In speeches, articles and interviews over the past 20 years or so, I have bemoaned the use of "communications" as a replacement for public relations. While communications plays an important role in what we public relations professionals do, it is only one aspect of our job. Equally, if not more important, we have an overall responsibility for advising on policies and actions that reconcile the objectives of our clients and employers with the public interest. No one put it better than Edward L. Bernays when he wrote "we interpret the corporation to the public and we interpret the public to the corporation."
As I have related on numerous occasions, "communications" began to replace "public relations" in 1975 - a fall out of Watergate and the circumstances that caused Richard Nixon to resign as President. Throughout the Watergate tapes, which recorded all Oval Office conversations, public relations was spoken of perjoratively. When stumped with a situation President Nixon and his aides found difficult to explain, the President ended the discussion with something like "we'll have to let the PR guys handle that one" or "let's PR it." Public relations and PR took on a malodorous connotation.
Corporate public relations officers reacted by changing their titles - from "Vice President - Public Relations" to "Vice President - Communications." One need only compare pre-1974 listings of public relations officers with post-1975 listings. The earlier lists were preponderantly "Public Relations"; the later lists predominantly "Communications."
To be sure, many corporate CEO's welcomed the change. In those days (even as today), not all CEO's understood the full scope of public relations. Many failed to recognize that public relations has two components: the first, advice and counsel on how specific audiences could be expected to react to corporate policy or action; the second, communicating to the public (today we call it "transparency"). To them, "communications" was tangible; "public relations" was abstract.
One of my principal concerns about substituting "communications" for "public relations" is its potential to diminish our role in the corporate hierarchy. Although many CEOs and other senior executives recognize the full scope of the public relations function and its influence on corporate reputation, some still believe the only function of the Chief Communications Officer is media relations (admittedly. a not unimportant role!). My expectation (and fear) is that they will turn to others in the executive hierarchy for public relations advice and counsel - the strategic input that helps shape policy and the communications message. Already, we find Big Four auditing firms and management consultants offering specialist advice on corporate reputation, social responsibility and customer service.
This comes at a time when wise and experienced public relations advice and counsel has never been so needed by large corporations. Public attitudes toward corporations are at a low level, while corporate reputation has become a critical differentiator to customers, investors, employees and other significant stakeholders.