While a classic definition of “PR” indeed addresses any intentional form of communication between an entity and it’s “publics”, with “publics” effectively substituting for “audiences”, “stakeholders”, or “constituencies” (my preferred term in polite company), let’s be clear about one thing. The prevailing paradigm in PR at the moment is still focused on external communication, most senior PR practioners/communications directors are external communications people, and the application of external communication approaches and strategies onto internal “publics”, “constituencies” or “employees” often misfires because the rules of the game are fundamentally different.

Have a look at how I define Internal Comms on my new blog, CommsOffensive325, and I’d be happy to swap a link on my blog roll for one of yours.

Mike Klein
CommsOffensive325
Washington, DC

Mike: This is an excellent metaphor and I appreciate you taking time to share it. However, where the analogy breaks down for me is in the definition of public relations and communications. As I described it above, PR = communication with organizational publics. To extend your metaphor, as I see it, Rugby is internal communication and gridiron is something else, like media relations. PR is “football.” I totally agree with what you’re saying, but we start at different places. You haven’t made clear to me how PR is actually different than communications. PR is the function of communicating with any public with an interest in an organization…employees included. Nobody just does “PR,” it’s always some subset of it, media relations, publicity, internal communications, investor relations, etc.

The rugby-gridiron comparison can be taken a step further. While both games seek to move a ball over a goal line, rugby prevents a team from throwing the ball forward. Gridiron, on the other hand, is built around the forward pass. The “forward pass” in communications is the ability to communicate externally. While some PR folks communicate externally, internal communicators almost never do.

The different rules of our respective games give us different orientations,approaches, and measures of success. And occasionally, an effective PR person can be an effective internal communicator, just as a fair gridiron player named Dan Lyle became one of the best rugby players in the history of English rugby.

But the games are fundamentally different, even if the ball and field look kind of the same.

MIKE KLEIN
mklein818@yahoo.com

In my undergrad PR courses, internal comm was often taught as a particular unit separate from the more glamorous topics such as media relations. Perhaps that segregation, from a curriculum standpoint, is why some believe it to be a separate practice altogether.

I’m with you though: “two-way symmetrical communication between an organization and its publics” seems to include the employees of the organization to me.

But why a person with a background in PR would believe that internal communications is something separate all together….I do not know.

Perhaps he “fuddle duddled” his words….? Although, based on that one quote it doesnt seem that way.