Great work, Jani and Maria!
It would be logical to continue with PR in Sweden. But unfortunately, my massive audience, I’m not going to do that.
I would like to talk a little bit about the concept of PR in Scandinavia. In this article “On the definition of public relations: a European view” Verčič, van Ruler, Bütchi and Flodin studied the differences of the term PR between U.S and Europe. They found out that, for most of the countries, it has been difficult to translate the term PR to their own language. The English term PR is about both relations and communications.
However, in most cases, the new translated term means something quite different than the original. Verčič & all. also claim that “there was a strong reaction in many countries against the use of the American expression which together with a recognition of the inadequacy of its translation caused several European public relations associations to rename themselves in their languages into some kind of “communication” associations (although they still define themselves as public relations associations in English). This has, so far, happened in Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.”
Finnish and Swedish Wikipedias define PR like this (yeah, yeah, ultimately academic source, I know):
Finnish: Tiedotus- ja suhdetoiminta (PR, public relations) = Something like “Activity concerning communication and relationships”, which is quite complicated term and nobody (?) really uses it.
Swedish: Public relations, "omvärldsrelationer" = Something like “Relations with the world outside”. But what about the communication?
So, there are two differences of the European approach to public relations as compared to the U.S and one is the lack of a conceptual dualism between communication and relationships and the other can be seen in various strategies adopted as a solution to the problem of a translation of the U.S. term “public relations.”
An other difference was found when the research group studied the roles of European public relations. They found four:
1. Managerial: to develop strategies to maintain relations with public groups in order to gain public trust and/or mutual understanding.
2. Operational: to prepare a means of communication for the organization in order to help the organization formulate its communications.
3. Reflective: to analyze changing standards and values in society and discuss these with the members of the organization, in order to adjust the standards and values of the organization regarding social responsibility and legitimacy.
4. Educational: to help all the members of the organization to become communicatively competent, in order to respond to social demands. This role is concerned with the mentality and behavior of the members of the organization and is aimed at internal public groups.
According to Verčič & all. these two latter roles in some countries, in particularly in Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, “are becoming the core of advanced public relations capability.”
So what’s the point here in my post? I think there’s none.
Instead of giving you the point, I’ll give you a nice link considering Swedish PR.
PR of Sweden
- Jaana
P.S In the last lecture Kaja told us how PR processes have developed differently in U.S because, in Europe there has been quite a lot of conflicts, that have retarded the evolving of European PR. I presume quite the same disposition is with Finland and Sweden. Because of wars (and the wars lead us to the fact that some do not consider Finland as a part of Scandinavia...), the history of Finnish PR must differ from those in Sweden. I would like to know how they are different. Maybe it would be good to figure out first, what Scandinavian countries have in common and then focus on how they differ...?
It would be logical to continue with PR in Sweden. But unfortunately, my massive audience, I’m not going to do that.
I would like to talk a little bit about the concept of PR in Scandinavia. In this article “On the definition of public relations: a European view” Verčič, van Ruler, Bütchi and Flodin studied the differences of the term PR between U.S and Europe. They found out that, for most of the countries, it has been difficult to translate the term PR to their own language. The English term PR is about both relations and communications.
However, in most cases, the new translated term means something quite different than the original. Verčič & all. also claim that “there was a strong reaction in many countries against the use of the American expression which together with a recognition of the inadequacy of its translation caused several European public relations associations to rename themselves in their languages into some kind of “communication” associations (although they still define themselves as public relations associations in English). This has, so far, happened in Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.”
Finnish and Swedish Wikipedias define PR like this (yeah, yeah, ultimately academic source, I know):
Finnish: Tiedotus- ja suhdetoiminta (PR, public relations) = Something like “Activity concerning communication and relationships”, which is quite complicated term and nobody (?) really uses it.
Swedish: Public relations, "omvärldsrelationer" = Something like “Relations with the world outside”. But what about the communication?
So, there are two differences of the European approach to public relations as compared to the U.S and one is the lack of a conceptual dualism between communication and relationships and the other can be seen in various strategies adopted as a solution to the problem of a translation of the U.S. term “public relations.”
An other difference was found when the research group studied the roles of European public relations. They found four:
1. Managerial: to develop strategies to maintain relations with public groups in order to gain public trust and/or mutual understanding.
2. Operational: to prepare a means of communication for the organization in order to help the organization formulate its communications.
3. Reflective: to analyze changing standards and values in society and discuss these with the members of the organization, in order to adjust the standards and values of the organization regarding social responsibility and legitimacy.
4. Educational: to help all the members of the organization to become communicatively competent, in order to respond to social demands. This role is concerned with the mentality and behavior of the members of the organization and is aimed at internal public groups.
According to Verčič & all. these two latter roles in some countries, in particularly in Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, “are becoming the core of advanced public relations capability.”
So what’s the point here in my post? I think there’s none.
Instead of giving you the point, I’ll give you a nice link considering Swedish PR.
PR of Sweden
- Jaana
P.S In the last lecture Kaja told us how PR processes have developed differently in U.S because, in Europe there has been quite a lot of conflicts, that have retarded the evolving of European PR. I presume quite the same disposition is with Finland and Sweden. Because of wars (and the wars lead us to the fact that some do not consider Finland as a part of Scandinavia...), the history of Finnish PR must differ from those in Sweden. I would like to know how they are different. Maybe it would be good to figure out first, what Scandinavian countries have in common and then focus on how they differ...?
Thank you for giving some overall picture from Scandinavia! Later on, I'd like to see you make a comparison about the Scandinavian countries: in what ways they differ from each other, what unique qualities they have.
ReplyDeleteYou could try to look for some up-to-date information about Finnish PR from the web pages of Procom ( http://www.procom.fi/ajankohtaista/?x19044=100499 ). For example, they have made a new survey about communication professional. Other countries should also have such associations.
In the Procom's magazine Maine there was a story about the differences between Finnish and Swedish PR, I believe it came out this summer or something, I could look for it, if I can find it. I recall it had an information, that Sweden would have about 5 000 PR officers, as Finland would have something like 500. We have different communication cultures. :D
wow, you are well informed about PR in Scandinavia. Thank you for your help! we are going to consider your suggestions!
ReplyDeleteMaria
Interesting knowledge, Jaana. Your group has a nice blog. Great work so far.
ReplyDeleteYah, very well work here indeed!
ReplyDeleteI'm studying Swedish as my major and I googleded the term "omvärldsrelationer" (advanced search, language and country Swedish and Sweden). Got 5300 hits, and with the term "public relations" i got 62 000. So yeah, wonder which term is used more often. :)
Akviliina, group 6