MA PR 2010 class

Lovely post from my classmate Divya on her blog. Happy and proud to have had such lovely and amazing classmates! Lots of love to all these awesome girls and guys!

PR vs. Social Marketing

"Everyone can sell chocolate. Selling getting up, going to the gym and exercising every day takes a real marketing genius." Stephan Dahl

In the 1970s Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman discovered that the same principles that were being used to sell products and services to consumers could be used to 'sell', to the same people, attitudes, ideas and behaviours. Thus a new discipline was born - social marketing - with a background in both social sciences and policy and commercial and public sector marketing.

According to French & Blair-Stevens, social marketing can be defined as "the systematic application of marketing, alongside other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioural goals, for a social cause." It can be differentiated from marketing as its efforts are directed towards a social good and not a financial gain. It has received, however, its fair share of criticism with claims that it is only interested in getting people to change their behaviour but not really caring how they do it.

The National Social Marketing Centre in the UK has produced an 8 point social marketing National Benchmark Criteria that is used to help encourage and promote greater consistency in the use and application of social marketing:

• Clear focus on behaviour and achieving specific behavioural goals

• Centred on understanding the customer using a variety of customer and market research

• Theory-based and informed

• 'Insight' driven

• Uses 'exchange' concept and analysis

• Uses 'competition' concept and analysis

• Has a more developed 'segmentation' approach (going beyond basic targeting)

• Utilizes an 'intervention mix' or 'marketing mix' (rather than relying on single methods)

Used mainly in the public sector and non-profits, social marketing is used for campaigns raging from health issues awareness, reducing smoking or traffic safety.

One of the questions from this week suggested that PR, a field with somewhat questionable ethics, should look and learn from social marketing. Because social marketing is somewhat of the marketing industry's conscience. But isn't that a bit paradoxical? Marketing is used to promote alcohol and cigarettes or cars that run at 200 km/h (and it is perfectly legal to do so), but then public institutions resort to social marketing, which was especially created as a discipline to ask people to stop drinking, smoking or exceeding the speed limit.

This is not to say that social marketing is not efficient or beneficial, because it most definitely is. But it is far from being the ethical high-ground to be used to guide related fields of practice. PR surely has a valuable lesson to learn from activism methods of generating change or social marketing approaches to dealing with the audience while reaching its socially beneficial aim. But in today's world, where boundaries between advertising, marketing and PR tend to get more and more blurred, public relations is probably better off not just learning from social marketing but by engaging and collaborating within change initiatives and campaigns, thus making a commendable contribution.

References:

• 
  
  
  French, J, and Blair Stevens, C. (2005) Social Marketing Pocket guide (1st Edition) National Social Marketing Centre for Excellence, http://www.nsms.org.uk/
• 
  
  
  Kotler, P, Zaltman, G. (1971) Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. Journal of Marketing 35:3-12.
  

NGO = PR

"I love a challenge and saving the Planet seems like a good one" - Paul Stamets

PR plays a major and defining role in the activities of non-governmental organisations - whether we are talking about charities, social welfare, religious organisations or foundations - although people working in the Third Sector are reluctant to admit it; or as our guess speaker from Friends of the Earth said - they would do anything to separate themselves, their work and job titles from anything having to do with public relations. However, at the end of the day, the tasks that they perform and their abilities are exactly those of a PR practitioner.

What are the key abilities and skills that a third sector practitioner must have? Just to list some of the most commonly mentioned: fundraising skills, persuasive pitching abilities, budget management, research capabilities, relationship and network building skills, media relations skills, organising skills, negotiation and planning skills, documentation and dissemination of information abilities. And what are the key abilities and skills that a PR practitioners should have? I would exactly say the above mentioned.

The main thing that advocacy groups do is raising awareness, whether it is for an event, an environment cause, a social issue or for them as an organisation. Raising awareness refers to alerting the general public that a certain issue exists and should be approached the way the group desires. And how do you do that if not through PR campaign?

What did our speaker described himself to be? "The brand destroyer". Because according to him that's what NGOs are in the business of doing: destroying or threatening to destroy the reputation of big brands in order to get their way - impose the cause they are working for. And how could NGOs put that amount of pressure on the likes of Nike, McDonalds or Lukoil if not through well mastered PR skills and techniques?

All in all, NGOs entire existence as Third Sector organisations is based on their ability to practice good PR, whether it is to raise funds, to describe services to their beneficiaries, to inform the public about their accomplishments, to distinguish themselves from other NGOs, engage in media relations or to promote their causes.

CSR - modern business strategy or just the latest lobbying tool?

One thing that a lot of times gets regarded with even more cynicism than PR is corporate social responsibility. More so since lately an increasing number of companies have integrated CSR into their PR departments and have defined the practice of CSR as a PR function. CSR falls under the remit of public relations practitioners in their 'boundary spanning role' (described by systems theory - Grunig and Hunt, 1984).

Much debate has arisen around this topic, and our two teams in class this week didn't fail to bring a spark into their heated discussion while trying to decide whether: 

"Attempts to align companies or brands with good causes are mere window dressing and companies should stick to the business of making money."

One of the main factors that lead to the rise of CSR is globalization. With the new knowledge-based economy emerging in the early 1990s appeared human rights, environmental and labour abuses which led to the anti-globalization demonstrations at the end of the 20th century. The result was that companies from all sectors and industries had to implement new policies and reform their business following the new social responsibility trend.

Whether it is viewed as superficial window dressing or as a genuine, new ethical approach of conducting activities, CSR is a reality of today's business environment and more and more organisations are embracing it. It is hard to tell whether 'caring' and 'responsible are just the latest must haves for brand image or a true shift in attitude has occurred. My guess is that both are true depending at the organisation we look at.

 This could be the reasons why the value of CSR programmes and initiatives in terms of public recognition varies from company to company. And it could also be why in a lot of cases they do not provide returns to match the inputs. Certain corporations, although successful in their field, will never inspire credibility in their CSR initiatives. This might be due, for one, to the overall 'dullness' effect that CSR programmes tend to have embedded within them. Secondly, cynical reactions, based on past experiences with companies, are a big problem for CSR initiatives and severely undermine the value of these efforts. These programmes will barely receive any recognition, while other campaigns, equally worthy, capture the attention of the media and other stakeholders, making the investment worthwhile.

 It all comes down to how well the PR department has managed to build and maintain the corporations' reputation and how well they managed to promote, raise awareness and attract attention to said CSR initiatives.

The truth about CSR, like with most contemporary PR issues discussed in this class, falls somewhere in the middle. A lot of companies use CSR programs as a lobbying tool, a fashion statement or a means of winning favours with government. This doesn't mean that there aren't just as many organisations who truly embrace responsibility for the impact that their activities have on the environment, employees, communities, and all other members of the public sphere. This is why I cannot agree with the debate's proposition - although it might be true for certain companies who are unwilling or incapable (due to their field of activity) of associating themselves with good causes, there are a lot of organisations who've truly embraced these initiatives and communities everywhere have profited from them. And if more corporations would fall under the previous category then employees, consumers and entire communities would be happier, more loyal and ultimately more productive and beneficial for the organisation.

 References:

J. Grunig, T. Hunt, Managing Public Relations, Thompson Learning, 1984
Michael Regester, Judy Larkin, Risk Issues and Crisis Management, Kogan Page, 4th edition, 2008

Ethical PR - a reality for the entire industry?

“The only way to practice ethical PR is to work in the NGO or voluntary sector, all the rest is corporate propaganda or spin”

Today's debate, which I was a part of, brought forward the ever burning question of ethics in public relations: is ethics in PR an oxymoron? Is ethical behaviour the goal that the entire industry is in pursuit of or is it just a reality in certain sectors?

The debate's statement was based on an assumption that is, in my opinion, unrealistic and over generalised: if the only way to practice ethical PR is to work in NGO's, then all for profit organisations or corporations practicing PR are fundamentally unethical in their activity.

There is no sustainable evidence to support such an assumption, unless we consider that making money is an unethical act. And in that case, why would we even bother with matters of ethics in PR is the entire global economy was a ramp for unethical behaviours?

The ability to engage in ethical reasoning in public relations is growing in demand, in importance and in responsibility. Academic research, university education, and professional practice are all paying attention more than ever to matters of ethics. Careful and consistent ethical analyses facilitate trust, which enhances the building and maintenance of relationships – which is the ultimate purpose of the public relations function.

First thing to look at in such a debate is the fact that ethics varies with culture: we can't compare western standards of ethics with, for example eastern ones. We can't compare eastern business practices with western ones and pass judgement on their morality. What may constitute an unethical behaviour in a Western Europe country - presenting your business partner with an expensive gift - can represents a standard practice in an Eastern culture like China. So before we can even start to judge a practice as being ethical or not, we need to consider the underlying cultural traditions and beliefs of the particular society in which it occurred.

This further extends to sectors of PR: what may constitute a faulty PR practice in the Third Sector could be a perfectible acceptable strategy in the, let's say, fashion sector.

Like in absolutely every industry or profession, there are examples of unethical practices in public relations. They exists, are well known, and no one is denying them. However, they exist in every sector, this including NGO and voluntary. To emphasise that NGOs can be very unethical just take a look at cases such as Greenpeace, Brest Cancer NGOs worldwide, Haiti relief NGOs or Amnesty International. They have all faced accusations of money laundering, hiding information of public interest, harassing for-profit companies and so on.

Another example to emphasise the point above is CharityComms. This is a professional organisation for people working in communication in the NGO sector. This organisation does not have, until today, a code of ethics, thus being incapable of offering a minimum ethical guideline for its members to follow.

Furthermore, there is no proof that PR organisations - such as the CIPR or PRSA - have more members from the voluntary sector or that more of these practitioners abide by the codes of ethics of these societies.

The idea of unethical PR has been fuelled by journalists as part of a decades' long feud between the professions. Cases such as those of Enron (Bowen & Heath, 2005) or Hill & Knowlton (among other things they represented 'Citizens for a Free Kuwait' who created false testimony delivered to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus) stand out because they keep getting cited with every opportunity and because negative examples always attract more attention and are long lasting. But the truth is that cases of corporate propaganda or spin are only a handful. They just are more memorable, as their happenings get repeated to the public with every occasion. However, we must keep in mind that the cases of ethical PR behaviours - such as those promoted by The Body Shop, Lush, New Look or Sainsbury's, are truly the ones at a majority and they define practices within all sectors of PR.

Social Media Webcast

Social media is not a fad. Nor will it pass by you and your company.

This webcast will take you through what social media is and why we call it that, what some of the sociological and cultural concepts behind it are and their connection to public relations. You will also find out how  IQ PR uses social media and what the benefits and downsides might be for your business.



Feel free to leave a comments, tweet, send to Facebook, bookmark and share this webcast within your online communities. If you would like a downloadable version of this webcast please e-mail us at socialmedia_pr@yahoo.com.

To download a transcript of this webcast click here. You can also watch this video on Youtube or subscribe to our webcasts in iTunes.

Thank you for watching and stay tuned for more!

PR and the Social Media Bangwagon

“Evolution is evolution – and it’s happened before us and will continue after we’re gone. But, what’s taking place now is much more than change for the sake of change. The socialization of content creation, consumption and participation, is hastening the metamorphosis that transforms everyday people into participants of a powerful and valuable media literate society.“ - Brian Solis

In class today we touched on a subject that I particularly feel attracted to and that in my own, probably biased, opinion is the future of public relations: social media. 

There are tons of materials on the subject -especially online- and more than enough (self-proclaimed) experts that preach about the unbreakable bond that PR needs to build with social media in order to have a glorious future. And, of course, they are always sure to add convincingly build arguments and cleverly constructed examples to serve as proof of just that. Brian Solis, Shel Holtz, Todd Defren, Scott Monty, just to name a few of those whose blogs I find myself regularly reading. Some are more convincing than others; some insist on the world domination of new media, others tend to be more moderately opinionated on the matter. But they all view social media as the future.

And the thing is, if you're mesmerized by the influence that social media undeniably has on the world around you, but especially by the impact it exerts on your own life (like I tend to be when I wake up in the middle of the night because there is something I just *need* to tweet about), you will surely embrace all of it, jump on the bandwagon and stubbornly fight off all that try to prove it wrong.

Social media has creeped into our daily lives and has somehow become addictive, an extension of our material life, a place to cultivate our digitally enhanced alter-egos. And oh how well does it all mix with public relations! There is obviously no way of knowing what will happen to the industry in 10 years from now; we can't even predict, all that accurately, what will happen tomorrow. But if I had to take my best guess I'd say that social media is the trend to look out for and the driving force behind what PR will be at that point.

All the stats are there and proof of how efficient platforms such as FaceBook or Twitter can be has surfaced on numerous occasions (just think of all the buzz that social media, and social media alone, created around the iPad launch this week). It's up to the PR professionals to start rewiring their brains in business mode when it comes to how/ what to post on their blogs or update FaceBook statuses with, and figure out the proper way of using all these new tools in the advantage of their company and clients.

Because the hardest problem that a PR practitioner will ever face in the area is how to use social media to their advantage. Even though when you think about it in terms of 'updating information on Facebook' or tweeting 140 character messages on 'what's happening', you feel that it should come naturally (I mean, after all, it is something that you pretty much do every day), it may actually be harder than it seems once applied to an organization's or client's needs.

How do you time the release of the information, what kind of message do you want to send out and how do you make sure it doesn't get distorted on the way (we all pretty much know that social media = lack of control), how much information is too much or what social media platform best fits the profile of your client and the requirements of their audiences. Not to mention the whole issue surrounding measuring and evaluating results or that of defining the new ethical boundaries, if any left at all.

Information flows faster and more uncontrollable than ever before; and what better glimpse at this reality that a simple analysis of the dynamics of Twitter trends or of viral campaigns such as Facebook's 'What colour's your bra?' And if PR has come to terms with the loss of control over that information, it's about high time it start gaining some of it back.

All of the sudden we have all these multitude of voices that are automatically invested with power and that create a lot of new third party endorsers. PR practitioners have to come up with ways to manage these voices, identify those which are most relevant and powerful, and shift the power balance towards their client or company. And multiple voices also come with a benefit: two-way communication is more enhanced than ever. This is an exceptional opportunity to find out exactly what the public is thinking about and if social media hasn't told you that it means that the online tools are not being used properly.

In this new digitalized world, monologue has given way to dialog, professionals to amateurs (these days we seem more likely to trust in the words of bloggers than in any 'official information' we receive) and authenticity seems to be the key. But is transparency also a core integrated element of social media? It is definitely a top requirement in the social media scheme of things, but how realistic is it really? Gatekeepers have always been there to serve their purposes and social media is no different: the gatekeepers are there, just not as obvious as before; unspecialized users tend to be oblivious to their existence, but they are real. The public wants honest non-biased opinions in their grand search of the Truth, but it doesn't always seem to be feasible. Of course transparency is the basis of building trust and relationships, and these two elements are key to good public relation practices, but there is such a thing as too much information and honesty don't have to equate with utter vulnerability. And it's again the PR professional's duty to find the perfect balance between the two.

Used correctly, social media is capable of offering the PR professional the means to send out controlled messages while giving the public the opportunities and exactly the information it needs. And once PR learns how to manage all of the above, and starts using social media the way it was intended, the benefits are there to thrive in.

War, Spin, PR and Propaganda

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace"— Walter Lippmann

Our first class in this module focused on a discussion around PR and propaganda and we had the opportunity to watch "War Spin: The Media and the Iraq War." The documentary examines the story of US Private Jessica Lynch and tries to reveal some troubling facts about how American news media spins the truth in an effort to increase war-time morale.

British journalist John Kampfner presents his view on what happened to Lynch, and points out discrepancies in the news and stories that were sent out to the public. By bringing forward several aspects of the news industry, the program raises questions about war-time propaganda and the ethics, of lack thereof, of journalists.

Defining Propaganda

The word propaganda comes from the Latin name Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith), a department founded by Pope Gregory XV and devoted to the spread of Catholicism. The term itself, in that context, did not specifically refer to any negative practice, although propaganda certainly has gathered negative connotations in today’s society.

Propaganda messages can be delivered as part of the mainstream news media, including music, magazines, movies, and television shows. It can also take the form of reports, publications, and leaflets targeted to a particular segment of the population. Techniques used in propaganda can include appeals to fear, statements of prejudice, disinformation, demonizing the enemy, intentional vagueness or oversimplification. Typically, the most effective propaganda campaigns are based upon the truth; however, the facts are presented selectively in order to encourage people to come to a particular conclusion.

Harold Laswell (1971) defined propaganda as "the control of opinion by significant symbols, or, so to speak, more concretely and less accurately by stories, rumours, reports, pictures, and other forms of social communication. There is a need for a word which means the making of a deliberately one-sided statement to a mass audience. Let us choose 'propaganda' as such a word."

Edward Bernays (1928) defined modern propaganda as "a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea, or group. He also defined public relations as "the attempt by information, persuasion and adjustment, to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement, or institution". It's easy to see how both of Bernays' definitions convey a similar theme.

Both used as effective communication tools - PR and propaganda are supposed to position themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, in the recent and not so recent past, governments have aggressively used PR techniques to reach the same results that propaganda achieved during the First and Second World War. The Iraq War and the Jessica Lynch's story are only two of many such examples.

Propaganda & PR Techniques in times of war

Phillip Knightley, investigative journalist, in an article he wrote for the The Guardian, identified the four stages of preparing a nation for war with the help of propaganda, but also more modern PR techniques:

• The crisis: a crisis which negotiations seem unable to resolve is reported to the public. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of military retaliation. The media reports this as "We’re on the brink of war", "War is inevitable" or other similar statements.

• The demonization of the enemy’s leader: comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start because of the instant images his name provokes. For example, Saddam Hussein was painted as a second Hitler by the Americans, hated by his own people and despised in the Arab world.

• The demonization of the enemy as individuals: for example, suggesting that the enemy is insane or otherwise incapacitated to make rational decisions.

• Atrocities: this includes making up stories to whip up and strengthen emotional reactions. A well-known example is the Kuwait babies' story, which I referred to in this post.

In March 2005, the New York Times revealed that there have been a large amount of fake news created by US government departments, such as the Pentagon, the State Department, the Census Bureau and others, and disseminated through the mainstream media. According to David Barstow and Robin Stein, the US Bush administration has “aggressively used public relations to pre-package news" and subsequently broadcast them on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production. These segments, that have reached millions, could amount to propaganda by the US Government within the United States, as well as internationally.

During the Iraq War, the US implemented several propaganda techniques: for one, they created false radio personalities (for example on Radio Tikrit) that would disseminate pro-American information on stations that were supposed to be run by supporters of Saddam Hussein. (Source: Schleifer, Ron. "Reconstructing Iraq: Winning the Propaganda War in Iraq." Middle East Quarterly, 2005, 15-24). Moreover, according to New York Times, they paid Iraqis to publish articles written by American troops in their local newspapers, under the assumption that they are unbiased, objective and truthful accounts of events. And the examples could go on and on, not only related to the US and Iraq but to the Afghan war, the war in Somalia (2006-2009), to China, North Korea or Yugoslavia.

What happened to ethics?

The problem we are facing today is that propaganda and PR, in a political context, are becoming harder and harder to separate. Tom Rankin says that "if what you're 'spinning' has a solid basis in fact, you're doing PR. If not, it's propaganda." However, it is widely established that effective propaganda techniques are based on the truth, which is sent out to the public in a selective manner. So basically it is spinned. Then where do we draw the line between propaganda and PR?

If a presidential candidate hires a PR agency to represent him, the role of the firm is to propagate a positive image of this person and organisation to the public, with the goal of getting him elected. Similarly, missionaries would propagate doctrines of the Catholic Church with the goal of spreading the religion and encouraging conversation. However, one falls under the heading of propaganda while the other is considered to be PR. How do we make the distinction, where do we draw the line? Is it all a question of ethics and morale values and if so, after watching "War Spin: The Media and the Iraq War" you have to wonder: is there any space left for ethics anymore?

References:

• Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in World War I, The MIT Press, 1971
• Edward Bernays, Propaganda, Liveright, Ig Publishing, [1928], 2004

Hello world. Hello PR

My name is Roxana and I am a master student in Public Relations at the University of Westminster in London. This blog is starting out as an assignment for one of my post grad modules and it is meant to bring forward and analyse different contemporary issues in public relations, throughout the course of the next few months.

And what better way to take on contemporary issues in public relations than through a blog - the essential new media platform - and what many believe to be the future of PR.

In hopes that this will not turn out to be a purely theoretical venue, nor an online ranting station, but rather a constructive, tactical and analytical approach to public relations issues today, I welcome you to my blog and wish you a pleasant stay. Feel free to ask questions or comment and be sure you will receive feedback.

Until next time,

Roxana