So, the team at aFinite managed to transplant a hard drive and salvage my data. They worked tirelessly and beyond par (and are still yet to invoice – yes, I’m creeping.) 

So, what did I do first on being reunited with my PC? Visited Facebook of course. I take no shame in saying I’m a bit of a fan although, worryingly, it appears this is to be expected as I get older. According to Guardian blogger Mercedes Bunz, the median age of the active Facebook user is up from 26 (as calculated May 2008) to 33. 

However, the Twitter median age remains stable at 31. This seems interesting, especially as the growth of active users seems exponential, according to this same post by Bunz. 

I’ve fallen out of love with Twitter this week. The main reason is the corporate tweeters or, rather, one in particular. On the fourth of November, Topman UK tweeted a total of fourteen times across the day including three times between 1200 and 1300 alone. With their last tweet being a link to a photo of their stylist wearing purple Nikes, I had to question what Topman was trying to accomplish with high frequency messaging that offered little relevancy to the recipient. 

I tweeted back, requesting information about up and coming events in my area and received no reply. 

Although I cannot speak on behalf of their entire PR strategy, Topman demonstrates no sign of symmetrical communication, the public relations ideal model conceived by Grunig. In his article, Beyond Ethical Relativism in Public Relations: Coorientation, Rules and the Idea of Communication Symmetry, Pearson discusses the ‘collaborative advocacy’ and engagement of the stakeholder through two-way communication, both parties (i.e. company and customer) giving and receiving messages to each other. 

Also considering the ideals of Habermas during the seventies, participants, according to Pearson, should feel free to move ‘from one level of abstraction to another.’ In a dialogue, any party is free to question any basic assumption. As Topman failed to enter into any discourse, I was offered no channel of communication at all, let alone the opportunity to question the relevance of purple Nikes, although they were considered so pertinent. 

However, as the Cluetrain Manifesto considers, I could be missing the point. There’s no denying that rule Number One was broken – Markets are conversations and Topman failed to engage. However, the Cluetrain collaborators are dealing with the Online Market, something Grunig and Habermas couldn’t have anticipated. 

Although the ‘conversations’ possible through Web 2.0 were never realised here, there are other ways of gleaning information. As per Thesis 11 of 95 – ‘People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than the vendors.’ Communication with Topman remains one-way but its Twitter account is more than happy to share a whole network of other, more informed followers with me.

PR-utdanningen feirer 25 år i år! I den anledning har Handelshøyskolen BI invitert professor i Kommuniasjon ved Universitetet i Maryland, James Grunig, til Norge. Grunig skal holde flere gjesteforelesninger under sitt opphold her.

Som BI alumni inviteres du til et ekslusivt møte med Grunig torsdag 22. oktober kl 17-18 på Handelshøyskolen BI i Oslo.

Det er din store mulighet til å møte en av pionèrene i PR-faget og stille ham spørsmålene du alltid har lurt på. Ordstyrer vil for anledningen være Magne Haug.

Dette er et eksklusivt møte, og vi ønsker å skape en arena for diskusjon og spørsmål. Derfor har vi satt et øvre tak på 30 personer til dette arrangementet.

Praktisk informasjon:
Dato: 22. oktober
Tid: kl. 1700-1800
Sted: Handelshøyskolen BI i Oslo, Nydalsveien 37
Rom: A2-060
Påmelding: Begrenset antall plasser; 30 plasser (update: 20 registrerte plasser allerede)

Vi kjører førstemann til mølla-prinsippet. Meld deg på her eller send e-post til alumni@bi.no.

Velkommen!

Det er også mulig å melde seg på PR-dagen som foregår 21.oktober. Dette er en hel fagdag, med påfølgende fest på kvelden. Dette kan du lese mer om på Kommunikasjonsforeningens nettsider.

Vedlagt ligger videoen fra PR-uka i Romania i fjor.

In his introduction to a 2003 edition of George Orwell’s 1984, Thomas Pynchon wrote: ‘Every day, public opinion is the target of rewritten history, official amnesia and outright lying, all of which is benevolently termed “spin”, as if it were no more harmful than a ride on a merry go round’.  Pynchon himself is an extremely publicity-averse character, suggesting his attitude towards the media, public relations and corporate marketing is hardly going to be warm.  However, his comments regarding spin do not exist in a philosophical wilderness; many others, from academic to layman, support his sentiment.  As the title of Ewen’s seminal book “PR! A Social History of Spin” (1996) demonstrates, in the minds of many, the practice of public relations remains interwoven with the idea of spin.

Spin, in its communicative context, is a relatively new term for an ancient aspect of human interaction.  The notion of presenting oneself, an idea or a product, in the best possible light, through Machiavellian methods, is as old as history, demonstrated in all from the mundane, as in inter-personal courtship, through to that affecting society as a whole, as in political propaganda.  Its modern incantation represents ‘a lack of substance, interpretation parading as fact, image creation at the expense of tangible evidence’ (Pitcher, 2003, p. 5).

The Dodgy Dossier - spun and sexed up

When attached to public relations, this notion is given special pejorative attention, with connotations of media manipulation, downright lies, ‘sexing up’, deception and economy of truth.  It also appears as a mainstay of propaganda, aimed at promoting a doctrine, a core subject of Orwell’s 1984.  Indeed 1984, inspired by the societal and political structure of the Soviet Union, presents a world dominated by propaganda, taken by Pynchon to be exercised in contemporary public relations.  There are many examples, such as Alistair Campbell’s ‘Dodgy Dossier’ of 2003 over Iraqi military capabilities and multiple alleged cases of corporate ‘Greenwash’ involving companies such as Shell and Monsanto, which may support Pynchon’s statement and organizations such as Spinwatch and the media themselves are highly aware of spin’s reality.

Public relations undoubtedly suffers being tarnished by the obvious reality of spin, but the real case for such spin deeply manipulating public opinion in modern liberal democracies is undermined by two factors; the nature of contemporary public relations and the complexity of the construction of public opinion.  In tackling the question precisely, the former will be examined in detail, with reference to the latter.  The methodology will be to examine theoretical aspects of public relations, examining the scope for spin, and then cover the realities of modern public relations in relation to spin within the contemporary communications context applicable to liberal democracies.

The work of Edward Bernays, evocative of a degree of social control via communications, gives credence to many claims that public relations has always welcomed the art of spin in its practice (Ewen, 1996).  However, the late twentieth century has seen the embrace of the Grunigian paradigm, enveloped within systems theory, which now seems to pervade modern public relations teaching and theory, representing the mix of methods found in modern public relations. Of the one-way communicative models, Press Agentry or Publicity are susceptible to untruths in order to gain profile, whereas Public Information is largely factual within a liberal democracy, if possibly selectively so.  It is of note that, as Kitchen and Papasolomou (1999, p.343) claim, in the US public relations is largely seen as publicity, possibly revealing an increased susceptibility to spin. Two-way asymmetrical methods specialise in examining ways in which publics may be persuaded to conform to an idea or product.  It is here that spin may be identified as a means, after risk analysis.  Two-way symmetrical methods aim to bring the opinions or attitudes of publics and an organization closer together.  Of these approaches, the first three present scope for spin, whereas highly normative two-way symmetrical methods present themselves as less so.  However, this last method has come in for criticism as being utopian, with claims that  public relations are “necessarily partisan and intrinsically undemocratic”. (L’Etang 1996, cited in Grunig, 2001, p. 16).  The implication here is that such partisanship may usher in the idea of spin to achieve that party’s objectives, regardless of method employed  However, it can be argued that the principle of two-way symmetrical approaches methodologically reduces the ability or reasons to spin.

Plato had a few things to say about rhetoric

Other inter-related theories appear to present less scope for spin, alluding to principles of two-way symmetrical communication.  Rhetoric, seen by Gregory (2002) as the dominant practice of public relations, in which truth is said to remain after debate (Moloney, 2004, p. 39), appears to possess less propensity to spin, with the credibility of a source being at its heart.  Indeed, Heath (2001, p.32) claims that advocacy is key to rhetoric and that a legitimate battle of persuasive argument, allowing active multi-party participation and scrutiny of communicative messages, creates an environment not conducive to spin.  However, the art of such persuasive communication is, in its modern sense, often accused of presenting style over substance, although not necessarily spin.

Relationship management takes a view of complex but mutually supportive relationship networks, in which organizations and publics tend towards ‘co-orientation’ (Cutlip et al, 1999).  This theory relies upon two-way communications but is instinctively appreciative of mutual obligations and debts and relies on a significant degree of openness.  This approach does not encourage spin, as deep and complex relationships cannot survive under its shadow.

As in most studies of social science, critical perspectives are rightly given space to challenge the dominant paradigms.  Postmodernists regard two-way symmetric communications as unrealistic and utopian in an ever complex and fast-moving environment in which meta-narratives have little chance to gain a deep hold on society.  The Frankfurt School, especially Jurgen Habermas, have expounded on various critical theories.  Habermas’s ‘public sphere’ concept is worthy of mention, claiming the chattering tea-houses of middle-class, bourgeois western societies create their own communicative arena, the ‘public sphere’, which in the twentieth century came under threat from political and economic forces, imposing order on the mob via propaganda and spin (Habermas, 1992).  However, Habermas’s theory has been reviewed in light of the rise of information and communication technology (ICT) which has the potential to re-energise, to a degree, the ‘public sphere’ within chatrooms and blogs, an aspect to which we will return later.

The main theories have been skated over for evidence of the possibility or propensity for spin.  Although the full expanse of the Grunigian paradigm may be somewhat unrealistic, Grunig’s assessment of public relations generally practicing varying degrees of both one-way and two-way communication is widely accepted. By and large, to use the systems theory paradigm as a template, the one-way transmission systems are possibly laid open to abuse by spin.  By comparison, forms of two-way symmetrical communication, with their emphasis on dialogue, relationship-building and debate appear much more resistant to spin.  Thus, the claim that public relations is no more that potentially spin-ridden one-way communication, evident in Orwell’s 1984, is theoretically flawed, with modern public relations in liberal democracies operating within theories encouraging spin-resistant approaches, with a scope theoretically exceeding that indicated by the term spin.

That is the theory.  But reality and practices need scrutiny.

There has been a recognizable shift by practitioners to re-align themselves away from the methods of one-way and asymmetric methods, especially that of press agentry, to provide distance from the smear of spin (Wood, 2006, p. 540).  In essence this has produced a migration into the territory of dialogue, relationship-building and debate.  However, that reality does not mean spin has been totally expunged in practice.  For example, whilst rhetoric in ideal circumstances may be seen as spin-free, the harsh, cold reality of communicative inequality or power, in which other parties are not resourced or availed of information, make the debate in which truth should prevail rather one-sided (Moloney, 2006, p. 39).  As such, rhetoric can in practice be susceptible to spin.  Similarly, the soft-sounding term ‘relationship management’ does not necessarily guarantee truthful exchange, free of spin.  The partisanship issue is founded in reality, in which business and politics are generally zero-sum games and whereby benefits are not equitably shared.

Friedman - business is business is business

As Milton Friedman allegedly claimed, ‘the business of business is business’ and although this may be somewhat brittle a statement, the sentiment is indicative of the advantage or profit that organizations will always seek, some falling for spin under the approach that the ends justify the means.  This equally applies in the area of government lobbying, in which leverage may sometimes be applied via unethical practices, including patronage, favours and spin.

The predominant systems theory itself, as already indicated, proves to be a case of communicative idealism when presented with reality.  As Moloney (2006, p.168) states:

“PR teachers and students glide over the statement that three parts of the Grunigian typology are pathologies of the fourth and not much practised part (two-way symmetrical).  By dint of exposure and repetition, the ‘ought’ of the fourth has become the ‘is’ of the other three.”

However, it is the literature of academics, lectures of teachers and studies of public relations students which present the critical aspect of public relations and its relationship with spin – ethics.  As normative as theories of public relations may be, it is the study and encouragement of ethics within the study and practice of public relations which indicate its growing aversion to the practice of spin.  The teaching of ethical decision-making processes, such as the Potter Box model and the Navron model, are demonstrative of public relations taking its responsibilities as an ethical practice seriously.  Self-regulatory codes of practice, such as that upheld by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) and the Global Protocol on Ethics in Public Relations upheld by the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, encourage ethical practice.  Indeed, the academic development in this area has resulted in ethical theories of public relations.  Responsible advocacy charges practitioners with loyalty to those they represent but also to stakeholders at large and enlightened self-interest follows that an ethical approach will result in success.  The rhetorical or adversarial approach may embrace ethics through the idea that practitioners act as barristers in an arena of conflicting messages and, unsurprisingly, proponents of two-way symmetrical communications view this as a valid ethical approach.

Another case of relationship-building, or more accurately a widening of the pool of publics to include those not of immediate value to organizations, has been the increasing emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a public relations function.  A degree of ethical practice may underpin CSR and in practical terms CSR appears to be a good example of a shift away from asymmetry to less-spin prone dialogue, relationship-building and debate.  However, the real effects remain difficult to measure and the motivations for CSR itself present several paradoxes when seen under an ethical spotlight.  This has meant that although the practices of CSR may seem less susceptible to spin, the entire concept is sometimes seen as a larger conspiratorial spin agenda (Frankental, 2001, pp. 18-23).

Corporate Social Responsibility

The import of these theories in practice is their mere consideration and instruction.  Under codes of conduct and ethical considerations, public relations practice generally, and especially in the field of dialogue, relationship-building and debate, is embracing the notion of spin being utterly unacceptable.  But are public relations practitioners practicing what they preach?

Literature is replete with examples of spin, from the ‘Spinocchio’ of New Labour (Franklin, 2004, p.55) to the plethora of corporate cases identified by Stauber and Rampton (2004).  Lower profile, non-newsworthy cases of public relations practitioners conducting genuine dialogue, relationship-building and debate are less immediately apparent.  This fact itself contributes to the sentiment evident in Pychon’s statement.  However, there is evidence to counter Pychon, presented in the way in which many organizations operate in a largely open and honest manner with regard to their publics.  Good examples are that of Toyota, apparent through its 2010 Global Vision and its guiding principles (Toyota, 2007) and, surprisingly, Shell.  In the latter’s case, despite accusations of ‘greenwash’, it revolutionised its communication practices to forge dialogue and engagement after the Brent Spa case of 1995, which resulted in Shell being voted ‘Britain’s Most Admired Company in 2001 by Management Today (Barry, 2005, p. 14).  Further, in the area of crisis communications, where organizations are at most under pressure to pump out spin, there is significant evidence that openness, dialogue and clarity are often the preferred option.  One seminal case, used as an example of how to conduct crisis communications, is that of the Tylenol crisis of 1982. More recently, the response of Mattel to a product recall crisis, regardless of criticism of the practicalities of its crisis communications, exemplified an openness which some have seen as most welcome (Kosky, 2007, p.15).

Thus, although stark evidence of public relations practices avoiding spin is hard to come by – after all, there is not a ‘good PR practice watch’ website – they can be found and anecdotal evidence is available, even amongst a spin-aware audience.

Orwell based his predictions on a period of suppression for the social ‘public sphere’, rife with the ideas of Bernays and typified by social systems such as Nazism and Communism.  Pynchon’s statement takes little account of contemporary tectonic shifts of the communicative context within which spin, and by inference, public relations functions.  To understand the contemporary relationship between spin and public relations, and the manner in which public opinion is formed, this context must also be considered.

Pychon’s statement claims a power of spin, a notion that proactive, targeted communications or public relations can fully form a generally accepted narrative or world-view, which may be over-rated in today’s communicative environment.  Just as the modern social ‘public sphere’ of the information age is providing publics with a plethora of communicative links, dialogue, relationship-building and debate is becoming common between publics about organizations, as opposed to with organizations.  History is no longer necessarily written by the victors, lies are quickly exposed or met with widely–communicated counter-claims, and amnesia is refused as information sourcing becomes widespread.  Hence, on the one hand, the environment in which public relations practitioners could, if desired, conduct spin operations to form public opinion appears to be much less amenable to spin itself.   On the other hand, a typical postmodernist reproach could be that communicative anarchy, awash with spin from all, is a more realistic environment.  That philosophical debate is beyond the scope of this paper and for the purposes of our examination, we shall assume that ICT can lead to a greater openness and democratization of society if it provides unlimited access to information and equal participation  in cultural discourse.

However, whilst access and equality may dampen official spin, the human being is ingenious, and although this environment has changed in one way, in another it has enabled another entry point for the historically spin-susceptible one-way communicators.  With the fragmentation of media outlets in the face of pressure from ICT, the journalistic vanguards against spin are much depleted and non-existent amongst the new entrants (Street, 2001, p. 149).  While the environment is fragmented yet almost real-time, the thirst for information, copy and access has brought about the PR-isation of the media, be it official or amateur (Moloney, 2004, p. 152).  This developing relationship between the media, traditional or new, and public relations appears to be shifting power to the latter and nurturing a relationship in which spin may be encouraged.

Yet, even in the face of possible PR-isation, corporate scandals such as WorldCom and Enron, which were perceived to be awash with spin, and the ‘Dodgy Dossier’ have resulted in publics becoming much more spin-aware as well as media-savvy.  In response, apart from ethical considerations, public relations practitioners are increasingly seeing the practical futility of spin, or at least the disastrous consequences of failed spin, and embracing clarity and explanation in its place (Collis, 2004, p.64).

This lot are getting spin aware

Increased interdependence, pluralism and individualism, along with globalization have also changed the social environment, far removing it from the propaganda-rich world postulated by Orwell.  The modern social environment is such that persuasion, spin and propaganda, or even more benign public relations practice, has limited capabilities.  Such an example is cited by Moloney (2004, p. 67) in which published opinion, generated by agents of communication, in Denmark’s Euro referendum of 2000, was very different from actual public opinion, the opinion of a spin-aware, interdependent, pluralistic and individualist public.  This instance, and similar repeated frequently and widely, flies in the face of Pynchon’s gloomy assessment.  In the eyes of an ever more spin-savvy public, as Pitcher notes, the profile of spin itself, and the development of spin-culture, has damaged the reputation of those who wield it (Pitcher, 2003, p. 248).

In summary, spin is an inherent aspect of the human condition, from facing a job interview to conducting a government public information programme.  Spin will remain in the public relations arsenal.  However, the communications environment in which spin may exist is much changed from the time of Orwell’s writing, making successful spin, on balance, more difficult, and official spin in general more recognisable.  Further evidence in practical conduct of public relations shows that it is not the limit of public relations.  The Grunigian paradigm, although utopian, is a far cry from the practices of Bernays, and is actively encouraged within the public relations industry.  Out of this typology, the practices of dialogue, relationship-building and debate are seen as increasingly predominant forces within public relations.  Alongside this, ethics are becoming a mainstay of education and practice of public relations.  The ideas behind these practices and ethics, spurning spin, are pervading contemporary definitions of public relations.  The most popular definitions, nominally those of the World Assembly of PR Associations, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and CIPR all include at their cores, sentiments of interaction, mutual understanding, public interest and relationship-building.

As can be seen above, in practice, theory and definition, the scope of contemporary public relations far exceeds, even shuns, the dark art of spin.  But spin remains and due to the very nature and frailties of human nature and its practice of communications, will not go away.

Bibliography

BARRY, A. PR Power: Inside Secrets from the World of Spin, Virgin, 2005

BOEDER, P. Habermas’s Heritage: The Future of the Public Sphere in the Network Society at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_9/boeder/

COLLIS, T. “Financial Public Relations” in GREGORY, A. Public Relations in Practice (2^nd Ed), Kogan Page, 2004

CUTLIP, S., CENTER, A. and BROOM, G. Effective Public Relations (8^th Ed), Prentice Hall, 1999

EWEN, S. PR! A Social History of Spin, Basic Books, 1996

FRANKLIN, B. Packaging Politics: Political Communications in Britain’s Media Democracy (2^nd Ed), Oxford University Press, 2004.

FRANKENTAL, P. “Corporate Social Responsibility – A PR Invention?” in Corporate Communications: An International Journal, MCB UP, 2001

GREGORY, A.  To Spin or Not to Spin:  The Ethics of Public Relations, Lecture to the AGM of the Institute of Public Relations, 3 May 2002

GRUNIG, J.E. “Two-Way Symmetrical Public Relations: Past, Present and Future” in HEATH, R.L. Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, 2001

HABERMAS, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Polity Press, 1992

HEATH, R.L. “A Rhetorical Enactment Rationale for Public Relations: The Good Organization Communicating Well” in HEATH, R.L. Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, 2001

KITCHEN, P. J. and PAPASOLOMOU, I. “Marketing Public Relations” in KITCHEN, P. (Ed) Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice, Thomson, 1999

KOSKY, H. “Only the Fittest will Survive” in Digital Essays, PR Week, December 2007

MOLONEY, K. Rethinking Public Relations (2^nd Ed), Routledge, 2006

PITCHER, G.  The Death of Spin, Wiley, 2003

STAUBER, J. and RAMPTON, S. Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry (UK Ed), Constable & Robinson, 2004.

STREET, J. Mass Media, Politics and Democracy, Palgrave, 2001

WOOD, E. “Corporate Communications” in TENCH, R and YEOMANS, L. Exploring Public Relations, Pearson, 2006

TOYOTA, http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environment/vision/plan/

There comes a point in your university life, where the last year of your degree has crept up on you and things start to get serious. You find yourself pondering the first few years being out of high school at university,  those Tuesday to Sunday party weeks and pass or fail subjects are long gone. My fourth year came and went and saw me writing my thesis whilst on exchange.

Then there’s fifth year. It comes around very quickly, and dauntingly nags, “It’s time to practice Grunig’s communication model!” The year of the internship has arrived! Dreaded by some, anticipated by others, it was my turn and Text100 was my starting ground. My desk is situated right at the entrance, conveniently close to the kitchen, with a perfect view of the clocks on the back wall. I look over now and I see that it’s 8am in Paris and 3pm in Tokyo. I get excited when I realise the scope of Text 100 and how Level 6, Number 77 Berry Street is part of a larger, global network.

My first few weeks revealed Text 100 Sydney to be an exciting office – Niki and Claire were going to Fashion Week, Nathan Rees was distributing Lenovo laptops, Kara, Karen and Thomas were boasting feathered wings around the office, the perfect angel outfit for a ‘lunch in the clouds’. This being my first internship, I was unsure of what to expect. I’d heard horror stories of interns being scolded for using too much milk in their tea and another classmate was dismissed on the grounds that she asked too many ‘useless’ questions! There was something intimidating about suddenly being thrown in to a real work place, doing real work that real clients pay real money for. However, it was also the next necessary step forward from in-class presentations and hypothetical scenarios. It was time to get out there and see how PR professionals work.

Far from these daunting stories and monotonous university assessments, the past few months at Text 100 has been extremely motivating. I’ve been lucky to help out with some stimulating work, mentored by a passionate (and sometimes crazy) team. The past few months have also seen me thrown out of my comfort zone. Assisting the Gartner team on securing some interviews for an analyst was definitely a highlight for me, something that has definitely helped with my pitching and writing skills.

As I sit on the train writing this, I flick through my trusty notebook. I see drafted pitches for some Altec Lansing Swarovski-crystal  headphones and some colourful breakfast posters about a new internal HR program that I helped produce. The intern experience has been well worth the early morning trips to North Sydney and each week I love coming in to see what the Text 100 team is up to.

Written by: Rachel

If you’re studying and would like to try out an internship at Text 100 – please contact Niki Karlson on 02 9956 5733 or niki.karlson@text100.com.au

The following is intended as a quick revision guide to the PR Model of Excellence study undertaken by David Dozier, Larissa Grunig, James Gunig, William Ehling, Fred Repper and Jon White in the 1990s.  It is not a substitute for wider reading and reflection on the topic, but provides a brief overview – in 500 words.

In 1990, Grunig and colleagues undertook a $400,000 three-nation study funded by the International Association of Business Communications (IABC) Research Foundation to identify the essential elements of excellent communications, which applied globally to all organisations.

This Excellence Study surveyed 321 organizations in Canada, US and UK, followed by case studies with 24 participants.

The 10 year study tested a “general theory of PR” derived from literature, that had revealed much understanding of PR was based on presumptions. The researchers’ perspective was to look at PR “as a profession and a function in society as something that can be constantly improved”.

The Excellence Study’s general theory proposed analysis at four levels:

1. programme – PR should be managed strategically to be most effective in meeting its objectives
2. departmental – the common characteristics most successful communications departments are: an integrated PR function, distinct from marketing, practising two-way symmetric communications. With equal gender opportunities, the top PR person reports to senior management. The team has knowledge of the symmetric model, PR’s managerial role, is academically trained in PR and reflects professionalism.
3. organizational – conditions associated with organisations demonstrating successful PR include reflecting two-way symmetric communications, power for PR with the dominant coalition (senior management), a participative culture, organic organizational structure, and a complex and turbulent environment with pressure from activist groups.
4. economic – successful communications delivers a tangible value including achieving communication objectives, reduced costs of regulation, pressure and litigation and high job satisfaction among employees.

The study used Grunig & Hunt’s definition of PR as the “management of communication between an organization and its publics” – equating PR and communication management (ie PR is broader than media relations or publicity) as “the overall planning, execution, and evaluation of an organization’s communication with both external and internal publics”.

As a result of the study, communication excellence was defined as “the ideal in which knowledgeable communicators assist in the overall strategic management of organizations, seeking symmetrical relations through management of communication with key publics on whom organizational survival and growth depends.”

This encompasses three spheres of communication excellence:

1. Knowledge base of the communications department
2. Shared expectations of top communicators and senior managers about the function and role of communications
3. Organizational culture which should be open and supportive of minorities

PR was seen as having a monetary value to the organization by “building quality, long-term relationships with strategic constituencies”. That is, reflecting the two-way symmetric model as a core practice of the PR function.

Cheney & Christensen criticised the study as relying on self-reporting by participants. L’Etang said the two-way symmetric model is idealistic, PR is “inherently partisan”, and relationships between organisations and publics are imbalanced in power and influence. Pieczka felt the study had an inherent bias favouring the two-way symmetric model.

Grunig reconceptualised the two-way symmetric model in 2001 drawing on Murphy’s game theory to identify a mixed motive continuum with symmetrical communications used to seek a win-win zone between the interests of the organization (pure asymmetry) and its publics (pure co-operation).

Useful sources: Excellence project summary, Excellence study books series, Google book search

In a recent post, Mountainrunner poses the following question:

Which of the below completes this sentence: Public Diplomacy…

• is the same as Public Relations. (PD=PR)
• involves more than the practice of Public Relations. (PD>PR)
• is contained within a larger practice of Public Relations. (PD<PR)

CB3 comments that it’s a question of perspective. As taught by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in the UK, where Grunig’s assessment of PR is an aspiration, PR (or more commonly termed ‘communications’) is defined roughly as using communication (one-way publicity, press agentry and public information and two way assymmetric amd symmetrical communication) to support an organization’s objectives, at the strategic to the tactical levels. It is, or aspires to be, much more than presenting and promoting a cause, but also understanding, persuading and influencing. In terms of ethos and objectives, this points to a high degree of similiarity between PR and PD, although the specific mechanics and publics may vary, and the underlying motives may differ – i.e. a foreign policy goal versus an economic one.

Academic work by Grunig, Signitzer & Coombs, Gilboa, Wang and Yun all indicate a convergence of the practices over the last two decades, although the academic study of the interconnections between international relations and PR leaves much to be desired.

However, it is noteworthy that placing some form of firewall or hierarchy between the two practices can be counterproductive – there are many lessons to be learned in both PD and PR which may enhance the performance of both. And although PR often gets a bad press (especially in the US*), there are many PR practitioners who would be able to serve the needs of PD very well, certainly in the operational and tactical areas.

So, in apiration and ethos at least, PD=PR.

For a more detailed response see CB3’s previous musings.

Many communications practitioners could serve PD well ... but not all.

*  Note:  However, the nefarious activities of McBride and Draper in ’smeargate’ are certainly helping to tar the communications practice here in the UK as well.  Indeed, CB3’s comments in no way suggests that the PR industry in the UK is in any way better, cleaner etc than in the US.

I will try and not use the academical material in this post as I want to express what I learned in the class about PR and Ethics subject and how do I see it from my window. Hope I convey what I want to express here. Apologies for not mentioning any quotes from Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Ethics in PR or Grunig and other academic scholars.

Coming back to ethical decision making in a  workplace, the video asked us to take the 4 question test. But there are other celebrated models of ethical decision making which can detangle us from the ethical dilemma. I stumbled upon on PR Ethics website ,by Amanda Holt, which makes life easy for people who want to understand PR & ethics. She discusses various theories of ethics in PR and their application.

One of the application is the Potter Box Decision making model. I am convinced with this model as it gives a systematic approach to behave ethically. It aims at prioritizing the values and publics which are most vital in a given situation at that time. This model can be linked to Cognitive Theory. What would you choose – Right action or Right outcome ? Will it be Bentham’s Greatest good for the greatest number or Kent’s Notion of duty and the moral imperative to do the right thing. I leave that up to you !

As the lecture was progressing, I thought that what is the diffrence left between a PR professional and a barrister at the end of the day? They have a common goal – PROTECT THEIR CLIENT. Apart from a PR practioner is not called a lawyer !!
My confidence shaked for a minute – should I ask or should’nt I? I guess some one was thinking what I was. My class mate asked the same question. And viola…here I was. My thought process was on the right track.

The key diffrences between a lawyer and a PR practioner are as under -

1. Lawyer represents the client legally
2. Jury is the public to be addressed by the lawyer
3. A lawyer speaks professionally on behalf of the client.

Hence, a PR practioner can not be a lawyer!! My head space was now clear and ready to move ahead.

I believe that Time Warner uses the Two Way Symmetric Model of Public Relations. Of the PR Models by Grunig and Hunt, this model is appropriately applied to Time Warner. This model gets feedback with view to changing practices, and it is a dialogue instead of a monologue.

Time Warner uses its websites and print to ask for questions and comments from their audiences. In each of the different divisions and businesses, they ask for feedback in order to better serve those who support Time Warner

My alma mater for graduate school, the University of Maryland, is holding the first annual Grunig lecture in honor of two of my mentors and dear friends Jim and Lauri Grunig. They are visionary. If you have not had the opportunity to meet them in person, I especially recommend that you attend if the location is convenient. Make sure to introduce yourself to them. They are engaging and genuine. The lecture will occur on Oct. 30, 2008, and the keynote speaker will be Richard Edelman. (By the way, I’ve included this blog post by him in my course packet for my Mass Media and Society class). The theme of the evening is social media, and activities begin at 4:30 p.m. If you have questions, send them to Elizabeth Toth at eltoth@umd.edu. If you want to sing the praises of Jim and Lauri Grunig or Richard Edelman or if you would like to share a fun story, feel free to leave a comment.

Here is a sneak peak at my upcoming posts:

• An update on UO graduates who landed public relations jobs
• An update on UO graduates who are seeking public relations jobs
• Advice for graduates seeking public relations jobs

Communicating with customers, shareholders and other stakeholders has taken on a whole new level thanks to the internet.

Being able to directly identify and communicate with a target audience, via blogs, social networking sites and other web-based sources, gives businesses, and their stakeholders, so much more power.

Public relations expert and theorist James E. Grunig devised that there are four models of public relations which, put simply, are propoganda, public information, one way asymmetrical and two way symmetrical.

Basically, an organisation can listen to or ignore its stakeholders. It can communicate with them or talk to them.

Clearly two-way symmetrical communication – in which an organisation evolves as a result of stakeholder influence and impact – is the fairest and most desirable role. And it has now become easier than ever to achieve such communication.

Utilising the internet and the web to directly connect with stakeholders opens a world of opportunities for companies and organisations - if they are willing to take the chance and delve into the world inside their computers. Many generation X or Baby Boomer managers are still perplexed by the popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace – there is a lack of understanding why people would want to put their lives on show for anyone to read, why they don’t just pick up the phone to communicate with their friends.

But once you delve into the world of the internet – the millions of blogs, websites and networks – it can be quite overwhelming. There is a whole world in there that individuals can feel lost in. Joining Facebook or setting up a MySpace page is a way of staking out a claim in that world – like building a home. It’s a visable sign of your presence. And once one house is built others join them, until your own little community is visable and recognisable amid the chaos.

Globalisation continues to erode our physical boundaries – communities are not what they once were. Consequently, people continue to turn to the internet to cement relationships and find their place in what is both a smaller yet more complicated web-widened world.

Clueless! Lazy! Unoriginal! These are some of the words used to describe the approach PR pros take to pitching online. Digital information flows have been muddied by these attempts at publicity, like too many paintbrushes in the jar.

And, as has been said more times than dysentery will give you trips to the bathroom, they give PR a bad name.

My question is: While these people may call themselves PR pros, are they really in PR?

What exactly do PR pros do, anyway?

Let’s start with one of the founders of modern, scientific PR, Edward Bernays. In his 1928 book Propaganda he writes:

The public relations counsel, then, is the agent who, working with modern media communications and the group formations of society, brings an idea to the consciousness of the public. But he is a great deal more than that. He is concerned with courses of action, doctrines, systems and opinions, and the securing of public support for them.

How about a more up-to-date definition? Recent PROpenMic member and all-round-super-awesome-prolific-expert on the subject, James E. Grunig, provides this:

Following Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 6), we define public relations as the “management of communication between an organization and its publics.”

Public relations and communication management describe the overall planning, execution, and evaluation of an organization’s communication with both external and internal publics – groups that affect the ability of an organization to meet its goals.”

…groups that affect the ability of an organization to meet its goals: If you consider yourself a PR pro, does your definition of “publics” equal this?

Further down the path: Does the practice of creating poorly targeted, written, and researched pitches fit within the descriptions of the profession? I’d argue not, but I’m open to suggestions.

In the first chapter of PR! A History of Spin, Stewart Ewan gets an earful of Edward Bernays’ view of the profession in 1990:

It should be noted that Bernays, at the time of our conversation, felt that the field of “public relations” had failed to live up to his “professional” expectations. “Today,” he related to me with some dismay, “any nitwit or dope or anybody can call himself or herself a public relations counsel. I had a young woman call up two months ago and she said I hear you’re nice to young people. Can I come in and see you? And I said, what do you do? She said, ‘ I’m in public relations.’ So I made a date with her and when she came in-she was about 27 years old, young woman, apparently intelligent…
I said, ‘What do you do?’
She said, ‘I’m in public relations.’
I said, ‘I didn’t ask you that. I asked you what you did.’
She said, ‘I give out circulars in Harvard Square.’
She was in public relations! [The term public relations] hasn’t only been misused. But people have used the name for press agents, flacks, publicity men or women, individuals who simply try to get pieces into the paper that are favorable to a client. Whereas, by my definition, a public relations person, who calls themselves [sic] that, is an applied social scientist who advises a client or employer on the social attitudes and actions to take to win the support of the publics upon whom his, or her, or its viability depends.“

(emphasis mine)

If this is correct, then these banes of A-Listers’ existences are sullying the public relations brand.

Questions: Is this anything new? Would you consider them outsiders?

Please leave a comment.

Thanks to Dan York for the inspiration.

(photo credit: LuluP)

La malattia servirà a qualcosa e così accendo la tv (erano mesi che non lo facevo).
Quasi emozionato mi sintonizzo su “uno mattina” che solitamente hanno degli spazi interessanti di discussione.
Oggi erano ospiti il vicepresidente del Senato Mario Baccini, Vannino Chiti Ministro per i rapporti con il Parlamento e le riforme istituzionali.

Durante il botta e risposta tra il giornalista/conduttore Luca Giurato e gli ospiti è emerso uno dei problemi che l’ultima legislazione si è tirata avanti durante i suoi due anni d’incarico: “problema di comunicazione“.

A questo si è aggiunto il risultato di una serie di interviste (realizzate probabilemte dalla trasmissione: ho acceso troppo tardi la tv per poterlo capire, perdonatemi) che vedono il 6% votare Beppe Grillo se quest’ultimo proponesse una propria lista.

A questa analisi Vannino ha ironicamente (ma forse neanche tanto) avanzato apprezzamenti per la candidatura dello showman considerato come il guru della comunicazione.

Apriti cielo! eh ci credo che ci sono stati problemi di comunicazione se i nostri parlamentari non sanno nemmeno l’ABC.
Ma secondo voi si tratta di comunicazione, come dovrebbe essere con la “C”, quella attuata da Grillo?

Forse in apparenza, grazie alla possibilità di lasciare commenti sul blog, si ha un’idea di interazione con la gente ma di certo non c’è Comunicazione simmetrica a due via che è l’unica che permette di instaurare relazioni efficaci con i vari stakeholder!
Ne avevamo già discusso qui ed ero d’accordo già allora con Marco.

Invito i politici ad andare a fare un giro in biblioteca e leggersi James E. Grunig (1992), Symmetrical System of Internal Communication.

I wanted to take a moment to comment Joel’s recent blog post entitled “Conversationalists” and Marketing (I included the title because I can’t link directly to the post, only to the blog. A design flaw??) Anyway. Joel talks about the ongoing discussion that “markets are conversations”, and points out that this conversation must be a two-way street.

So good conversationalists have good listening skills, too. It’s fair to say if a company is going to be a healthy participant in a marketplace, it needs skilled conversationalists who are equally skilled at listening, as well as commenting.

What I think gets lost in the course of this post is the fact that the public relations function is (or should be) increasingly held responsible for initiating, facilitating and managing this conversation across stakeholder groups, including customers, employees, shareholders, community members and any other directly or indirectly affected by the operations of an organization.

Advertising and marketing departments should benefit from the insight we as practitioners can provide as to how to engage stakeholder groups, but ultimately public relations, as the term implies, should be the focal point of this relationship. A significant portion of the problem here lies, as one can read in Joel’s post, in this identity crisis between marketing and public relations. As James Hutton wrote:

The critical point is that marketing thought is evolving toward a public relations perspective to such an extent that marketing is essentially redefining itself as public relations.

Hutton argues, and I agree, that much of this new positioning of marketing is due to the inability of public relations practitioners to adequately define what we do, where our expertise lies, and what greater value to business and success we can ensure. We have left a gaping void where the facilitation of conversation should lie, and are continuing to operate in an asymmetrical publicity model. We are asked now to position ourselves as experts trained in the two-way symmetrical conversation (Grunig) that is so vital to the success of any organization, or get out of the way for marketers-come-pr specialists who are ready to take the lead if we do not.

I could talk about this subject ad nauseum, but I just thought it was an interesting post from a fellow practioner and an issue that is becoming increasingly pressing as we redefine communications practice across industries and organizations.