Wednesday, January 8, 2014 is it time to ditch 'public relations' as a title?
A blogger this month spoke of the importance of job titles and how he had managed to remove 'communications' from his job title. That got us thinking. Does the phrase 'public relations' have too much of a loaded connotation? Is it time to change? Our 60-second poll showed some surprising findings...
by Dan Slee
Ask people not connected with public relations what PR means and the chances are they'll think Alastair Campbell, Max Clifford or Malcolm Tucker.
Or they'll think of some sinister newspaper manipulating puppet master whose approach to the truth is sometimes called into question.
PR is a mix of journalism, psychology, it’s an ever-changing and always interesting landscape, says PR thinker Ronn Torossian. Maybe. But after eight years in the field I know the Malcolm Tucker image is not quite true. It's no more true than the image of the door-stepping journalist on Eastenders. Sometimes it is but the vast majority of the time it isn't.
But what do the profession think?
Is the phrase 'public relations' so loaded as to get in the way of the job we do?
So, we decided to run a quick 60 second poll of people of the comms professionals who follow our Twitter stream. It's unscientific. But there's enough there from the 49 who responded to flag this up for further critical analysis.
Here's what people said:
Q: So, one blogger on comms2point0 this week spoke of how he thought it important to remove 'public relations' from their job title. Do you agree?
Yes 69.4 per cent
No 30.6 per cent
Q: Can you describe what you think the phrase 'public relations' does for the industry?
It helps. It is something I'm proud of... 8.2 per cent
I'm happy to sit on the fence and be neutral... 22.4 per cent
It hinders. It has negative connotations... 69.4 per cent
Q: Which of these job titles has a future? You can tick as many as you like...
Press officer... 47.9 per cent
Public relations officer... 22.9 per cent
Marketing officer... 39.6 per cent
Media officer... 72.9 per cent
Account executive... 27.1 per cent
Content creator... 56.3 per cent
In addition, of the 49 respondants two suggested public engagement officer, four suggested communications officer, one reputation or relationship manager and one suggested that 'terms are not important, it's actions that matter.'
So what conclusions to draw from the findings? It's time to start thinking about job titles is one. It's also striking how a majority - 69.4 per cent - thought it important to take public relations out of the title and the same figure saying that it hinders and has negative connotations.
Certainly, if we were advising people about the name they were using for a brand or a campaign with figures like those we'd be asking people to think again and chose an alternative. Unless there was a major stack of cash to help fund the campaign that was needed to change those perceptions. So, should you be taking a long hard look at the phrase 'public relations' if it's in your job title or department name?
Certainly, the poll said that pr officer as a job title didn't have a future. Just over 20 per cent of people thought it did while 72.9 per cent thought media officer was a better description. Almost half - 47.9 per cent - said that press officer had a future. With the declining press industry and the increase in other channels that's maybe surprising.
But what this does raise is the importance of job titles and how people percieve you. Is it time you started to think about yours?
Dan Slee is co-founder of comms2point0.
Reader Comments (3)
I was going to do my own blog post about this but thought I'd better practice what I preach and go where the discussion is.
So, for me this is about context. Perhaps even semantics to some extent and maybe it's not concentrating on the real issue. Only a small part of what we do involves how we describe ourselves and depending on the situation we may choose to do that differently.
We have job descriptions, our roles have person specifications. For organisational and structural reasons our job titles may be fixed and we are stuck with the words. I'm a 'senior communications manager' on my official paperwork and I accordingly respect that by including it on my work email signature. However we are creative people and we know how to use them to our and others advantages.
What I call myself on my Linked in profile may be slightly different, it isn't by the way, but I could refine it with the odd word here and there.
But how I reference myself on my 'professional' individual Twitter profile and what I have on my ID badge are a different interpretation. I use the term comms guy (abbreviated!) and 'meaning maker' on Twitter. This perhaps describes what I do better than a senior communications manager and much better than a public relations manager. What public? What relations? and is it possible to 'manage' them? And many people who see my badge say 'what a wonderful sounding job", few say what do you?
Does my title really need to determine my seniority? Not in my view, but it might to some. I'm sure certain media would have a field day if they could run a story on councils employing storytellers and meaning makers. But we see stories about employing 'spin doctors'.
So what is my point? Well, I studied the CIPR Diploma and was in the CIPR for 3 years and party to many discussions on defining the profession and professionalising what we do as PRs. I never did understand why we are referred to as 'PRs'; Public Relations....what? I respect the 'in this together' thing but felt it was too inward looking and like this topic; it missed the point.
My point is that as long as people know what we do and how to contact us and then see and feel we have added value then how we describe what we do may change, and it doesn't really matter if it does. The profession is changing and we need to adapt to stay relevant.
Surely, it's about what we do and the difference we make rather than words. And that may sound daft when we are touted as wordsmiths. But that's my view.
Really interesting points, Phil.
On the point: "Surely, it's about what we do and the difference we make rather than words." Can people get past the phrase 'public relations?'
Or do they just see glorified spin doctor and nothing about what we actually do?
I agree with all of the above, with the added caveat that there isn't anything in there for internal comms. As so many of us are Jacks and Jills of all trades, it seems that 'media' officer doesn't quite cover what happens internally.