I thought that PR 2.0 was enough of a lingo to use, but PR 3.0! Come on people, this is public relations: A profession, not a computer software. I still can understand Web 2.0, even that is an abuse as Media Orchard puts it when he says,
“The evolution of the usage of ‘mashup’ is a classic example of how marketing and MBA types slip onto the technology bandwagon; typically, they do this whenever the bandwagon begins to resemble a gravy train.”
Tomorrow I will start hearing “Medicine 2.0”, or even better yet “Law 3.0.” Let me ask you, when the internet was introduced to the world and new law came in force for the Internet, did they start calling it Law 2.0?
Brain Soils recently was debating that PR Week is wrong in saying that PR enters the age of 3.0, which doesn’t make sense as you are talking about a profession not a software product (keeping in mind the Lingo aspect).
Let me remind you guys and PR Week that these version lingos are for the IT Industry, to upgrade their software, not for professions to start using the same, especially by an editorial like PR Week. Tomorrow when anything which new happens to the industry, another person might call it PR 4.0.
I find it utterly ridiculous to use any version lingo for a profession which is growing because of new means of technology and evolution. Every time evolution happens in this world, lets start putting points next to everything … How about Human Being 2.0? and by the time I have children, they would be called Human Beings 4.0 or 5.0.
I could still tolerate PR 2.0, but the recent PR Weeks article about PR 3.0 clearly shows what I am trying to say. If this keeps up in another twenty years we will be at PR 9.0 or could be PR 99.0.
The PR Educational Ramp (Indian & Global PR) 
Yep — it’s silly stuff. I think it goes to the fact that PR, as a profession, is insecure about itself. Thus the focus on lingo, APRs, and on and on.
By: scott baradell on May 6, 2007
at 12:43 am
I completely agree Scott. I hope Brian Solis and others stop this.
PS. Tom Murphy calls these people using lingo as People with Attention Deficit Disorder(ADD). Nice One Tom! 🙂
By: Rajiv Harjai on May 6, 2007
at 10:09 am
Hey guys, for what it’s worth, the ideas behind “PR 2.0” are approaching 10 years of evolution since we started talking about it in the 90s – and yes, it was influenced by software marketing.
Instead of focusing on the rev numbers, help me reach other PR people to help them grow.
The fundamental philosophy here is that the Web changed the entire game for PR, and PR 2.0 is simply a mantra to call attention to the new tools (and level of participation required) in order to help PR people evolve and adapt.
You have to remember, that PR, as an industry, is often ridiculed for not “getting it” and to expect PR people to engage in the new world of social media is simply not going to happen without people building bridges from the way PR was done, to the way it needs to be done today.
This is the part of the discussion that everyone seems to miss when focusing on 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc. There’s actually substance behind the whole idea.
Even Tom agrees with me that as long as this is specifically a term (as I first started using it a long time ago) to help people learn the driving elements of new PR – all with the eventual goal of folding everything under “PR” – then the debate stops, and the learning can begin.
Take the time to read my post on why PR Week was wrong about 3.0 – it reinforces this entire argument and calls attention to the fact that most of industry ignores….many PR people don’t yet understand the fact that the industry is changing.
And for additional background, take a read of this article. It also provides some good background, to which Tom Murphy said, “I *am* an advocate of “PR 2.0″ – even though I dislike the term.”
Excerpt from PR Week Post:
…The idea and the mantra behind the PR 2.0 movement is to reach PR people outside of the echo chamber to help them evolve, improve their game, learn the technology that’s driving social media, and most importantly, participate in the conversations taking place without them (not initially as a PR, but as a regular person genuinely engaged in conversations to participate and learn.)
Social media and (PR 2.0) is about respect, passion, conversation, and insight. It so much more than blogger relations, wikis, social networks, Second Life, blogs, tags, podcasts, etc. Those are merely the tools used to engage in the conversation. But PR is all about, or should be about, knowledge, understanding of the markets, and the channels used to reach them with the most compelling and meaningful messages.
New PR, PR 2.0, whatever you want to call it, is more about being “smart” enough to participate at an entirely new and more valuable level of engagement. It’s about reading the publications, blogs, networks, where you want to participate. It’s about living and breathing the product/service we represent.
It’s the difference between spin and evangelism.
It’s also the difference between storytelling and influence.
It all eventually merges back into PR…
By: Brian Solis on May 6, 2007
at 3:02 pm
I strongly agree with you. When I first came to University, I thought I would study Public Relations. Familiarising myself with the new technologies and the new media, I found out that Public Relations have changed that much, that we are now in the age of PR 2.0. It’s too much for me to hear that we are now close to PR 3.0. Yes, indeed, the changes in the field are significant after the invasion of the new media, but that doesn’t mean that when anything new happens we can just change the version of the profession. Cause, as you said, it’s a profession, not a software. PR 2.0 is already too much. Let’s not make the profession, ourselves, more vulnerable than it is now the case.
By: Evi Katopodi on May 6, 2007
at 3:55 pm
Exactly…which is why I keep saying that once we help the industry evolve into new media, that it all eventually merges back into PR…without a moniker behind it, i.e. 2.0, 3.0, etc.
PR has gone through more changes in the last 10 years than it has in the last 100.
By: Brian Solis on May 6, 2007
at 5:42 pm
Brian Solis, I agree with the debate you addressed in your post against PR Week and what you mentioned above.
However, I am only trying to address the lingo aspect of this, I think that we are using the Lingo way beyond requirement and it is spreading so much that it is becoming a norm (which it shouldn’t) and which is giving the profession a negative image as you can read above what Scott and Evi said.
I agree that PR is going through major changes and more changes will be on the way as we move towards the future, but the way the lingo is getting in play, we would be saying things like PR 5.0 is here in the near future.
And I am sure you won’t want that either.
When PR Week says PR 3.0, it shows that this is the beginning of the point I am trying to make.
Lastly, I am critiquing the PR Week’s article from the Lingo point of view, not your post. I quite agree with what you had to say.
I just think if you said PR instead of PR 2.0, it will be the same, so why not just call it PUBLIC RELATIONS.
By: Rajiv Harjai on May 6, 2007
at 10:12 pm
The whole PR 2, 3, etc thing is just a marketing term for the continually changing nature of PR. I agree the terminology is ridiculous and better suited to software. However, for want of better terminology, it draws attention to the rapid change taking place. http://www.prlab.com.au
By: Greg Smith on June 27, 2007
at 5:27 am