Persuasion vs Partnership

There is a debate going on right now within the field of communication. It pertains to the bottom-line purpose of public relations. Is it to persuade or is it to build and maintain relationships? Is it the primary function of public relations practitioners to devise strategies that help motivate various publics to take certain action, support a particular position, or mobilize in some way? Or, rather, should these same professionals devote their skills and energies toward establishing bonds of connection between publics in order that they might confront challenges and problems of mutual concern?

Everywhere around us we see examples of public relations strategies being devised and implemented designed to talk various publics into taking a stance on something that they had done before. How many people voted for President Obama, for instance, who did so as a result of an effective public relations strategy?Or how many people have gone to see "Slumdog Millionaire" because of an effective advertising or marketing campaign? On the other hand, how is communication helping keep together those people who share the same views on climate change? While these people did not necessarily need a public relations campaign to formulate an opinion on this issue, it is easy to see how public relations is certainly helping them remain mobilized

The phenomenon of persuasion is an intrinsic part of public relations. By its very nature, public relations is a method designed to wield influence. If successful, then the effort to influence has worked. To use those who believe in climate change, they may not necessarily need be convinced to come together. But staying together and doing what is necessary to remain unified can be made easier by public relations or communication. The focus of the persuasion strategy might be more pronounced in one strategy over the other, but it exists in all communication strategies regardless of their ultimate purpose.