The End Is Nigh

So this series of posts has come to an end. Looking back at the initial reason for starting the blog,

‘Persuasion is a key tool of the PR practitioner who exists to present the client or organisation in the best possible light. Sometimes this activity is referred to as propaganda or spin. Discuss.’ 

It’s clear after writing these posts that PR is not black and white. Throughout this series, I have discussed the origins of PR, ethics both personal and professional, trust and credibility and truth and reputation. All of these topics have explored in some way the dynamics of PR and spin. As I have mentioned throughout my posts I firmly believe that PR and Propaganda are at completely opposite ends of the scale. PR lies in truth and that is ultimately the thing that sets them apart. I have enjoyed writing these blogs and appreciate all comments and input.

 Goodbye for now

Amy  

Truth, Lies and Reputation

As long ago as time goes back we have always been concerned with our reputation, in 1604 when Shakespeare’s Othello was first performed, Cassio uttered the famous quotation ‘Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself.’

But how far should we go to protect our reputation? And the reputations of the companies we work for?

This ties in quite strongly with my post about ethics and values. One could definitely argue that the extent to which you would go to protect a reputation lies heavily with your values. However with PR and reputation management the boundaries are rather blurred. Are persuasion, propaganda and Corporate Social Responsibility all acceptable tools to use to change opinions and attitudes?

The Free Dictionary define persuasion as succeeding in causing a person to do or consent to something. It is a tool that is probably used in PR practice everyday. In PR we want to show the companies we work for in the best light possible.  To do this we may need to focus more on the good the company is doing than the bad, this does not mean we are lying. We are however, pushing the good press forward. We do this for ourselves everyday, you hope people see the good side of, the side you put forward more than your bad habits. 

But how much of the truth is it acceptable to tell? Is it best to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?  Veracity is part of the pillars of ethics therefore PR practitioners surely should value the truth? In reality this is not always the case and more often than not the whole truth is not always told. In some cases this can be down to the ‘greater good’ people may not always benefit from knowing the whole truth. In terms of corporate PR if a company is always 100% honest to shareholders they may not want to invest. The NHS or the Police may not always be 100% honest but to prevent mass panic not to be deceiving. True PR representatives will portray a better version of the truth to protect an individual or company, but they should not lie.

Is Corporate Social Responsibility another way of hiding the truth? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is difficult to define, Theaker suggests that CSR is ‘essentially about how business takes account of it’s economic, social and environmental impacts i the way it operates’ . What CSR means for the company, depends on each individual case. For a company such as The Body Shop, CSR is part of the makeup of company (excuse the pun) and is part of their core values, it could also be considered their  unique selling point as they put their ethics at the forefront of all their campaigns.

  

CSR started off as something that some companies chose to do for their communities, other communities and generally for the benefit of others.

Many critics argue that CSR is something that is now expected from companies as part of their core operations. Bhattacharya et al argue in an article that all companies should carry out CSR, but some companies do not see the advantages in a business sense for CSR as it has no immediate returns (accessed 1/12/12). Qfinance say that ‘72 %of customers are more likely to purchase from a company that is socially responsible’ but does this mean that companies are only carrying out CSR to persuade customers that they are a ‘good’ company?

It could be argued that CSR is a form of proactive crisis management, a company such as Innocent may be more easily forgiven by stakeholders for a mistake as they voluntarily do a lot of good for communities. However this may not be the case, look at BP with the infamous oil spill. BP had a CSR strategy that aimed to combat the negative externalities of the company and the plan they had implemented had been achieved in a lesser than specified time. However with the 2010 oil spill on the gulf of Mexico being such a massive crisis for the company, a lot of their previous CSR strategy was devalued and seen as small in comparison to the problems the spill created. 

Despite the fact that many argue CSR is simply greenwashing, should we not just be happy that the causes and charities are being looked after whatever the agenda of the companies may be? 

At what point does persuasion and persuasive strategies cross the boundaries into propaganda? Some argue that it is difficult to separate Propaganda from other forms of persuasion. I would argue that persuasion and propaganda are at completely different ends of the scale. Propaganda looks to spread information to people whatever the truth behind it if it suits the agenda of the campaign. 

As mentioned in a previous post, propaganda is a manipulation of the truth and has been implemented by some less than lovely people through history. Propaganda was used extensively in the Vietnam war as a way of controlling people’s opinions. Propaganda is often associated with war as it only offers one side of an argument and is utilised to influence the masses.

Example of Propaganda from the Vietnam War

As a student of PR I believe that there is a vast difference by the persuasive, reputation management tools used in PR to that of the mistruths spread through propaganda. 

Reference

Bhattacharya CB, Korschun Daniel, Sen Sankar, (2012) What really drives value in corporate responsibility? McKinsey Quarterly, 00475394, 2012, Issue 1 Business Source Complete

Who Said What?!

Does the messenger affect the way in which a message is received? Is a message more persuasive if the source is credible? From a personal point of view I believe that credibility has a massive impact on the validity of a message. But what does credibility actually mean? 

Tench and Yeomans discuss opinions on credibility as it is an important but difficult to define part of communications ‘It is something that is given by the audience and cannot be demanded by the speaker’. Perloff (1993) cited in Tench and Yeomans outlines the four key elements by which audiences evaluate speakers:

• Expertise - How competent the speaker is on this issue
• Trustworthiness - This includes confidence and likeability
• Similarity - Credible speakers should be like the receiver 
• Physical Attractiveness - People tend to trust attractive speakers. 

How do we decide who is credible? As children we believe everything certain people tell us, Mums, Dads and Grandparents. At no other time in your life, nor from any other source would you accept that ‘chewing gum gets tangled around your heart if you swallow it’ or ‘if the wind changes your face will stay like that’. But as children we take these threats as the truth and believe them wholly because if your Mum said it, it has to be true. So as Children we begin accepting everything our parents tell us but as we grow up how do we decide who is credible? Who is trustworthy? 

I think that the four elements Perloff has outlined have a lot to do with how we perceive a speaker but I also think that trustworthiness and credibility are to be earned. If we look at the example of our dear politicians, we can see how they are not always viewed as credible. Too many times in the past, has a politician said one thing and done another, this is not a way to build relationships with the public thus has lead to certain politicians being deemed untrustworthy. Take Nick Clegg, before the coalition took to power he promised in his Manifesto that tuition fees for students would go unaltered, within months of the election, plans began to go forward for the tripling of said fees. Thus people perceive Clegg as dishonest and untrustworthy, so when he tells the public something in the future, no matter how true it may be, it is likely to be disbelieved. This demonstrates how important credibility is in terms of communication and therefore PR. 

In PR, we may often look to the ‘experts’ to put a message across to our audiences, these experts need to be carefully selected and have the right cultural reference points for the audience we are targeting. In previous posts, I have looked at the Shannon and Weaver model. It outlines noise as being the everyday distractions that prevent messages getting to the receiver in the way in which the sender intended it to. 

A credible source should be able to cut through the noise, to get the message to the receiver. Thus emphasising the usefulness of credibility in PR strategy. 

Using an ‘expert’ as part of a PR strategy may be a very effective tool for a campaign in healthcare or technological products etc. This is because as an audience if a doctor in a white coat is telling us to get a Flu jab it is more likely that we will act upon this than if it were the head of PR for the vaccine company. This is because we have grown up to believe Doctors are credible and we have a lot of trust in their knowledge. This is why it is really important to use the right cultural reference points, to trigger the correct response from publics.

Celebrities are often used in PR strategy as a way of getting to an audience. Celebrity is a global phenomenon that can be used to promote brands, products, messages and the celebrity themselves. Rojek classifies celebrities under five headings;

• Ascribed Celebrity
• Achieved Celebrity
• Attributed Celebrity
• Celetoid 
• Celeactors

The classification of the celebrity could affect their credibility. For example, J.K.Rowling is considered an Achieved Celebrity as she has made millions of pounds from a worldwide, best selling series of novels, she could therefore be considered an expert or a credible source on publishing, writing, imagination, magic etc. However to use Paris Hilton as an expert on the same topics could dissatisfy an audience as she would not seem credible, thus the message she is trying to put across on your behalf would not be well received. Many people could argue that a Celetoid is always an incredible source as they are simply famous for commanding attention based in scandal, such as Courtney Love. However If you wanted to get a message across to alcoholics or drug users, she may be a credible source as she has experienced these problems thus can relate to the audience. This demonstrates that the person may not always seem credible but their ability to relate to the audience is what affects the credibility of the message. 

‘Consumers and ‘buyers’ of products and services are heavily influenced in the purchase desicisions by celebrity endorsement’ Tench and Yeomans. This is why it is so important to get celebrity endorsement right, to ensure that the associations between the celebrity and the brand are mutually beneficial. Reputation management of both the celebrity and the brand are extremely important because if either is damaged it will affect the associate. For example in 2008, Sharon Stone was dropped from all Chinese Christian Dior adverts after she made insensitive comments regarding the earthquake that hit the country and killed thousands of people. When either party feels the other could damage their own reputation it’s very much a ‘cut and run’ policy. When Kate Moss was accused of using cocaine in 2005 she was dropped by Burberry, Chanel and H&M as they did not want to be associated in the drug scandal. However just months later due to some very successful reputation management, Kate managed to scrape back her endorsements and is rumored to have doubled her annual profits since the scandal, does this question the values of the companies she now endorses? 

Finding the right face for your campaign can make the message more persuasive. In PR we are often trying to persuade publics to come around to our way of thinking. PR representatives will offer the version of the story that paints their client in the best light. The way this story is offered to the public will affect how persuasive it is, if they value the source of information, they are more likely to accept the message. 

As I have argued previously, persuasion in PR does differ to that of Propaganda as it is based in truth. Truth is an important factor in PR and communication as a whole, whether you are choosing to tell it or not, this is something I will be looking at in further detail in my next blog. 

Is that Ethical?

Ethics is always an interesting debate, there is no correct answer as your values and ethics are entirely yours. You can argue your side until you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t mean you’ll change opinion. 

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines ethics as ‘a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system based on morals’. But where do we develop our ethics? Is it through our parents? Through the media? Through friends? From life experience? The typical nature vs nurture debate. 

Personally I think it is a combination of all of the above, nature and nurture. We begin life following our parents perceptions of right and wrong, and this is developed as we make friends and begin school. The media, the programmes we watch and the magazines and books we read all affect the things we value. Life experience changes the way see the world and the values we have. Many people agree that your ethics change throughout your life, the things you value when you’re young and single are likely to be different when you have a family to think of. So are your personal values the same as your professional values? Do your values affect the work you do? 

In PR you may be asked to do things which conflict with your values, for example in today’s seminar we discussed working on a campaign relating to bearskin hats, would you refuse if you were vegetarian or against wearing fur? Or as a professional do you believe you have to put your personal ethics aside? 

In PR we aim to follow the Pillars of Public Relations (I say aim because people do seem to miss occasionally!).

•    Veracity (tell the truth)

•    Non-malfeasance (do no harm)

•    Beneficence (do good)

•    Confidentiality (respect privacy)

•    Fairness (be fair and socially responsible)

Although these pillars work as a useful guideline for PR practitioners they can also cause conflict. Take the scenario we looked at in today’s seminar, It has come to light at the hospital where you are the PR team that one of the breast screening machines is faulty, In this scenario 1,000 women need to be recalled to the hospital to be re-screened. This situation would be difficult to manage as the pillars of Veracity, Non-malfeasance, and Confidentiality all come into play. You need to do no harm and tell the women affected whilst at the same time protecting their privacy from the media, to whom you should tell the truth. As you can see this is where following an ethical guideline becomes difficult and you need to use your own integrity to best resolve this problem. 

It looks as though working in PR will definitely test your moral compass! 

What is PR?

What is PR? this is a question with a lot of different answers, as I have discussed in previous posts pinning a single definition to the area of PR has proven difficult over the years. L’Etang suggests that ‘Public Relations involves the communication and exchange of ideas to facilitate change’. Whereas The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) explains that “public relations is about reputation - the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you.” There are differing opinions of what PR is throughout the academic literature. Many critics accuse PR of being spin or fluff, a tool used to pull the wool over the publics eyes and deem it an unnecessary venture. However I feel that the PR practitioners working for international cooperations with their seat firmly set in the boardroom, earning six-figure sums, would beg to differ. 

When we look back at the history of PR it is closely linked to Propaganda and this where some of the unrest surrounding PR stems from. Harrison discusses the origins of propaganda, ‘The word itself  originated in the Roman Catholic Church of the Seventeenth century, when the Congregation of the Propaganda was formed.’ The congregation were in charge of converting unbelievers on behalf of the church. Their role was based heavily on persuasion. Goebbels was the lead Nazi Propagandist in Hiltler’s Germany in the 1930’s and he used propaganda for power and social control. Due to the manipulation of the truth used historically in propaganda it is typically regarded with disbelief and distrust. Because of PR’s close link with propaganda and it’s negative connotations many people believe PR to be a waste of time. 

In my opinion PR is largely based on communication, and this is a skill we all value. Without good communication skills we would find everyday life a lot more difficult, PR is merely communicating to a larger audience typically on behalf of someone else. This does not mean PR has to be considered any less trustworthy than the communication you have with your flatmate or your mum! 

Today people have access to information from all over the world thus the ‘social control’ element of propaganda is no longer such a threat. It is harder to lie to a nation that can access information through hundreds of channels without getting up off of the sofa. 

This does not mean I am naive enough to think that we are always told the whole truth, I simply think that PR should be a way of communicating not brainwashing. 

PR time

Third year has started with a bang with lots to do and little time to do it in!

In this series of blogs I will be discussing the views on PR ethics, particularly PR and Propaganda. Are they one and the same?

I'm hoping for some comments and critique on my posts so please feel free to discuss and comment.

Next post to follow soon,

Amy

Reflection

PR is a complex profession and requires many different skills, people do not tend to realise the extent of the effect PR has and it often gets associated with the glamour of Samantha from ‘Sex and the City’, 

Or the manipulation of the truth that is associated with Max Clifford.

In reality PR deals with everything from crisis management to launching or maintaining a brand, it can differ from Marketing PR to having a seat in the boardroom in Corporate PR. 

This module has been really useful at giving an insight into the everyday tasks of a PR practitioner. I think the assignment itself has given us a good grounding knowledge of what it takes to brief agencies and also to pitch back to companies, it has allowed us to put knowledge into practice which I personally find more useful than simply learning theory. 

I think the information I have received on this course, and also the practical application of presenting and blogging skills will be very useful for the rest of my time at university. Strong presentation skills are not only vital at university, they are highly important in the PR industry. I think that my presentation skills have improved greatly at university and will hopefully continue to do so. Blogging is also an up and coming PR venture, and may be something I would be asked to do on behalf of a company. 

I personally value communication skills very highly, whether on a personal level between friends or in a very public way such as presenting at work, therefore these skills need to be finely tuned to be used to the best of my ability. This is definitely something I plan to continue to work upon.