Hill+Knowlton Strategies

As a consultant who works in both crisis management and in the ever-changing digital space I’ve had a number of conversations in recent months about the changing face of public relations and how the internet is changing the way companies manage crises. Organisations like Toyota, Nestlé, GM (yes, they’ve had recalls too), the Conservative Party, Eurostar…all have been highlighted as examples of this phenomenon of change. In fact, some expert commentators (read: freelance marketing consultants who need to drive their blog traffic) are even claiming that with advertising agencies and digital agencies collaborating more closely, there’s little need for “traditional PR” at all any more.

Bollocks. Seriously, I’ve never heard such rubbish in my life.

Anybody who claims the internet is changing the nature of busines-to-consumer communication is either selling you a website (or facebook page), or they’re selling you a book about web-based marketing. With a chapter on facebook pages.

The idea of corporations participating in conversations with their stakeholders has been around for years. Anyone who’s cared to pick up a PR textbook in the last two decades (actually, since 1984 if you want to be exact about it) will have read about Grunig and Hunt, and their model of two-way communication. Here’s a tip: two-way communication means talking and listening. That’s a conversation.

Here’s a short list of things that didn’t exist in 1984:

• Big Brother (the show, the book was already there)
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google (OMG say our younger readers, no way)
• Smart phones (mobile phones I’ll concede, as Danny Glover is hoofing one around in Lethal Weapon)

But two-way communication between organisations and their stakeholders? Yep. That existed.

So since the internet isn’t redefining PR (notice I’m not saying “if” – that’s on purpose), perhaps we could stick with the definition that we already have. The one about public relations being a function of management (not marketing) concerned with building and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders.

Perhaps? It seems to be good enough for these lovely people:

• Chartered Institute of Public Relations (UK)
• Public Relations Society of America (USA) - defined in 1982
• Wikipedia (the world) - defined in 1978! You know what, in 1978 we didn’t even know that Darth Vader is really Luke Skywalker’s dad!

The reason I bang on about this stuff is pretty simple really. If you think of PR in the terms outlined above, things like crisis management become far more straightforward. Working towards a mutually beneficial outcome is the only way a crisis ever actually gets resolved. Otherwise, you’d all still be driving broken cars, or sitting on a train in the Channel Tunnel. Ahhh. And the internet becomes a tool of communication – a way of facilitating something we all do already, every day of our lives.

If, on the other hand, you talk about PR as “managing perceptions”, “raising awareness” or “selling more widgets” then you’re on a hiding for nothing. Because this is also known as “spin”.