Reflections on public relations practice

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

Two recent items in online trade publications caught my attention and got me thinking anew about current public relations practice:

I was surprised that these topics would be news to public relations practitioners in 2023. Haven’t we in public relations known for years about the importance of relationships and public relations’ image problem? Maybe being reminded about key concepts and our identity issues is good.

Need for two-way interactions

The Drum item said that:

  • Customer marketing should move “away from reach-focused one-way communications to a two-way dialogue that builds more meaningful connections and valuable spaces for customers.”
  • Companies should shift “from thinking of an audience to considering a community.”

Public relations scholars have been talking, writing, and teaching about these dynamics for a century. Marketers, however, may not have heard those messages.

Effective public relations requires strategic two-way interactions between organizations and those social groups (“publics”) that can determine the organization’s success or failure. The relationship-building process involves both actions (what the organization does) and communication (how the organization tells people in each public about what it does and then responds to their feedback).

Harold Burson, whom PR News called the most influential public relations practitioner of the second half of the 20th century, wrote in 2017:

“Public relations comprises two major components: behavior and communication. Of the two, behavior is more critical to the ultimate goal. … The rappers got it right: ‘You can’t talk the talk unless you walk the walk.’ Organizations had to deliver on their promises; otherwise, they’d lose credibility” (The Business of Persuasion, pp. 108-109).

The term “publics,” by the way, comes from sociology. The term describes groups in society connected by one or more elements (interests, psychological characteristics, geographic locations, occupations, etc.).

‘Audiences’ vs. ‘publics’

For me, the point in the Drum Network story about shifting “from thinking of an audience” is a recognition that “audiences” are not well-defined “publics.” “Audiences” are collectives of usually disconnected individuals who receive a common message. Audience members often have little in common beyond the message.

Therefore, the discovery of “community” in the Drum Network item is heartening. The article appears to recognize—again, from my perspective—the need for something that can transform a collection of individuals into an identified group connected by some common element. The article said valuable content about a product and interactions with others—both the supplier and other consumers—could be such connections.

“Community”—especially one built around common interests—can be an acceptable synonym for “public.”

Preferring ‘public’

Since the late 1990s, I have urged clients and students to stop thinking about “audiences” when we discuss public relations. Responses to public relations actions from a group of disconnected individuals are hard to predict. Most theories that drive our planning are built around social groups that share identifiable characteristics or self-interests. Conceptually, “public” is a more consistent term for strategic planning.

For some reason, however, many practitioners work hard to avoid using “public.” They prefer such terms as “stakeholder” or “constituent.” In my opinion, these words are not neutral synonyms for “public.” “Stakeholders” have a vested interest in the success or failure of an organization. “Constituents” are part of something.

A “public” may have no connection to or interest in an organization. Nevertheless, interacting with such a group may be critical to the organization’s success.

When I revised study guides in 2015 and 2016 for Accreditation in Public Relations to replace references to “audience” with “public,” I received several complaints from APR candidates. They didn’t like “public” and didn’t care that the term was consistent with the theory of situational publics, a concept they were supposed to learn.

Confusion about public relations

Confusion about (1) what we call public relations concepts like “public” and (2) how to describe what we do contributes, in my opinion, to the identity problem discussed in the PR News story. Author Amanda Proscia noted that many business leaders, “including many partners in marketing and advertising,” have no idea what public relations involves or how it contributes to a company’s success.

To counter that ignorance, Proscia wrote a book: PR Confidential: Unlocking the Secrets to a Powerful Public Image. It presents information that Proscia’s agency, Lightspeed Public Relations and Marketing, uses to educate clients about how effective public relations might benefit them.

I read the book. I commend her work. The book covers lots of useful information—especially for those who confuse public relations with advertising or marketing. Therefore, I’m not eager to nitpick, but the book has, in my view, two shortcomings:

  • It describes only public relations activities that are part of an organization’s “marketing mix.”
  • It never addresses the “powerful public image” mentioned in the title.

Proscia says public relations involves “managing perceptions of an organization by creating the right kind of awareness and driving actions to achieve business goals” (pp. 6 and 86). Public relations “earns people’s opinions and, hopefully, their trust” (p. 7). Public relations campaigns are “focused on shifting perceptions, then (moving) people to take actions” (p. 8).

I concur with those points. But the descriptions don’t go far enough.

The “right kind of awareness,” the book says, is earned primarily through publicity. Efforts to earn media coverage focus more on communication than organizational behavior.

The “actions” driven by the awareness generally involve consumer choices related to buying products or services, not changes in opinions about the organization supplying those products or services.

The “business goals” that the actions achieve all appear to be found in the organization’s marketing plan, not the organization’s overarching business strategy.

Reputation management

Consequently, I think the definition ignores another important way that the public relations management function benefits organizations: reputation management.

Back in 1991, just before Proscia started her 30-year public relations career, Thomas L. Harris wrote in The Marketer’s Guide to Public Relations, often called the first book on marketing communication:

“I am suggesting that a schism is in the making, that marketing public relations will move closer to marketing and that corporate public relations (CPR) will remain a management function concerned with the company’s relationships with all its publics” (p. vii).

In his second book (Value-Added Public Relations, 1997), Harris, a longtime public relations agency executive, explained this division further:

“I want to make very clear that while the purview of this book is marketing public relations, the function of public relations as practiced by corporations and other institutions, and on their behalf by public relations firms, far exceeds the marketing-support function. The principal role of corporate communications departments and public relations firms cited here and their counterparts throughout the country and world remains and, in my view, will continue to remain, to counsel management on relationships with all stakeholders on whose support the corporate health and indeed success depends—in the current lexicon, to manage the corporate reputation” (pp. vii-viii).

Proscia’s book mentions “reputation management” but primarily as a tactical consideration after a crisis (pp. 48-50). “Once a business establishes its reputation and demonstrates the value of its products and services,” she writes (p. 47), “PR can continue to build on that, creating more and better opportunities.” She doesn’t discuss how public relations helps establish that reputation in the first place.

Different experience

My career experience was different from Proscia’s. While she has worked mostly—although not exclusively—for public relations agencies and usually supported marketing efforts, I worked for military organizations, faith groups, and nonprofit corporations. My work focused on the image we projected and the reputation we hoped to earn with publics important to our success. I advised top management on what the organization needed to do to be seen by key publics as an authentically good neighbor or community asset and to enhance the organization’s goodwill (the accounting term for intangible assets).

While media relations (generating publicity) was always an aspect of my work, I usually spent more time on community relations, internal communication, government relations, corporate social responsibility, crisis communication, and, at times, investor relations or fundraising.

Proscia writes (p. 80), “PR can be applied to sell products or services, influence political leaders, attract investors, support employees, manage a crisis, educate, influence, and refocus.” Therefore, she concludes that public relations should be part of the marketing plan. But her compact book (80 pages of text) doesn’t get into how efforts beyond product promotion contribute to organization-level business objectives.

As a result, in my opinion, the book doesn’t deliver on its promise of “unlocking the secrets to creating a powerful public image.” I saw no discussion of organizational image or identity. Methods for determining public relations success focused on media placements, audience reach, and measuring publicity outputs. No methods assessed outcomes of organizational actions among key publics or perception changes related to image or reputation.

Despite my nitpicking, I commend Proscia’s book. It contributes positively to the business literature about public relations. I hope the book helps readers see the value of what public relations can contribute to an organization.

Nevertheless, the Drum Network article and the Proscia book remind me that even though public relations has been a recognized discipline in the United States for a century:

  • Public relations practitioners, unlike those in disciplines such as accounting and law, don’t share a common professional identity.
  • Consequently, public relations practitioners don’t always recognize or agree upon key concepts, terms, or even approaches to their work.
  • Furthermore, public relations practitioners don’t concur on how their knowledge and skills contribute to organizational success.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon