Lobbying and the impact of the Stakeholder

Like any aspect of business PR has huge dependency on its stakeholders. With a stakeholder being anyone who has an influence on a business it is crucial a good rapour is created to have a positive impact on the business. Stakeholders vary from employees to customers to the media so do we assume the way of building relationships does as well? Lobbying as defined by Luneburg and Susman [2005, p.200] is ‘any oral or written communication to a government official’. Reasons for doing this may include improving your profile or building contacts. Looking at these reasons it would suggest lobbying is not very honest or fair as certain clichés are built to satisfy one’s own interest. There is no argument however that lobbying isn’t successful.

An example of lobbying is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp having an influence in the implementation of the new Panama free trade act. This makes it harder for the US government to clamp down on tax avoidance. News Corp has a subsidiary in Panama so it would seem there were personal gains to be made in the form of News Corp having to pay less tax. It does suggest that politicians also had personal gains because the rumour and speculation threat was so apparent in the form of News Corp publishing stories politicians acted to keep their ‘stakeholder happy’. Surely we should be concerned that politicians who are suppose to provide equal opportunities for all are so easily influenced? Does it also show the power the media of today has?

Overall looking at this example of lobbying honesty and fairness were not important in the successful practice of PR.

With there being a variety of stakeholders to any business should we not be surprised that they are categorised in terms of importance? This process is called stakeholder mapping. Anderson et al [2008, p.32] states stakeholder mapping takes 3 stages

1. Identify the various internal and external stakeholders to your business
2. Analyse their needs and expectations
3. Analyse the position and importance of each stakeholder

I think the businesses needs and goals should be added to this to give an accurate reflection. Can you think of any other important factors?

In the case of lobbying politicians are seen to be the most important stakeholder. Politicians are classified as a public sector stakeholder which in my opinion should counter the argument that there should be favouritism, what do you think?

In the wider scheme of things is it fair for the end user i.e. the customer to be deemed less important than another stakeholder? Wouldn’t we as the customer want to feel part of the brand? If the boot was on the other foot we would want our needs to be the primary focus? Of course the media is important as a stakeholder as it connects PR and its public but it shouldn’t overshadow the importance of the end user. If it is used to improve your product/service it is different as the end user is the beneficiary. It is the same if someone with specific knowledge is employed for a specific task we as the customer can see the value being added. Of course it could be argued putting importance on the media may be a successful PR strategy as rumour and speculation may be reduced.

At the end of the day goals and strategies of any business sector are influenced by a lot of stakeholders however in turn their goals and strategies may not be the same. There is no doubt targeting specific stakeholders such as the practicing of lobbying is successful but honesty and fairness are not critical to its success.

Thank you for taking the time to read these series of blogs. I hope it’s given you some insight into the goings on of PR and gets you thinking.

Best wishes

Alex McNamara

References

Luneburg, W. and Susman, T. (2005). A complete guide to federal law, governing lawyers and lobbyists. London: ABA Publishing.

Anderson, B. et al.  (2008). Mapping Work Processes. Milwaukee: ASQ Mission.

The Role of CSR within PR

Welcome to the next instalment of my blog. In this chapter I would like us to discuss Corporate Social Responsibility. Kotler and Lee [2005, p.3] defines it as ‘a commitment to improve community well being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources’. If we apply this to PR it suggests that honesty and fairness are important to the success practice of PR as a business is seen as a role model throughout the community. With this role model status if a business was involved in dishonest practices would this culture filter down? In your opinion is this likely to happen?

Reasons for engaging in CSR may differ. It could be a business related decision such as satisfying customers to become sustainable in the long term or it could be a moral decision such as having a responsibility to the wider community. With the reasons for CSR being different surely the motivation would be different as well? What do you think?

An example of CSR is the Lincolnshire co-operative who are constantly working to improve the local community by providing new services such as the new funeral home opened in Retford and rebuilding the village hall in Horncastle. This could be seen as a morally related decision as they are improving the local community. I believe in this case honesty and fairness are important to the successful practice of PR as profit is not the number one concern and the benefits reach a wider audience. It could be argued that because these activities show the business in a good light there is self interest on the businesses part to participate in it. Do you think businesses are that cynical?

A way to look at what the motive is for CSR is to analyse whether a measure is proactive or reactive. As Lincolnshire Co-op has been proactive in their practices it would support the argument they are honest and fair in their culture. An example of reactive CSR is the tobacco industry who after bad publicity of ill health caused by smoking implemented CSR to try and restore their reputation. In this case this shows that dishonesty doesn’t equal good PR practice. Incidentally if there was a honest and fair message from the tobacco companies to begin with would have a better image?

With CSR responsibility seems to be the key word. At the end of the day businesses are there to produce profits. Is having a good reputation essential to this? The uptake of CSR would suggest that it is and that honest and fair practices help the success of PR. It could therefore be a sign that PR sees it as a way to reduce rumour and speculation.  How much emphasis do you put on honesty and fairness? Is it the tipping factor for you selecting the brand?

Let me know your thoughts, thanks for reading.

References

Kotler, P. and Lee, N. [2005] Corporate Social Responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Wiley Publishing

Leadership and Celebrity in PR

Every business requires good leadership. Surely leadership is important because if we had no one taking responsibility or accountability for their actions how would society function? Strong leadership is required to help keep control of the brand and position it. If this is not done we as a society will form our own opinion and give it a reputation it doesn’t crave. In an age where gossip and rumour can spread like wildfire figureheads must be seen to present honesty and fairness so that this culture filters down. President Eisenhower quoted ‘the supreme quality for leadership is unquestionable integrity’ which would suggest that honesty and fairness is very important to the successful practice of PR.

Kelman’s source characteristic model suggests there are three main reasons why we take a message or source seriously –

• Authority
• Credibility
• Source Attractiveness

Is authority why we listen to teachers at school? Is credibility why we listen to doctor’s advice? Is source attractiveness why we live in a celebrity culture? Make up your own mind?

An example of where bad leadership affects a companies PR is Toyota. As a car manufacturer we expect Toyota to have credibility as it is a very complicated process with any mistakes possibly having life or death consequences.  When faults arouse with production in 2010 Toyota reacted slowly. Toyota’s leaders were slow to respond and acknowledge responsibility for the problems. Doing this has hugely damaged Toyota’s reputation as this lack of leadership allowed gossip and rumour to spread instead of quickly indentifying and resolving the problems. This has therefore resulted in the unsuccessful practice of PR.

Do we put to much emphasis on the leader? Should it be about surrounding yourself with the best team and resources necessary? How much importance do you place on the leaders?

As suggested before celebrities have a big influence over the world we live in. celebrities are found in many different sectors e.g. authors, musicians and politicians and are often used by PR to present messages. Some celebrities might be used to popularise a brand in the sector they are familiar e.g. Jamie Oliver and Sainsburys while some might be used just for their name e.g. Gary Lineker and Walkers crisps.

 Is it safe to assume that reasons for using a celebrity are different for each company? Majumdar [2010, p.158] quotes ‘a celebrity is used to impart credibility and aspirational values to the brand, but the celebrity does not need to match the brand’. This suggests each celebrity endorsement has a different purpose and it is dependant upon the image wanting to be portrayed.  Sainsburys might want to increase the credibility of their brand through endorsement from a well know chef while Walkers might want to create an attractiveness and desire for their brand through the use of a respected English international footballer. It also suggests that the use of celebrity helps increase honesty and integrity within the brand. Do you have any examples where celebrity endorsement has had a positive impact on the image of the brand?

In my opinion it is a risk to put to much emphasis on the celebrity endorsement. Andy Warhol said everyone would be famous for 15 mins and with celebrities this is very true with people constantly coming in and out of the public eye.

Can the role of celebrity be a good form of PR? Yes the impact of celebrity can be a positive but it can also be a negative as their reputation can change just as quickly as a brands.

Thank you for reading my blog. Do you love? Hate it? What are you thoughts of Leadership and Celebrity in the context of PR? Watch out for the next edition.

References

Majumdar, R. [2010] Consumer Behaviour: Insights From Indian Market. PHI Learning Private Limited

Are Propaganda and PR different and how do they relate to PR?

Propaganda and Public Relations are linked very closely however I believe there is a subtle difference. Does PR and society use them both for the same objectives? I believe they are both very successful at creating relationships whether this is with a company and its stakeholders or with the public and an idea. Both propaganda and PR regularly create and influence gossip, rumour and speculation so do we believe they have honest intentions?

In my opinion propaganda is more an autocratic service whereas PR verges on the democratic. Cutlip [2000] et al said ‘in a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations’. Propaganda itself is based on ‘the big lie’ where it was used for the persecution of Jews by Natzi Germany. Do you think this origin affects people’s perception of it? Propaganda has been used for one’s own individual gain rather than the general public’s interest. If we look at the Natzi Germany example it is argued that this autocratic propaganda was successful in influencing the masses as the Jews became ostracised from the community. This example shows honesty and fairness was not a factor in the successful campaign and that propaganda was an autocratic process with the Jews having no chance to publically counter the Natzi’s argument.

If we look at both propaganda and PR it is about image it is trying to create. If propaganda is trying to influence the masses through coercion rather than persuasion methods it doesn’t reflect well on a democratic approach. PR I believe has to be more aware than propaganda of the negative consequences any untrustworthy behaviour may have. PR can’t afford to lose relations with its stakeholders and so has to be conscious to be seen to be honest which can be done by keeping an effective communication system going between all stakeholders. Do you agree that propaganda’s approach is to put out a negative message through any means?

If we look at Laswell’s communication model where the message comes from and how it is delivered has a huge effect on its impact. If it is delivered from an untrustworthy source it is less likely to be believed. Social marketing aids the positive impact a message can have. As Kolter and Zaltman quoted in Andreasen [2001, page.71] ‘social marketing is the design and implementation of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas’. For example the NHS uses social marketing to promote safe sex. The fact the message is coming from a credible and knowledgeable source and is delivered in a serious way helps the impact it has. In my opinion this example shows the impact the honesty of the message can have for PR. In your view if this amount of honest can impact well in social marketing should it spread to other areas?

The NHS safe sex example shows both sides of the argument i.e. what will happen if you do and what will happen if you don’t. Propaganda is focused on showing one side of the argument which immediately means you are not showing the whole truth – do you agree and you have any examples of propaganda which focuses both sides of the argument?

Overall I believe both PR and Propaganda are designed to encourage rumour and speculation; however the motives and ways of doing it differ. This is why areas such as social marketing are effective in the way the image is presented and how it is perceived. It could be argued however Propaganda is a good form of PR as it is still publicity – do you agree or in your opinion is propaganda is always bad?

Thank you for reading and what are your opinions.

References

 Andreason, A. R. [2001] Ethics in Social Marketing. Georgetown University Press

Cutlip, S. et al. (2000) Effective Public Relations, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Values, Ethics and Trust relating to PR

In the forthcoming posts i aim to give my views and open debate on the following statement

'In a society that has been shown to enjoy gossip fed by rumour and speculation, discuss honesty and fairness as they relate to the successful practice of public relations'

How important is values, ethics and trust? In our society isn’t it the blueprint for laws and allows guidelines for how we operate? As we know however laws are broken, people are sent to jail and people are often not treated as equals. Therefore is it safe to assume that honesty and fairness is not always at the forefront of how society operates? If we compare this to Public Relations is every PR campaign focused around the centre of the truth?

Parsons and Parsons [2008, page.15] quoted ‘members in the institute in public relations must agree to deal honestly and fairly in business with employers, employees, clients, fellow professionals and the public’. This in theory indicates very strongly the truth in PR however in a quote from the same book it is said ‘the public are always sceptical of the truth’ which shows society enjoys gossip and that telling the truth isn’t always effective.

One of the main roles of PR is to at least maintain or improve a companies or brands reputation. This doesn’t always happen with the honest truth being told as The Pillars of PR ethics would like you to do [the first pillar is Veracity]. One example of where veracity isn’t at the forefront is politics and the use of spin doctors. Probably the most famous example is Alastair Campbell who worked for Tony Blair between 1997 – 2003 under the title director of communications and strategy. With the releases of the September and Iraq dossiers Campbell exaggerated the truth in relation to the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction with the aim of gaining favour to invade which eventually happened. This shows that in my opinion honesty and fairness were not of the most importance as rumour and speculation helped this successful practice of PR.

 The power of the media has heavily influenced how PR is practiced. With the media ever growing through such rises as social media sites Facebook and Twitter it exposes a company to a wider audience. Having a wider audience naturally means more channels for which we can interact with companies whilst also giving greater opportunity for gossip, rumour and speculation to spread. So with the rise of media in one sense honesty and fairness in PR is very important as it easier for all the stakeholders to incorporate two way communication and the relationship becomes more transparent.

How PR is practiced shows the level of professionalism, the way this image of professionalism is created is through a companies code of conduct which is influenced by their attitudes, values and beliefs. With this in mind does the greater access of media make it easier for PR to influence how it is perceived through rumour and speculation? Or does this mean any misdemeanours are more easily exposed through the lack of control PR has over social media meaning advocating honesty is an integral part to the successful practice of PR? What do you think?

With society having such a powerful influence over PR through the growing celebrity culture that we live in the debate of interest to the public compared to public interest arises. The customer is king phrase is appropriate as it puts more pressure on PR to appeal to the customers desire. This can lead to concealing certain details from the public to keep the public interest rather than telling the whole truth of the matter which is most in the public’s interest

After reading this and in your own opinion can PR be successful telling the truth the whole time or is the very nature of PR to promote a certain image through rumour and speculation?

Thank you for reading and I would welcome any feedback.

References

P, J. Parsons and P, H. Parsons [2008] Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice. Kogan Page Limited