The current definition of public relations mentioned in Stuart Elliot’s article is problematic for several reasons. The current definition states, “Public Relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other”. Not only is this vague, but it does not reflect the “dialogue” that is ever so present between consumers and corporations in today’s world of social media and technology. Mr. Lavelle states, “Now P.R. has to be more about facilitating the ongoing conversation in an always-on world.” Nowhere in this definition does it include the dialogue or conversation between consumers and an organization, which is really what the public relations and corporate world are facing. This definition also holds a negative connotation as just having a “mutual adaptation” to each other. It does not encompass a relationship and just makes it seem like a necessary obligation for an organization. The negative connotation in the current definition can also very easily be seen as spin. Dan Tisch, chairman of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management states, “Public relations has always had an image problem, which flows from the fact that people quite often view public relations as spin.” He also makes an extremely valuable point when it comes to consumer purchasing and decision making power. “The role of public relations and corporate communications has shifted from creating content to attempting to influence the content that’s created by others.” Attempting to influence the content that’s created by others stems from the dialogue taking place between consumers and organizations.
With that said, my new definition of public relations would be “Facilitating and conveying an honest and informative dialogue between consumers and organizations.” This definition is improved from the one in place in that it addresses the idea of a conversation and expresses the importance of facilitation as well as honesty from an ethical standpoint. The definition also addresses the fact that consumers have increasing power over the success or demise of even some of the largest corporations in the world. Anyone can essentially go online and write a negative review of a certain product or company. Blogging has also taken up a huge and integral part of cyber space that companies must pay close attention to. An ethical dilemma that can arise from this definition is that of the “quintessential struggle.” Patterson and Wilkens state in Chapter 3, “The average news consumer rarely observes this constant struggle for control, yet he or she is affected by it. How should we evaluate a profession with the goal of persuading in a manner that does not look like the traditional persuasion or the goal of preventing the dissemination of information that might harm the illusion that has been created?” In class we discussed the ethical dilemma when Walmart hired a PR company to start and execute its “blogging across America” campaign, where employees from the firm were in charge of running the blog as if they were devoted consumers to the brand. With information increasingly available to consumers and buying power at its peak, this can be a major ethical dilemma that several organizations must overcome. The recent PR ethical breaches bring up the problem of transparency. We are bombarded by media messages and advertisements and do we really know who is responsible for these messages? The recent ethical problems encountered in the industry deal with fake blogger campaigns or an employee posing as an everyday consumer.
As the PRSA and FTC begin to pay closer attention to various ethics issues, maintaining PR’s ethical standards in the digital age as well as the growth of brand journalism will be very important to monitor. Hiring internal journalists to produce brand content and news can become a slippery slope and can easily turn into potential ethical dilemmas. With social media, blogging, and increasing technology, the PR profession has to be careful that it doesn’t breach these ethical codes in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment