 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vol.
8, No. 2, April 2009 |
To The Editor
| Subscribe | Back
Issues |
KDPaine.com | Masthead |
KDPaine's Blog | Reprint
Information | Search |
|||
Jim Macnamara"s "Measuring Up"
Where's
the Conversation in PR? by Jim Macnamara, PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC I'm giving a talk this month to the Public Relations Institute of Australia in a seminar series titled "Conversation with a Fellow." In the spirit of conversation, I am proposing to talk for half of the allotted time and then open the topic to discussion. And so I thought, "Why not extend the conversation here in The Measurement Standard?" Particularly as the topic of the conversation is "Conversation in Public Relations." By that I mean the extent to which public relations today is a two-way dialogue, or better still, a conversation between organizations and their stakeholders or "publics." Or is it one-way top-down monologue? Or is it what philosopher Martin Buber called "monologue disguised as dialogue?" This article is the gist of my talk's conversation opener, which is sure to stir up some debate among Australian PR practitioners and possibly US practitioners here as well. Media
defined and redefined: Media and communication are increasingly defined and identified as practices rather than as technologies or texts or producers or audiences, which media studies of the past has tended to focus on. For instance, media historian Lisa Gitelman defines media as "socially realized structures of communication, where structures include both technological forms and their associated protocols, and where communication is a cultural practice." Eminent scholar Nick Couldry, writing about the Internet and modern societies, calls for a new approach to media research focusing on "media as practice" in which media are embedded within and interlocked with social and cultural practices. With rapid growth of the open public network of the Internet and the evolution of Web 2.0, the way media and communication are practiced is being redefined in democratic and even non-democratic societies. Some refer to the key changes as the five, six or seven Cs – namely:
These factors are revolutionizing approaches to creative design, strategic planning in organisations, product development, policy making in government, and many other fields. But in terms of media and communication, there are three particularly noteworthy characteristics.
But where is public relations? Where's the dialogue? Against this trend, let's look at the practice of public relations. After a shaky start, public relations set out to conceptualize itself as different from propaganda and also different from advertising. Modern models of public relations emphasize two-way interaction, dialogue and relationships. At a practical level, public relations recognized and accepted that attitudes, perceptions and actions of people could not be controlled, nor editorial content, only influenced. Advertising unashamedly operates within a control paradigm, but, theoretically at least, public relations practice is located in a negotiated, mutually-focused environment. Group Chief Executive of the WPP Group, Martin Sorrell, referred to this open uncontrolled interactive nature of public relations in a speech about future media and communication to the Yale Club in New York in November last year. He said: "There are risks and opportunities inherent in the more complex uncontrolled communication environment of social media. But public relations is used to working in an uncontrolled environment. It is its natural territory." But is it? My experience as a media analyst for a decade -- involving analysis of hundreds of interviews, public statements and six media training programs -- suggests that, somewhere along the way, PR practice has lost its commitment to working in an uncontrolled environment. It is now almost universal PR practice to create and distribute carefully crafted, increasingly promotional messages and instruct organization spokespersons to stay "on message." Spokespersons are told to repeat key messages ad infinitum in interviews, hardly ever answering questions that are asked. In fact, many media training programs urge spokespersons not to answer questions. Most media training programs and guides analyzed use terms like "manage" the interview, "control" the interview and all advocate pre-preparing messages and staying "on message," irrespective of questions asked. Media interviews have become promotions rather than dialogues. Similarly, news releases, newsletters, Web sites and many corporate blogs present slick, rhetorically air-brushed and Photoshopped images of organizations that are often indistinguishable from advertising. It is true that some public relations programs are making genuine efforts to use Web 2.0 media, and this is moving in the right direction towards dialogue. However, the danger in this is that, even though new interactive media are available and being used, the habits and practices that have evolved over the past decade or two will be brought to Web 2.0 media. Witness the many corporate and organization blogs that are heavily moderated. Where's the dialogue? Where's the conversation? Where's the authenticity? The fact that many PR practitioners measure editorial publicity in terms of advertising cost equivalents, or what they illogically call Advertising Value Equivalents, further illustrates that many in public relations see editorial media coverage much like advertising. Meanwhile, ironically, advertising is in serious trouble. The hyperbole, slick imagery and glib promises of 30-second TV commercials and press advertising are being rejected by a new generation of cynical media savvy users. On television, advertising is being filtered out with TiVo. On the Internet it is being deleted using ad blocking software and many sites do not allow advertising. Deloittes has warned that public antipathy towards advertising is growing and a survey has found that 76 per cent of Internet users find online advertising intrusive and 28 per cent say they will pay to avoid advertising. The reason that advertising is in so much trouble is not changing technology – technically advertising can easily be placed on most Web sites. The underlying reason for this shift is changing practices of media and communication – the growing rejection of one-way top-down monologue in favour of interaction and dialogue and the rejection of "spin," rhetoric, and hyperbole in favor of authentic conversations. It seems to me that in trying to amp-up its promotional messages and control communication, public relations is traveling the wrong way down the information superhighway. What's
this got to do with measurement? Well, possibly not much. But then
again, if we are measuring the attitudes, perceptions, expectations,
and reactions of key publics, we would know what needs to be done
to align organizations with their publics and not alienate them.
Another measurement strategy might be to construct a "spin index" to
measure how much organizational communication reflects authenticity
and conversation and how much pushes the needle into the red zone
of "spin."
If you would like to comment on the above article, find it in The Measurement Standard Blog Edition. Articles are usually posted there a week or two after they appear here. |
 |
New articles in this issue:
Here is the book that gets people hired!
|
|
Jim
Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public
Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after
a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media
research which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific franchise
which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. He worked as Group Research
Director with Media Monitors - CARMA Asia Pacific following the sale
and continues as a Consultant with the Group.
|
177 Main Street, Berlin, NH 03570 |
|||
