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