Introducing a new, maple-infused definition of public relations, in both official languages
At the Canadian Public Relations Society’s Annual General Meeting, held on June 7, 2009, in Vancouver, British Columbia, CPRS member in attendance were introduced to new, official definitions (in English and French) of public relations. Both versions were adopted by the CPRS National board in February 2009, in Fredericton, New Brunswick. They are as follows:
Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
Par relations publiques, on entend la gestion stratégique des relations qui existent entre une organisation et ses divers publics, en ayant recours à la communication afin de parvenir à une entente mutuelle, d’atteindre les objectifs organisationnels et de servir l’intérêt du public. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
The initiative to create and adopt the (bilingual) definition did not happen quickly, nor was advance research and deliberations undertaken easily or lightly. The triumvirate of “defining” architects included Dr. Terence (Terry) Flynn, APR, FCPRS (professor and director, Masters in Communication Management Program, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University and recently elected president, CPRS), Fran Gregory, MCM, APR (currently professor, public relations, Conestoga College, with prior and extensive senior-level corporate communication experience at companies such as Mutual Group (Clarica) and Babcock-Wilcox) and Jean Valin, APR, FCPRS (director general communications, Transport Canada, past president, CPRS and past chair, Global Alliance of Public Relations and Communication Management).
According to correspondence from Terry Flynn, the project began in September 2007, when educators from across Canada were surveyed to understand what definition(s) of public relations were being used in relevant courses. Over the course of that term, the working group received a number of responses. During the summer of 2008, Terry, Fran Gregory and Jean Valin embarked on the project to develop a new and distinct Canadian definition.
(For many years CPRS had a posted definition of public relations on its website, but apparently there is no historical record as to how or why that definition was chosen.)
The research and process to define public relations:
1. In July 2008, Terry Flynn initiated a dedicated wiki, Defining Public Relations, for the working group. The wiki identifies a double-digit number of existing definitions of public relations from literature (primarily drawn from American resources).
2. Next the real slog work began, as Terry, Fran Gregory and Jean Valin conducted a content analysis of all definitions: identifying common themes and constructs that could (or should be) incorporated into the new CPRS definition.
3. The next step saw the working group beginning to write preliminary definitions—and revising along the way.
4. They arrived at a common understanding in January 2009, which was presented for approval at the first scheduled CPRS National board meeting held in February 2009.
I recommend you pay a visit to the dedicated wiki, as it includes comments from educators, the 19 published definitions and the working group’s “matrix of constructs.” The transparency of this exercise is evident, as readers can even review Terry, Fran and Jean’s deliberations over wordings.
This definition is a product of the Education Commission. It has been incorporated into the outreach of CPRS’s Pathways project. A soft launch of the definition has been completed under that program’s phase 1 consultation. It is slated to be added to the CPRS website shortly, under an easily found navigation tab.
(Thank you to Terry Flynn for providing me with an historical backgrounder and access to source material, and allowing me to share the process and final definition(s) with our international readership on PR Conversations.)
During the CPRS On The Edge conference’s Tuesday plenary session, “PR in the Vanguard: How Practitioners Can Lead the Way in the Economic Recovery” (see live-blog archive), presenter Paul Mylrea (a CIRP/UK representative on the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management) spoke about what he considered the essence of effective public relations. I’m paraphrasing his words, but basically Paul detailed the ability to take a really complicated concept and distill it into simple and clear communication that is easily understood by the majority of people.
(From the live bloggers: “Erin Raimondo: Holy Grail of PR–get to the simplicity that goes beyond complexity…communicates perfectly the true essence of the message so that it resonates.” “Alyssa Smith: Key to developing messages is the simplicity at the end of complexity. Meaning that a message must take all the complexity and get it to real truth of it in order to have it resonate with an audience.”)
I believe the official, new definition(s) for public relations introduced by the Canadian Public Relations Society meets that criteria. Agree or disagree?
Updates:
Gigi de Mier (Puerto Rico) has supplied a Spanish translation of the definition (via Jean Valin, APR, FCPRS):
Relaciones públicas es el manejo estratégico de las relaciones entre una organización y sus diversos públicos, mediante el uso de las comunicaciones, para alcanzar entendimiento mutuo, lograr las metas organizacionales y servir el interés público. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
And from Toni Muzi Falconi, the Italian translation:
Per relazioni pubbliche si intende la gestione strategica delle relazioni che esistono fra una organizzazione e i suoi diversi pubblici, attraverso la comunicazione, per raggiungere la comprensione reciproca, gli obiettivi organizzativi e servire l’interesse pubblico. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
A proposed German translation from Markus Pirchner (Austria):
Public Relations sind das strategische Management der Beziehungen einer Organisation mit ihren verschiedenen Öffentlichkeiten mit den Mitteln der Kommunikation, mit dem Ziel, gegenseitiges Verständnis zu erreichen, Organisationsziele zu verwirklichen und dem Gemeinwohl zu dienen. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
João Duarte has provided (the requested) Portuguese translation:
Relações Públicas designa a gestão estratégica de relações entre uma organização e os seus diversos públicos, fazendo uso da comunicação, por forma a desenvolver um entendimento mútuo, alcançar as metas organizacionais, e servir o interesse público.(Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
Links to this blog post:
- The New Canadian Definition of Public Relations (PR-Bridge)
- Definitions of PR: keeping it honest (21st-century PR Issues)
- The Week’s Best, 22 June 2009 (Teaching PR)
- Sales promotion is now PR (Greenbanana)
- Social Media Top 5: WTF II, What is(n’t) PR, & Mom-Bloggers PR Boycott (Doug Haslam)
After re-reading these posts, it seems more useful to develop a “description” of public relations rather than a global “definition.” The very word says, “this is it, these are the boundaries, no other interpretations accepted.”
That’s not where the field is today.There may be a desire to “land somewhere,” but if you land in mud you want a way to get out.
Toni, thanks. I did misunderstand you. We actually agree about the public sector. Moreover, when I used the term PR industry I was referring to all who work in PR.
I have examined in detail on my PR blog where the deception in the CPRS definition lies (link in previous comment). In essence, the definition does not pass the honesty test that PRs should set, and it undermines the industry’s credibility as a result. Perhaps you could read the article and let me know there where you think I got it wrong.
Paul, I don’t think I know to which (if any) national PR association you belong. If you are a current member in good standing, perhaps you could share the definition your PR association espouses? Plus whether or not it suits you?
And your national PR association would be the obvious place to lobby against it “adopting” the “deceptive” CPRS definition. Or at least asking your national PR association (if it is a voting member of the Global Alliance) to vote against its acceptance…if, in fact, this is ever proposed.
Judy, CPRS has endorsed a so-called new definition of PR, which some people want to see adopted by our trade globally. Therefore, my starting point in this particular discussion rests on the innate flaws of the definition itself. In short, some people are pushing in one direction and I am pushing back. Moreover, others seem to share my views, if I am any judge of the comments on this blog.
Let me speak plain. I maintain that CPRS’s definition of what PR is about does material harm to our trade because it misrepresents what we do. Hence, I would contest the definition even if it was envisaged as only being applicable to Canada.
I am a member of IPRA. And I have discussed CPRS’s definition, and the wider issue of PR association definitions of PR in my remarks on IPRA’s Gold Paper 6, in my article here:
http://paulseaman.eu/2009/06/definitions-of-pr-keeping-it-honest/
Toni, your points a, b, c, unravel under scrutiny. You say that PRs must balance:
a- his client/employer interest
b- stakeholder interests (these are many and conflicting)
c- the public interest (interpreted as the integration of active citizenship interest with the legal framework).
It’s true that PRs have to “keep in mind” these competing and vague things. But when we define PR we are looking for guidance and priorities and they need to amount to a list which picks its way through themes rather than an all-enveloping cloud which hopes that bunging in everything that might matter somehow helps you work out what matters most (That’s a point Bob Batchelor made well above in his first comment to to this discussion).
The merit of bluntly stating the employer-interest as being number one is that we are warning our audiences to keep their wits about them. CPRS’s feel-good alternative has the horrid effect (not anyway achievable, and that’s where our reputation becomes tarnished) of hoping that we can put the audiences off-guard, and make them more receptive – but receptive of course, and really – to what we’re paid to say.
So, PRs can be blunt and helpful or mushy and dangerous. That’s why I believe we should reject the slippery spin in the CPRS definition of PR.
Last, defining public interest as the “integration of active citizenship interest with the legal framework” bamboozled me completely.
As PRs, we should lead by example with the use of plain language, the meaning of which is unambiguous. That’s what transparency is all about, surely? Hence, I say CPRS is guilty of being opaque about we we do.
Paul, these are not, as you say, ‘vague’ things.
Related to each of the specific objectives a public relator sets out to work on they are very detailed.
If your employer is setting out to prepare the ground for a merger or an acquisition (only to cite one situation), the interest of the organization is clear and defined: complete the transition successfully as quickly as possible.
Then come the specific interests of the various stakeholders (i.e. employess, shareholders, local communities etc..). The public relator should listen carefully and define for each of these their specific interests.
Thirdly, the public relator should make every effort to consider the legal and institutional framework in which the activity of his employer takes place as well as interpret the active citizenship level of interest in that specific organizational action.
The result is, for each organizational objective in which the public relator is involved in supporting his employer, a ‘map’ which allows him to find the best possible balance between the various interests and come out with a specific public relations policy.
Does this not sound rational rather than merely feelgood as many like to say simply because they don’t want to take the time to think about what they are doing?
Let me put it this way…. in a recent post http://www.prconversations.com/?p=552 I attached excerpts of a chapter of an upocoming book in which I try to conceptualise and suggest operative guidelines for a global public relations practice approach.
It is a call for help for a peer review.
Sofar a few of my mentors have replied (privately) giving me a lot of suggestions and criticisms.
Why don’t you do the same?
thank you.
“… through the use of communication …”.
Care to enlighten me on exactly what that means. Everything we do in every aspect of our lives involves comnunications. Try to live without it. While PR does indeed use communication, so what?
Between suggesting we communicate, seek mutual understanding and do it all in the public interest, there is an attempt to make it sound like a very lofty and higher calling somewhat akin to the United Nations.
Nice attempt to draw in a variety of opinion and analysis but it has become a rather hollow and comnmittee driven definition that would nicely include my family doctor.
Mike
If I wasn’t cooking a chicken I’d have read farther than half way through Mr. Batchelor’s post.
But I’ll read the whole thread after dinner.
But, based on so-far… Ms. Parsons refers to definitions — I’m on her side. Once we define strategic, and once we define communications (does paid product advertising count?) and once we explain to people that public interest and interesting to the public (Michael Jackson’s death) are diffferent, we’re in business with the new definition.
I look forward to CPRS arranging interviews with Dr. Flynn, conducted by the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, CBC Radio (hardly anyone listens, but who cares), CBC Television, Business News Network, Financial Post, etc.
Cutting to the chase — it’s a too-short definition, but if it’s the one CPRS has thought about and agreed to, I can live with it, so let’s get behind it.
BAK
This debate is also raging in Italy on http://www.ferpi.it with comments (in Italian of course) from various relevant sources:
Emanuele Invernizzi, professor at IULM, says that the definition is too short and simple and does not account sufficiently for the strategic and not merely communicational and operational aspects of public relations.
Semiologist and management consultant Umberto Santucci comments that the inclusion of the public interest as one of the aims of public relators confuses the issue as it is clear that we serve the private interest.
Young professional, and past director of Ferpi, Enrico Fantaguzzi laments that the definition is expressed in terns which are interpretable only by experts and that it should be much more simple.
Senior professional Claudio De Monte instead reflects on the possibility of other forms of relationships which do not necessarily involve communication and also integrates the public interest part of the definition with the issue of responsibility and sustainability.
The discussion continues….
First off, I want to say that I had no idea that when I posted what I saw as mainly an “information” item about the work of Flynn, Gregory, Valin/the recently adopted definition of public relations by the Canadian Public Relations Society’s elected board, that it would spark such a lively and vigorous debate. As I said on a recent LinkedIn update, I’m both amazed and gratified. Why? Because it shows that academics and practitioners—from different parts the world—care a great deal about the words defining what we, as public relations practitioners and educators, do and teach.
This post has also demonstrated the real power and potential of social media platforms. First, from a self-publishing point of view (i.e., it was my idea and decision to post the definition, not that of the CPRS, although I did receive full support and assistance from our new president, Terry Flynn). I posted the information and my take…but now we all get the advantage of reading the words from so many others, with considered information and opinions.
Second, the speed at which something new (like a definition) can gain profile and credibility via Internet search vehicles in terms of indexing. To give you an example, I witnessed on PR Conversations’ backend a recent Google search from India on “definitions of public relations,” which placed this post seventh on the first page (after fewer than two weeks of it being live)…even though no one (to my knowledge) from India has commented or linked to this post from a local blog. I’m also quite thrilled that my post has provoked an equally lively discussion on the website of a sister GA association (FERPI)…in a second language!
So thank you to everyone who has weighed in already or may do so in future. At a minimum, we may be participating in (or witnessing) a real-life case study demonstrating the power of two-way symmetrical communication. Maybe CPRS will revisit the definition in future and revise it (or not). Perhaps FERPI will adopt it, in whole or in part. Or not. And maybes the Global Alliance will also decide to make the Flynn, Gregory, Valin definition its official one, in whole or in part. Or not.
Brian, in light of what I’ve written above, I’d like to comment that I disagree with your proclamation, “I look forward to CPRS arranging interviews with Dr. Flynn, conducted by the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, CBC Radio (hardly anyone listens, but who cares), CBC Television, Business News Network, Financial Post, etc.”
Why? First off, because I’m less than convinced that those are the right mediums for information dissemination or discussion on this issue.
Why should the mainstream media care about a new definition for public relations?
Why would their readers, watchers or listeners care?
This is mainly a discussion for those of us in the field. I believe industry publications—or, better yet, online mediums such as PR Conversations—are much more befitting in terms of PR 2.0.
Besides which, I believe that Terry Flynn, who is called upon frequently by the Canadian media as a subject expert on public relations, is already making use of this definition, just not overtly. An example is when he discusses the “A+” (Terry’s grading) public relations and communication management practices of Maple Leaf Foods. To my mind Maple Leaf Foods was already fulfilling the Flynn, Gregory, Valin definition of public relations, even before it was researched, debated, articulated, voted upon (by the CPRS board) and shared here. (Including the addition of a blog, Our Journey to Food Safety Leadership.)
Our cousins to the north are rightly proud of their CPRS definition, and it is fine as far as it goes, but it’s rather like defining an architect as one who designs buildings and supervises their construction.
That definition is accurate enough, but it doesn’t begin to describe the scope of practice or range of activities undertaken by architects: giant firms, solo practitioners, academics who freelance, government and institutional architects, corporate and in-house architects, and so on. One might do nothing but design post offices all day, while another–like Robert Venturi–does stunning, world-beating designs from a two-person firm.
Hello, this is the Romanian translation for the definition. Thanks a lot for the article, it is very comprehensive and useful. Here it goes: ”Relațiile publice înseamnă managementul strategic al relațiilor dintre o organizație și diversele ei publicuri, prin folosirea comunicării, pentru a obține înțelegerea reciprocă, pentru a realiza scopurile organizației și pentru a servi interesul public.”
Thanks, Ana-Maria! I’ve now added the Romanian definition into the blog post proper, and let the original architects (Flynn, Gregory, Valin) know about your contribution. And thank you for your kind words about the blog post.