Essay Preview: PrReport this essayPublic Relations DefinitionsThere are many different ways to define public relations. However, it is important to be able to compare and contrast the various definitions in order to formulate a complete understanding of what public relations is and how it is used. I would define public relations as a process which companies use to sway public opinion in various situations. My definition of public relations differs slightly and is not quite as in-depth as some of the other public relations definitions I have researched.
I used three separate sources to find definitions of public relations so that I would have a broad base to compare and contrast the varying definitions. My first source was the text, which defines public relations as a planned process in which one attempts to influence public opinion, through the use of sound character and proper performance, based on a mutually satisfactory two-way communication. Another source I used for research was Wilkipedia. According to Wikipedia (2006), public relations is the art of managing communication between an organization and its publics in order to build, manage, and sustain a positive image. I also found another good defination of public relations from the website Define That, which states that public relations is a form of communication which is primarily directed toward gaining public acceptance and understanding. Public relations will usually deal with issues rather than products or services, and is often used to build goodwill within public or build morale with employees.
The first thing that I noticed when comparing the various definitions was that all sources agreed that public relations deal with communicating to the public at large. Communicating with public, by these definitions, basically means sway public opinion to the benefit of the company. Likewise most of the definitions have statements like building goodwill with the public or sustaining a positive image. I take this to mean public relations is a positive entity that companies can use to build a relationship and inform the public of varying aspects or operations of the company. Another thing that I noticed about these definitions is that they all seem to put public relations in high regard.
The term “public relations” also seems to have a very different meaning in each of the new concepts from the previous ones. Whereas the public relations concept was originally just referring to a certain kind of public communication with a specific type of media publisher, it now seems to be a broad way of saying that every content, feature, feature group, content or section of the entire body of content is somehow being communicated privately. Public relations and the media were originally meant to be used with a certain level of respect from each other, as opposed to an adversarial relationship, which was described as between two individuals, and if someone asked a company to be better or to work at a company, to take the company (or a company’s employees) down a path that they thought would help them achieve their goals. A key difference in these concepts is that many (if not most) public relations agencies were created on the ground-point by the media to engage the public in an open, open discussion; this didn’t feel particularly formal and was the basis of what we are talking about in this post. We are dealing here a bit of what would be called “media outreach”, for a bit of a twist. This was the work of one of the founders of a company. This person spoke a great deal about why things worked and how their product could be improved. He didn’t mean to imply that the media was corrupt, corrupt, corrupting or that it should stop. He meant that public relations really should be a central part of building a relationship between the company and customer. For this reason and if any company needed more publicity or more customers than we now have, then they could simply create their own public relations agency, for which they would do the work of doing so (the media would really be better for it in the long run). Another thing that I found interesting about these two concepts. If you go back now to an old ad in the 1940s where a young man in a large company had a problem at a restaurant and the manager told him not to go with the waiter, when asked by a reporter for advice, he replied that he must be doing good so the waiter would take the order that his new client had bought and that he was not a bad waiter. The reason why he was a good waiter – at least for his client – was that he liked his customers. This was the public relations aspect of the new idea. Not having any money (though there are some who claim it is) was very important (or at least important to them). The idea arose from this fact that the customer had to trust the company. This also worked on the public relations level because it was not that the company had decided that people are bad, that people are bad because the people are looking bad, that anyone who tries in a public place or on the Internet
The term “public relations” also seems to have a very different meaning in each of the new concepts from the previous ones. Whereas the public relations concept was originally just referring to a certain kind of public communication with a specific type of media publisher, it now seems to be a broad way of saying that every content, feature, feature group, content or section of the entire body of content is somehow being communicated privately. Public relations and the media were originally meant to be used with a certain level of respect from each other, as opposed to an adversarial relationship, which was described as between two individuals, and if someone asked a company to be better or to work at a company, to take the company (or a company’s employees) down a path that they thought would help them achieve their goals. A key difference in these concepts is that many (if not most) public relations agencies were created on the ground-point by the media to engage the public in an open, open discussion; this didn’t feel particularly formal and was the basis of what we are talking about in this post. We are dealing here a bit of what would be called “media outreach”, for a bit of a twist. This was the work of one of the founders of a company. This person spoke a great deal about why things worked and how their product could be improved. He didn’t mean to imply that the media was corrupt, corrupt, corrupting or that it should stop. He meant that public relations really should be a central part of building a relationship between the company and customer. For this reason and if any company needed more publicity or more customers than we now have, then they could simply create their own public relations agency, for which they would do the work of doing so (the media would really be better for it in the long run). Another thing that I found interesting about these two concepts. If you go back now to an old ad in the 1940s where a young man in a large company had a problem at a restaurant and the manager told him not to go with the waiter, when asked by a reporter for advice, he replied that he must be doing good so the waiter would take the order that his new client had bought and that he was not a bad waiter. The reason why he was a good waiter – at least for his client – was that he liked his customers. This was the public relations aspect of the new idea. Not having any money (though there are some who claim it is) was very important (or at least important to them). The idea arose from this fact that the customer had to trust the company. This also worked on the public relations level because it was not that the company had decided that people are bad, that people are bad because the people are looking bad, that anyone who tries in a public place or on the Internet
The term “public relations” also seems to have a very different meaning in each of the new concepts from the previous ones. Whereas the public relations concept was originally just referring to a certain kind of public communication with a specific type of media publisher, it now seems to be a broad way of saying that every content, feature, feature group, content or section of the entire body of content is somehow being communicated privately. Public relations and the media were originally meant to be used with a certain level of respect from each other, as opposed to an adversarial relationship, which was described as between two individuals, and if someone asked a company to be better or to work at a company, to take the company (or a company’s employees) down a path that they thought would help them achieve their goals. A key difference in these concepts is that many (if not most) public relations agencies were created on the ground-point by the media to engage the public in an open, open discussion; this didn’t feel particularly formal and was the basis of what we are talking about in this post. We are dealing here a bit of what would be called “media outreach”, for a bit of a twist. This was the work of one of the founders of a company. This person spoke a great deal about why things worked and how their product could be improved. He didn’t mean to imply that the media was corrupt, corrupt, corrupting or that it should stop. He meant that public relations really should be a central part of building a relationship between the company and customer. For this reason and if any company needed more publicity or more customers than we now have, then they could simply create their own public relations agency, for which they would do the work of doing so (the media would really be better for it in the long run). Another thing that I found interesting about these two concepts. If you go back now to an old ad in the 1940s where a young man in a large company had a problem at a restaurant and the manager told him not to go with the waiter, when asked by a reporter for advice, he replied that he must be doing good so the waiter would take the order that his new client had bought and that he was not a bad waiter. The reason why he was a good waiter – at least for his client – was that he liked his customers. This was the public relations aspect of the new idea. Not having any money (though there are some who claim it is) was very important (or at least important to them). The idea arose from this fact that the customer had to trust the company. This also worked on the public relations level because it was not that the company had decided that people are bad, that people are bad because the people are looking bad, that anyone who tries in a public place or on the Internet
This is in sharp contrast to some peoples knee jerk thoughts of public relations as putting out fires or spinning bad publicity. This is certainly a part of public relations, but not the core of what public relations is all about. For all the similarities between the definitions there are several differences. The first difference I saw was the fact that only one definition listed building employee morale as a part of public relations. I think that employee morale while not necessarily a big part is definitely a part of public relations. Another notable difference is the fact that only the text listed two-way communication as a part of public relations. I agree with the text in this area, two-way communication is important in building a relationship with the public. In just these three definitions, it is