The definition of public relations... time for a revision?
I was reading an interview with Cheryl Procter-Rogers in January's issue of Tactics, distributed by PRSA. When asked what was one of the biggest problems facing public relations, she said that practitioners really need to work to define their role in the marketplace, especially in the business sector. She went on to comment that "Because our profession is so complex, it begs the question if it’s even appropriate that we have one definition of public relations."
That really made me start thinking... Investor Relations, Crisis Communication, Fundraising, Lobbying, Community Affairs, Government Relations, Media Relations, and the list goes on and on....
Is it fair to classify all of these very different functions under the same umbrella?
That really made me start thinking... Investor Relations, Crisis Communication, Fundraising, Lobbying, Community Affairs, Government Relations, Media Relations, and the list goes on and on....
Is it fair to classify all of these very different functions under the same umbrella?
posted by Richard @ 10:10 PM
1 Comments:
At 3:37 PM, August 28, 2006,
austin said…
It is fair to call the people practicing these different functions public relations practitioners in the general sense. It should be further defined as to what type of practitioner they are. Investor Relations and Media Relations are very different in their intended results. A lobbyist and a crisis communications expert have different daily tasks. Rather than just saying someone is a PR person, which gives notion to the idea that just 'spin' things, referring to a practitioner as to what they actually are involved in could potentially bring more credibility to the profession.
Post a Comment
<< Home