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