The propaganda aims to oppose ideas that have been already classified against others and produce on upheaval in life, expanding a doctrine and even the certainties.

While advertising is simply to sell or change the way they purchase without unreason the customer, it is therefore, neither imperative nor exciting but rather.

Playful and friendly and causes interest to discover some utilities and qualities of certain products.

All of this, we can say that propaganda keeps tempting and convictif goal while advertising has a goal of conquest by voluntary seduction technics

Propaganda and Publicity differ from Public Relations because they tend to follow a one-way communication model, where Public Relations ideally follows a 2 way symmetrical communication model with an organization's strategic publics.

I would say that they all fall within the same umbrella. They share elements of being covert, sponsored by unknown sources, manipulating data and imagery. Its is an interesting topic!

I tend to concur with Brendan Joseph, the boundary between public relations and propaganda is unclear. I know there are some attempts to differentiate between the two but it can only work in certain social/political condition. Because, public relations practice should be seen outward based on social and political condition.  

Marketing is more than Marketing Communication. It includes strategies for the product, the price, the integrated marketing communication and distribution.

All forms of marketing communication are linked to persuasion but advertising is about buying space or visualizations or click-throughs (online); propaganda in my first language (Portuguese) is related with political messages and Public Relations, I agree with Samantha that has the aim of creating mutual beneficial relations with all Organization Publics.

Thank you all for your valuable contribution.

Public Relations differs greatly from Propaganda and Marketing. It's main aim is to set up a two way and multi channel communication between an instution or person and it's/his specific target groups with the ultimate aim of creating a communication based on truth, mutual trust and respect. Many people have a much more negative judgment, but ultimately this is what good PR should be. PR might be part of a marketing strategy, but it has nothing whatsoever in common with Propaganda which does not follow the rules of honest communication.

propaganda is way different than publicity. overall they fall under the umbrella. PR is 2 way. generally backed with supporting data. 

Annette I agree with you about what good PR should be. But in practice, if you look at media relations, for instance, why companies that invest in it have usually more news coverage (more control over media)? If you work in a company with economical interests, not a social cause I would say that your job is to create a positive attitude from Publics in your company. So why is it so different from Marketing. Is part of it in any book or framework of the Marketing.

My paper Fairtrade in Schools: teaching ethics or unlawful marketing to the defenceless? http://www.griffithsspeaker.com/Fairtrade/why_fair_trade_isn.htm shows how PR as part of a marketing strategy becomes indoctrination (using standard definitions of indoctrination).

We must use the words 'PR' in the way they are normally used. It is wrong to make up a special definition of your own to exclude 99% of what everyone else thinks that PR is, so you can exclude everything nasty it does and present it as wholly virtuous. Doing things like that is precisely why PR has such a bad reputation.

I believe we must define PR in the way in which we would practice it. The Excellence Theory and Situational Theory of Problem Solving are great bodies of research to look over that support the 2 way symmetrical communication model and explain how we can be more ethical PR practitioners.  We are aware that past practitioners have used Public Relations as an unethical or publicity based function. That is why when asked what Public Relations is, I would rather offer a definition of what good PR is than what those who have abused the practice define it as.

PR IS propaganda and publicity.

Dear shabana, i think it is very difficult to identify propaganda and publicity. i think one has to  be critical in nature while having a look on media messages and try to evaluate them critically. if something bothers you that it is contradictory with our values and traditions, we must try to identify the source which is difficult off course but if possible one must try to do it. in my opinion, only critical understanding of messages may help us in identifying the hidden purposes behind the messages.

It is true: Most of the times PR is part of a Marketing Strategy and therefore follows specific aims, eventually trying to reach economically determined targets. But by following ethical guidelines you can avoid that Propaganda takes over. These guidelines need to be defined, publicised, taught and controlled. The problem is not so much what you tell the public and how, as what you do not tell them. And there is another problem: The media will not accept Propaganda, at least they should not. Because if the don't, you run the danger that your Propaganda strategy will backfire on you.   

Public relations is a two-way street that calls for give and take while publicity is a one -way street that predominantly focuses on information giving. Public relations does both information giving and information seeking.

On the other hand, propaganda is characterized by half truths while public relations entails the whole truth. Propaganda twists a story to suit a preconceived notion while public relations ventilates.

Propaganda in PR involves using mostly false rhetoric to lure an audience into believing the principles and ideas of the propagandist while publicity focuses on providing information on a particular product or subject to those who need it.

A publicist carries out demographic and psycho-graphic research and analysis to identify the needs of the public and then fashions his/her message to suite these needs. A propagandist uses existing phenomenon  and rhetoric that appeals to the emotions of the public  or group as a tool to create change in attitude and ideologies.

The message of the propagandist is provocative in nature while the message of a publicist is informative and persuasive in nature.

 “The Institute for Propaganda Analysis created a list of nine common influence devices used in propaganda including name calling, glittering generalities, tabloid thinking, testimonials, bifurcation, association, just-plain folks, band wagon, and cardstacking”  (The Science of Social Influence – Anthony R. Pratkanis, p.19).

Hi Shabana,

when we discuss about PR and advertising, it is important to see the big difference: PR should be free of charge (although it is not always the truth) and for advertising you have to order and pay your advertisments.

PR must be free of charge but of course there are a lot of expenses those following PR announcements: press conference, interesting news those you need to announce,... Advertising is simple: you have to order and pay for ypour ads and that's it.

Of course there are a lot of differcies and similar things but we will need a lot of space and time for nice discussion. I have to leav my office and I am going on a business meeting and I will try to fullfill my answer in following days. I don't like to push my articles but I vave published three articles on ResearchGate - unfortunatelly they were written in Croatian (I didin't have to to translate them in English) but if you put them in GOOGLE translator you can find something interesting about these topic.

Best regards.

Igor

The touch stone is fallacious arguments , any PR applying fallacies is fraught with specious spurious impression management or illogical baseless manipulative rhetoric.