PR is a two-way activity

Share This!

While I think Josh Bernoff has hit the nail on the head in terms of a corporation’s participation in social media, I had to sigh when I read this line: “PR and advertising are mostly one-way, broadcast type communications, and these folks continue to try to adapt those one-way modes of thinking in the two-way, read-write world of social computing.”

That’s true of advertising but decidedly not of public relations. I’ve made this point in several venues but I don’t think I’ve ever addressed it head-on here. Now’s my chance.

Most people, when they think of public relations, equate it with media relations. Media relations is, in fact, just a small subset of PR. True, a lot of it goes on, and it is clearly the most visible PR activity to most outsiders, but behind the scenes and away from public view, PR practitioners engage in a great many other dimensions of PR, the ones addressed in textbooks and reviewed carefully in ”Excellence in Communication and Public Relations Management,” the PR literature review from James Grunig and his colleagues, commissioned years ago by the IABC Research Foundation.

Let’s consider just two characteristics of excellent public relations practitioners, according to the Excellence study:

• Negotiation skills—Good PR people engage in negotiation with publics all the time, clearly a two-way communication skill.
• Boundary spanning—If you’re going to communicate with (not to) a constituent, you need to understand things from their point of view. Boundary spanning requires a communicator to get out of his comfort zone and truly perceive things from the other side. If you do it well, your bosses may wonder whose side you’re on because you can speak the other side’s language so incredibly well.

Public affairs, including government relations, is a subset of public relations—most PR agencies have government affairs practices. The counselors in these practices engage routinely in both negotiation and boundary spanning. Investor relations is another practice in many PR agencies that requires two-way communication. A lot of PR practitioners get involved in investor and labor-related communications, which also require direct engagement.

In fact, if you read the PR textbooks, you’ll find that media relations usually occupies only one chapter. The rest deal with topics like research and direct engagement with critical publics. Even the most basic of PR departments focus much of their effort on seeking input from constituents and responding to the issues and concerns they raise. Again, that’s a two-way activity.

Yes, media relations can be one-way, but most PR is two-way, which situates the PR function perfectly to guide an organization’s social media efforts. Unless, of course, media relations is the only thing the PR function in your organization has ever done.

1. Shel,

   I couldn’t agree more with you on this! How are we any different from advertising if we do just talk to our publics and not listen to their feedback.

   Yes, PR is often relegated to only media relations. My first two internships were with PR firms focused solely on media relations. I remember at the second agency, overhearing partners pitching publications day in and day out. Sheesh, I don’t want to reach that level and only be pitching the media.

   Posted by Adam Denison  on  03/11  at  08:25 AM

2. To add: even the media relations pros are being pushed into broader roles. Social media has turned us into bloggers, commenters, podcasters, and returned us to “relationship” PR, including and especially with the meida.

   It’s all two-way. One-way PR is arrogant.

   Posted by Doug Haslam  on  03/11  at  08:28 AM

3. As Eeyore said, “Thanks for noticing me.”

   I guess I think of PR as one-way because I’m so often a target or victim of it. It sure feels like spamming half the time. Some PR person got my name off some list and is emailing me (useless, 90% of the time), or trying to set up a briefing with me (useless about half the time).

   Of course, occasionally, those same people are either trying to get my opinion of some company they’re pitching or representing, or every once in a while, trying to figure out why I said something bad about their client in a place a lot of people read. And you know . . . those conversations about why I said something nasty tend to be the most interesting. I learn things, and they learn things. A cynic would say nasty things just to be able to get into a dialogue.

   I like PR people. Often, they help me. What they want isn’t a brain twister. They’re full of useful information for me. They help me make connections.

   I just wish I didn’t so often feel like there was a target on my back. That’s when I’m a victim of one-way PR.

   Posted by Josh Bernoff  on  03/11  at  03:55 PM

4. Thanks for dropping by, Josh.

   As in any profession, PR has its fair share (and then some) of lazy practitioners and those who don’t represent the best of the craft. And a lot of people have been lashing out at PR as a whole because of the very visible actions of these people (Chris Anderson’s post listing the email addresses of all the transgressors he’d encountered leaps to mind).

   To be honest, I work in PR and I’ve become the target of about half a dozen pitches per day! But rest assured, for every one of these, there are dozens of truly professional practitioners engaged in ethical and thoughtful endeavors that are most certainly two-way in nature. After all, the goal of real PR is building relationships, not getting ink.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  03/11  at  07:01 PM

5. In every message, it is always a two-way communication, even PR. So, the audience should be open-minded just as the pr persons are.

   Posted by JJ  on  03/12  at  12:10 AM

6. Had to comment back on this:

   >> After all, the goal of real PR is building relationships, not getting ink.

   99% of the PR activity I encounter is about getting ink. You’re spitting in the wind.

   I WISH you were right, but let’s check back in 5 years and I bet nothing has changed.

   Posted by Josh Bernoff  on  03/12  at  03:12 AM

7. Josh-- good callon the “getting ink” comment. Building relationships-- and trust-- is not the goal, it is a means to the goal. I type this at the risk of sounding cynical, but at the end of the day we get paid to get attention for our clients.

   Building relationships helps us do it in a more honest and less forced fashion.

   Posted by Doug Haslam  on  03/12  at  05:17 AM

8. “Building relationships-- and trust-- is not the goal, it is a means to the goal.”

   Whoa! I would say that you have it mixed up here, John. The aim of public relations is to build relationships and trusts with our publics. Media relations (getting attn for clients) is only a tool to reach those publics. The media is a channel, not a public.

   I agree, though, that the best way to engage in media relations is to build solid relationships with editors.

   Posted by Adam Denison  on  03/12  at  06:03 AM

9. Adam,
   I only mean the relationship is not the end result. Even with the customer. There, the end result is their patronage (ok, their wallets in most cases).

   Posted by Doug Haslam  on  03/12  at  06:06 AM

10. I’m with Doug.
    Interesting to hear people referring to media relations as being one-way. I’ve never thought of it that way. Sure you send releases out and pitch, but for me that’s the opening of the dialogue.
    As a journalist I always got more out of PR people by trying to engage them - it is vital when you covering a beat that requires a call once or twice a day, five days a week. Especially if you are a trade media competing with a national.

    Posted by Andrew Arnold  on  03/12  at  06:06 AM

11. Sorry, my last comment was reply to Doug, not “John.” Not sure where I got that from. Sorry, Doug!

    Posted by Adam Denison  on  03/12  at  06:09 AM

12. No problem Adam, I don’t mind if you get my name wrong if you are disagreeing with one of my points.

    Posted by Doug Haslam  on  03/12  at  06:52 AM

13. Doug (got it right this time!)

    I see your what you’re saying here and I agree completely. Thanks for clearing up my confusion!

    Posted by Adam Denison  on  03/12  at  07:08 AM

14. I’m back from a day of travel and ready to add some commentary to the comments.

    Josh: Spitting in the wind? Let’s start with the definition offered by “Effective Public Relations,” the principal PR textbook: “Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends.”

    Next, there’s the other main PR textbook, “The Practice of Public Relations:” Public relations is a planned process to influence public opinion, through sound character and proper performance, based on mutually satisfactory two-way communication.”

    Need another one? James Grunig, principal author of “Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management,” defines PR as the “management of communication between an organization and its publics.”

    Josh, the fact that most of the PR that is visible to you is one-way pitching doesn’t mean that’s where most practitioners spend their time. (But, then again, since the other work happens behind the scenes, it’s not surprising that you don’t see it is, it?) I work with several agencies, and have served as the communications director at two Fortune 500 companies. Trust me: Pitching media is not the dominant activity.

    Doug: I have to disagree—strongly. We are not paid to get attention, we ARE paid to build relationships (see definitions above).

    Look, companies are able to do business only with the consent of constituent publics. If we have good relationships, companies can continue to do business and thrive. If we do not, the publics put obstacles in organization’s paths. Unions strike, walk out, run campaigns. Consumers boycott and spread negative word of mouth. Government creates regulations and legislation. Activist groups launch campaigns. In these cases, companies suffer and it becomes more costly and difficult to do business.

    Does this mean that sometimes a public relations STRATEGY (not a goal) is to get attention? Sure. But sometimes, the strategy is to AVOID attention. At other times, we work behind the scenes to resolve issues without public attention ever being an issue. These are all strategies, executed based on the issue at hand. The goal remains strong relationships. (Why else would it be called Public RELATIONS?)

    I would suggest that anyone whose sole practice is getting attention is more likely working in marketing communications. If they’re calling it PR, it’s mislabeled. There’s nothing dishonorable about marcom, but it ain’t PR.

    Andrew, I agree with you, but there’s a catch. Media relations does, indeed, require good two-way communication with the media. But PR uses the media as a channel through which to reach other publics, and THAT communication tends to be one-way. Once the ink is obtained, there is little, if any, opportunity for readers (or listeners or viewers) to interact with the company that worked with the media outlet to earn the coverage.

    Incidentally, this will be the topic of discussion when Neville and I do our next call-in episode of FIR on March 22.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  03/12  at  06:38 PM

15. Since media relations is the most visible thing I do, it’s what gets judged most. “if we just got more press” is the magic potion, the silver bullet everyone strives for. Media Relations is a portion of what I do, but it’s not the most important and it’s not the only thing. Unfortunately, so much of the essential things I do get overlooked because it’s not glamorous, it’s not easy to understand and it doesn’t get us on the news.

    Posted by Paloma Cruz  on  03/12  at  07:19 PM

16. Two things,

    One - media is a channel but the gatekeepers are a public. I’m sure you’ll agree that sometimes they don’t open the gate because they are treated like a channel.

    Two - well-produced media campaigns produce dialogue, but not necessarily with the PR person and I don’t see that as a problem. My job is to get the ball rolling for my client with ink. If they are doing their job properly they will then be able to pick up on that and get the relationship going.

    Posted by Andrew Arnold  on  03/12  at  11:58 PM

17. Andrew, I absolutely agree with your first point. Media represent one of the strategic constituencies, along with investors and the financial markets, government, activist groups, NGOs, consumers, customers, unions, local communities and others.

    I also agree that a well-crafted media campaign CAN produce a dialogue. It’s interesting, though, that most measurement of media campaigns is designed to assess whether the coverage was negative, neutral, or positive, or to count the prospective number of eyeballs that have seen the coverage.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  03/13  at  04:51 AM

18. Good post, Shel, with the comments adding some serious depth to it.  I think PR people cause this misperception.  It’s so bad that I think many PR firms aren’t much better than media relations shops pushing themselves as PR pros.  The industry has so many definitions its frightening.

    When marketing as an end result comes up in corporate situations , PR folks fight off the label, forgetting why in most cases, they are hired. Note: lest I get into the usual wrangling, PR is not just marketing, but in most corporate situations, it simply is just marketing.

    For me, I prefer calling myself a communicator in more and more situations.  It provides the latitude I need to succeed.

    Posted by Geoff Livingston  on  03/17  at  02:12 AM

19. Bloody typos. Sigh.

    Posted by Geoff Livingston  on  03/17  at  02:15 AM

20. This post made Jo’s PR top 5 http://strivepr.com/wordpress/2008/05/01/may-1st-jos-pr-top-five/

    Posted by Sherrilynne Starkie  on  05/01  at  09:32 PM