Comments on: The definition of traditional public relations is PR 2.0 http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html Public relations, corporate communications and social media Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:33:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stephen Waddington http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-2639 Stephen Waddington Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:51:24 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-2639 <p>Public relations 2.0 (if it even exists) is just another way of performing the required tasks that help ‘maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics’. These have continuously evolved and it’s only now with the advent of web 2.0 that PR professionals have a term that they think they can use. I will still be thinking and working towards the same goals that I have done since I started in this profession 15 years ago – there’s just more ways of doing so than before. </p> Public relations 2.0 (if it even exists) is just another way of performing the required tasks that help ‘maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics’. These have continuously evolved and it’s only now with the advent of web 2.0 that PR professionals have a term that they think they can use. I will still be thinking and working towards the same goals that I have done since I started in this profession 15 years ago – there’s just more ways of doing so than before.

]]> By: Stephen Waddington http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-1507 Stephen Waddington Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:44:44 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-1507 <p>Public relations 2.0 (if it even exists) is just another way of performing the required tasks that help ‘maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics’. These have continuously evolved and it’s only now with the advent of web 2.0 that PR professionals have a term that they think they can use. I will still be thinking and working towards the same goals that I have done since I started in this profession 15 years ago – there’s just more ways of doing so than before. </p> Public relations 2.0 (if it even exists) is just another way of performing the required tasks that help ‘maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics’. These have continuously evolved and it’s only now with the advent of web 2.0 that PR professionals have a term that they think they can use. I will still be thinking and working towards the same goals that I have done since I started in this profession 15 years ago – there’s just more ways of doing so than before.

]]> By: Amanda Chapel http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-1506 Amanda Chapel Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:46:59 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-1506 <p>"Public relations is the art and science of building relationships between an organization and its key publics.”</p> <p>That captures it. But, one needs to expand on the word “relationships.”</p> <p>Remember this scene in When Harry Met Sally:</p> <p>Sally: We are just going to be friends, OK?<br /> Harry: Great, friends. It's the best thing...You realize, of course, that we can never be friends.<br /> Sally: Why not?<br /> Harry: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape, or form - is that men and women can't be friends, because the sex part always gets in the way.<br /> Sally: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.<br /> Harry: No, you don't.<br /> Sally: Yes, I do.<br /> Harry: No, you don't.<br /> Sally: Yes, I do.<br /> Harry: You only think you do.<br /> Sally: You're saying I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?<br /> Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.</p> <p>BOTTOM LINE: There's no such thing as a platonic relationship in business. One party ALWAYS wants to schtup the other. Let’s be real.</p> <p>Regards,</p> <p>- Amanda Chapel</p> "Public relations is the art and science of building relationships between an organization and its key publics.”

That captures it. But, one needs to expand on the word “relationships.”

Remember this scene in When Harry Met Sally:

Sally: We are just going to be friends, OK?
Harry: Great, friends. It's the best thing…You realize, of course, that we can never be friends.
Sally: Why not?
Harry: What I'm saying is – and this is not a come-on in any way, shape, or form – is that men and women can't be friends, because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: You only think you do.
Sally: You're saying I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.

BOTTOM LINE: There's no such thing as a platonic relationship in business. One party ALWAYS wants to schtup the other. Let’s be real.

Regards,

- Amanda Chapel

]]> By: David Phillips http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-1505 David Phillips Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:16:51 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-1505 <p>I agree. A lot of the practice was about 40 years of press agentry bondage. It trapped sensible people on and the floors between reception and the C Suite (a big telesales operation that can easily be offered to India). It is a model that is no longer sustainable. It is not a model that we should even accept into the ranks of the practice.</p> <p>PR 1.0 is, as you say, Public Relations. The Internet opens new doors but, in practice, no new thinking about the fundamentals.</p> <p>A press release always was a simple statement. Some thought it was the end output. Now it is less than fifth of the output because the story is in web, social media and much more. Here are some hints for those soles who fall on your site and need to get it (Q ...what do you call an SMS media release? A ...news. Q ...How do you say 'give me a call'? A ... RSS Q ...What is a blog rant? A ... intelligence).</p> <p>But why even worry about media releases any more. Its not much of a conversation.</p> <p>I hope that we just jump over PR 2.0 and go straight to PR 3.0 where the puck is going - adding assets (not value or ROI) through effective relationship constructs.</p> <p>Thanks Bruce... Now I've got that off my chest I can go back to work.</p> I agree. A lot of the practice was about 40 years of press agentry bondage. It trapped sensible people on and the floors between reception and the C Suite (a big telesales operation that can easily be offered to India). It is a model that is no longer sustainable. It is not a model that we should even accept into the ranks of the practice.

PR 1.0 is, as you say, Public Relations. The Internet opens new doors but, in practice, no new thinking about the fundamentals.

A press release always was a simple statement. Some thought it was the end output. Now it is less than fifth of the output because the story is in web, social media and much more. Here are some hints for those soles who fall on your site and need to get it (Q …what do you call an SMS media release? A …news. Q …How do you say 'give me a call'? A … RSS Q …What is a blog rant? A … intelligence).

But why even worry about media releases any more. Its not much of a conversation.

I hope that we just jump over PR 2.0 and go straight to PR 3.0 where the puck is going – adding assets (not value or ROI) through effective relationship constructs.

Thanks Bruce… Now I've got that off my chest I can go back to work.

]]> By: Dennis Howlett http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-1504 Dennis Howlett Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:41:23 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-1504 <p>I thought PR 1.0 was about command and control of the message. PR 2.0 is about facilitating the message - isn't it?</p> I thought PR 1.0 was about command and control of the message. PR 2.0 is about facilitating the message – isn't it?

]]> By: Lauren Vargas http://stuartbruce.biz/2006/06/the_definition_.html/comment-page-1#comment-1503 Lauren Vargas Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:52:47 +0000 http://www.stuartbruce.eu/?p=624#comment-1503 <p>Curious to know the answer because I was actually posting almost the same message. Yesterday, as I was reviewing the text suggested for APR study, I could not get over the archaic definitions. </p> <p>As for PR 1.0 and 2.0, I am a strong believer there are no such groupings. Segmentation is made by level of understanding. Bottom line is we must go back to basics to understand our mission.</p> Curious to know the answer because I was actually posting almost the same message. Yesterday, as I was reviewing the text suggested for APR study, I could not get over the archaic definitions.

As for PR 1.0 and 2.0, I am a strong believer there are no such groupings. Segmentation is made by level of understanding. Bottom line is we must go back to basics to understand our mission.

]]>