Talk:Public relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portal:Business and Economics
 Business and Economics Portal
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
WikiProject Journalism This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] History

"Not unsurprisingly, the earliest definitions emphasized the roles of press agentry and publicity since these were major elements from which modern public relations grew." - Who can extract the meaning of this statement?
S.

It means that modern PR grew out of a tradition of "press agents" whose job it was to drum up publicity for their clients, usually in a crude and heavy-handed manner. --Dablaze 01:32, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously the writer of this passage intended to say, "not surprisingly." I've placed a "[sic]" after the phrase, which means, "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
This argument is irrelevant for defining PR. PR has been defined and the information you are presenting should only be used for writing the History section.--AI 21:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does "Arrested Development" come at the top of this page? This programme seems to have ONE issue which responds specifically to PR - why not have Absolutely Fabulous (which is about an unethical PR Practitioner) or Absolute Power (which is about an unethical PR Practice). It seems a particularly USAcentric entry.

Agreed. It may well be a great show, but I don't see how it is important enough to be listed here. 156.99.211.221 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Various statements in the article contradict eachother and are POV. I tried to correct what I could or what I know.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

I just want to say that there is a major inaccuracy in this article -- namely, the idea that marketing/advertising and propaganda are "offshoots" of public relations. This may be an attractive perspective within the public relations field, but it is not accurate.

"Publicity," as it was then called, first appeared after advertising had been established for centuries. PR historians say the first PR firm, the Publicity Bureau, was established in 1900 by former newspapermen, with Harvard as its first client (Clarke Caywood, The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & Integrated Communications, McGraw Hill, New York, 1997, p. 23).

As the article states earlier, modern PR grew out of early 20th century wartime propaganda efforts. I suppose one could argue that the World War I Creel Commission was an offshoot of the nascent "publicity" industry, but in reality a tremendous cross-pollination took place between publicity and "propaganda." The applied social psychology, or "social research" done during wartime became the seedbed for modern-day PR.

It is more accurate to say that they are all communication disciplines, albeit ones with a significant amount of overlap and historical ties. Otherwise marketing people will argue that PR is a branch of marketing, and PR people will argue the opposite. -JG--68.165.47.138 18:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PR and propaganda are sometimes used together or related, but they are not the same thing. This article contains several major inaccuracies.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing

  • Organizations that seek to profit from the mass market, may view the public relations as a valuable aspect of an overall business and marketing strategy.
Not all PR is for marketing purposes.
This statement refers to PR as used in marketing. IMHO, presenting this statement in the introduction is advocacy. It should be reworded and moved to the Public Relations#Marketing and Advertising section--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Public relations can be marketing if positioned that way. by definition, public relations is shaping the image of an organization or person to the public. This can be used to simply tell that organization's side of the story or to market something.--67.184.14.210
Disagree with what?
Do you dispute the statement's truth? I don't dispute it. I disagree with such information being presented in the introduction because it is not general information about PR. It should not be represented in the introduction because the statement is specifically about mass marketing usage of PR. --AI 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do think that it's better to present PR as a part of communications rather than a part of marketing: non-profit and public sector use of PR often is not part of market-making. DuncanBCS 24 Sep 2005

As a past owner/manager of a PR agency and a Marketer, I believe it makes no sense to speak of Marketing and PR as distinct practice. Marketing does not always sell stuff, and PR is not always used for noble cause. PR is a tool in the task of Marketing Communications about "whatever."

I agree. Both marketing and public relations are attempts made by an organization to communicate with the public. In both cases the content of the messages tend to revolve around issues of corporate image rather than product or brand publicity. In text books it may be possible to draw a clear line between marketing a company's image to potential and existing customers, and general public relations directed to other sets of stakeholders, but in practice this distinction is very difficult to maintain. mydogategodshat 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

  • PR is essentially the privatized decendant of "propaganda," which now normally refers to mass-scale message control by state and national governments.
This is not accurate. It should be reworded and moved to the Public Relations#History and/or Public Relations#Propaganda section.--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Are you working for a PR agency?-- --67.184.14.210
Do you think anti-propaganda activity could be called a PR function? :) --AI 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the documentary series The Century Of The Self by Adam Curtis there's a clip from an interview with Edward Bernays where he says: "When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans.. using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations". The series says this is the first time the term had been used. 80.203.115.12 20:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think anti-propaganda activity would not be a PR function, because it would be activity against propaganda in general and in support of reason, not in support of a particular interest or organization. Rlitwin 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument moved from main article

The following was inserted into the header of the main article by User: 217.43.132.153. --jpgordon{gab} 16:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a rather old-fashioned view which ignores the developments such as explained in the European derived viewpoints as expressed in the Bled Manifesto (see http://www.bledcom.com/uploads/documents/manifesto.pdf ) where emphasis is more on relationship management, public sphere, transparency and trust. Communication is more regarded as an instrument and the "media" as one of the possible channels. The rather simplistic view in the first sentences doesn't explain internal relationship management and communication activities carried out by public relations practitioners. Nor does it explain community relations and activities. Although similar viewpoints were expressed in earlier Wikis it seems that some wiki editors default to the biased opinion as expressed in the first sentences and continued throughout this post. I call on public relations academics to try to keep this information balanced.
Many people criticize the PR industry for its influence on the public, and for its sometimes unethical actions in pursuing a preferred message over the facts. However, to say that of all PR practitioners would be inaccurate. Most do not work for the large, multinational agencies, but are rather in-house employees of organizations, like companies, nonprofit organizations, and federal and local governments. Most are concerned with gaining any publicity for their clients or employers in the first place rather than "spinning" a controversial issue over a prolonged period. The "spinning" that the industry's critics complain of generally occurs in the service of large corporations and prominent issue advocates rather than the rank-and-file of the PR industry, though the amount of "spin" that can be bought with either financial or political capital does have a strong influence on public discourse
You are correct. Not all of PR industry engages in propaganda. A PR agent for example may work with a client on the design of their CD cover, promotional posters etc. This article has too much POV of both pro- and anti-PR. It should be NPOV, but as I read it today it contains conflicting POV statements.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More arguments

  • Contrary to popular belief, public relations is neither a marketing nor an advertising function. It is a staff management function that manages the relationships between an organization and the public in which it affects and is affected by. It is essentially a function that acts as a bridge to different stakeholders (different from stockholders) of an organization that the organization depends on for survival, such as the community, government, employee, board of directors, media and investor publics.
  • Public relations is not a mass-scale message control. The relationship between public relations and the media is antagonistic but interdependent. The media needs public relations practitioners to keep them informed of potential stories. In turn, journalists need public relations practitioners to disseminate messages to key publics and stakeholders. However, those messages are filtered through the media, often referred to as the "watch dog" of society, therefore, there is no way that public relations can engage in "mass-scale message control" because there is a filter known as the media.
I took these statements off the article, as it is not Encyclopia content but rather arguments which should be resolved here on the talk page.--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basicaly: inconsistency

This article has big consistency problems, which in my opinion are the real problem with it. Please, analyze the article from the consistency POV. Some examples:

- “Corporations use ‘marketing public relations’” – What are we talking about, after all?

- What is it “to receive favorable media coverage”? It doesn’t say “provide media with favorable information”. It say’s “receive favorable coverage”.

- “Many of the first Public Relations professionals got their start with the Committee on Public Information (also known as the Creel Commission), which organized publicity on behalf of U.S. objectives during World War I” (which is referred to, everywhere, as propaganda). So, again, what are we talking about?

- “Ivy Lee …/… espoused a philosophy consistent with what has sometimes been called the "two-way street" approach to public relations, in which PR consists of helping clients listen as well as communicate messages to their publics.” “In practice, however, Lee often engaged in one-way propagandizing on behalf of clients despised by the public.” - What is it “helping clients listen”? The fact is that Lee engaged in propagandizing.

- “A tactic used in political campaigns is known as "defining one's opponent". Opponents can be candidates, organizations and other groups of people”. Defining one's opponent is Public Relations? – Definition from the article: “Public relations is the art and science of managing communication between an organization and its key publics to build, manage and sustain its positive image”. It doesn't mention anything about dealing with the image of others.

- “Many public relations practitioners are engaged in practices that are widely considered as beneficial, such as publicizing scientific research, promoting charities, raising awareness of public health concerns and other issues in civil society.” – So… “many”. How many? What are the others engaged in?

- “One of the most controversial practices in public relations is the use of front groups”

Clearly, this article seems to have been written by someone from the industry and I think it’s still very far from fulfilling Wikipedia’s goals. I’m not going to rewrite the article or make major changes, at least for the moment, since I’m not an expert on the field. But I want to believe that it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the inconsistencies. By the way, articles like advertising and marketing have the same problems. DavidMarciano 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limited geographic scope

The main body of this article only makes reference to the United States. It should be broadened. -- Beland 09:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed all of the links to individual agencies. See WP:NOT. Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you diasagree. --GraemeL (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Just removed a link to Airfoil PR, an agency in Detroit. They attempted to create a link to their "blog" as part of the Industry Publication external links, but it really just linked to their corporate website. Even if it did link to their blog, it isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, at least in the sense of linking to an unbiased publication. If Airfoil wishes to link to themselves, then they need to create a separate subsection entitled "Links to PR Agencies" or something to that effect. --MaddCheddar 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section moved from article: "That’s just PR!”

This is not neutral point of view. Needs reworking and placed in an appropriate section Barrylb 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Public relations is often misused as a synonym for deceptive or unscrupulous efforts to mislead people. But, like other disciplines, such as accounting, sales, and research, public relations is not inherently good or evil. PR efforts are indispensable in conveying an organization's message to its target audiences, while not directly aimed at selling its products or services. Sincere, honest people use public relations techniques to convey their beliefs, opinions, and recommendations. Dishonest people with talent and experience in public relations sometimes use it to deceive. The same is true of not only other disciplines mentioned above, but also the three learned professions – law, medicine, and the clergy. We all know good lawyers, doctors, and priests – and bad ones who abuse their abilities, status, and professions. In this respect, public relations is no different from accounting or the law.

[edit] Some subtopics should also be included....

These are

Employee Relations

Multicultural Community Relations

Government Relations

Consumer Relations

International Relations — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Relations


These can be cross-referenced

[edit] Wikiturfing

What's the purpose with the following "free advertisement"?

"Top US entertainment publicists include Lizzie Grubman, Karen Ammond (KBC Media Relations), Ryan McCormick, The Rose Group and PMK Public Relations."

[edit] Spin and the principles of utmost good faith

Spin might looked up as the negation to "the principles of udmost good faith". Even if this principles is a legal doctrin, it is an ideal demand in public administration and in politics. [Uberrima_fides ]


--Kfl 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Spin?

I feel that the redirect from Spin (public relations) is unfortunate and somewhat obscures the subtle difference between the terms. 'Spin' is often used in a pejorative sense (at least in Britain), implying that what is being referred to is likely to be biased and should not be not taken at face value, while 'public relations' is more neutral. I'm not sure how to redemdy the situation though... what do other editors think? Straussian 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The importance of Spin

As above, I suggest that spin should own its own article, and be further expanded. The danish article on Spin, contains around 4 full pages on spin technique; an english article on spin should be just as extensive. I miss information on terms like "stoking the fire", "firebreaking", and "blacklisting of journalists". Very, very important subject. Carl-Emil Overgaard Skov

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/Talk%7EPublic_relations_169c.html"