Why I hate PR 2.0...
No, I don't hate social media. I just don't like how the practice is being labeled by some as PR 2.0 (I don't like a lot of labels, as anyone who has had the misfortune to listen to me rant about the 'Red State' label knows all too well).
Why don't I like the term PR 2.0? I believe it does a disservice to all those who have come before us, giants such as Ivy Lee and Arthur Page etc., by lumping them in one category of PR 1.0. I believe it ignores game changing events such as the news release, press conference, newswire, Internet, etc.,
But I am a tech PR guy at heart. I first cut my teeth on enterprise software, and remember the arguments over 14.2.5 or renaming the product so it could be 1.0.
So let's have a little fun and collaboratively come up with what dot rev we are really on.
My list is by NO means complete. I am sure it will change and change dramatically, but lets start off with this for now. (And yes, it is very U.S. centric)
PR Alpha - 1800 B.C. - the pamphlets cited in almost all PR textbooks I have ever read to help educate about the best ways to plant grain and deal with field mice
PR Beta 1.0 - 1622 - Catholic Church founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide
PR Beta 2.0 - 1788 - The Federalist Papers
PR Beta 3.0 -- Amos Kendall, a member of Andrew Jackson's kitchen cabinet, served as the first U.S. presidential press secretary.
PR 1.0 - 1850 - The birth of press agentry (yes, its bad now, but so are most 1.0 products *except those by companies that I represent of course). Widespread.
PR 2.0 - 1889 - The first reporters come to the dark side and begin press agentry at Westinghouse. Significant change.
PR 3.0 - 1897 - The American Association of Railroads first uses the term Public Relations (I toyed with having this be 1.0, but it wasn't dramatic enough, and introducing the term deserves more than a .5)
PR 4.0 - 1900 - The first PR Agency (Publicity Bureau) is founded in Boston. Introduction of the agency model.
PR 4.5 - 1906 - Ivy Ledbetter Lee introduces the "Declaration of Principles" (It's very significant but internal and process/standards oriented so it gets a .5)
PR 5.0 - 1906 - The first news release is issued. And they are still being issued today. From one-to-one to one-to-many
PR 5.1 - 1923 - Edward Bernays coins the term PR Counsel
PR 6.0 - 1927 - Arthur Page hired by AT&T as first corporate VP of public relations. This only intensifies the debate that still ranges today about getting a seat at the table. Elevation of the recognition of the importance of PR.
PR 7.0 - 1947 - PRSA is formed - Founding of a professional organization/standards body is important.
PR 8.0 - ? - The first commercial newswire begins operation, creating what will later be called the first spam - one-to-many exponentially
PR 9.0 - 1995 - Companies really start to use the Internet and Web in public relations. (Yes, I realize some happened well before that, I was on GEnie and had an MCImail account).
PR 10.0 - 2006 - Social Media and public relations takes off
So. What key compelling events am I missing? I want to add radio and TV into the mix, but am debating where to put them.
Why don't I like the term PR 2.0? I believe it does a disservice to all those who have come before us, giants such as Ivy Lee and Arthur Page etc., by lumping them in one category of PR 1.0. I believe it ignores game changing events such as the news release, press conference, newswire, Internet, etc.,
But I am a tech PR guy at heart. I first cut my teeth on enterprise software, and remember the arguments over 14.2.5 or renaming the product so it could be 1.0.
So let's have a little fun and collaboratively come up with what dot rev we are really on.
My list is by NO means complete. I am sure it will change and change dramatically, but lets start off with this for now. (And yes, it is very U.S. centric)
PR Alpha - 1800 B.C. - the pamphlets cited in almost all PR textbooks I have ever read to help educate about the best ways to plant grain and deal with field mice
PR Beta 1.0 - 1622 - Catholic Church founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide
PR Beta 2.0 - 1788 - The Federalist Papers
PR Beta 3.0 -- Amos Kendall, a member of Andrew Jackson's kitchen cabinet, served as the first U.S. presidential press secretary.
PR 1.0 - 1850 - The birth of press agentry (yes, its bad now, but so are most 1.0 products *except those by companies that I represent of course). Widespread.
PR 2.0 - 1889 - The first reporters come to the dark side and begin press agentry at Westinghouse. Significant change.
PR 3.0 - 1897 - The American Association of Railroads first uses the term Public Relations (I toyed with having this be 1.0, but it wasn't dramatic enough, and introducing the term deserves more than a .5)
PR 4.0 - 1900 - The first PR Agency (Publicity Bureau) is founded in Boston. Introduction of the agency model.
PR 4.5 - 1906 - Ivy Ledbetter Lee introduces the "Declaration of Principles" (It's very significant but internal and process/standards oriented so it gets a .5)
PR 5.0 - 1906 - The first news release is issued. And they are still being issued today. From one-to-one to one-to-many
PR 5.1 - 1923 - Edward Bernays coins the term PR Counsel
PR 6.0 - 1927 - Arthur Page hired by AT&T as first corporate VP of public relations. This only intensifies the debate that still ranges today about getting a seat at the table. Elevation of the recognition of the importance of PR.
PR 7.0 - 1947 - PRSA is formed - Founding of a professional organization/standards body is important.
PR 8.0 - ? - The first commercial newswire begins operation, creating what will later be called the first spam - one-to-many exponentially
PR 9.0 - 1995 - Companies really start to use the Internet and Web in public relations. (Yes, I realize some happened well before that, I was on GEnie and had an MCImail account).
PR 10.0 - 2006 - Social Media and public relations takes off
So. What key compelling events am I missing? I want to add radio and TV into the mix, but am debating where to put them.
Labels: PR 2.0
posted by Mark W. McClennan, APR @ 2:50 PM
5 Comments:
At 2:22 PM,
Chuck Tanowitz said…
Everything you mentioned up until "PR 10.0" is about a single voice speaking to many. Sure, there are many developments, but all are variations on a theme. A single person or group communicating a message to a broader audience.
The main difference in what is termed PR 2.0 is that instead of broadcasting to the masses, you have to speak among the crowd and then listen to their reactions.
Imagine if the Federalist Papers were released today. Each essay would have a bunch of comments from the "masses." Who knows what the end-product would have been like with that kind of input.
At 2:40 PM,
Mark W. McClennan, APR said…
Interesting point, Chuck, but I disagree.
While you are right in the one-to-one and one-to-many, point - many elements of essential and effective PR have been many-to-many. It has just not been as easy to do as it is now (which is why Social Media gets its own dot rev).
Anyone who thinks a company engaging in securing approval for a cement plant is not engaging in one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many communications is not giving the PR firms credit. But today, the manies have easier outlets and are more powerful.
Even press agentry engendered a number of many-to many discussions.
(Or to go back to my college days, multi-party two-way symmetrical communication).
At 3:23 PM,
Chip Griffin said…
It is not so much that PR has changed over time, but that the tools and media involved have changed. That changes strategies and tactics, not the fundamentals of the profession.
I, too, am not fond of the PR 2.0 designation. I think what people really mean to say is more along the lines of "PR in a Web 2.0 world." Honestly, I'm not even that fond of Web 2.0 as a term of its own, but this variation at least captures reality better.
At 8:22 AM,
Mark W. McClennan, apr said…
Thanks for the comment, Chip. It was good meeting one of your colleagues at the event last night.
You make a good point as well. The analogy I am using right now is that it is like the introduction of the forward pass in football.
The fundamental game stayed the same, but there were some pretty dramatic changes.
At 6:05 PM,
Vic Beck said…
The concept that social media is PR 2.0 is ridiculous and downright absurd. Public Relations is not about the medium or communication channel(s) we use to achieve a desired goal. PR is about using the power of communication to achieve a desired outcome – there isn’t a PR 2.0.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home