I wanted to circle back on the definition and purpose of public relations. Early on in this specialization, I showed you several different definitions, some from industry and some from academia. I wanted us to think again about why these definitions matter. This first definition here is from Cutlip, Center, and Broom, and it presents public relations management as relationship management. This definition explains why relationship should matter. An organization survival depends on these relationships. If relationships are central to public relations management, then it also follows that public should mean something more specific than the general public. Enter the term stakeholders. This term allows many different approaches to identifying, segmenting, and managing stakeholder groups. But check out this definition given by Coombs and Holiday. Public relations is the management of mutually influential relationships within a web of constituency relationships. The outcome of relationship management is a form of intangible capital built on trust and reciprocity. In some way, PR practitioners are the creators and maintainers of an organization's social capital. If public relations is a management discipline then it needs to be used to inform and advise senior executives, not just transmit messages to audiences. That leads to this definition put forward by Katie Paine, who is a measurement specialist. The future of public relations lies in the development of relationships, and the future of measurement lies in the accurate analysis of those relationships. Counting impressions will become increasingly irrelevant while measuring relationships and reputation will become ever more important. But how do we measure relationships? All the details matter in public relations. One of the reasons PR is flown under the radar is so few know what it is and what it does. Part of that is by design, but the industry has some challenges to overcome. In Moss and DeSanto's 2012 book, Public Relations, a Managerial Perspective, they list eight key challenges facing public relations. First, there's the ongoing challenge of defining public relations. I presented you with a variety of definitions and no doubt, if you go to work with a team based on their training and background, they will all define public relations differently, and that's part of the problem with the field. Next, there's a lot of organizational and social ignorance on the value PR can bring to a brand. Most people immediately think about advertising, but advertising is a tactic, not a strategy. Public relations is not limited in scope like advertising and plays for the long game, building and protecting the brand's reputation. Three, there's a lack of using PR as a management function. Use tactically, PRs power is removed. PR must be used strategically, that's how it's designed. Four, there's overlap and encroachment from other fields into public relations, advertising is a very guilty party. Continuing on, Moss and DeSanto, name the size of the PR department in most organizations as problematic. If there are more advertising or marketing employees than PR, you should really rethink how your company is employing public relations. Six, the breadth and variety of PR practitioners roles. They all vary greatly depending on agency versus in house or corporate communication or by clients or industry sectors. This makes it difficult to quantify across the profession. Seven, the very background of PR practitioners. Not all people go to school for PR, you'll find the English majors, journalism majors, marketing majors, and many more, all working in PR, and that's okay. But because of this and because not all PR practitioners are members of PRSA, there's a variance on how PR is practiced and thought about. Lastly, PR practitioners often lack business acumen, that can severely limit a PR manager's ability to advise the C-suite. Viewed collectively as well as individually, these eight challenges that Moss and DeSanto described help explain why it has often proven difficult for public relations to be accepted as a mainstream management function within organizations. Hence why it is that senior practitioners have struggled to gain acceptance as members of the dominant coalition within organizations.
