In January, we told you all about the search for a new definition of PR.

On Friday the results were announced by the PRSA and covered in the New York Times.

So here it is:

Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.

The last definition was written in 1982.

Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.

So at least this is an improvement. But is is good enough?

OK - so they managed to get a definition that is just under 140 characters...

My problem is with the last word - publics.  I will admit that adding an apostrophe would considerably change this definition, so just to be sure I looked up what defines 'publics'.

According to Wikipedia, this is, "Publics are small groups of people who follow one or more particular issue very closely. They are well informed about the issue(s) and also have a very strong opinion on it/them. They tend to know more about politics than the average person, and, therefore, exert more influence, because these people care so deeply about their cause(s) that they donate much time and money."

Most dictionaries don't think this word exists except as the plural of pub.lic (Noun).

I think what the PRSA is hoping, is that the wider definition as on is applied: "Communities of people at large (whether or not organized as groups) that have a direct or indirect association with an organization: customers, employees, investors, media, students, etc"

Anyway, PR now has somewhere to hang its hat. What do you think?