The follocommenrecordedanalyzed Note: In of the wrreferring other par I. G
• P• 1• O
• T
• Asi
• Sm
‘Pub
wing report tary submitt
d during the td in this repo
some casesriter regardinto a specific
rts may be li
General Ana
Public comme52 commen
Overall tone oo Comm
wordino Early
publicappre
o Approcommfound
The commeno Many
relatioadapt
o Severdefinit
A majority of imple, succi
o Many vote wstreet
Several commmanner” in de
blic Relat
represents aed for the thtwo-week pu
ort.
s comments ng specific cac candidate disted elsewh
alysis
ent period ots received oof comments
menters exprng of each con, many co
cly voice theieciates the ooximately midments turned
them eitherts revealed noted that it
ons, and wasability. ral commenttion, noting t
Similar aprelationshi
comments enct and univcommenter
will not be sim” or the CEOmenters expefinition No.
tions DefFeedba
a synopsis ohree candidaublic comme
have been bandidate defdefinition are
here in the re
pen from Jaon PRDefinis was positivressed interecandidate deommenters eir opinion of penness anddway throug negative towr too broad aa preferencet reflected ths the most s
ts also exprethat it helps preciation wips.” expressed a versal. rs expressedmple enoug
O to fully undpressed conc
1.
ined’ Canack Analy
of the public ate definitionent period (J
broken up infinitions. In te included ineport.
an. 11–23, 20tion websiteve toward thest in fleshin
efinition. expressed geach candidd transparen
gh the two-wward the ca
and homogee for definitiohe most modsuccinct whil
essed an apset public re
was seen for
desire for th
d concern thah in its wordderstand. cern over the
ndidate Dysis
comments, ns of public rJan. 11–23, 2
nto parts to rthose cases,n the analysi
012. e in responsehe initiative. ng out the re
gratitude for date definitioncy of the in
week public cndidate definized or tooon No. 2. dern and relee also provid
preciation foelations aparthe phrase
he candidate
at whicheveding for the c
e inclusion o
Definition
blog posts arelations. All 2012), and h
represent mu, the parts ois of that def
e to candida
easoning beh
having the oon, indicatingitiative.
comment penitions. Som
o narrow and
evant definitding for univ
or the word “rt from other“mutually be
e definitions
r definition rcommon “pe
of the phrase
s
and other responses w
have been
ultiple opiniof the commefinition, while
ate definition
hind the spe
opportunity tog the profess
riod, some me commentd strictly defi
tion of publicversal
“strategic” inr disciplines.eneficial
to be more
receives the rson on the
e “in an ethic
1
were
ons ent e
s.
ecific
o sion
ers ning.
c
the .
final
cal
o As onmannprofesstatute
o Anothat leas
o Anoththat Plegitim
o In gendefinit
e commenteer,’ as that issions includes’? Ethical
her commentst we should
her commentPR could be mize PR.” neral, few cation.
Several cothe word “conclusionfor includin
er wrote: “I dmplies we wde terms sucpractice shoter added thd be we donter said that unethical in
ame to the d
ommenters wethics” or “en as to whetng “ethics” in
do not see wwould do othch as ‘done ould be a givat “Since [pu't have to saincluding etthe first plac
efense of th
wrote their oethical,” makher the publn a definition
why we neederwise if notlegally’ or ‘inven.” ublic relation
ay that sincethics in any dce. It is thus
e inclusion o
own versionsking it difficulic expresses
n of public re
to include ‘it included. Dn accordanc
ns professio WE SHOULdefinition “wa mediocre
of the word “
s of a definitit to draw ans an apprecielations.
in an ethicalDo other e with existi
nals] are ethLD BE.”
wakes doubtsattempt to
“ethics” in an
ion that incluy definitive iation or disd
2
ng
hical,
s,
ny
uded
dain
II. S * Commewhere thpublishedin this rep A. G
Maa
InTaF I suocainh Wif fa Cmnth
Pcoo
—
Td
Synopsis of
ents are listeere is repetid. Thereforeport.
General Com
My personal dnd enhancend/or service
nteresting! BThe second c
pplied to an errar, Jan. 2
notice that tupporting 'Ppposite. Than the best d
n communicaappening? T
We are in thesomeone as
amous, whic
Criteria: Any must be prop
ons of our she process.
Proposed Deommunicatiorganizations
— Charles AStandards
Thanks for unescribing wh
Responses
ed in reverseition of comme, not all 152
mments
definition: ‘P the image aes.’ — Eric
But the definicould be a ceenlightened
24, 2012
he notationsublics' over
here are othedefinition unation shouldThat would b
e business osks me wha
ch most peop
definition of perly aligned ociety's valu
efinition: “Pubon to facilitats and stakeh
A. Wood, fors, Jan. 23, 2
ndertaking thhat we do as
s*
e chronologiments, the m2 comments
Public relatioand reputatioBoomhowe
itions seem ertain type o
d sales proce
s on the thre"Stakeholdeer seeming
ntil the individ grapple wit
be good. Ver
f building brt I do. To beple understa
public relatiwith ultimat
ues that emp
blic Relationte positive, t
holders.”
mer chairma2012 (sent vi
his challenges a "process
cal order of most succinc
received via
ons is strategon of an orgr, Jan. 24, 2
bit inflated. Tof advertisingess. I think t
ee definitionsers' and sominconsistencdual words ch this issue ry good. — M
ridges. I done honest, I usand. — Trace
ons must fote authority fpower the pr
ns is a leadetransparent,
an, PRSA Boia email).
e! I like #2 w." Also, if yo
when they wct and relevaa the PRDefi
gic communianization, in012
The first parg campaign.hey need tig
s have conflimetimes suppcies so I woncan be agreefor a while loMichael F Ke
't want to qusually joke ae Cohen, Ja
cus on procfor that procerocess; and
rship responand ethical
oard of Ethic
with a bit of #ou are blend
were receiveant commentfinition websi
ications desncluding its p
rtly covers m. And the thightening up.
cts, for examporting whatnder whetheed upon. Seonger. Maybelly, Jan. 24
uote any of thand say I maan. 24, 2012
ess, not tactess; must stmust articula
nsibility that relations be
cs and Profe
#3, but have ding any of th
ed. In cases t has been ite are publis
igned to propeople, prod
market researd could be — Marcus
mple sometit seems to ber any of theseems the expbe that's wha4, 2012
hese definitiake other pe
tics or functitate the sineate the natu
applies stratetween
ession
difficulty withem, I do no
3
shed
otect ucts
rch.
mes e the se perts at is
ons ople
ons; e qua re of
tegic
th ot
seo"iJa Tw— Wthe Ma W "Tnofthin In Pasowev2 Pthd I'minthF
ee why we ntherwise if nn accordancan. 22, 2012
The one I usewith its key p— Carla, Jan
Who is the auhe audience asily unders
My public reland No. 3 wa
Where I'm at
Thus, complever a momf looking up
hat word's den time, and s
n short, PR c
Perhaps instes we do withociology). Th
way that "expvaluate its e012
PR is so muchough we arone. It just s
m not satisfinclude the whese days... azzina, chai
need to inclunot included.ce with exist2
e at my job iublics throug. 22, 2012
udience for tis the public
stood by all.
ations class as the secon
with this now
ete meaningent when ma given wor
efinition, etcsuch a proce
can't be defi
ead of talkinh scientific ehat is, insteaperiments" caeffects, resul
ch more thanre being forcsimply can't.
ed with any words "engag
This is why ir, PRSA He
ude "in an et Do other pring statutes"
s support mgh the use o
this new defc, I think it ha I think #3 a
put these tod choice. —
w: Derrida.
g is always "eaning is cord in a dictioc., also compess would n
ned. Neither
g about "defxperiments
ad of defininan be constts and outco
n what is desced to define
of these defging and comthe definitio
ealth Academ
thical mannerofessions in"? Ethical pr
arketing andof a variety o
inition? If it'as to be releccomplishes
o a vote yest— Allison, Jan
"differential" omplete and nary, then pparing with oever end."
r can any wo
fining" it, wein the socialg what PR isructed arounomes. — Eri
scribed in ale it in on sen
finitions. Butmmunicatingon needs to bmy, Jan. 22,
er," as that imnclude termsractice shoul
d sales by cuof communic
s other PR pevant and in s that. — Be
terday, with n. 22, 2012
and postpontotal. A simroceeding toolder diction
ord be.
should talk l sciences (lis (which is imnd it, in ordec Bryant, Gn
l three of thetence. Is tha
t I will say thg" in it. Engabe redefined2012
mplies we ws such as "dold be a given
ultivating favcations chan
professionalplain Englis
elinda, Jan. 2
the majority
ned in langumple exampleo look up thearies from d
about "operike psycholompossible) w
er to measurenosis Media
ese. Really?at the case?
he definition gement is a
d in the first p
would do one legally" n. — Jeff Da
vorable relatnels and too
s I think #1.sh...somethin22, 2012
voting on N
uage; there e would cone words foundifferent perio
rationalizing"ogy and we define it e, observe, Group, Jan
? It appears aIf so, it can'
definitely neKEY part to
place. — Le
4
or avis,
ions ols.
If ng
No. 2,
is sist
nd in ods
" it,
in a
. 22,
as t be
eeds o PR eigh
I'maknb Td Tin PYp Ap WCIsIf w Wfu Yab It ashBexcr Da revaco
m not too kend none of tnow PR is aeneficial rela
There's nothiescribe, enli
This has beenspiring so m
Personally, I Yes, it is best
rofession.
Also, a definitosition...
What exactly Can a mutuas this type off a practitione
work in PR?
Will any of theunctions and
Yes have hignd inclusionabbleoftong
seems like gain. But thahould reflect
But these do xplains and risis.
Do we know wtool to spea
elationships.alues and cromments, th
een on any othem really g
a "managemeationships."
ng new aboighten and im
n really intermuch debate
don't think "t practice bu
tion that rais
do you meally beneficiaf relationshiper is seeking
e above defd describe w
her order go or vision anues, Jan. 22
we have an at's not my bt how we denot. Unfortuenlightens.
what we valak to the valu. I've written raft them intohoughts and
of these definget to the coent functionAnd we kno
ut this and thmbue the re
resting and we.
mutually benut is a norma
ses more qu
an by mutual in whose ep always desg a relations
finitions helpwhat we do to
oals for the pnd morality. Y2, 2012
identity crisbeef with thefine our wor
unately, thesAnd that spe
ue? A definiues of othersa post on m
o a definitiondisagreeme
nitions becaore values of." We get it!
ow its "a stra
he languageader with ins
well done on
neficial/undeative approac
estions than
lity? eyes? sirable?
ship that only
p us separateo people out
profession bYou may no
sis if we are dese definitionrk. A definitiose definitionseaks to a mu
tion like thiss. This is ve
my blog, Get n that is 100ents. — Rod
ause they aref public relatWe know istegic commu
e is lifeless. Asight. — Rod
n pulling toge
erstanding" hch the best o
n answers is
y benefits on
e PR in relattside of the i
ut should a dot be able to
defining pubns. We are con is designes ooze corpouch deeper
s should spery personal Social PR, w
0% corporatedger Johnson
e full of corpions. NONE about buildunication pro
A definition dger Johnso
ether some
has a place option for de
in a precari
ne side do th
tion to other ndustry. Sim
definition behave it all. —
blic relations creative peoed to bring corate-speak,problem with
ak to our vaand at the cwhere I try toe-speak freen, Jan. 22, 2
porate-speak OF THEM.ing "mutuallocess."
is meant to on, Jan. 22,
great ideas
in a definitioefining a
ous starting
hey no longe
communicamply, No.
e about clarit—
again, all ovple, and so tclarity, period which neithh our identify
lues and offcore of buildio pinpoint th
e. I'd like you2012
5
k, We y
2012
and
on.
er
ation
ty
ver that d.
her y
fer us ng
hese ur
I pnbmS Tin[mainwcoW Aco Cco OA Sco S M AGw I thit Mevcuth
am sad to saroject, this uothing new tack to one o
managementStoltenow, Ja
Thanks for aln public relatmy organizatnd pointed e
nvolves usingwhat [the orgould follow.
Wheeler, Jan
As the 100th ome from Am
Clearly, if thisoordinators
Of the 4 millioAmericans an
So, one out oonsequence
Solution?
Maybe one s
Another woulGlobal Alliancwho speaks I
am absolutehey were goand they m
My suggestiover changingultural and hhe facets of o
ay, but if theundertaking ito the 500+ of the best at of communan. 22, 2012
l your good tions, I desction's] variouenough to seg a variety oanization] do Of the three
n. 22, 2012
comment mmerican or m
s exercise ismust consid
on pr professnd possibly a
of four profeses are likely t
uggestion co
d be to urgece (part of thtalian see h
ely confidenting in for whust come to
on: Every prog. Public re
historical skeour (or any o
ese 3 definitiis a massivedefinitions thnd most pra
nication betw
work, and wribed what I us publics." erve as a firsof communicoes." Discuse currently p
mark is beingmaybe (...??
aimed at a der!
sionals in thanother 300
ssionals somto bear also
ould be ask
e leaders of ahis coalition)ere as an ex
t that the orghen they dec
a conclusio
ofession's tralations - bei
eletons to geother) profes
ons is all, the failure and hat are alrea
agmatic definween organiz
wishing you cdid, fundamHence, "pub
st-level answcation technissions of ethproposed def
reached, I w??) Anglo-Sa
global defin
e world, not thousand a
mehow relate on the othe
commenters
all the 67 na) to urge theixample of ye
ganizers reacided to begin.
aditional wang one of th
et rid of. No ssion. The c
hat resulted fan intellectu
ady out therenitions: "Pubzation and its
continued sumentally, as "blic" and "re
wer. I could ques to exp
hics, techniqfinitions, I v
worry that thaxon countrie
ition, this is
more than 7re from othe
e to this discer three.
s to indicate
ational associr members esterday http
lly didn't reain the exerci
lls and boune more receone definitio
conclusion o
from the croual offense, e, and, even
blic relation iss publics.” —
uccess. Whe"building rela
elations." Ththen quicklylain and gainues and muote for #2. —
he only voicees.
a major issu
700 thousaner Anglo-Sax
cussion who
country of o
ciations whoto participatp://www.ferp
alize the comse. But now
ndaries are cent ones - haon today canof the well wo
wdsourcing as it adds
n worse, fallss the
— Sascha
en I first starationships what seemed sy add that "thn support fotual benefits
— Kathryn
es appear to
ue that
nd are North xon countrie
se
origin.
o belong to the (for anyon
pi.it/ferpi/nov
mplexity of ww they are in
collapsing anas many lessn encompasorth while
6
s
rted with short his r
s
o
s.
he ne i....
hat n for
nd s ss all
exrasha—
I Apm Hca#b W"mUrem Bw'm I wp Ncolik Wisin—
I Pfu
xercise (useather than 'ahould focus nd advocatin
— Toni Muz
don't know tAs others hav
hilosophies must be so ge
However, sinandidates: 1 is overblowetter, but do
Why do nonemarketing"?
University thaelations is a
management
But 100% of when definingmedicine," "h
can't help wwhat you do?
ick up the ta
None of theseommunicatioke somethin
Why not use s the businesnstitution. — Bperry, Ja
agree with #PR just existsunction, but
eful also for oannalistically
our collectivng the valuei Falconi, Ja
that developve stated in possessed aeneral as to
ce you are p
wn; #3 suffeoesn't make
e of these 3 pStill, I like S
at emphasizeclear, ethica
t to influence
my clients sg PR is like phealthcare" o
writing this, fo? If I describeab.
e definitionson. We're thg the compa
Merriam-Wess of getting
an. 15, 2012
#2 the most. s as "engagerather a stat
other profes' asking ours
ve and crowde we bring toan. 15, 2012
ping a new dthis discussand activitiebe weak an
proceeding w
ers from the sme wince, a
potential defSamantha Baes "clear, etal, and planne, educate, a
ee PR as a physicians dor "wellness
olks. Can yoed my job th
are what I we folks who any legal co
ebster? I thin the public to
2
The first onement betwete of being. —
sions who aselves who wdsourcing at
o organizatio
efinition for ion, any defs performed
nd ineffective
with this initi
simplistic geas do the oth
finitions of oankey's definhical and planed communand reinforce
marketing ddefining their." — Paul M
u really heahis way over
would hold uwrite in plainunsel and H
nk it defines o understan
e focuses oeen organiza— Sarah Go
are dwelling swe are and wttention on u
ons and socie
public relatiofinition inclusd by practitioe.
ative, here is
eneralizationher two. — P
ur PR profesnition, belowanned" commnication proce targeted p
iscipline - shr role withouaccabee, Ja
r yourself usdinner with
up as a callinn English, rig
HR vp edited
PR somethd and like a
n task. The ations". Thatoldstein, Jan
similar issuewhat we sta
understandinety.
ons is particsive of the woners of our c
s my opinion
n I mentionedPfanning, Jan
ssion even mw, from Ferrismunicationscess coordinublics.”]
hying away fut using the wan. 15, 2012
sing these wmy family, t
ng card for cght? These the life out o
ing like this:person, com
last one seet doesn't des. 15, 2012
e) could wellnd for, we
ng, monitorin
ularly desirawide range ofcraft/profess
n of the
d; #2 is not mn. 15, 2012
mention the s State
s. [“Public nated by top
from "markewords
words to deschey'd make
cogent, concdefinitions sof.
Public relampany or
ems to implyscribe strate
7
be:
ng
able. f sion
much
word
eting"
cribe me
cise sound
ations
y that egic
Pmsu Phpso I psedevo
Public Relatiomutually beneuccesses an
Public relatioas become aublic engageociety. — Se
appreciate erocess. It apentences. Tefinition undven our motur jobs to no
ons is a maneficial relationd/or failures
ns is the praan integral pement and selwyn Bosto
everyone's eppears that 1The redefinitderstood by athers know won-PR peopl
nagement fuonships betws depend. —
actice of sympart of maintstrategic man, Jan. 15, 2
effort and rea10-12 pre-disions do not ta non-PR pewhat we do. le. — Branda
nction that eween an orga
— Adam Hoy
mmetrical comtaining the renagement o2012
alize alot of esposed wordtruly start froerson. A longIn addition, a Jones Bar
establishes, anization an
y, Jan. 15, 20
mmunicationeputation of f relationshi
energy and ds were shuom scratch agstanding prit is importa
rwick, Jan. 1
builds and/ond its publics012
n on multiplean organizaps in a rapid
thought havffled around
and create aroblem has bnt that we a3, 2012
or maintainss, on whom,
e platforms tation, througdly changing
ve gone into d into 3 differa simple been that nore able to de
8
its
that h
this rent
ot efine
B. C
“Pare C I h(mtoe #ddto— FembBreM - th- wthN- tore— I mre—
Candidate D
Public relationd collaboraelationships
Comments:
think the firsowever, a comanagemeno be a mutuathical at the
1. Too muchefinition shoo not like the
o have ethics— Jen Ward,
rom my poinncompasses
managementest choice fo
Barcelona Presearch, pla
Mihaela Matr
"ethical manhus a medioc"mutually be
win-win. A faihe trophy. Th
NFL games a"achieve res
o achieve reselations.
— Sascha St
prefer definimanagementesearch, and
— Dan Flores
Definition No
ons is the maating with staand achieve
st definition dombination o
nt, marketingally beneficiasame time.
h - over the tould not be oe word ethics or we need Jan. 23, 20
nt of view, ths the broad t function. It or the term, rinciples. It anning and e
res, Jan. 22,
nner": This wcre attempt eneficial relair competitiohe team thata draw by desults": Comesults, and yo
toltenow, Jan
tion #1 becat role: commd the spirit ths, Jan. 15, 2
o. 1
anagement akeholders ine results.”
does a goodof all three w
g, engagemeal relationsh— Sawyerm
top - and doone that anyocs in there asd to convinc
012
he most appscope of therefers to thebeing thus i
also emphasvaluation, w2012
wakes doubtto legitimize
ationships": won is the most looses will
efault? e on, you caou know wha
n. 22, 2012
ause unlike tmunications, fhat PR is co2012
function of rn an ethical
d job of incorwould be besent, researchip between t
mm, Jan. 24,
oes not connone outside s I think it ime others tha
ropriate defie domain ane audience an line with thizes the role
which are pre
ts, that PR ce PR. we live in a cst beneficial improve. W
n´t be seriouat: The best
the others, itface-to-facellaborative a
researching,manner to b
rporating most. There areh, communicthe agency a, 2012
ect with the of our profe
mplies we neat we have th
nition for PRd supports it
as 'stakeholdhe Stockholme of ethics aserequisites fo
could be une
competitive wfor everybodhat´s your n
us. Everythinresult PR ca
t is inclusive relationship
and solution
engaging, cbuild mutuall
ost parts of we various funcating, etc, band its publi
average peession cannoed to be rem
hem. That us
R is the first ts positionin
ders', which m Accords as well as thaor good resu
ethical in the
world, right?dy. The teamext proposa
ng we do in aan achieve a
e of all PR fups, the essenoriented not
communicatily beneficial
what PR is...nctions but there neecs while bei
rson and thiot understanminded we nsually backfi
one, since itg as a is probably t
and the at of proper ults. — Iulia-
first place. I
? So forget am that wins, al? Calling al
a company hare lasting
unctions as antial aspect t simply reac
9
ing,
eds ng
s d. I eed ires.
t
the
-
It is
about gets l
has
a of ctive.
I pWth
Hbp
like #1, but wublics. I'm a
While that cahere are a la
Here's my aduild relationsublics, custo
would drop "also not suren be a great
arge number
daptation of #ships and acomers and th
"collaboratine that "mutuat goal on somr of diverse s
#1. Public Rchieve positihe communi
ng" from the ally beneficiame issues, itstakeholders
Relations serive results aty. — Brend
list. I also pral" should bet's often not s involved. —
rves as an emong comp
da Jones Ba
refer stakehe included infeasible, es
— Rgiblin, Ja
ethical manapanies, organrwick, Jan. 1
olders over n the definitiopecially whe
an. 15, 2012
agement rolenizations, 13, 2012
10
key on. en
e to
C. D
“Pm
C
BPba T
I st
Ma g I twrateclp I pap I "pthfa I b"mcocokeco
Definition No
Public relatiomutually bene
Comments:
Between the Public relatio
eneficial relaprocess, tha
Thank you fo
like number trategic com
My vote is forgreat job of
eneral audie
really like Dewo terms reaather than 'serm for 'publlass, sometiotential to be
like the 2. deublics." For nd public. Arocesses. —
think numbeparticipation hose mutualalse insight t
think the sececause of thmutually benore definitionompany worey publics oompany. —
o. 2
ons is a strateficial relatio
three, I votens is the straationships bat's a given2r heralding t
one and twommunication
r number 2 wf detailing thence. High-le
efinition 2 beally encompatakeholdersics' rather thmes there aecome key p
efinition. Butcompanies t
And Public Re— Alexander
er two is the from, and e
ly beneficial toward the p
cond definitihe certain voneficial", "orgn of public rerks with an af the compaLongakerka
tegic commuonships betw
e for numberategic commetween orga2) Not all puthis importan
o, but probais very impo
with a slight e actions thaevel and jarg
ecause it usass what PR' which was
hen just limitare publics wpublics.
t I would addthe inside coelations musMaasik, Jan
best there; engagement
relationshippublic themse
on is the beocabulary woganizations" elations. In magency to gany to get the
ayla, Jan. 22
unication proween organiz
r 2, but I sugmunication thanizations anblic relationsnt discussion
ably two the bortant. — Me
amendmentat public relagon-free — t
es the term R is all about
used in Defting it to key
who are not i
d "between Aommunicatiost focus on bn. 22, 2012
I would add with the org
ps may obtaielves. — Ja
st out of all tords selecteand "key pu
my own wordain a win-wine best applic
2, 2012
ocess that dzations and
ggest the follhat developsnd their pubs efforts are n! — Kelly B
best. I think egan Bauer,
t — add "ethations perforthat's #2. —
'strategic ant. I also enjofinition 1. I wpublics. As n your targe
AND INSIDEon is as vitalboth aspects
something tganizations pin purpose inn. 22, 2012
three. I thinkd. The wordublics", combds I think PRn solution. Tcable data fo
develops andtheir key pu
owing versios and maintalics. 1) All cofocused on
Byrd, Jan. 24
the "strategJan. 24, 20
hical." While rms, it is too
— Erin, Jan. 2
nd 'communioyed the termwould like to s
I learned in et audience b
E organizatio as talking to
s of the com
to it along thpushing the nstead of be
k it's the bess "strategic"bined all demR is a proceshey must alsor the evolvin
d maintains ublics.”
on: ains mutuallyommunicatio"key" public
4, 2012
ic" part, in 12
number 1 d specific for
23, 2012
ication'. Thom 'key publicsee a broadmy PR 312
but have the
ons and theio your audiemunication
he lines of effort" so tha
eing used as
st choice ", "process", monstrate thss in which aso work withng needs of
11
y on is cs.
oes a
ose cs' er
e
ir key ence
at s a
he a h the
the
NaHjuWNte Dco
DinPC Tmsu I thtomoco"mdp Gtow(mab I “Pcob
Number Two re ethical, at
However, somust trying to hWhat exactly Number Two ell people wh
Definition numoherent fash
Definition #2 nclude in ourPlanning andCenter & Bro
That definitiomutually beneuccess or fa
think Cutlip his newer deo #2 could be
managementn process boncerns. Altmutually benescriptive teractices, so
Given that mao advocate fo
with consumemutually benpplication ofroadly.
therefore su
Public relatioommunicatioetween orga
looks best. t least we shme people ahard in a sendoes that mis straight to
hat it is we d
mber two is hion. — Ama
is very closer book (Aust Managing Eom's "Effect
n is: "a maneficial relatio
ailure depend
et al.'s phrasefinition. Althe useful, I hat seems too ut including hough ethic
neficial relatierm would be
perhaps tha
any posters or the positioers that will eneficial relatif public relat
uggest a cou
ons is a manon processeanizations an
In Number ohould be, wearen't in this fntence. As f
mean in this co the point ado. — Angeli
my vote; seeanda Lenar,
e to the defintin & PinkletoEffective Cotive Public R
agement funonships betwds."
sing about phough I agreave a lot of r"top-down" omanagemenal practices onship," I age useful to aat can be ass
have noted on that markengender pronships serv
tions strateg
uple of edits
nagement fues to developnd the public
one, I don't le don't have field so that'for Number tcontext? It h
about what wia Juarez, Ja
ems to mostJan. 22, 20
nition we useon, "Strategimmunication
Relations" tex
nction that idween an orga
publics is moee with otherrespect for tor "one-waynt as a descshould be a
gree with maadd to #2. Rsumed witho
that their cliketing has a roduct trial aving a varieties rather th
to #2, as fol
nction that ep and maintacs on which
ike the ethicto say that s
's why we shthree, I don'thas me queswe do, whichan. 22, 2012
t succinctly d12
e at Washinic Public Ren Programs"xt.
dentifies, estanization an
ore clear (strrs that addinhe develope
y." Perhaps acriptive term an assumed any other po
Research is aout making a
ients tend todifferent gond loyalty) fty of purpose
han the pract
lows:
employs ethiain mutually their succes
cal part becasince WE SHhould take it t like the engstioning well h is what we 2.
define what
gton State Ulations Mana"). We adopt
tablishes annd the public
rategic) thanng "a managers' concern a nuanced pcan satisfy brequirement
osters that "ea requiremena further add
o focus on moal (to cultivarom public res) and reprtice of public
ical, strategibeneficial re
ss or failure
ause since wHOULD BE.out. To me
gagement pahow? So, need when
we do in a
University anagement: ted it from C
d maintains cs on which i
n the phrasingement funct
that the termphrasing focuboth t for any ethical" as a nt for strategdition.
marketing, I'date relationshelations resents an c relations m
c elationships depends.”
12
we it's art.
we
nd
Cutlip,
ts
ng in tion" m used
gic
like hips
more
—E2 NsuO"r Is2 #- asup- — I brecere(cm— Rth #mao- p BJa
— Ercia AustEdward R. M
012
Number two iuccinct.
On number orealize strate
s definitely n012
2: in addition"key publicsudience canubject matteublic". even if: How
— Sascha St
immediatelyeing definedelations is acertainly niceelations is mconstantly ev
management— Theresa S
Regarding dehink: Reachi
2. I feel it comedia, some
ll develop anur ability to cis it really sorofession? —
By using the an. 15, 2012
tin, professourrow Colleg
is the best b
one, what doegic goals,"
ot a manage
n to the "mus" How couldn switch its aer, they will f
w would devetoltenow, Jan
y gravitated td as anythingctually more
e to envision more strategic
volving and t function or
Souther, Jan
ef #2, wheneng. — bperr
overs the vado public af
nd maintain cultivate relaomething we— Nick Hoga
kiss theory o2
r and directoge of Comm
by far. It enc
es "manageis gobbledyg
ement functi
tually benefd you possibattention to yforce you into
elop and man. 22, 2012
toward Defing less than a of a managthe relations
c than collabchanging) isa simple en. 15, 2012
ever I hear sry, Jan. 15, 2
ariety or profffairs, some relationship
ationships. Ie grapple witan, Jan. 15,
of public rela
or, Murrow Cmunication, W
compasses a
ement' functigook. — j ra
ion. Definitio
ficial relationbly tell, who yyou in the blio a relations
aintain?
nition No. 2 ba strategic pgement functships as symborative. I als much moregagement.
omeone use2012
fession can hdo crisis ress in one wayI hesitate to th today mor2012
ations, #2 wi
Center for MWashington S
all the functio
on mean? Aange, Jan. 2
on 2 is close
ships" your key pubnk of an eye
ship before y
because I caprocess. Coution? Yes, pembiotic, but Iso feel that
e fitting than
e the word s
have well - ssponse. Buty or another suggest addre so than a
ins hands do
edia & HealState Univer
ons and it is
And on num2, 2012
est. — Ahah
blics are, whe? And, depeyou can spel
an't imagine uld it be thaterhaps it is. I think that adescribing itcharacteriz
trategic, I ro
some peoplet the bottom r - the heart oding somethny other bus
own. — Gra
th Promotiorsity, Jan. 22
clear and
ber three,
ughes, Jan.
hen a global ending on thll "not my ke
public relatit "modern" pAnd it is
at its core, put as a procesing it as a
oll my eyes a
e do social line is that wof PR after a
hing about etsiness
ham Dodson
13
n, 2,
22,
he ey
ions public
ublic ss
and
we all is thics
n,
Wofcodufoa B Trem B1 Ncl I redM L"rthof "PmJa I vHuoK
While many hf social medollaboration iscipline cannderstandin
ocus on the strategic co
Baird, Jan. 15
This is the onelations is a
management
But out of the5, 2012
Number two ilient or non-
do think the estrictive. Sievelops and
Michael Crisp
ike some othrealize stratehink there is f public relat
Public relatiomutual objectan. 15, 2012
vote for #2, Here’s the on
sed to deverganizations
Keller, Jan. 1
have "voted"dia. What I lik
with stakehn foster mutug. Also, whabusiness ca
ommunicatio5, 2012
ne we use atclear, ethica
t to influence
e three used
is the most aPR person a
clause idenmply stating
d maintains mp, Jan. 15, 2
hers who haegic goals" aopportunity
tions. Here's
ons facilitatetives for the 2
but wish it inne I came uplop and main
s and their ke3, 2012
" for #2, I thike about 1 aolders. I thinually beneficat is missingse for PR sh
ons process
t Ferris Stateal, and planne, educate, a
, I think #2 is
accurate andasking abou
ntifying "orgag "Public relamutually ben012
ave commenare too vaguthrough this
s another tak
es relationshbenefit of bu
ncluded the p with: Publicntain ethicaley stake hol
nk it presentand 3 is the cnk it is a bit ocial relations from #2 arehould be incto get to the
e University'ned communand reinforce
s the best. V
d really the ot what I do.
anizations anations is a stneficial relati
nted, I think te. Of the thr
s initiative toke to contrib
ips for organusiness, com
word “ethicac Relations i and mutualders, to ach
ts some realconcept of eoverblown tohips, and mo
e the results orporated --
e C-Suite min
s Public Relnication proce targeted p
Very clear. —
only one I co
nd their key rategic comionships" wo
the phrases ree candidat emphasize
bute to the co
nizations anmmunity and
al” like definiis a strategiclly beneficial
hieve busines
l limitations wengagemento say that PRore realistic and goals, w PR needs tndset. — Je
lations progrcess coordinublics.
— Samantha
ould see mys
publics" is umunication pould have be
"achieve restes, I'm favothe "big pict
onversation:
d their publicd society." —
ition #1. c communical relationshipss objective
with the adv, and R pros or theto find a muwhich with thto move beynnifer Redm
ram: Public nated by top
a Bankey, Ja
self saying t
unnecessary process thateen enough.
sults" and ring #2. Stillture" importa
cs to fulfill — Jason Kirs
ations proceps, between s. — Jennife
14
vent
e utual he ond
mond
an.
o a
and t —
, I ance
sch,
ess
er
D. D
“Pm
C Mpgainla I dcobd I mb I ththcaoB #- Ceva— D
Definition No
Public relatiomutual under
Comments:
My issue witherson we taoals as somble to trust a
nclude the peanguage in. —
like that defion't care forommunicatioeing undersistinguishab
prefer versiomost easily u
een written
also believehen an elevahey do. This atch all the sr understand
Barber, Jan. 2
3: the worst "between or
Communicatingagement ague definiti
— Sascha St
Definition 3. I
o. 3
ons is the enrstanding an
h #3 is the larget to conn
mething they a company oerson we try— Jen Ward
inition No. 3 r the fact thaon process itood inside (
ble character
on 3 becausnderstood bby a commit
e it's importaator speech t
can be highspecialties ads. Thanks t22, 2012
rganizationson? Will thebetween anion of what atoltenow, Jan
love the wo
ngagement bnd realize str
ast words - reect and comfocus on. Th
or organizatiy to reach. I jd, Jan. 23, 2
has only 17at there is non it. That be(and outsider of PR. — R
e of its simpby the broadettee to appea
nt that peopthat's where
hly personal and intereststo the comm
and individue work contra organizatioan organizatn. 22, 2012
ord "benefici
between orgrategic goals
ealize stratemmunicate wheir focus is on to do thajust don't ca
2012
7 words, it's co mention of eing said, I the) the industRichie Escov
plicity. It is alest group poase many di
le understane an individuand reflect o
s in one definmittee and tho
uals": Ever hact be considn (employertion is.
al" very PRis
ganizations as.”
egic goals. I dwith, typically
for someonat. In this dayare for all tha
clear and prmanagemen
hink No. 3 hary and I thin
vedo, Jan. 22
lso the one tossible. The ifferent inter
nd there's a al explains ione's specianition will resose involved
heard of intedered as PRr) and an ind
sh. — Kjaco
and individua
don't think iny consider ree to fix theiry, the definitat wordy unn
retty concisent function oas the greatk it captures2, 2012
that, in my ofirst two jus
rests and gro
definition (mn his/her ow
alty and intersult in one thd for this effo
ercompany reR as it specifdividual? Not
obsen17, Jan
als to achiev
ndividuals, aealizing theirr problem or ion needs to
necessary
e in my opinior strategic est chance o
s the logical
opinion wouldt seem to ha
oups.
most formal) wn words whrests. Tryinghat no one uort. — Mary
elations? B2fies the t to speak of
n. 15, 2012
15
ve
as a r be
o
on. I
of and
d be ave
and hat g to uses
2B-
f the
III. E
Jim Grunrelations
I C
1bdga
2rebypreo
TRpoa
T(tCP(afodmsyd
I d
…
Excerpts fro
nig, in resps,” Dec. 7, 2
have come Canadian def
. It is importaelieve most one in publicood definitiond bad.
. Public relaeputations ay describingrocess, suchelationships utcome, but
Thus, I continRelations writ
ublished: “Prganization and publics.”
The key wordthe other par
CommunicatiPublic relatioall different torms of publefinition has
messaging). ymmetrical, ialoguing, an
have a persefinition.
…
om Blog Pos
ponse to a P2011):
into this discfinition of pu
ant to distingof the “definc relations–u
on should su
tions is a prore outcomes
g public relath as commuor reputatio you can’t m
nue to come tten in 1984
Public relationand its publi
ds in this defrty to a relaton (of all forns must be mypes and quic relations i
s come from Remember, asymmetricnd other form
onal stake in
sts
PR Convers
cussion late,ublic relations
guish betwenitions” offereusually only ubsume as m
ocess and ss, not a proctions as the unication, bun. If you ma
manage the o
back to my . I added a sns is the maics. Its purpo
finition are oionship), marms) is the pmanaged (dualities) are tinto this defithose who icommunica
cal, listening,ms of comm
n this discus
ations post
, but let offers.
en a definitioed are reallypositive, eth
many types o
should be decess. Thus, tmanagement you can’t mnage a proc
outcome.
definition ofsentence in anagement oose is to cult
organizationsanage, commprocess that irected) or itthe outcomenition. The gnterpret com
ation is a pro, telling, inteunication be
ssion, of cou
t (“A definin
r a couple of
on and a dey descriptionhical, and strof public rela
efined as a pthe Canadiant of relationmanage an ocess well, yo
f public relata partial rev
of communictivate relatio
s (one party munication, ais managedt is not publie of the procgreatest mismmunicationocess. It incluracting, couehavior.
urse, but I ha
ng moment
f observation
scription of pns of what perategic publiations as pos
process. Relan definition mships. You c
outcome sucou can influe
tions from Mision of MPR
cation betweonships amo
to a relationand relations (both well ac relations. R
cess. Thus, ounderstandi
n too narrowludes one-wanseling, rese
ave yet to se
for public
ns about the
public relatioeople think isc relations. Assible–both g
ationships amisses the mcan managech as nce the
anaging PubR that was nen an ng organiza
nship), publicships. and poorly). Relationshipone can placng of this ly (as only ay, two-wayearching,
ee a better
16
e
ons. I s A good
nd mark e a
blic never
tions
cs
ps ce all
,
Cthcocoth
Mp
…
Addthsain
…
Agmaoloefm
I mn“cthcostcoa ca
…
1q
CEOs can, ofhemselves. Ionsisted of pommunities hinks corrupt
My definition,ublic relation
…
A definition oefine playingone in the p
he public inteaying that et
nterest, but t
…
According to radual chan
might also salmost all behngoing com
ong-term quaffects on aw
management
think it’s quimessages–m
ot to use thecommunicathat most of tommunicatiotate. Thus, Iourse, no oureputation c
an personal
…
. Very fundauestion is if
f course, maIf fact, Marviprivate relatiand not throts the proce
, therefore, mns person.
f public relatg golf, for exublic intereserest, but muthical public hose adjecti
my Websterges that lea
ay that a prochaviors of pumunication bality of relati
wareness, cot.
te clear thatmay be one tie word “comion.” Now, thhe processuon activities. should have
utcome is evchanges. Wely manage (
amental distiby accepting
anage their oin Olasky argions becausough the intess).
makes it clea
tions must cxample, as sst, but it is stuch is not. Wrelations or
ives should
r’s Dictionaryd to a particcess is ongoublic relationbehaviors. Tonships and
ognitions, att
t communicaime phenommunicationshe question ual activities . At any poine said that th
ver static, soe try to influei.e., orient o
nction betweg it we shou
own commungued that eae CEOs inte
ervention of
ar that public
cover both goshooting a 60till public relaWe might qu
responsiblenot be includ
y, a processular result.”
oing behavions people anThose commd the nature itudes, and
ation is a promena and nos” when the mis whether athat take pla
nt in time, a rhe quality of
o the state ofence those or govern). W
een “commuld also acce
nication–i.e.arly in its hiseracted direca public rela
c relations d
ood and bad0 or a 120. Nations. Somealify the defi
e public relatded in the de
s is “a naturaAn outcome
or that prodund their inter
munication beof a reputatibehaviors of
ocess. Manyt processuamore appropa relationshipace within arelationship f a relationshf a relationshoutcomes th
We cannot m
unications” aept that comm
, do public rstory public rctly with the ations person
oesn’t have
d public relatNot all publice public relainition with ations is doneefinition.
al phenomene is “result” ouces effects. ractions withehaviors havion as well af publics and
y “communicl. That’s whypriate term isp also is a p relationshiphas a partic
hip is an outhip changes rough the pranage outco
and “commumunication c
relations relations actupublics in thn (who Olas
to be done
tions. I couldc relations istions is done
an adjective e in the publi
non marked or “effect.” W
I think that publics are
ve effects onas short-termd of
cations”–i.e., y it’s importas rocess. I thi
p actually arecular quality come. Of and a natur
rocesses thaomes directl
nication”. Mycan only be
17
ually heir sky
by a
d s e in by ic
by We
n the m
ant
nk e or
re of at we y.
y
preco
JGcowisa bTthoofin
2ththtrco
JGoreinhpvaidSa
3restgcoreinre
JGse
artially “manelevantly in tomplex.
G’s responsommon syno
when asking s what I have
process is dehaviors eve
Thus, directinhe process isutcomes of ffer more int
nfluence rela
. Would we hem as elemhat they are ransformatioommunicatio
G’s responsrganizationselationship anteresting. Powever, we ublics constariables of pdentify differeSituations cre
ccount when
. As for the ielationship atrongly by Eovernmentsommunicatioelationship bnfluencing deelationships?
G’s responseem to sugg
naged” . Andthe last year
se: I should bonym for mathis question
e in mind. A difficult to coen with the nng the proces much morerelationshipsteraction andationships an
include “pubments of the
the counterpon of stakehoon)? An outc
se: The proces and publicsamong organPublics are n
can stop anantly change
problem recoent publics aeate publics,n they mana
idea that “mactually are curopean citiz facing harson. Are thesbetween govecision maki?
se: Again, thegest that you
d probably thrs, therefore
be clear aboanage is “con. The otherprocess can
ontrol. It is ponew media. ss of comme interestings and reputad symmetry nd reputation
blics” in the pcommunicatpart in the reolders into pcome or a pr
ess of publics. Thus, pubnizations andot static enti
nd think of the and come ognition, leveat a particula, and commu
age (direct) a
ost of the prcommunicatzens these dh economic e two differe
vernment anding AND ma
e answer deu mean “con
he extent to wmaking the
out what I mentrol.” This sr common syn be directedossible to diWe just havunication no
g and offers ations. I say than old men more effec
process sidetion processelationships?ublics (situarocess in its
c relations (cblics are partd publics. Thities; they arem as entitiand go. As
el of involvemar time withinunicators muan organizat
rocessual acion activitiesdays. Austersituations a
ent factors dd citizens? I
anaging com
epends on hotrol” when y
which it canmanageme
ean when I useems to be ynonym is tod or plannedrect our orga
ve to take moow is more cmore effectithis because
edia, Thus, wctively.
e (in the sens), or in the “?) Or how wational variabelf?
communicatt of the procehe last two pre always in es. Howeveyou have obment, and con general staust take the tion’s commu
ctivities that ts”, let’s assurity measurere often accetermining tn this case,
mmunication,
ow you definou use the t
be “managent of the pro
use the termwhat you ha
o “direct” or “d; but, like ananization’s core possibilitomplex; butve ways to ie I believe th
we generally
se that we soutcome” siould we desbles, influenc
ion) is an intess. The outparts of yourprocess. At r, we must kbserved, I usonstraint recakeholder cafluid nature unication pro
take place wume an exames implemencompanied btogether outccan we say organizatio
ne “manageterm “manag
ed” has chanocess much
m “manage.” ave in mind“plan.” The ln outcome, ecommunicatities into acco, I would argnfluence thehe new med
y can use the
should conside (in the se
scribe the ced by
teraction amtcome is ther question arany one tim
keep in mindse the situatcognition to ategories. of publics in
ocess.
within a mple felt quitnted by by poor come of the that by
ns can mana
.” You againge,” but you
18
nged more
One
atter even ion ount.
gue, e dia em to
der ense
mong e re
me, d that tional
nto
te
age
n also
cocoloacamprecacoucocoreth
…
Tcomcothpwcorece
…
1sheainowsaaP
2letr
ould mean “ommunicatio
ooking at them I trying toannot direct
means an orgerson or enteputation alwannot be maommunicatiosing a theorommunicatioommunicatioelationship bhat are in the
…
The content–ommunicatio
more effectiveommunicatiohe organizatrocess trum
well as to ourommunicatioesult, I wouldease.
…
. PRs shouldhould not prmployers. Mdvocate the
nterests are rganizationa
we only consaid the samelso are advo
PR person w
. Leaders sheadership surying to lead
influence.” I on with the oe distinction manage? Msomeone e
ganization ratity, so I canways is in thanaged by son behavior.ry such as mon behaviorson behaviorsbetween an oe minds of p
–i.e., what weon process. e if a commuon behaviorsion wants tops ideas. I wrselves whenon with somd say that on
d admit that retend to rep
My responseir interests mand how the
al behaviors truct messae thing. Howocates for puho has emp
hould lead auggests that . Listening is
think that coobjective of “between a p
Mine or somelse’s behaviather than annot managee mind of soomeone else. We can “an
my situationas for our orgs of our puborganizationublics.
e say when The contentunicator thins of publics a
o communicawould say thn we develoeone other tnce ideas tru
they are in tpresent the in: Of course,
more effectivey are affectare ethical ages that fit t
wever, I thinkublics. This iathy for othe
nd not listenleaders lead
s an inheren
ommunicato“influencing”process and eone else’s?or. (In the can individual.
e it without thomeone elsee. Thus, we nticipate” thel theory of panization anlics, we shou
n and a publi
we communt of what an
nks about theas well as thate. I’m not sat our ideasp them. Thuthan ourselfump process
the businessnterests of pwe are advo
vely if we heed by the intand responshe preconcek we will be bs difficult buers and tries
n. My respond more effec
nt part of lead
ors “direct” th” the relationan outcome
? I can directase of public) A relations
he collaborate (a cognitive
can managee communicaublics. If we
nd anticipateuld be able tic and the re
nicate–is alworganizatione entire proche messagessure what yo are better w
us, ideas devgenerally ar
ses, real disc
s of advocacpublics equaocates for oulp them to uterests of pu
sible. We areeived ideas obetter advoc
ut possible. Its to understa
nse: Almost ectively when dership. Sim
he process onship. I thinke is to ask wt my own bec relations, “ship always ition of the ote behavior), e (“direct”) aation behavi
e choose thee correctly thto positively eputations of
ways a part on says, howecess–i.e., thes (the conteou meant whwhen we listeveloped withre close-mincussion and
cy for their eally with the iur employernderstand wublics and ofe not effectivof our emplocates for ourt requires an
and their idea
every book they listen t
milarly, you s
of k a useful wahose behav
ehavior, but Imy” or “mineinvolves another entity. Aso it especi
an organizatior of a publ most effect
he “influence” t
f organizatio
of the ever, will be e thoughts ant or ideas)
hen you saiden to others
hout nded ideas. Ad engagemen
employers annterests of ts, but we wi
what those f whether ve advocatesoyers. You hr clients if wen open-mindas.
I have read to those theysaid that
19
ay of ior I e” other A ally ion’s ic, ive
the ons
and that
d as
As a nt
nd their ll
s if ave
e ded
on y are
reDp
3shhpgidcoOevthd
From Ma
I’m“Pare
I recooo
Hdth
Taan
Din
I ina
esearch paraDecision-mak
rovides data
. Stakeholdehould have aas been oveublics) help overnance a
deas are notonflict. In fac
Organizationsveryone. Ho
he stakeholdefining orga
arketingPro
m really not Public relationd collaboraelationships
don’t like uselevant publonsumer maptions whenrganization d
Here’s candidevelops and
heir key pub
To me, #2, hassumes therlso assumesecessarily s
Definition #3 ndividuals to
think this is n this case rend how can
alyzes deciskers can’t exa that when i
er theory is oa role in orgergeneralizeus to define
and not spen relevant. I dct, different ss obviously c
owever, publders who arenizational be
ofs.com (“H
crazy aboutons is the maating with staand achieve
sing the wordics” might beay not really n consideringdoes or says
date #2: “Pud maintains mlics.”
as a basic wre is any relas that what to, for reason
is: “Public re achieve mu
too simplistiegarding “rewe assume
sion-making xpect researinterpreted w
overused ananizational gd. However,
e who truly snd a lot of timdon’t believestakeholderscan’t commulic relations e truly importehaviors.
ow to Defin
t any of themanagement akeholders ie results.”
d “stakeholde better. In tbe a stakeh
g a product os in that cas
blic relationsmutually ben
weakness in ationship at the organizans similar to
elations is thutual underst
c is too simpalize strateg all parties in
and is overerch to make well helps m
nd suggests governance., if used prophould or doeme commune that the intes have differunicate with people shoutant and wor
ne Public Re
m, although mfunction of rn an ethical
ers” in this dhe context o
holder, sinceor service. Tse.
s is a strategneficial relati
the words “mall between
ation wants w the problem
he engagemtanding and
plistic and, ligic goals.” Wnvolved in th
emphasizeddecisions fo
managers ma
that everyon. My responsperly stakehes have a roicating ideaserests of starent interestseveryone or
uld be able tork with them
elations,” J
my initial preresearching,manner to b
definition. Peof, say, marke he or she mThus, there is
gic communionships bet
mutually benan organiza
would be benm with #1 an
ent betweenrealize strat
ike #2, makeWhose stratehe “engagem
. That’s trueor them. Howake better de
ne is a stakese: I agree tolder theory
ole in organizs to people f
akeholders as that often dr try to serveo help mana
m in making d
an. 26, 2012
eference is f engaging, c
build mutuall
erhaps the pketing or memight easily s really no “s
ication proceween organ
neficial relatiation and a kneficial to thd more.
n organizatiotegic goals.”
es some riskgic goals mi
ment” have e
, to some exwever, reseaecisions.
eholder and hat the conc
y (and theorizational for whom the
always are indon’t overlape the interesagement idedecisions an
2):
for definitioncommunicatly beneficial
phrase “variodia relationshave other stake” in wh
ess that izations and
onships.” Thkey public, aat public. No
ons and ”
ky assumptioight these beeven remote
20
xtent. arch
cept es of
e n p.
sts of ntify
nd
#1: ing,
ous s, a
at an
d
his and it ot
ons, e,
ely-
sibin
From co2012):
“Ttop Abre
—
“Isiu
“IqstnPstC
From qurelations
“IIf pach
—
“Iex(O
Wu
imilar strateguzzword at t
n a definition
omments on
The goal wao the averagrocess....
A public relatetter with thoeputation.”
— Dave Arm
f the exercisimple. They nderstand th
agree with uestion is wtrategic role eeds to clea
PR backgroutraightforwa
ContenMaven
uotes in Ciss?” Jan. 23,
I don’t think pf PRSA wantro is responudiences. Nhange or ins
— Jason Fa
I think the dexistence andOoof!)
What is PR: ser (usually
gic goals? Athe moment
n, or the defin
n PRNewser
s to eliminate person: s
ions professose who are
mon, Jan. 15
se is about sare filled wit
his?", try aga
many of theho is the defin both pub
arly speak tond. #2 is therd ideas fromn, Jan. 15, 2
ion Blog po, 2012)
public relatiots to do somsible for help
No definition spire or affec
lls, Founder
efinitions ared glamorize
It’s the ultima person wh
And, by the w, but it may nition may b
r.com (“Thr
te jargon, bustakeholder,
sionals helpse important t
5, 2012
simplifying thth jargon. If ain.” — Katy
comments finition for? lic and comm
o executives e closest usim Dave Arm2012
ost (“PR exp
ons needs amething outst
ping an orgathey draft anct what publi
r & Editor, So
e all wrong. Tit–or as New
mate communho buys or tr
way, I don’t lbe passé in
become obso
ree Possible
ut they are ficollaboratio
s an organizo them, with
he definition your conten
y Kelley, Jan
about eliminPersonally Imercial sectand policy mng this criter
mon and Tim
perts sound
a definition. Itanding, theyanization sucnd distributeic relations p
ocial Media
They seem twt might say
nications toories somethi
ike the worda year. We
olete before
e PR Definit
lled with buzn, engaging
zation undersh the goal of
of PR, thesent can't answn. 15, 2012
nating jargonthink we wa
ors. To that makers who ria. But I likeBecktold fro
d off: How w
It’s relating toy should demccessfully co
e and stamp professional
Explorer
to be trying ty “make it a g
ol between ting). The po
d “engagemeshouldn’t incthe ink dries
tions Revea
zzwords that, strategic c
stand and coprotecting t
e examples wer "Would m
n and being ant PR to beend, I believare not nec
e some of thom Business
would you d
o the public,mystify and sommunicatetheir approvls actually do
to bolster a rgrandiose st
the practitionwer of being
ent.” It’s a clude buzzws.
aled, Jan. 1
t mean nothommunicatio
ommunicatehe organiza
are far frommy mother
more simplee valued as ave the defini
cessarily frome more sWire.” —
define publ
for chrissaksimplify. A P with all its
val on will evo.”
reason for ittatement”.
ner and the eg able to sha
21
words
1,
ing ons
e tion's
e. My a tion
m a
ic
kes. PR
ver
ts
end ape
opcrng
F
—
“Pthp
—
“Iexd
—
“Pw
(“in
• b• tw• im
pinions, the rafting conteot getting thives them a
Finally, what
1. An abfatherevery
2. Makinmatte
3. Sendi4. Gettin
alike. 5. Makin
style. 6. Settin7. Incapa
— Richard L
Public relatiohrough a colurpose and
— Barbara R
I define publxpress them
directly, and w
— Bob Gelle
Public relatiowith their pub
“Plenty of exnto….
usiness procwo-way vs. ompacting bus
ability to enent that actue press swagood quote
is PR?
bility to get pr ‘n’ son shop
ywhere, megng someone r what it is. ing our clienng social con
ng a “gold” a
ng the recordacitating the
Laermer, CE
ons is the glullection of shbusiness ob
Rozgonyi, Pr
lic relations amselves in thwith and thro
er, President
ons is a respblics to creat
xplanation to
cess vs. maone-way consiness resul
nsure messaally helps so
ayed either; s!
eople nationp into a natioabrand. famous, infa
nts’ stock pricncerns in fro
lbum shoot
d straight. e competition
O of RLM P
ue that bondhared storiesbjectives.”
rincipal, Cor
as the practihe best possiough interme
t, Fusion Pu
ponsibility of te value, wor
o wrap aroun
rketing funcnversationslts vs. delive
ges are comomeone undsince the pre
nwide clarmoonal, never n
famous or no
ce through thnt of our nei
up the chart
n and cannib
PR
ds cultures, cs and experie
ryWest Medi
ice that helpible way. It ediaries – to
blic Relation
f an entire orrd-of-mouth
nd my definit
tion
ring advertis
mplete and uderstand a coess can be s
oring for youneglected, c
otorious for w
he roof (we ighbors and
ts or get som
balizing the b
companies aences that r
a
ps companieis about help
o advance th
ns
rganization tand impact
tion, but ultim
sing equivale
uncomplicateoncept…thisswayed by a
ur wares, turnconstantly re
whatever sh
do not suppHouse repre
mething to “b
bastards.”
and customereflect the en
s, people anping them co
heir objective
to listen, learbusiness re
mately, PR h
encies)”
ed, the ideal s is PR. And anyone who
rning a local eferenced, kn
e does, no
ply the Cohibesentatives
break” Hollyw
ers together ntity’s charac
nd brands ommunicatees.”
rn and connesults”
has transform
22
of d it’s
nown
bas).
wood
cter,
e –
ect
med
—
From DoHarvard,2012):
Tm
TwthcoTis
PuTmd
Bhle
From 2120, 2009
If pp
— Matt Batt,
oc Searls, a, writing in
This is a seriomuch.
The main chawithin compahe lead in reompany bra
That’s why I vs straight out
PR for most ose, far as I k
TV, radio andmarketing ha
irection. Tha
But will PR welp compan
eadership, w
st Century P9; and “For P
f I had to picleading or areferably by
, Principal, P
lumnus fellthe Doc Se
ous effort, w
allenge, bothanies and oulations with ss will help tvote for Defit of BuzzPhr
of its history know) than ad (more receve for decad
at is, toward
will still be PRies relate pe
what should w
PR Issues / PR’s reputa
k one word trguing for so using two-w
Pipeline
low at the Barls Weblog
with much inv
h for PR andt in the markthe market’sthat progresnition No. 3,raser).
has been leabout relatioently) “influendes been trythe public it
R when that ersonally to cwe call that s
Paul Seamation: let’s d
that captureomething to way commun
Berkan Centg (“PR’s pro
volvement by
d for companketplace — as supply sidess happen. B, without the
ess about relns between ncers” on theying to movetself, directly
happens? Incustomers, asomebody’s
an (“Definitdefine ours
s its essencinfluence an
nication tech
# # #
ter for Interoblems, 20
y Phillip She
nies in generare going toe. Reduction
But engageme “realize stra
lations with companies
e Web. The business re
y.
n other wordand to welco job?
tions of PRelves candi
ce it would ben outcome ohniques
rnet and Socyears later,
eldrake, who
ral, is that in be taking m
n in demand ment will be tategic goals
publics (a teand mediatobest people
elations in th
ds, if someboome custome
: keeping itidly,” Jan. 1
e “advocacyon behalf of c
ciety and ,” Jan. 23,
om I respect
dividuals —more and mo
for BS by the main thin” clause (wh
erm only PR ors: the prese in PR and he personal
ody’s job is ter input and
t honest,” J16, 2012):
y”: the act of clients,
23
very
both ore of
ng. hich
folk ss,
to
une
Top Related