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
