Confused and Misunderstood: It’s Time to Counter an Outdated PR Culture

The field of public relations (PR) has remained misunderstood, under-applied, and under-researched for decades. The concepts of PR, marketing, and communication were first introduced across sectors in the 60s and 70s. However, research suggests that a clear understanding of what constitutes effective PR in private sector companies and nonprofits has not truly been established, despite the operation of the function within organizations for years.

In the late 70s, Kotler (1979) disrupted the global PR industry with his paper in the Journal of Marketing, published when organizations confused the purpose of marketing, PR, and communication with advertising and sales. Kotler (1979) was one of the first to properly articulate that businesses were dealing with new marketplace problems, and needed to introduce PR and marketing approaches to remain competitive. However, he found the barrier to do so was that many organizations confused PR and marketing with advertising and selling sub-functions (Kotler, 1979). He concluded that “many groups within these organizations see marketing as a threat to their autonomy or power. Eventually, out of necessity, marketing ideas will filter into these organizations,” (Kotler, 1979). Still today, research shows that resistance to PR and confusion between these functions persists, and their application (while necessary) across many sectors remains low and ineffective (Shah & George, 2021).

Where is the confusion?

Often confused for the business function of marketing and underestimated for its effectiveness to help organizations attract revenue, achieve impact, and obtain competitive advantage across a market, PR remains a significantly undervalued strategic investment for organizations regionally and across sectors (Accenture, 2023; McKinsey, 2023; Shah & George, 2021; Gregory, 2021).

The global PR industry has changed drastically within the last five years – due in large part to unparalleled shifts in technology, digitalization globally (especially in methods of communication), and unprecedented worldwide experiences such as COVID-19. External transformations have also influenced the evolution of the definition of PR and the metrics used by organizations to determine strategy effectiveness (Pope et al., 2009). While it is clearly proven that the approach to communications strategies (marketing, PR, and external communications) across sectors is significantly different (Liu et al., 2010), a study of how the functions operate at the strategic level does not exist.

Along with the confusion caused by a lack of consensus on a standard definition of PR, there are also global inconsistencies regarding what constitutes “effective PR strategy” and the specific Key Success Factors (KSFs) that organizations should apply to secure competitive PR advantage across industries (O’Neil, 2009). Identifying a global standard of KSFs for effective PR strategy is becoming increasingly crucial for all types of organizations to grow and maintain competitiveness.

Is it possible to create a global standard for the industry?

I would argue that it is not only possible to create a global standard for PR – for the sake of the future of the industry, it is utterly necessary.

There’s an outdated narrative that PR is somehow intangible – it cannot be easily measured, results cannot be predicted, and progress is not easily understood (Doorley & Garcia, 2021; Gregory, 2021). Only four years ago, Johnston & Zawawi’s research (2020) confirmed that PR is still misunderstood industry-wide. A confused and outdated approach has almost reinforced a ‘smoke & mirrors’ spin for the function of PR itself. If the industry continues to practice PR with an outdated approach – where practitioners aren’t clear about what constitutes success in PR, how to set or achieve relevant KPIs, or are unable to explain to clients what PR and communications can deliver – then how do we expect the reputation and function of the industry to change globally?

So what’s the solution?

In order to create a counter-approach to the way PR has been managed, perceived, and practiced over the past decades, specific next steps are needed:

—More research: The available literature confirms that KSFs that set a clear standard for effective PR (across both private and nonprofit sectors) have not been researched or defined. Baker & Cameron (2008) stress the need for KSFs to be identified and incorporated into an organization’s strategic communication planning in order for institutions to compete in the future effectively. The IPR Measurement Commission consistently conducts research on these topics and is a great resource on public relations measurement and evaluation.
—More commentary: More conversations need to be had regarding improvements we can collectively make to the function of PR. These discussions can help ensure that the communication function stays relevant and remains a key pillar of corporate strategy for all types of organizations. Alignment on how public relations is defined, presented, and measured is crucial. To stay tuned on the latest insights on public relations measurement and more, subscribe to the IPR Research Letter.
—More boldness: The research confirms an outdated approach to PR has not been addressed – and much confusion around the function persists (PRSA, 2023; Johnston & Zawawai, 2020). The industry needs bold, relentless leaders who are unafraid to challenge PR norms in their geographies in order to pave new definitions, benchmarks, and outcomes for the industry.

The life cycles of businesses, industries, and management functions fluctuate, develop, and transform with time. The same needs to be said of PR. If the approach we started with has not improved or progressed over decades, we risk undermining the value of our industry, becoming outdated and losing effectiveness as a strategic function.

I, for one, am determined to not let that happen.