I think so much of the PR problem EA has just comes down to people hating EA for the same reason people hate philosophers:

1. people want clarity in a chaotic world, but philosophers often poses more questions than answers (like how EA itself is an open question)
2. populism is really popular right now, but philosophers are technocrats in ivory towers (like the memetic associations EA has with ivy league educations, silicon valley, etc.)
3. there's a lot more noise about what EA thinks rather than what EA does, aligning with the stereotype that philosophers don't do anything to apply their ideas in the real world. 

I think the solution here is to just keep hammering in what EA has done, rather than engaging on what EA thinks. Most people's only knowledge of what EA has done is SBF, because that's all that gets talked about. Anecdotally, my friends' impressions of EA were most improved by learning that:

1. EA did a lot of pandemic risk preparation before COVID, and is part of the reason why the COVID vaccine came out as quickly as it did (Also really good if people start asking about why EA is investing in AI safety)
2. EA has gotten people to donate >2 billion to save >300k lives through GiveWell alone
3. (for leftist friends) EA supports a lot of direct money transfers to people in the global south, allowing for local entrepreneurship
4. (depends on the audience) EA is one of the reasons why so many countries are now emphasizing cage-free eggs, so chickens don't die in their own feces

It seems like EAs care a lot about defining EA, but it's not clear to me what the purpose of defining EA is. A lot of social movements are ill-defined, either because the people inside the movement disagree (i.e. socialism), or because the people outside the movement disagree (i.e. zionism, or feminism). 

If the definition is meant for PR reasons, then it strikes me as weird why most definitions are either long or not immediately understandable. PR seems to heavily favor processing fluency (how easy it is to understand something; happy to cite my sources if needed), and most definitions of EA seem like they're more catered towards philosophical ponderings than spreadable messages that someone can understand in <10 seconds.

If the definition is meant for marketing reasons (marketing is attracting people into EA, PR is managing what people say about EA on the outside), then the current array of definitions seems to further encourage only philosophically-inclined people to get into the movement (which isn't a problem, tbh, if you don't weigh ideological diversity highly).

If the definition is meant for gaining clarity as a community on what the community is about, then it seems strange that people are presumably unsatisfied enough with previous definitions that new posts trying to define EA and its direction keeps on popping up. Some of it is justified by evolutions in the movement, for sure, but I think part of it is also just that people keep trying to explain EA to their non-EA friends, and most of the current defintions don't land very well (anecdotally, n > 30).