could just drop the acronym all together and still be okay. Maybe “interaction specialists” is a better name?
Tessa Carroll
http://www.blogs.vbpoutsourcing.com