It doesn’t seem to be as bad now as it was a few years back – barring the obviously deeply in-bred PR fields of pharma and finance (no offence, guys) - but it’s still frustating.

PR is not self-supporting. Try taking away the essential organizational need to to “market” itself in some way and what’s public relations about? As grand or seemingly important a thing as PR may be from profession practitioners’ perspective, it is not a free-standing activity. It exists to support an enterprise or activity of some kind in need of communications outreach for awareness, credibility and relationship-building. Similarly, where would medical practice be without patients? A personal or organizational objective precedes and directs the need for PR action. That objective is a marketing one.

Suggest that some objections to my perspective grow out of many PR pros’ past frustrations working with whatever passed for marketing management in their employer or client organizations. This friction can perhaps lead PR pros to wanting to distance themselves from marketing, especially when marketing has act in ways that are strategically counterproductive to the long-term benefit of the organization or its customers or community. PR can be the organizational conscience when marketing is short-sighted. PR has often been the organization’s eyes and ears since part of its job is community and market engagement. However, this is also an area of responsibility for effective marketing and one of the excellent areas for marketing and PR cooperation. It also points one of the key connections between the two disciplines.

Please look at the broader concept that PR serves and supports some kind of a “marketing” function whether its selling “stuff,” or promoting/communicating ideas, political or social change for a cause. This is true for a sponsoring organization or client whether there’s someone in charge with a specific marketing title or not. My book attempts to illuminate how the working relationship between the organization’s governing or managing (marketing) entity and those managing PR can be an effective partnership. However, PR needs a partner that is “marketing” something.

I tend to agree with everything you have articulated. Yes, I agree that the ‘bottom line’ (e.g. money) really tells us is our ethics where our mouth is. But as you intimate, easier said than done.

Do you quit because you’re ethically uncomfortable, putting at risk your family’s well-being? Well, yes, I’d like to think you do, but maybe it’s not black and white. Best off doing thorough due diligence on your employer before you take up the opportunity. in most cases, you’ll get the right heads up I should think.

Perhaps, though, the true test of ethics is that point you make towards the end: “if you are asked to work in a field you are not ethically comfortable with, then you really need to get out of there ASAP, financial considerations notwithstanding”. Surely ethics demand that you get out of there despite the financial considerations? And perhaps that’s the ultimate test of ethical behaviour in a public relations context: that it’s judged by the majority as being the right thing to have done or said despite the money? Difficult to pull off, of course, but I suppose that’s the point as well. And this position also brings to a head the concept of two opposing opinions: which one prevails, which one is right, where does the opportunity of fair debate fit, should the opinion of the majority, perhaps always shouted the loudest, always prevail and is it always right, and so on.Interesting stuff! But if our job is to shine a light on debate, and on a more complete understanding of a product or a position or a service or an opinion, and do so in the context of “doing the right thing by society as a whole”, perhaps we can live with that role comfortably.