Posts Tagged ‘Public Relations Society of America’

What’s in a Definition? Public Relations—Past, Present and Future

Friday, April 20th, 2012

Last month the Public Relations Society of America updated its definition of public relations for the first time in three decades, arriving at the following statement after months of lively discussion and input:

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

In addition to sparking plenty of healthy debate, the new definition provides an opportunity to reflect upon how the field has evolved from its early 20th century origins, which The Economist examined in a fascinating 2010 article. So, what has and hasn’t changed about public relations over the last century?

The importance of honesty, transparency and mutually beneficial relationships certainly hasn’t. In 1906, Ivy Lee, one of public relations’ founders, issued a “Declaration of Principles,” in which he wrote that “our plan is frankly, and openly, on behalf of business concerns and public institutions, to supply the press and public of the United States prompt and accurate information concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public to know about.” He also viewed public relations as a “two-way street” between clients and the public. Though Lee did stray from them, those principles resonate today, perhaps even more so with the advent of the Internet and social media.

The speed and complexity of public relations, on the other hand, have changed drastically, resulting in the free flow of information through an ever-expanding array of channels. PRSA’s updated definition aims to address such changes, but language like the phrase “strategic communications process” also reflects the prominent role that reputation management has assumed in the industry. As we mentioned last year, Elliot Schreiber, PhD, wrote a must-read PRSA blog post stressing the importance of “a formal, strategic process” for reputation management. The United Kingdom’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations also emphasizes reputation in its own definition of public relations.

 We’ll never reach a consensus on such a definition, but the debate is a valuable touchstone. It reminds us of public relations’ founding principles while also encouraging us to prepare for what its future holds.

“Muckmakers: Online-Reputation Firms Struggle With Ethics”

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

Rosanna M. Fiske, CEO of the Public Relations Society of America,  has called for the online reputation management industry to clean up its act.

Her August 1 guest essay in Ad Age is presceient.

“PR risks…alienating the business community — one that will spend upward of $8 billion on our services by 2013 — if we do not push for online-reputation-management firms to bring their ethics in line with industry standards,” she said.

As an industry, online reputation management is as unregulated as the internet.  For every former journalist and English lit major creating intelligent content for clients is a skilled search engine optimization (SEO) specialist gifted in changing the Google ranking of content. 

Some are techniques embraced by respected SEO experts.  Others are don’t-discuss-it-on-unsecured-phones operations. Regarding those, “all the big companies use them,” according to a black hat SEO acquaintance. (He favors programmers of X-rated online sites as the best black hat SEO operatives because they excel at creating sophisticated layers of online sites that users find almost impossible to escape. ) 

There is a big market for the subversive tactics, opaqueness, fake consumer reviews and dubious practices that Roseanna Fiske writes about. A big, lucrative market. And there lies the challenge.

Online reputation management is essentially divided into two types of practices. White hat utilizes a content-based approach to preventing and repairing damaged reputations. Black hat manipulates SEO and links to trick search engines like Google into raising or lowering sites. Black hat techniques are frowned upon by Google. But they are not illegal. (I head a reputation management firm that practices white hat techniques.)

Establishing industry standards in the online reputation management world  will not be easy. White hat practitioners will be the proponents of such standards. But there will continue to be as much demand for black hat as for white.

That’s why industry standards need to be established to educate consumers. They need to understand the drawbacks and benefits of both approaches so they can make the most well-informed judgements regarding  the right approach for them. Right now, they face a barrage of marketing information from the good, the bad and the on-the-fence. They deserve better.

Corporate Market Needs Reputation Management

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

According to Elliot Schreiber, PhD, two thirds of the corporate market is looking for a strategic process to manage reputation. (more…)