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.
