Yesterday, I picked up one of the kids I nanny from school, and we were talking about the difference between school and uni (he’s not even mid way through second semester, and here I am ready to embark on about 2 months of holidays).
Will (aged 13) then asked me what I wanted to do after univeristy. My answer? “I’m not really sure. There are so many things I could do, really.” Surprisingly, he proceeded to give me a long list of things that I could do: work in communications for Ferrari, work in events, manage awesome footy players and more – his list was longer than mine!
His knowledge of my soon-to-be profession really startled me. It was so different to the conversation I had had not even 3 weeks prior with his dad. Tom was unable to grasp what PR was, let alone give me a list of possible vocations.
Let’s compare the pair. Will: male, 13, recently joined facebook, wants to be a zoologist. Tom: male, 40-something, occasionally aware of the on-going’s on his wife’s facebook, stockbroker. On one hand, Will was aware of PR in it’s newer form – PR 2.0 (or perhaps 1.5) if you will. Tom, on the other hand, knew very little of PR, but was aware of the umbrella of “communications”.
Funnily enough, I have found that younger generations are more familiar than older generations, unless they work either in the field or in conjunction with the field. I must then pose the question: is it technology that is bringing our work to the world’s attention? Admittedly, it was always there – simply unnamed and unnoticed. And what it is now is far from where it started.
Where Kami Hyuse disagrees with the idea of PR 2.0, I’m finding the evolution of PR to be enthralling. Really, it is what drew me to the profession in the first place; the idea that there would always be something new and different. I’m all for change.