After 3 decades, there is an enormous change coming to the public relations game. After years of failed attempts, the Public Relations Society of America is once again looking to refine, recharge, and revamp the public relations industry's image by changing what they say is the definition of public relations. Since 1982, there's been a definition in place, but years of professional evolution and technological developments have left the definition depleted and in a very vague form. The society hopes that these efforts will leave them with a "more appropriate [definition] for the 21st century," according to a Stuart Elliott NY Times article.
Currently, the definition for public relations is: "Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other." I think that Elliott's comment on the definition and its vagueness is spot on. It is far too general to do its job and define the public relations industry and its purpose. This definition is very problematic in essence. In today's day and age, I don't believe that public relations is intended to get consumers and the companies that hire PR firms to "adapt mutually to each other." Public relations is way more cutthroat than that. PR is an industry that in modern times is commissioned by a company to create competition. Sometimes, the methods by which PR firms and departments go about gaining this competitive edge is to simply try to eliminate competition. There are too many instances where we as consumers are exposed to some form of PR in which one party is attempting to negatively impact another competing company in their industry. In March of 2011, Ford came under some serious fire when it sponsored a series of YouTube webisodes depicting real police officers bad-mouthing the competitions police interceptors. The webisodes weren't just simple marketing clips, they were essentially slandering of the competitors' products and displayed real cops facing some challenges with the products. They were especially personal forms of PR and in my opinion don't remotely follow the current definition of what public relations is. Now, while the definition needs some serious work and refining, the way by which PR firms and companies go about advertising also needs some change, as it should be doing its job of promoting a product while at the same time not attempting to negatively impact the competition. A proper PR device is to promote a product based on its own characteristics, not those characteristics as superior to the competition.
If given the opportunity, my definition for public relations would be as follows..."Public relations is a marketing scheme set forth to ethically highlight the features of a company and its products to its consumers and the general public." I think that my definition is slightly more in-depth and specific to the purpose of PR and its obligation to consumers and its competition. In my definition, I think the most important improvement is the mention of ethics and upholding a standard of ethics in regards to the functionality of a company or its products on their own, not necessarily in comparison to its competitors or their products. I made sure to, in my opinion, properly word this by stating that it is to "ethically highlight the features of a company and its products," rather than including anything about how PR is to get consumers to "adapt" to the company. I believe that public relations should give the consumers a look at the company's products and services and in making them attractive on their own, give the consumer an option, rather than completely persuading them one way or another. Allow the consumer to make their own choice based solely on their own independent opinion of the product and how it relates to its competition.
I think that it's imperative that the new definition, whatever it may be, has a strong connection, link, and emphasis on ethics, specifically the PRSA's Code of Ethics. My new definition mentions ethical standards in it, reminding public relations firms of their duty and professional obligation to adhere to the ethical codes in place. My opinion is that the PRSA should function as a governing body for public relations. In doing this, the PRSA can not only set forth the definition of PR, but also ensure that all public relations efforts are adhering to its Code of Ethics. Being professionals in their field, PR firms should be held to a very high standard, as they oftentimes are the direct outlet in the exchange of information from a company to its consumers. The Code of Ethics was written for a specific purpose, much like the definition of PR is. Being that the society is already in place, it should utilize itself for the greater purpose of acting like a governing body for all of public relations. I think that this would eliminate unethical, immoral, and sometimes illegal actions of PR firms.
In my opinion, I believe that autonomy is the most problematic ethical violation at hand. In lamens terms, autonomy is essentially the belief that one can give them-self their own law. As Wikipedia states, it's the "capacity of a rational individual to make an uninformed, uncoerced decision." In regards to ethics, this is an enormously problematic issue, as it threatens the general principle of a governing body, a code of ethics, and the superiority complex that is often seen in industries nowadays. This self-proclaimed power to work under one's own law as opposed to one's already set forth and in place is challenging to guidelines of professionalism. If one company decides to not adhere to the code of ethics the PRSA has drawn up, that can be damaging for the entire industry. The code of ethics is drawn up with the strict ideology that all companies taking part in forms of public relations must follow the code in order to eliminate unfair competitiveness and unprofessional tactics in marketing. Autonomy in the workplace is like a god-complex. It's one company's belief that it is above general PR principles that make the industry fair and ethically proper.
With the PRSA and FTC monitoring public relations practice, I think that this could be the start of something good...yet still very far from getting to where it needs to be. I do believe that these efforts will improve the field in terms of ethics. I think that they will challenge PR professionals that do not adhere to a code of ethics and could lead to changes in future practices that have come under fire. However, I do not believe that this will be enough. Corbett brings up a couple ethical issues that he says the PRSA will be monitoring in the new year. Such issues are PR firms representing dictators, the unethical use of unpaid interns, and maintaining PR ethical standards in the digital age to name a few. I believe that these 3 issues in particular are huge issues, all of which can be time-consuming, expensive, and if not properly monitored, extremely damaging to the industry. The PRSA's Code of Ethics was drawn up originally in 1950. While not strictly enforced per say, it was still in place, much like it is today. Over the last 60 years, there have been many violations, some more serious than others, of this code. On the PRSA's website, the page titled "About Enforcement" actually speaks about this. In one part, it states, "In fact, over the 50-year span of the initial PRSA Code of Ethics, only a handful of actions reached a point where they could be brought to the PRSA Board of Directors for action. None of these actions resulted in sanctions or official notifications of 'violations.'" The society states that efforts like this were unsuccessful in the past mainly "due to a lack of cooperation; enormous legal and investigative expenses; significant investments of time, money and resources for investigating alleged violations." I think that two main things need to happen in order to make these efforts successful. For one, I believe that the FTC, a government agency, needs to join forces officially with the PRSA and form a cooperative attempt to govern the industry of public relations. With the FTC's backing, I believe that with stricter punishments for violations on a legal level will force a change in the industry. Secondly, I think that the PRSA's Code of Ethics is something that needs to become more prevalent in the teaching practices of institutions. In addition to more education regarding ethical standards, I think that there should be a requirement by the PRSA and the government for those practicing in the public relations industry to become due-paying members of the PRSA. In doing this, the PRSA can create a stream of revenue by way of public relations professionals. The money collected can be used to fund investigative measures by the PRSA of public relations professionals accused of violations of the code.
No comments:
Post a Comment