I’ve just read an excellent book called Two-Way Street published in 1948 in which its author Eric Goldman describes the three stages of the development of the PR industry in the US.

It’s a thin volume that is as relevant today as it was when it was published. It’s so good that I sought out a first edition from a book dealer in the US.

The three stages of the industry could be mapped over the second half of the 20^th century and into the 21^st century just as Goldman used them to describe the development of the industry during the first half of the 20^th century:

1. Public fooled via spin
2. Information through communication (broadcast)
3. Public engagement via two way engagement

Perhaps I’m being overly simplistic but its uncanny isn’t it?

Sometime during the 60s and 70s the PR industry squandered the heritage described by Goldman, like early 20^th century practitioners Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee before him, and it became industrialised. Around the same time the PR industry became obsessed about communication with publics via the proxy of media relations rather than direct public engagement.

What happened? Why did the industry ignore the progress of previous generations?

Now that print media is in decline and the internet has enabled communication with publics directly with digital media, and ultimately direct participation within communities, the PR industry is attempting to modernise and reinvent itself. Yet Goldman described this as the vanguard of the industry 60 years ago.

What happened in the intervening period? And aren’t we going back to the future?

I’ve put these questions to various academic pals that have studied the history of the industry in a bid to frame an outlook for its future for the book that Steve Earl and I are writing.

We’d be interested in your views and would love to quote you if you’ve got any compelling insight.

Thank you to Heather Yaxley for recommending Goldman to me.