The Graduate Game – Playing the game is only half the battle.

It was little over a week ago that I completed my last exam and packed the suitcases ready to head back to Guildford. Without a shadow of a doubt packing took first prize in the ‘increased blood pressure’ category of this battle. If it wasn’t an odd sock found under the bed, it was a series of biro pen lids queuing politely under the desk in that typical ‘oh-so British’ manner we are all familiar with.

 

Now firmly back at home with the house chef and cleaner (sorry Mum), I’m putting my newly manicured fingers to work, scouring the web for graduate job after graduate job. In my new blog series, I document my journey as a final year undergraduate looking for that ultimate step up onto the career ladder.

Tweet, review, discuss.

Rhi 

@Rhiannon_Lucy91
http://www.linkedin.com/in/rhiannonjonesmarketing

PR vs. Propaganda: that’s a wrap!

In this blog series, I have focused on specific aspects of Public Relations and analysed the sometimes negative stigma which surrounds the industry. By delving deeper into these ideas, I hope to have changed any misconceptions and provided some thought-provoking discussions.

Answering my original question – is PR and propaganda the same concept? In my personal opinion, no, but it’s undeniable that the profession that we now know has emerged from the notion of propaganda. Do I think propaganda still exists? Yes I do, but I also believe we are smart enough to distinguish the sublime from the ridiculous. The impression of the PR industry stems from our ethics, knowledge base and most importantly our personal opinion. In other words, propaganda will always exist if we believe it to.

Nevertheless, these are just my individual views – maybe it’s time you find yours!

Over and Out (but not for too long!)

Rhi [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

Part Four: Trust me. I'm a celebrity endorsement

Does truth stem from trust or does trust stem from truth? It’s safe to say this ‘chicken-egg’ debate will leave the masses divided. If you’re asking for my opinion I would defend the notion that truth derives from trust. As babies we are blank canvases moulded (influenced) by those around whom we trust. At first this is your parents, then friends, maybe work colleagues and (though it pains me to admit this) the influence of the media.

Whether you like it or not we’re all caught in the media trap, one element that automatically springs to mind is the ‘C factor’ – the celebrity stamp of approval. Julianne Schultz (2004) declares “stars, lies and propaganda have become the stock in trade of public life, distorting reality, unhinging trust in institutions and corroding confidence.” Despite her bold claims, is it really fair to associate all celebrity PR with personal gain or spin?

Shannon & Weaver’s (1949) model of communication emphasises this idea of ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’, in other words, ensuring your sender and receiver are on the same page. Given our obession with those in the spotlight, is this a form of manipulation or just a smart PR move?

When I witness Ryan Reynolds in some smouldering fragrance advert, am I tempted to purchase this particular aftershave for my man? Possibly. Maybe because in my dreams I’m in the advert with this Adonis? Probably. The sad fact is that like our parents, certain celebrities become our influencers, role models and (if you’re like me and Ryan Reynolds) a small crush gone bad. Some might say this sort of campaigning resembles the work of Edward Bernays and ‘The American Tobacco Company’ in the 1920s. Maybe not to the same extent but the idea of using ‘idealisation’ definitely plays its role.

It’s easy for me to jest at this ‘spin doctor’ concept when it involves a product of relatively low involvement, but what if the stakes are higher? Many celebrities over the years have promoted charities; their endorsement has not only heightened the profile of said charities but also helped to raise the big bucks. A recent example can be seen through Stand up to Cancer which made its debut in October this year. Would this campaign have had the same exposure without the participation of these stars? Unlikely. Could we call the concept of celebrity PR spin when it involves a charity? This isn’t exactly an idea that has crossed my mind but what happens when celebrity endorsement reaches the world of politics?

Where authors (Drake & Higgins: 2006) have accepted the value celebrity endorsement can bring to the world of politics, Schultz argues that as the world of politics and entertainment merges “the addiction to celebrity has become more acute, more corrosive.” The US election which took place earlier this year, during which many celebrities from George Clooney to Katy Perry supported the current (and re-elected) President Barack Obama, provides a recent example of this. Seeing Presidents on chat shows and celebrities supporting political campaigns may be a little hard to take in but does this actually make sound business sense?

Cutlip et al (2000) considers democracy and PR to go hand in hand.  “In a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents, based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.” In this sense we could deem lobbying as a fundamental communication technque used to initiate mutual understanding and feedback.

Richard Perloff (2010) developed 5 elements of credibility and social attractiveness which evaluate suitable speakers to a particular audience or set of publics.

• ·         Expertise
• ·         Trustworthiness
• ·         Likeability
• ·         Similarity
• ·         Physical appearance

Credibility is vital within PR. This form of persuasion looks at how to communicate a message in the most effective way. Given critics' views on the validity of our profession there is no wonder many have invited celebrity endorsements with open arms.

Tweet, review, discuss

Over and Out
Rhi [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

Part Three: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Truth. Veracity. As we discussed in ‘part two’ of this blog series – this is the first pillar within the ‘codes of PR ethics’. The idea of honesty in theory is straightforward, however as we have seen from previous examples, this is not always the case.

But would it be an ideal situation to always tell the truth? Released in 2009, ‘The Invention of Lying’ is a film based on an alternate reality where lying doesn’t exist. It ultimately shows the blunt, cruel nature of the truth; alongside the ‘good’ the protagonist can do when he begins to implement the idea of lying. Although this film shows a clear-cut divide between telling the truth and lying, in reality this is a somewhat grey area.

The reality is that everyone spins the truth in some way, shape or form. This may not happen all the time but it certainly exists. “No! You look great! No one will ever notice,” you gush to your friend as she applies the tenth layer of concealer to the spot you’ve fondly (but secretly) named ‘Mount Vesuvius’. Sounds familiar? Have you never wanted to avoid hurting someone’s feelings? What about the time you made a non-committal statement? It may not be a lie, but this is certainly short of being honest.

Ultimately, PR exists to Photoshop out the ghastly mountain on your friend’s chin, not to completely alter her facial features. In academic terms, true PR representatives will paint a prettier picture of the truth to protect an individual or their publics, but will not outright lie. In contrast, Propaganda looks to spread false information to the masses. However, thanks to the Internet and all it entails, information on a global scale can be absorbed left, right and centre, giving individuals the opportunity to educate themselves, and allowing them to distinguish between what is Propaganda and what is public relations.

Propaganda and persuasion both seek to change opinion and attitudes but the difference lies within their motives. Re-visiting my previous example, I may use persuasive techniques to encourage my friend to leave the house and go for a coffee with me (mutual benefit) though I am sure there are many that would persuade for their own personal gain (personal benefit).

It’s all about knowing your audience. As individuals we assess who to trust, and from that our belief is that the words they speak are true – a fact in life as well as in PR. As mentioned in previous blog posts, the Internet has given publics an unlimited source of knowledge on a global scale. Where this word ‘global’ has its benefits, it also has its downfalls. As you have likely experienced, a friendly gesture in one culture may mean something entirely different in another – this concept can also apply to PR.  

Harold Lasswell suggested the following model in order to describe the mass-communication process

In a nutshell, Lasswell’s model (1948) demonstrated the message flow in a multicultural society with multiple audiences. Although this linear model is fairly simplistic, it does not highlight the idea of ‘noise’ or ‘feedback’ within the communication process. Bruce Tyson suggests this is because Lasswell’s model ultimately stems from the motivation to control and force obedience (propaganda), thus discarding the idea of feedback. Although Tyson makes an interesting point, and though it is fair to say that this model may use the idea of ‘targeted persuasion’, it is also a clear guideline to sending a message in the right way to an audience on a mass scale.

But we practitioners face the same dilemma. To speak the truth we must believe in what we are presenting, becoming advocates of our client’s cause. Without the aid of a crystal ball it is difficult to know if a client really is telling the truth and therefore we must trust our instincts, values and education to lead us down the right path.

Ultimately it’s trust and truth which separates the two. If you are ‘spinning’ a fact we can easily say this is PR but if not, you are actively taking part in propaganda. However this idealism of ‘truth’ is easily written but not preached.

With truth stems trust, and thus we delve further into this idea of ‘PR vs. Propaganda’.

Tweet, review, discuss

Over and Out           
Rhi [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

Part Two: Is it the ethical thing to do?

It would not be bold to state that in recent years Public Relations (PR) has faced difficulties within complex and diverse working environments. Historical trends such as WWI & WW2 have contributed to some PR practices being seen as unethical. I choose to believe the definition of PR has developed from lying and spinning over the years, however not all agree.

But what is the concept of ‘ethics’ and does this exist within PR? The BBC defines ethics as “a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives.” This includes what is good or bad, right or wrong and our rights and responsibilities.

Within the public relations discipline we follow our own code of conduct. This is known as the pillar of public relations:

1. ·   Veracity (to tell the truth)
2. ·   Non-malfeasance (to do no harm)
3. ·   Beneficence (to do good)
4. ·   Confidentiality (to respect privacy)
5. ·   Fairness (to be fair and socially responsible)

Many critics argue this framework cannot exist within public relations as the practice itself parallels propaganda and spin. L’Etang (2009) identified these critics to be involved in media and cultural studies. Marketers (Eden 2007, Fill 2006) tend to define PR as a credible source.

Tony, in response to your comments on my previous blog - I understand that within an organisational context it may be difficult to spot how propaganda can differ from public relations.  There is an illusion that organisational ethics and PR ethics are one and the same – Patricia Parsons (2008) explains that PR ethics is focused on “ethical implications of strategies and tactics” to solve PR and communication issues of an organisation. In contrast it could be said that it is related to the ethical implications of business practice and policies. My opinion lies in tandem with Parsons’ – although related, to assume that they are one and the same is to assume that PR ethics fail to exist at all.

Taking the ethical high ground may seem easy on paper but in reality this requires much deliberation and possibly a cold compress to soothe your aching head. PR can be defined in many ways due to its evolving nature. Each situation is unique and therefore a strict code of conduct cannot always be clear cut.

Imagine you work in the PR department for the NHS and you are asked to write a statement regarding a recent incident between two patients in your local hospital. You have a responsibility to tell the truth, but how can this be executed without harming those involved in the incident and exposing an issue they may regard as private? What do you do? Pick the side of veracity or confidentiality, or do you hold back some facts to satisfy all parties? Not so clear cut now, is it? PR representatives involved in the NHS face ethical dilemmas regarding how to address their publics.

Parsons (2008) states that “being able to do something is simply a matter of acquiring and using the necessary expertise; knowing when you should do something relies on your own ability to make ethical decisions”.

Used amongst communication practitioners, The ‘Potter Box’ coming into play when facing an ethical dilemma. The purpose of The Potter Box is to guide you to a decision, not to make it for you.

• 1.  List the facts of the situation (this will lead to a better understanding)
• 2. Identify your values and what you stand for
• 3. Identify your philosophies or guiding principle (i.e. always tell the truth)
• 4. Choose where your loyalties lie (think back to the example of the NHS)

Although this framework is valid, it relies on you to make the right decision based on your moral code of conduct. Our ethical and moral codes are developed through our culture and the environment we have been brought up in. The problem lies in that our cultures are varied, widespread and diverse. This means my moral code may not align with yours. Does this make me a propagandist? I’d like to think not, but who am I to persuade you otherwise?

In a society full of clashing cultures and values it is no wonder the word ‘ethics’ has become the monster under the bed. But going ‘full spin’ (excuse the pun), can ethics really be taught? Are these just a product of our individual culture and values? Or is this purely a trust issue?

Tweet, review, discuss.

Over and Out

Rhi [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]

Part One: PR, an ever-changing industry.

Public Relations (PR) can be defined in several different ways. Rex Harlow explored 472 definitions of PR. ‘Building a Public Relations Definition’ (1976) outlines how environmental factors have affected the meaning of the word and the industry throughout the years. One thing we can be sure about is that Mr Harlow’s definition count would have certainly doubled over the last three decades.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) explains that “public relations is about reputation - the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you.” The Public Relations Society of American (PRSA) challenged this definition earlier in the year, suggesting the internet, in particular social media has influenced the way in which PR is practiced. The PRSA’s definition leans towards the importance of relationships and communication rather than focusing on the issue of respect. Keith Butterick believes this inconsistency “is used by critics to demonstrate its fundamental weakness”. 

The simplest way to describe the primary function of PR is to ‘deliver a message’. It is the legitimacy of the message in question that has led to much debate on the credibility of PR and fronted its association with propaganda and spin. 

Paul Holmes, founder of the ‘Holmes Group’ disagrees with the PRSA’s proposal in his blog stating “public relation is not communications”. Without communication there is no way in which your publics can respond. Taking into consideration Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) ‘four models of public relations’ could this be seen in the modern day as propaganda? In any industry communication is important – us modern day folk want to be informed and we want our opinion to be heard.

In times before both crossed so much there was little difference in meaning between propaganda and PR. The word ‘propaganda’ came to light before the term ‘public relations’. Before the days of the world wide web, the only flow of information was through influential figures thought to be respected. The origin of the word came about in the 17^th Century within the Roman Catholic Church. Within this period the Congregation of the Propaganda was formed, whose mission it was to turn unbelievers into converts. Although in 1914, during World War I the word claimed its fame, it was during World War II that wartime propaganda became most recognisable. Governments throughout Britain, America and Germany used media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasts as a form of controlling information and emphasising the necessity of war. 

Today the truth is easily uncovered and lies and scandals are easily released to the general public. In 2011, despite footballer Ryan Giggs being granted a super-injunction to ban media reports on his affair with Imogen Thomas, social media took precedence and ultimately the truth was revealed on Twitter. 

Now PR is used in both the public and private sectors and information is provided on a global scale. Despite this there are still those who choose to practice propaganda as a tool to influence opinion for personal gain through manipulation and lies, a trait unseen in a credible PR practitioner. A PR practitioner will seek to influence only through information of a truthful nature. Whether you believe this is right or wrong, PR is a highly adaptable profession. It can be exactly what it needs to be, when it needs to be and for who it needs to be, however this all depends on whether the practitioner or organisation uses this for the greater good.   

I am inclined to agree with Butterick’s quote, that an inconsistency in definitions has ultimately led to uncertainty among publics. Respect? Communication? Building a Relationship? – In my opinion, these are all important tools that should be acquired and utilised by a PR practitioner.

Why is it then that not one organisation or practitioner can agree on a single definition for Public Relations? Would it be fair to say that is because the definition of PR is in the eyes of the beholder?

This is where ethics comes into play.

Tweet, review, discuss.

Over and Out

Rhi  [@Rhiannon_Lucy91]