Talk:Public relations/Archive 1

Pronominals

I have changed, in the section "Press Releases", the pronominal "John Doe" to "John Smith". "John Doe" is used, usually by members of law enforcement, to refer to an unidentified cadaver (dead person), and not simply an exemplary citizen, for whom the term "John Smith" is used. It would be very hard to get an interview with a "John Doe", unless you happen to be related to Colin Fry.

Exemplar sententia 03:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations and Free Information

I would like to see a section on how public relations firms respond to collaborative projects like Wikipedia. Do we have information on how firms have responded in the past to unflattering information about their clients in cyber articles? Has government stepped in at all to create laws protecting free speech? How much new business has been created by needing to watch these article? How many new jobs? What are these positions called? What are the industry nicknames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism topics

The right-hand column "Topics in Journalism" has very little relevance to this article. Canuckle 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as a journalist I don't see public relations as a part of journalism. I see it as a separate field and a separate topic altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.216.66 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the journalist. Journalists routinely write articles about the public relations industry, and there are entire trade magazines dedicated to covering PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgraham.nyc (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

In the light of the History of Public relations conference held at Bournemouth University in July 2010, this whole section needs to be re-written.

Some of the presentations have been posted to the University site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphillips4363 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not unsurprisingly, the earliest definitions emphasized the roles of press agentry and publicity since these were major elements from which modern public relations grew." - Who can extract the meaning of this statement?
S.

It means that modern PR grew out of a tradition of "press agents" whose job it was to drum up publicity for their clients, usually in a crude and heavy-handed manner. --Dablaze 01:32, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the writer of this passage intended to say, "not surprisingly." I've placed a "[sic]" after the phrase, which means, "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."

This argument is irrelevant for defining PR. PR has been defined and the information you are presenting should only be used for writing the History section.--AI 21:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does "Arrested Development" come at the top of this page? This programme seems to have ONE issue which responds specifically to PR - why not have Absolutely Fabulous (which is about an unethical PR Practitioner) or Absolute Power (which is about an unethical PR Practice). It seems a particularly USAcentric entry.

Agreed. It may well be a great show, but I don't see how it is important enough to be listed here. 156.99.211.221 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Various statements in the article contradict eachother and are POV. I tried to correct what I could or what I know.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

I just want to say that there is a major inaccuracy in this article -- namely, the idea that marketing/advertising and propaganda are "offshoots" of public relations. This may be an attractive perspective within the public relations field, but it is not accurate.

"Publicity," as it was then called, first appeared after advertising had been established for centuries. PR historians say the first PR firm, the Publicity Bureau, was established in 1900 by former newspapermen, with Harvard as its first client (Clarke Caywood, The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & Integrated Communications, McGraw Hill, New York, 1997, p. 23).

As the article states earlier, modern PR grew out of early 20th century wartime propaganda efforts. I suppose one could argue that the World War I Creel Commission was an offshoot of the nascent "publicity" industry, but in reality a tremendous cross-pollination took place between publicity and "propaganda." The applied social psychology, or "social research" done during wartime became the seedbed for modern-day PR.

It is more accurate to say that they are all communication disciplines, albeit ones with a significant amount of overlap and historical ties. Otherwise marketing people will argue that PR is a branch of marketing, and PR people will argue the opposite. -JG--68.165.47.138 18:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PR and propaganda are sometimes used together or related, but they are not the same thing. This article contains several major inaccuracies.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marketing

Organizations that seek to profit from the mass market, may view the public relations as a valuable aspect of an overall business and marketing strategy.

Not all PR is for marketing purposes.
This statement refers to PR as used in marketing. IMHO, presenting this statement in the introduction is advocacy. It should be reworded and moved to the Public Relations#Marketing and Advertising section--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Public relations can be marketing if positioned that way. by definition, public relations is shaping the image of an organization or person to the public. This can be used to simply tell that organization's side of the story or to market something.--67.184.14.210

Disagree with what?
Do you dispute the statement's truth? I don't dispute it. I disagree with such information being presented in the introduction because it is not general information about PR. It should not be represented in the introduction because the statement is specifically about mass marketing usage of PR. --AI 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think that it's better to present PR as a part of communications rather than a part of marketing: non-profit and public sector use of PR often is not part of market-making. DuncanBCS 24 Sep 2005

As a past owner/manager of a PR agency and a Marketer, I believe it makes no sense to speak of Marketing and PR as distinct practice. Marketing does not always sell stuff, and PR is not always used for noble cause. PR is a tool in the task of Marketing Communications about "whatever."

I agree. Both marketing and public relations are attempts made by an organization to communicate with the public. In both cases the content of the messages tend to revolve around issues of corporate image rather than product or brand publicity. In text books it may be possible to draw a clear line between marketing a company's image to potential and existing customers, and general public relations directed to other sets of stakeholders, but in practice this distinction is very difficult to maintain. mydogategodshat 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

PR is essentially the privatized decendant of "propaganda," which now normally refers to mass-scale message control by state and national governments.

This is not accurate. It should be reworded and moved to the Public Relations#History and/or Public Relations#Propaganda section.--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Are you working for a PR agency?-- --67.184.14.210

Agreed - Good PR is honest, and doesn't run from the truth. There a huge difference between propaganda and modern Public Relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.157.45 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda has a negative connotation these days, but it didn't when Edward Bernays wrote the essay titled "Propaganda" in 1928. In fact there is nothing about propaganda that defines it as untrue. This whole wiki project will be quite a challenge to deconflict Public Relations, Public Affairs, Marketing, Campaigning, Advertising, and Propaganda. I'm anxious to see how useful it turns out to be.--Mthibode (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think anti-propaganda activity could be called a PR function? :) --AI 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the documentary series The Century Of The Self by Adam Curtis there's a clip from an interview with Edward Bernays where he says: "When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans.. using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations". The series says this is the first time the term had been used. 80.203.115.12 20:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think anti-propaganda activity would not be a PR function, because it would be activity against propaganda in general and in support of reason, not in support of a particular interest or organization. Rlitwin 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument moved from main article

The following was inserted into the header of the main article by User: 217.43.132.153. --jpgordon{gab} 16:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a rather old-fashioned view which ignores the developments such as explained in the European derived viewpoints as expressed in the Bled Manifesto (see http://www.bledcom.com/uploads/documents/manifesto.pdf ) where emphasis is more on relationship management, public sphere, transparency and trust. Communication is more regarded as an instrument and the "media" as one of the possible channels. The rather simplistic view in the first sentences doesn't explain internal relationship management and communication activities carried out by public relations practitioners. Nor does it explain community relations and activities. Although similar viewpoints were expressed in earlier Wikis it seems that some wiki editors default to the biased opinion as expressed in the first sentences and continued throughout this post. I call on public relations academics to try to keep this information balanced.

Many people criticize the PR industry for its influence on the public, and for its sometimes unethical actions in pursuing a preferred message over the facts. However, to say that of all PR practitioners would be inaccurate. Most do not work for the large, multinational agencies, but are rather in-house employees of organizations, like companies, nonprofit organizations, and federal and local governments. Most are concerned with gaining any publicity for their clients or employers in the first place rather than "spinning" a controversial issue over a prolonged period. The "spinning" that the industry's critics complain of generally occurs in the service of large corporations and prominent issue advocates rather than the rank-and-file of the PR industry, though the amount of "spin" that can be bought with either financial or political capital does have a strong influence on public discourse

You are correct. Not all of PR industry engages in propaganda. A PR agent for example may work with a client on the design of their CD cover, promotional posters etc. This article has too much POV of both pro- and anti-PR. It should be NPOV, but as I read it today it contains conflicting POV statements.--AI 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More arguments

Contrary to popular belief, public relations is neither a marketing nor an advertising function. It is a staff management function that manages the relationships between an organization and the public in which it affects and is affected by. It is essentially a function that acts as a bridge to different stakeholders (different from stockholders) of an organization that the organization depends on for survival, such as the community, government, employee, board of directors, media and investor publics.

Public relations is not a mass-scale message control. The relationship between public relations and the media is antagonistic but interdependent. The media needs public relations practitioners to keep them informed of potential stories. In turn, journalists need public relations practitioners to disseminate messages to key publics and stakeholders. However, those messages are filtered through the media, often referred to as the "watch dog" of society, therefore, there is no way that public relations can engage in "mass-scale message control" because there is a filter known as the media.

I took these statements off the article, as it is not Encyclopia content but rather arguments which should be resolved here on the talk page.--AI 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public relations (PR) is the managing of internal and external communication of an organization to create and maintain a positive image. Public relations involves popularizing successes, downplaying failures, announcing changes, and many other activities.

This is not an objective statement and is not an accurate description of PR. PR is in the business of developing and maintaining relationships among corporations or orgranizations and their constituencies. PR can be used to raise awareness of issues, launch products, organize events, fundraise, etc., in addition to the relatively narrow scope of "popularizing successes and downplaying failures" to "maintain a postive image." It is a corporate communications function and can work in tandem with integrated marketing communcations to build brands. I recommend revising your introduction to provide a more holistic view of the profession as a whole. Nmladic (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nmladic you are incorrect. Public Relations is a stand-alone management function. The problem here is that many executives that are not in the industry (or whom have no education or professional development in the public relations industry) believe that it is a function of marketing. In reality, you don't "relate" to the public by trying to sell them things. That's what marketing does. It sells a product or a service in an attempt to get consumers and businesses to purchase that product or service. It's just that simple. Public relations, when executed correctly, is a tool that is not to be used for selling anything aside from perception. As a PR practitioner, I have never tried to advocate a product or service for the mere sake of "selling" it. Sales is a marketing function, not a PR function. They are not one in the same. Public relations practitioners serve as a conscience for organizational leaders and advocate good will. If they are not doing this, then they are being unethical. That, however, does not change the meaning and purpose of public relations. Just as most professions have bad apples and improperly trained or educated individuals, so does public relations. Mark Taylor II 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor2 m (talk • contribs)

Basically: inconsistency

This article has big consistency problems, which in my opinion are the real problem with it. Please, analyze the article from the consistency POV. Some examples:

- “Corporations use ‘marketing public relations’” – What are we talking about, after all?

- What is it “to receive favorable media coverage”? It doesn’t say “provide media with favorable information”. It say’s “receive favorable coverage”.

- “Many of the first Public Relations professionals got their start with the Committee on Public Information (also known as the Creel Commission), which organized publicity on behalf of U.S. objectives during World War I” (which is referred to, everywhere, as propaganda). So, again, what are we talking about?

- “Ivy Lee …/… espoused a philosophy consistent with what has sometimes been called the "two-way street" approach to public relations, in which PR consists of helping clients listen as well as communicate messages to their publics.” “In practice, however, Lee often engaged in one-way propagandizing on behalf of clients despised by the public.” - What is it “helping clients listen”? The fact is that Lee engaged in propagandizing.

- “A tactic used in political campaigns is known as "defining one's opponent". Opponents can be candidates, organizations and other groups of people”. Defining one's opponent is Public Relations? – Definition from the article: “Public relations is the art and science of managing communication between an organization and its key publics to build, manage and sustain its positive image”. It doesn't mention anything about dealing with the image of others.

- “Many public relations practitioners are engaged in practices that are widely considered as beneficial, such as publicizing scientific research, promoting charities, raising awareness of public health concerns and other issues in civil society.” – So… “many”. How many? What are the others engaged in?

- “One of the most controversial practices public relations is the use of front groups”

Clearly, this article seems to have been written by someone from the industry and I think it’s still very far from fulfilling Wikipedia’s goals. I’m not going to rewrite the article or make major changes, at least for the moment, since I’m not an expert on the field. But I want to believe that it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the inconsistencies. By the way, articles like advertising and marketing have the same problems. DavidMarciano 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)public relation is just another tool of promotion..[reply]

Limited geographic scope

The main body of this article only makes reference to the United States. It should be broadened. -- Beland 09:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The role and remit of the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) trade association might be a good starting point for documenting the UK public relations sector. Davidkuczora (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I removed all of the links to individual agencies. See WP:NOT. Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you diasagree. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed a link to Airfoil PR, an agency in Detroit. They attempted to create a link to their "blog" as part of the Industry Publication external links, but it really just linked to their corporate website. Even if it did link to their blog, it isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, at least in the sense of linking to an unbiased publication. If Airfoil wishes to link to themselves, then they need to create a separate subsection entitled "Links to PR Agencies" or something to that effect. --MaddCheddar 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding a link to the Public Relations Society of America? Reputable organization that seeks not only to advance PR professionals - but advance the understanding of the profession by society in general. Thoughts? --Kristahtq (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved from article: "That’s just PR!”

This is not neutral point of view. Needs reworking and placed in an appropriate section Barrylb 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations is often misused as a synonym for deceptive or unscrupulous efforts to mislead people. But, like other disciplines, such as accounting, sales, and research, public relations is not inherently good or evil. PR efforts are indispensable in conveying an organization's message to its target audiences, while not directly aimed at selling its products or services. Sincere, honest people use public relations techniques to convey their beliefs, opinions, and recommendations. Dishonest people with talent and experience in public relations sometimes use it to deceive. The same is true of not only other disciplines mentioned above, but also the three learned professions – law, medicine, and the clergy. We all know good lawyers, doctors, and priests – and bad ones who abuse their abilities, status, and professions. In this respect, public relations is no different from accounting or the law.

Some subtopics should also be included....

These are

Employee Relations

Multicultural Community Relations

Government Relations

Consumer Relations

International Relations — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Relations

These can be cross-referenced

There is also Litigation Public Relations. Canuckle (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiturfing

What's the purpose with the following "free advertisement"?

"Top US entertainment publicists include Lizzie Grubman, Karen Ammond (KBC Media Relations), Ryan McCormick, The Rose Group and PMK Public Relations."

Spin and the principles of utmost good faith

Spin might looked up as the negation to "the principles of udmost good faith". Even if this principles is a legal doctrin, it is an ideal demand in public administration and in politics. [Uberrima_fides ]

--Kfl 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Spin?

I feel that the redirect from Spin (public relations) is unfortunate and somewhat obscures the subtle difference between the terms. 'Spin' is often used in a pejorative sense (at least in Britain), implying that what is being referred to is likely to be biased and should not be not taken at face value, while 'public relations' is more neutral. I'm not sure how to redemdy the situation though... what do other editors think? Straussian 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of Spin

As above, I suggest that spin should own its own article, and be further expanded. The danish article on Spin, contains around 4 full pages on spin technique; an english article on spin should be just as extensive. I miss information on terms like "stoking the fire", "firebreaking", and "blacklisting of journalists". Very, very important subject. Carl-Emil Overgaard Skov

Looks to be addressed somewhat by Spin (public relations). Canuckle 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global alliance

The article gives a one sided view point of the accords and has a questionable link to a professors Youtube description. - Obvious self promotion. There needs to be an alternate view point given here. Some do not believe the accords to be as sacrosanct as is made out and a useful desciption of these feelings can be found here: http://paulseaman.eu/2010/05/stockholm-accords-interrogated-part-1/

Fritfly (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PR Glossary

On the recommendation of SnowFire, I am adding discussion for the inclusion of a link to a thorough PR Glossary. This is not a link to an ad page, rather it is a useful resource that should be added to the External Links section of the article.

PR Glossary , A collection of PR terms, definitions, and activities to help people better understand public relations.

Definitions

I have added a clearer set of definitions to the bottom of this section. Those which are directly from the Encyclopedia of Public Relations and the standard definition used among public relations students at my university. 160.36.211.162 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you have not properly cited this 'encyclopedia' reference. It would also help to register and identify yourself. What need is there for a 'definition' when most of those offered are little more than over-verbose partial characterisations of PR? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about this article on podcast

The PR podcast PRobecast, #25, starts with a discussion of this article and how it could be improved. http://topazpartners.blogspot.com/2007/07/probecast-25-pr-on-wikipedia-social.html

--ragesoss 00:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"PR people aren't supposed to change the entry on our profession" -- WRONG. Involvement of academics would be good but not at the expense of day-to-day professionals. I think it is actually incumbent upon public relations professionals to inform the public about PR -- including on WP -- in an accurate, ethical, non-spammy way consistent with WP:COI and WP:RS. Yes we should avoid writing about ourselves and our clients/employers, perhaps more cautiously than the average person due to skepticism about the profession. But that should not be interpreted to be a blanket "hands off WP" for PR people. Disclosure: member of Canadian Public Relations Society Canuckle 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with them that this article is a mess, though. Canuckle 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Public Relations

I'd be willing to participate in a WikiProject: Public Relations. Any one interested in starting one? Canuckle 01:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR People Editing the Entry

There is one concern with PR people editing the entry... There is as constant saying in the field about how PR people need to do PR for the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.249.13 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to improve this article

As a (now retired) PR professional, I am ashamed at the poor quality of this article and feel obliged to help in sorting it out. We need to spell out that PR these days is a 'hold-all' term for a variety of disciplines including media liaison, marketing and political 'spin-doctoring', communication skills in writing, artwork and media production, publicity techniques to gain exposure in various media, internal corporate communications, design of company livery, creation of scenarios, e.g., for official functions and events, and for campaign purposes, and so on. We should also be trying to find the boundaries between PR and conventional advertising, publication, business and public administration consultancy, etc, etc. I will take my time to look at the article and offer some improvements. Please discuss and join in. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely void of PR theory

This article is really sort of sad to anyone with a formal education in public relations to see. It's almost as if this article is more about marketing, advertising and press agentry than it is about relationship building and a humanitarian co-creational, two-way symmetrical model of public relations — the latter being the one that is most prevalent today among practitioners and scholars in PR.

This article is completely void of PR theory! It is difficult for me to believe you can have a credible article without citing the sources that provide the foundations of how public relations is practice, especially in regard to ethics. Whoever is working on writing this article, I encourage you to include a section on PR theory to include the Excellence theory, monologic/dialogic approaches, I vs. H images, image restoration, relational history, issues management, legitimacy theory, etc. The books Public Relations Theory I and II by Carl Botan would be a good place to start. Works from the Grunigs, Heath, Coombs, McCombs and Shaw (agenda-setting segues into agenda-building), etc., are necessary inclusions. Joshua DeLung (talk) 1:42, 9 Feb. 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you actually work in PR, but from my experience, real-world PR is itself almost completely devoid of PR theory (at least on a day-to-day basis - I guess it can be useful for long-term strategic planning). It's experience and common sense, not theory, that counts in the field. That might hurt to PR academics, but hey, that's life... --taras (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people who THINK they know what PR is because they have an affinity for the definition and information provided in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos086.htm). Public relations is not an art. Nor is it a science. It is a combination of BOTH and with ONLY "experience" in PR you are completely missing the science portion of the industry. I'd love to know what organization (talk) works for. Maybe when we see the client results and/or accolades she and her organization have attained then we will consider credibility in your argument. Mark Taylor II 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As both academic (teacher) and practitioner (Agency Head of Practice), I am delighted that some people remain at the craft end of the business. There is a desperate need for good writers and organisers and people who do not need to work hard at the application of theory. Some, like the head of PR at Rolls Royce, can even live in a world unencumbered by the internet! This does not mean that most practitioners should not apply theory to their work for optimum effectiveness. I have put in the Stockholm Accords which are something of a game changer and also resolve quite a lot of these issues. --Dphillips4363 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor2 m (talk • contribs)

Cleanup, external links, references and merge

I did some basic non-content cleanup on the article, such as links, spelling and grammar. The article uses different styles of spelling, such as American vs. British spelling and US/U.S./USA. For the latter, I chose USA, as it seemed to be used most frequently, although my personal preference is either U.S. or United States. For the other inconsistent spellings, I did not change anything, especially since some were some that are in quotes that should not be altered. However, that should not dictate what style is ultimately used.

I added some links to the external links section, even though there is a message not to add additional links. However, I only added external links that were in the body of the article, as it is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style to have them there. I do not think there are any more external links in the article, but I may have missed a couple. There are still external URLs in the article, but they are part of citations and do not show up as external links when the article is viewed.

I think there might be something wrong with the references, as the numbering stops partway down the references section. I do not know what is wrong, as I am still getting used to the fancy inline citation code. Also, I think that different citation styles are used in the article. Perhaps one style should be chosen. There is also a need for content to either get citations or be removed.

It has been suggested that the article negative public relations, formerly "black public relations", be merged into this article. This should be decided one way or the other, as the merge notice has been in place for quite some time. I am not completely sure of what should be done. There are separate articles on different aspects of public relations, as seen in Category:Public relations. However, the topic may not be able to support its own article. I would suggest that the content be merged for now, and that the topic be split off into a separate article if its section grows big enough, except that the references in the negative public relations article are not given as inline citations. While someone could check out the websites listed in the references to try to find out what came from where, there is also a list of books. It is unclear whether it is a list for further reading or if they are additional references. It looks like one person, Fjason58, wrote most of the article's content. However, he or she has not edited before or since working on the article, in 2007, and there is no email link on Fjason58's user page. If sources cannot be found for the content in the article, merging it into this one is problematic. Whether the negative public relations article can stay as it is depends on whether inline citations are now mandatory or just strongly recommended. I have not kept up to date on the debate of the subject.

Finally, in my opinion, this is an important topic, and it should be listed as an A-class article in either WikiProject Business or WikiProject Media, or both. See the top of this talk page for the ratings. As such an important topic, it is rather embarrassing that it is in its current state. If those in the public relations industry wish to contribute to the article, I welcome them, as long as they give citations and do not advertise their own company.

If you want to contact me, please use my user talk page, as I am unlikely to see any messages here. -- Kjkolb (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material

I have removed a large swath of promptional material related to "Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management." I'm happy to hear why this material should be included? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone feel the promotional flag needs to stay up? Or has it been addressed. Corporate Minion (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Total restructure

The content of the current page is a mess. I'd like to burn it down and start over, so to speak. Does anyone have any objections to severly pruning this article and material being slowly re-added through consensus? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contents added to this entry are a little weak and miss out the primary focus of what public relations is and what it can offer. There is a good reference of information across the internet, including online sources such PRWeek.co.uk and talktojason.net, which cover the subject of public relations in an informative and topic way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.50.34 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the article was pretty good in 2008 and has degenerated through poor edits. The article would benefit by restoring an older version and combing through for genuine improvements to maintain. Corporate Minion (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some general quick cleanup and salvaged some of the old content while maintaining the current stuff, but removing puffery, unverified opinions, etc. The references need cleanup and more of them. Corporate Minion (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I work in PR, I guess I shouldn't edit the page :) But I would highlight the bullet point list "Other public relations activities include:" as particularly needing attention. It has got different types of entries in it (e.g. one is a word definition) and also doesn't seem to be in any particular order - e.g. the order is neither A-Z nor reflects the relative importance/popularity of the different items. The terminology is also heavily American and so could do with a more international flavour I think. Markpackuk (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, generally that isn't the type of COI Wikipedia discourages. Otherwise subject-matter experts would all be banned. What would be an area of concern is if you added mentions of your PR agency, links to your own blogs, or bias content due to your affiliation. If you're an exterminator, you're the best person to write about how to get rid of cockroaches - a scientist the best to write about formulas and so on. If you can improve the article, please do. Corporate Minion (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the stories recently about PR people, I'm being extra careful :) But I'll take your comment as a nudge to go and do some appropriate editing shortly. Markpackuk (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Band

I stumbled accross a band named "Public Relation" on YouTube and it sounds like electric music of the 80s but it seems not to have an article in WP, though they seem to have a certain amount of reputation and their music is pretty good. Does someone know more about this band or can make investigations? I think the band deserves an article, see yourself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqphLgI85Q&feature=related

-- 188.101.133.229 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I think this edit is appropriate. A blanket ban on external links is inappropriate as there is good material out there such as the link I added which would be useful to the reader. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on what we should do with the Further Reading section? I would like to maybe trim it down to the most significant works, but every time I think about trimming it - I have no basis to establish which ones should be kept. Corporate 20:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I have suggested we merge History of public relations and Corporate communication here. From my perspective we have not reached WP:LENGTH (6,000 words) to justify breaking the history section into a new article and Corporate communication is not distinguishable enough to justify a separate piece. Corporate 21:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of public relations seems to have little to do with the history of modern public relations and has sufficient unique content to stand alone. Corporate communication is just bad and needs to be worked on. What is the point of that article? Public relations covers all sorts of other public relations issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective was that Corporate communication is synonymous with Public relations, but if it is a distinguishable topic, I will trim it. Right now the two articles appear to describe the same thing, but I wasn't certain enough about it to be bold.

To clarify, the content from the History article would be preserved, just copy/pasted into a History section on this article as is normally done. Corporate 23:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts of organizations, individuals, and causes engage in public relations, or need it managed for them. Corporate communication, if the subject is to be limited to public relations, is just one field where it is employed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the case of History of public relations, oppose in the case of Corporate communication. The history would provide a useful grounding to this page, and could be separated out again if needed for length reasons. Corporate communication is just a distinct enough topic that it should not be merged here. (Public relations is a sub-topic of corporate communication.) I agree that page could do with some work, it is well laid out, but needs details. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current History of public relations is rather US-dominated. Understandable in a way given PR's roots in America but still something that could do with being remedied. I think it would be better to keep it separate and to expand it? On Corporate communication I agree with the comments above - PR and corporate communications aren't synonymous so best to keep separate. Markpackuk (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I see it now. I gave the corp-comm article a once-through to give it a better structure, reduce redundancies, etc. and merged the History article into a History section. What jumps out at me is the 80-year gap in the history section from the 1930s to today. Corporate 12:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach

It appears that the modern word for public relations is outreach. Or is there a difference? Should it be mentioned somewhere? Hobbema (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think outreach is used synonymously with media relations, which is a major part of it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace

I'm storing source here that I come across, but haven't implemented yet. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinowth, Emily (July 2010), The History of Public Relations (PDF), Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, retrieved February 11, 2013

Copyright problem removed

I have removed the copyvio from http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/49-propaganda/227-british-propaganda-in-ireland-and-its-significance-today which was added with this edit. To do this, I reverted the section to the version before the addition of the copyvio. Please feel free to tweak and develop what's there now. Note that it was OK for me to remove the copyvio blanking template and restore the clean version of the section, as I'm a Copyright problems clerk. For future reference, removal of the blanking template and rewriting in situ should only be done by an administrator or copyright clerk. A temp page can be used by other editors to re-write a blanked section (or the whole article if the whole article has been blanked), but must never have the copyvio text added to it (even momentarily). A temp page is only for rewriting from scratch, and only for rewriting the blanked material. It must never be used to store the removed copyvio. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "European" view

It infers the view in Europe is an alternate view. I feel like this is belittling in the same sense as saying so, there's view 1, view 2, and there's (name)'s view. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for digital era

My local library has a copy of this book which is focused on the early 1900s period of PR history I'm trying to fill up next. They also have "Public relations history: from the 17th to the 20th century: the antecedents" which is probably the single best source to cross-reference our Ancient Origins section with.

I also know that the final section is coming up on the digital era, social media, etc. and this is where I expect it to become more difficult to find the most authoritative, comprehensive and updated sources. I would be interested in any recommendations on quality sources for this era. Once I'm done with the last two sections, I plan to follow summary style and move it back to a separate article History of Public Relations. CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interlibrary loan from universities? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Fashion public relations

Fashion PR is a subset of PR. Also the article needs references. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion is a huge independent industry, the fashion pr industry has its own style related to clothing, so I think it should be display here solely but not under the normal public relations, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleestyle (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well - you could merge it into Fashion I suppose either - but it really isn't enough of an article to sit on it's own for long. It will probably get proposed for deletion unless it gets references and source supported content.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 23:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I may get to it later, but if I don't, I happened upon this source which talks about the debate about how to define PR around page 9 and lists various of the more well-known competing definitions. There is a section on this and the article already, but this source probably has some more information for it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Public relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160131231726/http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/MiniMe_HistoryOfPR.pdf to http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/MiniMe_HistoryOfPR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"External" definitions

I do believe that if we want to avoid Wikipedia being precisely yet another Public Relations battlefield, we must not rely on definitions that all come from practitioners. Otherwise Wikipedia will end up with the definition of "killer" being "The kind guy who helps society get rid of boring people", "Mafia" being "the nice organisation that advocates for more liberty and freedom of entrepreneurship", and "Dictator" being "the guide who shows the light to his loving and beloved people".

Definition should come from researchers working on the PRs (from outside, about the PRs, not inside as PRs R&D), not by practitioners or representatives.

On this note, the citation of PRNewswire's self-published press release on public relations salary trends is a clear conflict of interest, as they have a stake in attracting new members to the industry. I think it should be replaced as soon as possible. ColinAndersonUofO (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from press service

The tiny stub at press service could be redirected here, or merged. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'll just boldly do it, and anyone who wants to object can revert. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yantingzou. Peer reviewers: Frmjenn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylorbrockhoff, Juliarsanchez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joey9201. Peer reviewers: Kmcdavi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DominatorST. Peer reviewers: SHolcomb626.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abell132.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melsam23, Caroch20, Acoutinho997.2, Brookejlet84.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amwilcza20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sssnyder1596.

— Assignment last updated by Sssnyder1596 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YasmineSaad (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 17 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GarrisonCalmerDighton (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GarrisonCalmerDighton (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]