“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some hire public
relations officers.” So said Daniel
Boorstin, the late American writer and historian.
It was intended as a witty quote, but does it
illuminate whether PR is a force for good or (shudder!) something less benign?
More recently, Richard Edelman wrote that: “We [in PR] have a unique view of
the world through a stakeholder lens, valuing reputation over short-term
gain. We recognise the connection
between brand and corporate reputation.”
It’s a view that the PR industry would broadly
endorse. After all, we’re in the
business of connecting reputation to brands and brands to stakeholders. QED.
PR is a good thing.
Or is it?
It was the great Roman orator Cicero who made the point that public relations mainly operates to benefit
those who commission it. (A great blog
on Cicero and PR from Paul Seaman can be found here).
In other words, if PR is largely about
benefiting those who pay for it, what is the profession’s value beyond its
paymasters?
There’s no doubt that it does have a
value. According to one report, by 2008,
the UK had more PR people (47,800) than journalists (45,000).
Even if you dispute those figures, the
intervening years have seen an exponential growth in communications, driven by
digital and social media.
In a 24/7 media world in which every one of us
can be a blogger/journalist – able to promulgate truth, lies, or the downright
offensive – where now does PR lie on the spectrum between good and bad, and
does it matter?
It’s worth remembering that, while we think of
PR as something relatively new, the dark art of PR has been around since time
began. To politics and prostitution as
the oldest professions can be added PR.
After all, PR is about persuasion – whether
persuading a reluctant populace to support an unpopular monarch or, nowadays,
persuading a cynical public to buy a particular brand of hair conditioner.
It was the ancient Greeks who coined the term sematikos, meaning semantics – how to
get people to believe and do things. In
50BC, Julius Caesar wrote about his military exploits to persuade the Romans
that he would make the best head of state.
Or, to take a more proletarian example, in the
Middle Ages you were hung for stealing a sheep or horse. Harsh maybe, but in an age without
newspapers, it got a social message across.
Maybe the history of PR is simply that everything is PR.
Some argue that the first known examples of PR
date back to Babylonian
inscribed tablets almost 4000 years ago. Others
point to our great religious texts that clearly set out, often with audience
segmentation, how to behave, what to eat and – of course – what to believe in.
It may not be PR as we know it today, but the
subtle art of persuasion is as old as humanity itself. What’s changed is the profusion of platforms on
which to communicate and how we, as consumers of media and messages, relate to
them.
Someone credited as a founding father of PR is
Edward
Bernays. In a
1928 book, he wrote that "the conscious and intelligent manipulation of
the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in
democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country."
Unseen mechanism?
Invisible government? Ruling
power? Bernays did not consider this a
bad thing, and nor would many of today’s PR practitioners. But it throws into a historical context how
PR was, and can still be, owned by those who can afford to pay for it. (Bernays is also credited with popularizing
smoking among women – a good example of big business badly influencing public
opinion).
Most of us in PR are probably guilty of
something. For example, I am still unhappy
by a public affairs assignment I took on a few years ago on behalf of a large
developer. The brief was to win planning
approval for a shopping centre in central Scotland, adjacent to two small
towns.
The economic impact analysis that we commissioned
suggested conclusively that there would be no detrimental impact on those
surrounding towns. We won the argument,
the shopping centre was built, and the two nearby towns were severely affected.
Maybe, of course, in the balance between new jobs
created and old jobs lost, the shopping centre was a good idea. But I remain troubled by how big business was
able to win over hearts and minds by having a bigger wallet.
I believe passionately that PR should be a force
for good, and tilting the balance is the rise and rise of social media and
blogging. In the new age of digital democracy,
we are all able to be publicists.
Gone are Cicero, Edward Bernays and Julius Caesar. In their place has come a new world order; a
new world without order. We can say what
we like and publish it for free. PR is
no longer in the hands of the rich or powerful.
Social media has rewritten free speech, and given
everyone a voice. It’s now about
engagement and interaction; generating two-way conversation rather than one-way
press releases.
What hasn’t changed is our appetite to persuade,
for good or bad. You decide.
Charlie
Laidlaw is a director of DavidGray PR. The agency is a specialist in national and
international PR strategy and delivery.
You can contact us at 01620 844736 or Charlie@davidgraypr.com or connect with us on LinkedIn,
Facebook or Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment