PR Campaigns – The blog

February 15, 2009

Social media and its effect on PR

Filed under: Mission Public Relations,Uncategorized — sekane @ 8:44 pm
Tags: , , ,

While different versions of social media are being born daily, what we do as PR people still remains the same.  As many of us noted in our, “What is public relations?” discussion on the first day of this semester, PR is managing relationships through strategic communication.

In Bill Sledzik’s post about how social media is not changing the DNA of public relations “one bit”, he describes what we do in PR as, “We build and maintain relationships through 2-way communication.”  We can see that whether you’re a senior in your last PR class or a public relations professor, we seem to agree on what PR is and should be.

We often hear that the growth of social media is changing everything.  In Sledzik’s post, however, he talks about a presentation given by Peter Shankman at a PRSA conference last week in Cleveland.  In this presentation, Shankman agreed with our definition of PR and explained why the booming social media should not change that at all.

Utilizing social media can help us reach the online population, but we are still using the same principles we’ve learned since our first ever PR class.  Some of these principles include: be honest with our publics, present relative information, keep it breif and catchy, and gain and retain positive awareness.  These are all things PR people have agreed are important to the business, also all things that are unchanging whether online or off. 

“Introduce all the social media applications you like, but the practice of PR as defined over the past 30-or-so years will change little, if at all. The goal is to build relationships, and the tool is meaningful 2-way communication.”  Just because the means of communication may be different, it doesn’t mean the building blocks of our profession have to change.


October 23, 2008

Come to the dark side

Filed under: The Agency — agilliam @ 7:52 pm
Tags: , , ,

With many of us in this class graduating within the year, I’m guessing that a great many hours have been spent pondering what we will do with our lives after school. I think one of the first things we set out to decide is if we will work for an agency or in-house for an organization. It has proven a difficult task to get unbiased answers from public relations professionals on this topic, however, PRSA has an interesting blog up, which does not delve too deeply into the issue, but does give a nice overview of the two options.

Although my experience has been through relatively short internships, I have worked in both agency and in-house settings. The two are vastly different environments, and I think that most people immediately know which one they fit into better.

Setting personal preference aside then, is there a difference in the quality of product put out by public relations agencies and in-house public relations people? There are some great arguments on a PR-Squared blog for the benefits of agencies and among them are their large resources and media contacts. Those who work in-house make their case as well, one blog I found put it plainly, with the general point being that they are able to be on the pulse of activity in the organization.

Are these two sectors different but equal, or is there one that is superior? I feel that mainstream thought is that agencies are better, because they are more glamorous, but what real evidence is there? I feel that I have been continuously leaning toward the side of in-house work, based on it’s unmatched ability to know the organization’s needs, its people, and its structure. In my experience an agency must spend hours and hours to get a relatively shallow understanding of an organization every time they get a new client. Which side will you choose?

Create a free website or blog at