Blog Post #4

“Public Relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” This is the current definition of public relations according to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). According to this article, the PRSA are launching a campaign to find the best new definition for public relations in the new digital communications world. There are many reasons why this definition is problematic, and I think The New York Times article really hit it on the head. It’s just too vague. It’s not thorough enough and the definition just doesn’t hit the target of modern day public relations.

I really had to think long and hard about coming up with a new definition for public relations. Public Relations is the way in which information is handled and portrayed to the public by either utilizing digital or non-digital communications. I think this definition of public relations is better and more defined then the original because it modernizes public relations and actually defines how public relations is used in digital and non-digital mediums.

While considering my definition of public relations, I did consider actually using the word ethical. I decided against it for one very important reason. Public relations, amongst all other professions, should all be assumed to follow a certain Code of Ethics. The world is built on ethics and values in which people live their everyday life. There should be no difference when it comes to professions.

I especially found the ethical violation about the Marie Callender’s products being disguised as food cooked by a chef in a gourmet restaurant. Basically they were trying to catch unsuspecting food bloggers eating their Marie Callender’s food and liking it, by disguising it as gourmet food just cooked by a renowned chef. This was done obviously as a public relations strategy to use the surprised reactions by the food bloggers that it was frozen food. Instead, it backfired and the food bloggers were upset. One blogger had a food coloring allergy, which food coloring was found in the frozen food, and another blogger was on a strict diet and the frozen food was loaded with sodium. There’s a few reasons this was unethical. First off, the bloggers privacy was being breached, as they were being videotaped unknowingly. This violates privacy rights without a doubt, and even though the intent was not malicious in any way, and only a public relations move on Marie Callender’s part, it is still a violation. It also violates justice. Being misled and lied to is probably the biggest issue these bloggers have. They probably feel like they have had their personal rights violated. Marie Callender’s didn’t put into perspective that many people have many different diet concerns. That’s where the violation of personal rights comes in. I’m sure that at the end they all felt like guinea pigs in a weird corporation experiment. All in all, the hidden camera footage ended up not being used for Marie Callender’s commercials. It was definitely a bad public relations strategy.

I think by monitoring various public relations practices is a good idea. I think in this way, public relation strategies would become more ethical, if say, there was a fine involved. Isn’t that why we have speeding tickets after all? I think it’s a great idea for top public relations executives who mostly call the shot, be licensed. This way, we can hold a certain standard to those who make ethical and unethical decisions.