The other day I was driving to work and had the radio on. A person had just won a contest and was asked what she did for a living. She said she worked in “Communications” and the radio hosts questioned her on “what that meant exactly”.

I don’t think trying to define ourselves is about immaturity or lack of confidence, but the opposite. I think we are finally beginning to gain confidence in our ability to make a difference and are maturing as a profession. It’s also about realizing that like the ‘cobblers children’ we’ve done our own profession a disservice by allowing it to be misunderstood or not understood.

The discussions going on through this advocacy forum and IABC are important and have the potential to define the future of our profession in order for it to be better understood and seen as integral to any organization’s success.

Public Relations has a repution of ’spin’ - and is not results oriented. I like where Rodrigo was going with Social Communications and Kristen’s comments on Organizational Communications…but again, they weren’t as results-oriented as I would like. Business and Corporate communications can be seen as too limiting, but I’ve prefered these to PR. The term that comes to mind for me is Strategic Communications.

Look forward to continuing the discussion.

The comment about “everyone thinks they are in communication” is right - and it’s true, they are, and many of them are excellent at it, in fact more professional than some communicators (PR, business,marketing etc) I’ve come across. What sets us apart from these communicators is that we are paid to coach, advise and support organisations at a professional level. So our responsibility is leadership to the highest standard of communication.

I’m truly tired of this old chestnut about what we call ourselves - it’s a sign of immaturity and lack of confidence in ourselves, and it’s an ego trip for those who want to be at the top of the communication tree. We can be business communicators, or PR people or marketing communicators because those are the services our customers need from us. But the critical thing is to grasp the opportunity for leadership in communication within organisations.

As in all other service industries, on our own we are nothing because we don’t produce anything - we exist because others do. Our role is to give them something no-one else can give them quite so well, and that makes what they produce more valuable for those who are going to buy the product. If we can’t do that, we are nothing no matter what we call ourselves.

I think IABC’s name (and definition of business communications) is a historical throwback to its origins as an association of corporate editors. We’ve come a long way since then. Organization comms is a better description of the wide range of disciplines and organizations we cover. And it translates better into other languages.

When I talk about IABC and define it and organizational communications, I talk about including all the areas of communications necessary to help organizations meet their objectives.

If we go back to metaphors, organizational comms is a boat. In a small entity, it may be a rowboat, with one person. In a slightly larger organization, different disciplines might be represented by several rowers. In a major corporation, it might look more like a galley. In all cases, you need to set a course and row with strength. But if there are more than one of you, you’d better be rowing in the same direction and in the same rhythm, otherwise you might end up on the rocks!

I just took a course in São Paulo given by Syracuse University and when they talked about Public Relations it always seemed to me they were talking about Corporate Communications.

I hope I´m not “losing the point in translation”. But I just felt like contributing with our South American experience. The field here is big too. But we don´t have the culture to think of ourselves dissociated from our fellows that work in the media or agencies - we use the same undergraduate knowledge and are able to add graduate and specialized studies in the business and corporate field.

Let me try answering Jana Schilder without the pretension to end the subject (since this is not possible)

1. Does “public relations” encompass internal and/or corporate communications?

It has to, since you have to make things public and understandable and we cannot separate the internal from the external anymore.

2. Does “business communications” or “corporate communications” encompass public relations?

It has to. By using the knowledge and tools of public relations and other fields such as journalism, publicity, media studies, psychology, business communications is achievable.

Public relations is based on the concept of relationships with stakeholders, and a company has internal and external stakeholders. If one were to consider business communication, then one may see it as more limited in scope than public relations. Consider the content of a business communication book to a public relations book. However, as many practitioners can attest to, sometimes their title does not necessarily reflect the entirety of their job scope.

It’s amazing how the discourse about what to call ourselves or how to segment communication responsibilities still abound. Often, a communicator finds him or herself performing traditionally business communication tasks such as presentations and public speaking, public relations activities such as consultations, and marketing efforts such as promotions. At the end of the day, regardless of titles, we are in the business of communications.

One of the biggest problems we face as a profession is that we are surrounded by lay people who think they know as much about what we do as we do.

Many of these people are our clients and bosses. The more we can summon that demonstrates our tangible value and (relatively) unique expertise to these “experts”, the easier our lives will become.

I think everybody thinks they can do it.

I’m happy to say that we re-advertised the position, noting that membership in a professional organization would be of benefit, and we now have an excellent candidate.

While we consider our own profession, let’s find ways to define our work to others so that they understand what makes our profession unique.

Some would argue for a common approach, the “one Ark” spoken of by Ron Iseri, or perhaps a “one size fits all (OSFA)” approach all too common within the industry.

It is true that there are some common denominators within the “business communications” industry. Many such common denominators align with the classic and academic definition of “public relations”.

But the value that is added by practioners does not derive from those generic commonalities–but from the depth and specialization we bring to the table–as internal communicators, as marcomms experts, as opinion researchers, as directors of corporate communication, as lobbyists, as graphic artists and as producers of printing, video and other forms of “collateral”.

Some of these specialties are well-formed industries, and IABC could make major headway in empowering its members to become players in that industry–and supporting them with lists and resources.

Others, like internal communication in the US, are areas where a large share of leading practitioners are IABC members, but where a distinct and open communication structure has yet to emerge. IABC could lead the way in helping this key industry reach the next stage of its development–again by providing lists and access to organizational resources.

In my view we do not need one big ark. We need a flotilla–agile, potent, closely connected and ready to support all who wish to take IABC into new and exciting waters.