1. business and industrial
2. advertising and marketing
3. public relations

What is Public Relations?
Global opinions on public relations and communications management
www.prconversations.com
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Funny things happen when you start a conversation. One minute you’re
musing in isolation in your own corner of the world, the next you are
engaged in a lively debate with intriguing people you have never met
collectively challenging and discussing views and approaches to your chosen
profession.
An introduction
In July 2006, Toni Muzi Falconi, an acknowledged world leader in public
relations practice and theory, started just such a conversation when he
established ‘Toni’s Blog’. The resulting global discussion on public relations
and communications management later became PR Conversations, a
collaborative blog with contributors located around the world.
Throughout its existence, one question has been raised time and again what is public relations? It formed the basis of one of Toni’s earliest posts and
the debate continues to this day. Does this demonstrate an uncertainty on
the part of our profession as to who we are and what we do? Some might say
it does, but others might suggest it is simply part of the continuing evolution
of public relations. Technology has allowed us to share perspectives and
opinions from many countries and cultures, possibly steering us towards a
new consensus. One that potentially will take us to a definition that can be
applied globally but adapted to local custom and culture.
Web statistics are a wonderful thing and after a look at some of the
‘numbers’ generated by the site, we decided to extract the many strands of
conversation surrounding this question and collate it within the following
document. This was partly to ‘organise’ some of the thinking, but also in
response to the growing numbers of students, practitioners and academics
around the world searching for ‘What is PR?’ who made their search landing
on our site. So much so, we felt this format might prove helpful.
In extracting the conversation surrounding ‘What is PR’ from PR
Conversations and Toni’s Blog, I have left thoughts, opinions and
contributions intact, altering only major typographical errors and the
occasional bit of text where either a late night, a computer glitch or some
other virtual interference has hindered the writer’s intent. I have also
included discussions on the fringe of ‘What is PR’ simply because they have
content which is relevant to the discussion.
So have we found an answer to the question ‘What is PR’? Possibly. We
have at least moved from looking at the tools to the purpose and vision.
For the last twenty years I have maintained that public relations is about
building and maintaining relationships, as have many others. Our role is to
assemble and navigate the complex and ambiguous relationships required
to operate either as an organisation or as individuals living and working in
our fragmenting environment. Relationships are a vital intangible asset and
in today’s society, the ‘relationship’ replaces the ‘product’ or manufacture
of ‘things’ around which old economies, social and business models were
based. This makes public relations the central function and potentially the
most powerful dynamic for the successful large-scale organisation or indeed,
the increasing number of small individual enterprises that characterise the
transformation of operational models. Good public relations brings social
change, improves business, transforms organisations. So it makes sense to
know exactly what it is we do.
Of course, other contributors have other views and actively contest such a
proposition. You too may have a completely different opinion, in which case
we all look forward to reading your thoughts and comments on
www.prconversations.com.
Catherine Arrow • May 2008
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
❝
What is
Public Relations
❞
You can almost guarantee that any
conversation about public relations will
eventually prompt the question ‘What
is PR’? And you can also guarantee you
will get a whole raft of replies.
You can almost
guarantee that any
conversation about
public relations will
eventually prompt
the question ‘What is
PR’? And you can also
guarantee you will get
a whole raft of replies.
Tim Marshall, a past president of
PRINZ, the Public Relations Institute
of New Zealand, summed it up
quite neatly one conference when he
said: “The media is not alone in not
understanding PR. The breadth of the
industry is astounding. Ask 20 different
people and you will get 20 different
answers”. A comment which is still
- mostly - true and one which highlights
one of the greatest challenges we face as
an industry, which is to explain to the
world at large exactly what it is we do.
One of the difficulties inherent in this
proposition is that the sheer complexity
of our role means that boiling it down
to a statement of 25 words or less can
be a little tricky.
Add to this the consideration
that public relations has evolved
rapidly in the last decade and, like
all sectors, the impact of social media
and other disruptive technologies
has led practitioners to re-examine
their roles and the contribution they
make to all sections of society. This
process has been a little more intense
within the public relations industry
as practitioners have shifted away
from an alignment with mainstream
media to a world where they build and
interact with specific communities.
For some, this was a new experience,
while for others it simply made a
familiar process faster and easier. ‘Title
fragmentation’ hasn’t helped either.
The reputation of public relations
took a serious battering throughout
the latter half of the twentieth century
and this led many practitioners to ‘rebrand’ themselves as communications
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
directors, reputation managers,
internal communications specialists,
social marketers - the list of titles is as
creative as the professionals that put it
together. But the proliferation of titles
meant that public relations practice
became siloed and, for the most part, a
clear overview of the profession was, if
not lost, then certainly blurred.
Some called for a new definition.
For others, regrouping and reestablishing the purpose of public
relations as it sits in the twenty-first
century became the hub of many
conversations, particularly those
conversations where people were able
to speak to each other on the subject
for the first time, bringing with them
different geographic and cultural
perspectives.
A new common ground was being
prepared as many participants agreed
- or agreed to disagree - that public
relations ‘does what it says on the tin’,
i.e., it is concerned with the building of
relationships; but the finer points and
detail were still up for debate, as was
the concept of a global definition, the
economic impact of the profession and
the ways in which we should measure
and report on what we do.
At PR Conversations, we talked
variously about the purpose of public
relations, its value and its objectives.
Each participant brings a unique view
to the discussion, with views framed
by their experience as practitioners
and academics, their cultural and
world views and, as you’ll see from this
section, some pretty forceful opinions.
And the discussion was first sparked by
Toni Muzi Falconi’s piece responding to
a call for a ‘new definition’ in August
2006.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Toni Muzi Falconi
August 26 2006
❝
On Jack O’Dwyer’s call for a new
definition following Der Spiegel’s recent
attack on public relations.
In every country, the public relations
profession is being constantly and
increasingly criticized by mainstream
media and social critics for its buffering
mode of action.
On Jack O’Dwyer’s
call for a new
definition following
Der Spiegel’s recent
attack on public
relations.
Most recently it was Der Spiegel in
Germany, but all one needs to do is
keep a close eye on http://www.prwatch.
org and most of the arguments used by
our critics can be easily traced.
Personally, I do not believe that a
new definition, as Jack O’Dwyer seems
to imply in a recent piece on his website,
can help our purpose. But, by the way,
what is our purpose?
• To protect the reputation of our
profession?
• To distance serious professionals
from those who actively
contribute to such poor
reputation?
There is no doubt that criticisms
grow, at least in substance, because
the function increases its clout in
many private, public and social sector
organizations… otherwise, if our
activities were only fickle and useless,
why would they bother? Also, there is
the basic fact that in a majority of recent
cases, these criticisms have been factual
and based on arguments I would agree
with.
I don’t wish to be too sour in my
comment… but if one considers that in
this very minute our global professional
community is formed by some three
million professionals; that only 10%
of these are sufficiently responsible to
belong to a professional associations;
that many of these associations do
not even bother to even monitor, let
alone advocate, the day-in, day-out
introduction by the public policy
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
processes of every country of new
constraints and restrictions to our
practices; that most research efforts
amongst our peers candidly reveal that
respect of the public interest is the
least of their preoccupations…why be
surprised?
In my view, the 20th century UScentred public relations model based on
rhetoric, persuasive, marketing oriented
and asymmetric communication, while it
certainly achieved many objectives and
was exported in all western and many
developing countries, has also led to
major collateral damage and undesirable
effects we must recognize.
What is now needed is a radical
review towards a new global public
relations model based on - as my friends
the American Jim Grunig or the Indian
Sriramesh Krishamurthy or the Slovene
Dejan Vercic or the South African Chris
Skinner or the UK Anne Gregory would
say - generic principles, valid throughout
and specific applications founded on
major political, economic, cultural
variables as well as on the status of
activism and media systems in each
country.
Most of all, this model assumes
that effective communication implies
communicating - ‘with’ rather than
‘to’, recognizes that each public (and
each individual) is diverse and that an
organization’s decision-making process
may be improved both in quality and in
time of delivery if decisions are taken
after having listened, understood and
interpreted stakeholder expectancies.
Theory? Bullshit it’s theory! It can be
done, it is being done, and it will be
done…. more and more.
It is up to us as professionals,
associations, educators and major
industry groups to make sure this
bridging, rather than buffering, mode
of practice reaches the necessary
critical mass to really make a dent into
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
world, to better understand how public
relations adds value to an organization
if it is employed before rather than after
decisions are made.
For one thing, the World Bank, also
in partnership with the Global Alliance
for Public Relations and Communication
Management (http://www.globalpr.
org), will be holding its first ever
global summit on communication for
development (www.devcomm-congress.
org/worldbank/macro/2.asp) in Rome,
Italy from October 25 to October 27
where public policy makers(including
the World Bank’s Paul Wolfenson, UN’s
Molloch Brown, EU’s Manuel Barroso,
Italy’s Premier Romano Prodi and
other leaders from many countries)
will meet with some 500 development
communicators, NGOs and public
relations researchers from all over the
Secondly, the European Commission
under the leadership of its Swedish
vice president Margot Wallstrom(http://
ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/
wallstrom/press/key_en.htm) has
recently issued Plan D, a five year
detailed and precise public relations
plan based on stakeholder Dialogue
and Debate and the communicatingwith paradigm in order to improve the
quality of its policy making process and
therefore increase public acceptance of
its achievements.
These are only two of the many,
many cases of effective public relations
practices that we should be also
considering.
Comments & Conversation
Anne Gregory
August 25 2006
that prevailing stereotype. After all,
coherence obliges us to say that people
judge what we do and not what we say.
Or not?
❝
I agree with most of what you say.
Public relations finds itself in an ‘Alice
in Wonderland’ land. Yes, it is mocked,
called ‘fluffy’, not a serious profession
on the one hand, but increasingly it is
being recognised as entirely the reverse.
Every FTSE 100 company in the UK has
a public relations department - that
wasn’t the case six years ago. Just about
every charity, NGO, public sector body
and celebrity you can think of has one
too. There is a dawning realisation
that organisations are defined by
communications - other people’s
communications about them.
In the UK, recent research by
the Chartered Institute of Marketing
confirmed that the number of
marketing directors on company
boards was decreasing. However, the
number of communication directors
is increasing, and guess what, many
of those directors come from a public
relations background. What is required
is an understanding of the subtleties
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
of a communication environment:
recognising that you must be a
contributor and listener to the public
discourse and a partner in its creation
alongside a host of conflicting and
disparate stakeholders.
Public relations professionals
understand that the ability to create the
public discourse along with their gatekeeping role is what gives them power. I
agree it is the power of public relations
that journalists fear, not its weakness.
That is one reason why they mock it despite many in their ranks crossing the
divide to join the despised.
The key question for practitioners
is how they use that power. It has to be
admitted that this is not always for the
public good. However, the profession
itself must be more pro-active in
providing the evidence for how it
does contribute to the good of society.
The World Bank summit is one such
example.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Margaretha Sjoberg
August 25 2006
❝
This is the first paragraph of our Professional Standards.
Professional Standards of the Swedish Public
Relations Association
Professional communicator
A professional communicator
carries out professional information
and communication tasks, either as
an employee at a company or other
organisation, or as a consultant for a
client.
A professional communicator
manages and develops the reputational
capital and credibility of organisations.
Through provision of relevant
information, a professional
communicator aims to ensure that
target groups and stakeholders receive
a correct perception of the operations
that the professional communicator
represents.
A professional communicator has
the knowledge required to analyse and
assess relations, attitudes and opinions,
and to predict the reactions of the
surrounding world.
A professional communicator
ensures that the surrounding world
has relevant information on and
understanding of the organisation and
its operations, and that the organisation
has relevant information on and
understanding of the surrounding
world.
Toni observed:
Margaretha Sjoberg is a highly respected figure in European public relations. She
has been directing with excellent results the activities of the Swedish PR Association
for many years (www.sverigesinformationsforening.se/InEnglish/) and, more
recently, has been elected President of Cerp (www.cerp.org), the confederation of
european public relations association, which has become the European ‘head and
arm’ of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management
(www.globalrpr.org).
The Swedish Public Relations Association, by the way, has the highest number of
members in respect to the country’s population and is one of the most active.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
In answer to your question, ‘what is
our purpose’…
Catherine Arrow
August 25 2006
❝
In answer to your
question, ‘what is our
purpose’…
Old models of public relations
practice were framed around the
hierarchical organisational structures
created in the 19th and 20th Century.
Business and organisational models
have changed dramatically in the last
five years, with new-born organisations/
businesses increasingly adopting
community-based, value-driven
principles upon which to found their
commercial or altruistic relationships.
Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations
maintained that in making profit, the
business person cannot help but to
do some good. We have followed that
thinking in western economies and
followed it somewhat slavishly. Our
established methods of communication
bear this out - the grip of mainstream
media, the dated view of the ‘free press’
as an organ of democracy, when in
reality, it is simply another business
seeking to make a profit (and if along
they way some good is done, well, that’s
ok).
The way we do business has changed
because the world has changed. Half
the world has no water, the other half
is worried about obesity. Rich countries
impose trading restrictions, poor
countries struggle to get their goods to
market. More people have not than have
and this inequality, this unsustainability,
is rightly much higher on the agenda
than it has ever been before.
In many countries around the
world, there is no access to the press
- free or otherwise. Street radio,
storytelling, songs that veil criticism
of the wrongs of government are the
ways that people initiate dialogue and,
perhaps their greatest hope, change for
something better.
What’s all this got to do with us?
As practitioners working within a
global society we must be able to
use a multiplicity of communications
tools and, above all else, be able to
understand the way that others invoke
and interact within their communities.
As a practitioner, I need to be able to
create appropriate communications
channels with the avatars of Second
Life.com as well as a remote community
struggling to establish fair trade
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
enterprises in their village. I need to
be able to initiate dialogue between
the small start up business and its
customer communities as well as
identify ascendant audience groups for a
multinational.
Because of the economic models we
have adhered to for so long, the mass
media has been the gatekeeper between
people and organisations. Much time
and effort was put into getting the mass
media ‘on side’ so that stories could be
told and understanding - almost as a
byproduct - could be developed.
Now we can tell stories, create
understanding and build relationships
without using mainstream media
at all - messages are unfiltered, the
organisational point of view is put
forward and a response is encouraged,
listened to and acted upon.
We can identify our communities
very precisely, talk specifically with them
and maintain a dialogue so that shifts
in thinking, attitudes and behaviour on
both sides can be communicated well
enough to reduce conflict and allow the
relationship to develop.
Technology now at our disposal
allows us to be more precise when
we are building relationships. And
this technology is more suited to
other cultural communication
models like direct storytelling, visual
communication, the power of sound,
personal recommendation and personal
contact - all to be applied with a large
dollop of emotional intelligence and
organisational patience. They allow
us to by-pass gatekeepers running
restricted and biased mainstream
media and really listen to what our
communities have to say.
Public relations is about building
relationships and to do this job well, the
perfect practitioner needs ears above
all else along with a knowledge of how
dialogue, rhetoric and ethics have been
applied in history so we don’t repeat
past mistakes. An understanding of
anthropology helps us to understand
cultures and contexts and the value
of diversity. Psychology, semiotics
and linguistics all help us understand
motivation, need, influence and the
mind. Economics helps us to ground
our work in the fabric world so we can
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
participate in existing models while we
begin to develop new, more appropriate,
sustainable business models.
Philosophy helps us to set all this into
an ethical framework. Operating in a
complex, multi level fabric and virtual
environment, such knowledge is crucial.
After all, nobody lets a medical student
loose with a scalpel until he or she at
least knows how bodies work and which
bit to cut.
At ground level there are many
tools and techniques that need to be
mastered as well as an ability to sense
what is coming and work out how to
adapt tools to do the job. An ability to
assess the operational environment
and discern potential and possible next
steps. The art will be knowing which
tool to choose, and the science will be
about knowing when. Which is what
makes it such an interesting discipline
Gianni Rizzuti
October 2 2006
❝
Let me say one word: ethics; and
let me be provoking and (a little)
paradoxical.
In my opinion, we public relators
have a unique opportunity. It comes
from the relatively young age of our
science and “academic dignity”.
Teaching how to be “ethicscompliant” is somehow simpler for us
if we manage to insert ethics in the “PR
kit” and to convince our students and
young practitioners that public relations
has to be ethical because non ethical
relations (can exist, but) simply cannot
last. Put in simpler but paradoxical
words, either public relations is ethical
or it is not public relations.
filled with such interesting people.
People capable of seeing the big picture
and realise that the devil is in the detail
at the same moment.
So in answer to the question at the
start of the post - what is our purpose - I
would suggest it is this.
Building relationships is our
purpose. We work for people, so that
those people can do better, get on
better, make better decisions and better
understand each other’s point of view
- and that’s a very powerful job indeed.
Then, are we public relations
practitioners better than others? Of
course not! And articles like the one
we’re commenting on prove it, along
with a long list of prejudices against the
profession.
However, we should be supposed
to know how to manage lasting and
mutually fruitful relations with our
publics: it’s a good start, provided that
we’re allowed to - and want to - enter
the power room and to sit at the table.
The conversation paused there but was rejoined
after Judy Gombita wrote this post on determining
what public relations ‘isn’t’.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Judy Gombita
May 21 2006
❝
Reclaiming a defined role for public relations...but
first determining what it isn’t
I’ve recently returned from a “flying”
visit to the jewel-like, antebellum city
of Savannah, Georgia, the location
of the 2007 LERN Leaders’ strategic
planning retreat. The mandate of this
international, non-profit association is
to provide training and consulting to
providers of lifelong learning programs.
You might ask how someone who
spends her working day practising
public relations fits into this mix—and
you wouldn’t be the first to do so.
My involvement with the Learning
Resources Network (LERN) dates back
10 years, when I was first recruited to
sit on its newish association education
council. LERN was working to grow
its primarily “higher education” (i.e.,
universities and colleges) organizational
membership base to include other areas,
and it identified (professional and trade)
associations as significant providers of
continuing education.
The accounting association where
I work (which a double-digit number
of years ago instituted mandatory
continuing professional development
to maintain the CGA designation’s
currency) was identified as a “best
practices” example, so I was asked
to contribute to the knowledge base
and development, specifically to the
association sector, but also to LERN
overall.
Ten years ago my primary area
of responsibility was member
communications, including the
marketing of our professional
development programs to constituents.
(Most LERN volunteers are senior-level
programmers or marketers.) After
chairing the council for several years,
I was elected to LERN’s board, where
(effective this weekend) I’ve commenced
the final leg of a four-year term; this
includes a third consecutive year as
its secretary/treasurer (working for an
association of professional accountants,
it’s assumed I have a handle on strategic
financial management; happily, LERN’s
balance sheet remains resoundingly in
During a segment of the intensive
Saturday morning information session,
each invited participant shared major
initiatives undertaken over the past
year. Unlike the others (who focused
on things such as re-engineering
departments based on key ratios for
success, innovative new programs
that anticipated or mirrored trends
in the field of lifelong education,
plus generational programming
and marketing initiatives), I detailed
examples of our education outreach
programs to targeted external publics.
At dinner that evening, some of my
colleagues asked what my position in
public relations entailed. Interestingly, I
found it easier to describe what I didn’t
do, rather than what I did.
Which brings me to the heart of this
post: before determining (and claiming)
a more defined “position description”
for public relations, I’d appreciate the
help of PRC readers in identifying what
PR practitioners and consultants don’t
do for the most part. (Note: I recognize
that strategic communication and public
relations management comprises an
integrated function, with many of the
key players possessing complementary
skill sets and developed competencies.
That having been said, I’m of the
opinion that defined “public relators”
probably spend at least 75 per cent
of the time “promoting rapport and
goodwill between a person, firm or
institution and other persons, firms
or institutions that constitute defined
publics.” (We can work on a better
definition later.)
Subsets of
Responsibility
I think subsets of the public relations
role include media relations, publicity,
public affairs, (external) speechwriting/
presentations and—in some instances—
investor relations. Are there others?
the black).
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Some areas I go back and forth on
regarding primary ownership, include
corporate social responsibility and
(yes) social media. I’ve never received a
satisfactory definition of what corporate
communications includes, so I’m leaving
it out of both lists at this point.
Not Public Relations
I don’t believe the following qualifies
as (pure) public relations (I’ve sketched
in definitions):
Advertising (the act or practice of
calling public attention to one’s product
or services, usually through the media,
which often includes sales promotion
and definitely involves payment for
space and/or time).
Marketing (the art of identifying and
then providing a product or a service
at a profit, with elements including
design, supply, packaging, pricing,
manufacturing, advertising, distribution,
sales, training, promotion and research).
Employee/internal/organizational
communications (a strategic and tactile
focus on employee education and
engagement, primarily through effective
communication and distribution of
pertinent information via a variety of
channels and techniques; objectives
are successfully met when the internal
audience benefits, as well as the bottomline performance and morale of the
organization itself).
Customer service (assurance
by dedicated employees that what
is promised in the advertising and
marketing materials and mix is, in
fact, delivered, whether it be the
quality of the product or service or
the responsiveness to queries and
complaints).
described in academia); however, these
are the functions I often see lumped in
with a generalized (hence diluted) term
of “public relations.”
Obviously I disagree, even though
I spend a (fluctuating) percentage
of work time in many of these areas.
(In particular, public relations has
an excellent relationship with our
marketing department, serving as a
partner and a resource, but all the while
appreciating who has the main carriage
of responsibility for this function.)
I do recognize that each of the
detailed communication-management
areas, done effectively, can have an
immense impact and influence on the
reputation and health of an organization
(not to mention the bottom line), but
I don’t think the majority of them
qualify as a “public relations” function.
In a nutshell, I want to (re)claim this
PR position description and main
organizational role from those whose
main expertise is found and focused
elsewhere.
I invite you to add to (or modify)
the above categories or descriptions,
challenge and debate relevance, agree
with my assessment or convince me to
reevaluate my erroneous thinking.
Down the road I’ll work on the
“do-do’s.” Then (perhaps) at the 2008
retreat I’ll be able to detail easily and
understandably to my LERN colleagues
what those of us in public relations
actually do, rather than what we don’t.
Website communications (the public,
online communication tool that serves
as a repository of information and
available product and services resources
related to an organization, often
including interactive options).
The above list is not allencompassing so please fill in the gaps
(I would particularly enjoy hearing from
students on how these roles are being
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Comments & Conversation
Yaryna Klyuchkovska
May 22 2007
❝
Judy, a few points where I disagree
on the “do not do” side: in my opinion,
employees are not much different a
public from other constituents, and the
tools we use are basically identical, so I
don’t see why employee communication
should be left out of scope of public
relations.
I tend to look at public relations as
the way to manage communication that
one way or another involve the thirdparty endorsement, versus advertising,
which is sponsored communication.
Although it may seem that social media
actually eliminates the third party, I
still see bloggers and other contentgenerating consumers as opinion
leaders rather than the general public,
Toni Muzi Falconi
May 22 2007
❝
It is quite a task to respond to your
specific questions without addressing
the more general issue. But let’s give it
a go:
I fully agree with Yaryna on the
employee relationship role. This,
fortunately, is also substantiated by
organisational dynamics, at least in
Europe (over the last ten/fifteen years,
this function is increasingly being
assigned to public relations).
Similarly, I would definitely argue
that investor relations are part of public
relations for the same reason: investors,
as well as suppliers are stakeholders and
public relations implies relationships
with stakeholder groups.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
and therefore they still serve as the third
party that actively engage in endorsing
or denouncing whatever we promote or
discuss.
Another point I would like to make
is that PR still defines itself in terms of
the process, versus the result. When
defining our role, we tend to explain in
as a set of tools (media, social media,
Web sites, speeches, etc.). Even your
very nicely put definition of “building
rapport…” is really process-oriented.
I believe, pragmatic as it may be, that
building relationships with publics is
a means to an end, although I do have
trouble defining the “end.” Would it be
too last century to say, reputation?
I know very well that factually
investor relations often report to finance
but this is not a good enough reason
not to consider them part of public
relations, as much as marketing public
relations which normally report to
marketing.
In other words I would not confuse
the ‘who one reports to’ with the ‘what
is public relations’ questions. This very
much depends on sector of activity,
specific organizational cultures and
more and more often on the individuals
involved and their leadership abilities.
A convincing approach is that of
scholar Emanuele Invernizzi (IULM
University, Milano) who theorizes that
there are core competencies (media
relations, public affairs, organization
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
of corporate events and ceremonials)
and extended competencies (employee,
supplier, marketing, investor and other
stakeholder group relations).
But each organization is different.
Finally, you might be interested
in reading, taken today from David
Phillips’ stimulating www.leverwealth.
org, the most recent definition of
marketing by the American Marketing
Association which is:
“Marketing is the activity, conducted
by organizations and individuals,
that operates through a set of
institutions and processes for creating,
Yaryna, thanks for weighing in with
your valuable thoughts.
Judy Gombita
May 22 2007
❝
Maybe I wasn’t clear at what I was
attempting to do. It’s more a process
of elimination at the front-end, in my
attempt to build an “elevator speech” in
future to define the role of the public
relations practitioner (or at least my
role).
If you say you are in advertising
and marketing, people have a pretty
good sense of what you do, without a
lot of explanation. “Public relations”
is a lot more murky, with a lot of folks
immediately thinking of “spin” and
“publicity” as the main reasons it/we
exist.
Regarding employee
communications, my own work
colleagues are definitely listed as one
of my targeted internal publics, both
for education purposes, feedback
and/or where I direct requests received
from members of the public, etc. The
percentage of time I spend with/on this
internal public is fairly minimal though,
compared to the external publics where
I devote the majority of my work day.
Also re: organizational
communications and employee/internal
communicators…what I was trying to
get across is that I don’t think their
*main function* is relating to external
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
communicating, delivering, and
exchanging market offerings that have
value for customers, clients, marketers,
and society at large.”
As you see there is no room here for
any bi or multi directional, nor for any
tendentially symmetric approach.
The focus is on price and
communication plus the lip service to
society at large.
This is also why I suggest
that we throughly embrace the
relationship oriented approach and let
communication be where it belongs: as
a very important tool for relationship
building.
publics. Yet I find a lot of employee/
internal/organizational communicators
claiming ownership to PR expertise and
knowledge.
I’ve never put myself forth as having
an extensive knowledge of/expertise
in organizational communications
(member communications is different
in many ways, an external-internal
public, found all over the map, literally
and figuratively), and I admire those
in comms who run effective programs,
particularly for globally dispersed staff
in the hundreds or thousands. But it
isn’t “public relations,” so I don’t think
it should be claimed as such in the
elevator speech.
Toni, interesting that the employee
communications is also in your
“must mix.” As I commented earlier,
it’s not that I have no relationship
with employees, it’s just that as my
association has a relatively small staff
(fewer than 100), that relationship does
not tend to take up a huge percentage
of time. (I’m talking the quantity of
the relationship time, rather than the
quality.)
For example, a year ago I was asked
to contribute an article to the trade
publication, The Journal of Employee
Communication Management. As I
indicated to its editor, David Murray,
at the front end, my direct input into
employee communications is limited,
10
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
but that I could certainly write about our
very successful staff education efforts
about being brand champions, “Getting
Employees Up to Speed on a Brand
Revamp.So, you can see that I don’t
dismiss the importance of an effective
relationship with colleagues. I’m
happy to *definitely* include investor
relations into the subset mix. You are
right that the type of organization very
much influences where these areas of
responsibility reside.
It’s interesting that you introduced
the “who reports where” area, as I didn’t
discuss that at all. More thinking on
that, so my appreciation for that spark.
Assorted thoughts.
Brian Kilgore
May 22 2007
For the average company, I was
thinking about its annual report, which
includes the financial reporting to
constituents. (A very valuable public
relations tool.)
❝
Not public relations
Product advertising, and service
advertising is NOT public relations.
Both are pretty obvious — Buy this car
for $45,678. Here are its specifications.
Get your television programs via this
satellite receiver that attaches to the side
of your house.
But “corporate” advertising IS PR,
such as Honda Canada’s latest ads
that take issue with the government’s
program for giving frebates to people
who buy Toyotas. Or IAM’s ads about
how Menu Foods has terrible quality
standards.
And, ALL advertising relates to the
reputation of an organization, so that
even though PR is not responsible for
product and service advertising, PR is
responsible for final approvals.
MARKETING
— if more people would define
marketing properly (Judy’s definition is
a good one) it would be easy for people
to see PR and marketing are different.
We in PR have very, very little to do with
pricing, or with determining margins, or
deciding what products get pushed with
product advertising.
For years, I used the phrase
“Marketing Support” on my monthly
activities reports, and this covered
things like synchronizing all the
elements of a news conference at a trade
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
show, or coordinating an event where
sales reps were invited to high level
dinners between our senior executives
and the senior executives at our
customers.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
— well, we do seem to be the people
who talk to the “ON YOUR SIDE!!!”
reporters from radio, television and
print. I think our PR role is to watch
how an organization operates, spot
problems before they take place or get
into the paper, and then work with
fellow senior managers to re-set things
so, for instance, the fine print on the
agreements is big enough to read.
WEBSITES
– PR is in charge of all the content
that relates to reputation, and has
approval / oversight on all product and
service related content, just as it does
with print, television, etc. advertising.
“Reputation” is a very broad term.
If a web site opens with Flash, it is
our fault and we should be ashamed of
ourselves. If the type is unreadable, it is
the fault of PR. Computer department
technicians do the same thing that the
printing department did in the old days
— they take our expertise, and put it
onto a screen just like printers put it on
paper.
11
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
INTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS
— depends on the definition.
Let the drones in the personnel
department create a flyer about how
to get your money back after you pay
the dentist. But as far as pretty much
any motivational communications,
or messages about the purpose and
reputation of the organization… keep
it as far as possible from personnel
departments. Their job is to cut pay,
fire people, discipline and suspend
unionized workers, prevent workers,
Catherine Arrow
May 23 2007
❝
Public relations is about building
relationships. In building relationships
we maintain connections between
organisations and the people they
need to deal with in order to function.
Working relationships which have a
continuous dialogue so they can be
sustained, observed, nurtured and
adapted depending on the impact each
party has on the other.
And this is a complicated process
- which is why public relations has been
so hard to define.
Building strong, valuable working
relationships is powerful stuff. Powerful
enough to invite criticism from those
- often external to the discipline - who
can see the potential, realised or not,
of what we do. I would like to suggest
that public relations needs to be more
‘self aware’ of its ability to be powerful.
To acknowledge that as a discipline,
we have the power to change things.
Acknowledge that any power can be
used well or badly - for the benefit or
the detriment of either an exchange or a
community relationship.
So we have to tell people what we do
- explain it so that they understand that
the tools we use are the things we utilise
to facilitate the building of relationships.
Relationships that include dialogue,
are beneficial to those concerned and
reciprocal in their value. And perhaps
put their mind at rest that we are not
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
fire people over 50, hire mediocre staff
that are not better than their new bosses
and overpay a few senior executives.
They are not trusted by anyone… don’t
let them near the company reputation.
Within PR, there needs to be
some recognition of specialization.
Overseeing corporate advertising is a
skill. Creating web content is a strategy
and writing job, using different strategy
and different writing than used for
internal communications, which needs
its own editing skills.
a the centre of attempts to undermine
sustainable life on the planet! (This was
a reference to some very anti-public
relations sentiments I’d quoted)
There is a great bit in Pirates of the
Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl
when Captain Jack Sparrow, having
been marooned on the island with the
beautiful Elizabeth, seeks to explain
- under the influence of too much rum
- what his ship, the Black Pearl, means
to him. He tells her that his ship is
Freedom, not ropes and sails and keels
and a deck - they are the things a ship
needs, not what it is.
So too with public relations. PR is
the power of advocacy and dialogue.
The power to facilitate and build
relationships. The bits it ‘needs’ are
the many tools we use to achieve the
outcomes we are working towards positive and reciprocal engagement with
our community.
The great new tools we have allow
us to be far more able when we are
working on the whole process of
building relationships, but remember
the new tools are more suited to
other cultural communication
models like direct storytelling, visual
communication, the power of sound,
personal recommendation and
individual contact - all to be applied
with a large dollop of emotional
intelligence and organisational patience.
They allow us to by-pass gatekeepers
12
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
running restricted and biased
mainstream media and hear what our
communities have to say. And, the tools
themselves are not The New PR as some
suggest, any more than a collection of
newspaper cuttings were ‘Old PR’.
Public relations is about building
relationships, it has a vast array of tools
at its disposal and needs to be able to
operate across the world and across
worlds if our job is to be done well…
(I’d been talking about social media,
operating online and in virtual worlds
like Second Life)
so that people can either exchange
knowledge, products and services or
so that a community is better off. If
they ask you where you work, you can
tell them that you operate in both the
fabric world, where the party is being
held at the moment, or in the virtual
world, where there is a party scheduled
in the Enchanted Forest in about three
hours time. And if they ask you who you
work for you can tell them quite simply.
You work for people, so that people
can do better, get on better and better
understand each other’s point of view.
So next time you are at a party
and someone asks you what you do
- or you need a fast ‘elevator’ speech
- tell them you build relationships
What is the ultimate purpose of PR?
Benita Steyn
June 20 2007
❝
“I sat down tonight to answer
Catherine’s question on why I find
building relationships to be a limited
view on the purpose of PR. But then
I got side-tracked when I read Judy’s
post (again) on what PR is and isn’t, and
the comments that followed (especially
those of Toni and Brian) and couldn’t
refrain from first ‘laying an egg’ here
(as we say in my language Afrikaans).
I think Judy’s issue is a good preamble
before venturing into the ‘mother of
all questions’ namely what the ultimate
purpose of PR is—something that I
hope we can still discuss in length.
With regards to Toni’s reference
to Emanuele Invernizzi’s approach
(IULM University, Milan) that there
are ‘core’ competencies in PR (media
relations, public affairs, organisation of
corporate events and ceremonials) and
‘extended’ competencies (employee,
supplier, marketing, investor and
other stakeholder group relations), I
see it a little differently — namely that
PR has a ’strategic’ role to play in the
organisation as well as a ’support’ role.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Potentially, PR can support any other
function with its tools. It can organise
an event for marketing (e.g. a product
launch); or publish the annual report
(for finance); or design the website
(for information technology). These
are activities in pursuit of another
function’s goals and here PR is only
a support function. My argument is
thus that this is not PR, since ideally PR
should not be defined by its techniques
but by its goals. ‘Whether it is PR’ or
‘when it is PR’ should be determined
by which/whose functional goals are
being achieved rather than by which
techniques are being used. (Do I hear
snoring already as a result of this
academic discourse? But I shall not be
intimidated-!!) The question is: Does
an event or a newsletter belong only to
PR? Is this not the reason why there is
such confusion as to what PR is because
we are defining it by techniques that
are also used by other disciplines/
organisational functions?
13
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Performing such support activities
on behalf of other functions is not a
problem per se, certainly not when
PR also has a clear strategic role in
the organisation. But when it doesn’t,
it could lead to an identity problem–
worsened when PR actually reports to
another function because its activities
are then most often used to support the
goals of the other function (as is often
the case with marketing).
The result is that after a while top
management and everybody else sees
PR and marketing as one and the same,
because they become indistinguishable
in their activities/ techniques. (In other
words, PR loses its identity in the pursuit
of the other function’s goals).
I want to be even more provocative
and refer to the so-called ‘integrated
communication’ concept, which to me
looks more like ‘integrated marketing
communication’–i.e. PR activities used
in support of achieving marketing
communication goals. Nothing wrong
with this at all, but are we seeing here
the integration of the marketing and
PR function, or are we seeing the use
of PR activities in support of another
function’s goals/objectives? Is this PR?
Is this integration? If PR assists with the
annual report or arranges shareholder
functions—is it moving towards
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
integration with finance? I know this is a
very ‘previous century’ viewpoint but I
have never yet been able to buy into this
integration stuff. Maybe some comments
will help to remove the bucket from my
head and take me into the 21st century?
Some last clarifications in this
regard: I do not hate marketing or any
other function. I do not believe in turf
wars. It is counterproductive. Actually,
I would love to see PR co-operating
strategically with other functions such as
marketing, e.g. bringing about a service
quality culture in the organisation;
or with HR, in advising/developing
communication strategies/goals for
how to prevent the negative effects
of downsizing/ restructuring through
pro-active management communication;
or with information technology, in
developing systems/parameters for
collecting information on stakeholders
through environmental scanning.
But is this not ’synthesis’ (where
each retains its own identity, sets its
own goals in accordance with its own
competencies/unique identity, and
works together to achieve organisational
goals) rather than ‘integration’ (losing
own identity and becoming one with the
other?)”
14
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Comments & Conversation
Toni Muzi Falconi
June 20 2007
❝
Benita,
I do not disagree with your
rationalization and I think that your
support versus strategic role that public
relations plays in an organization
can be very useful, if not for other
reasons at least to clarify the difference
between an organization that thinks
public relations and an organization
that thinks marketing. Both thought
are fully legitimate and, again, very
much depends on the organization.
Also, both concepts (public relations
and marketing) are sufficiently fuzzy to
allow the use of terms such as marketing
public relations, or relationship
marketing, or internal marketing, or
social marketing…and so forth.
Also your issue about integrated
communication is a valid one although
I recall having been, in the mid eighties,
part of a highly rewarding joint effort by
Italy’s Ogilvy and Mather group and my
then agency SCR Associati, to develop
an ‘orchestration’ approach (this is how
O&M then called it), which led:
Catherine Arrow
June 21 2007
❝
As it looks like we are about to cut
straight to the philosophical chase of
‘Why am I Here’ (aka in this context: the
ultimate purpose of public relations)
I thought I might as well go for a noholds-barred interjection to this strand
of the conversation. After all, it has been
a long day which started with an early
morning discussion around this very
theme, so I might as well finish it off as
it began.
In writing, I have a sinking feeling
that this might turn into something
of a public relations apologia - and I
hope that is ok (someone can always
delete the comment if it isn’t!) because
although I am quite comfortable with
what I see as the purpose of public
relations I have a sneaking suspicion
I will find myself having to defend my
comfort zone!
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
• to pr definitely taking the lead of
the various disciplines;
• to the formation of a joint
venture (sintonia) which was a
great business success for the
two years it existed (personality
issues broke it up);
• to the definition of an
orchestrated communication
model called gorel (governance
of relationships) which is today’s
most adapted and adopted
approach in this country…
This just to say that marketing is as
vulnerable as public relations. Finally,
I am intrigued over your definition
of synthesis and integration which
obviously apply to many fields of
thought. Thank you.
The latter half of the 20th Century
saw public relations defined by the tools
it uses rather than - as Benita indicates
- the purpose it serves, or its goals. The
‘what’ rather than the ‘why’ if you like.
Crack open the many definitions of
public relations mooted by organisations
around the globe and you will find
a recurring theme - that of building
relationships. Over time, the definitions
have ranged from the complex to the
lengthy, the convoluted to the really
quite creative. In one part of the world,
definitions advocate that we are to
create mutual understanding between
an organisation and its publics while in
another the proposition is that public
relations should create opportunities
15
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
for dissent rather than understanding,
with the functional responsibility being
one of opening debate without forcing
consensus.
The other theme that emerges is one
of evolution - the development of an
industry into a profession as it amasses
a body of knowledge at the academic
end of the spectrum and new models of
functional understanding at the practice
end. Pop into this mix the concurrent
development of new business models,
greater social awareness (e.g. global
warming/requirement for social
responsibility) and you find yourself
with a body of people who know
what they are doing but think they
are missing the final few pieces of the
jigsaw. Crucial pieces that allow them
to show people outside their industry
the ‘big picture’ that illustrates just what
they do. I would argue that these pieces
are actually just lurking under the sofa
- we just need to shift the furniture, dig
them out and put them in place and we
can move forwards on our evolutionary
track.
Part of the difficulty with definition
exists because of the complexity of the
public relations function - even the
best wordsmiths have trouble boiling it
down - but a simple explanation doesn’t
necessarily undermine the complexity
or credibility of a role - it just helps
people to first see and understand
the bigger picture, which then allows
us to highlight the detail. On a good
landscape picture, you can first take
in the whole scene and understand its
position and context. Opt for a closer
look and your eye might be drawn to sky
and trees, birds and rocks. Scrutinize
it further and you may make out the
tractor in the background or the cow in
the field - all important elements, but
only part of the complete picture.
So why am I here? As a practitioner,
I believe my work in public relations
is centred on building relationships.
That’s the simple bit. Now here come
the tractors.
These relationships are the ones
necessary for individuals, communities
and organisations to interact with each
other at a commercial, social or political
level. They need to be sustainable,
transparent and mutually beneficial,
drawing together the different parties
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
- call them organisations, stakeholders,
publics, actors, whichever best fits your
meaning - so they understand each
other, listen to each other and can move
forward in agreeable and sustainable
alignment to the degree each party
requires.
The aim of building and sustaining
these relationships is achieved through
listening (which includes things such as
research coupled with understanding
and appreciation of meaning),
environmental scanning and forecasting,
issues management, advocacy and
dialogue.
The implementation involves a
variety of communications channels,
technologies (stable and disruptive)
personal interaction and on many
occasions, approaches often associated
with other disciplines - advertising
springs to mind.
Implementation then runs into
tasks - writing, webwork, events etc.,
etc.. There is an extremely clever and
talented thinker and practitioner here
called Tim Marshall, who, during a
conversation today, highlighted the
tendency of practitioners to be ‘magpies’
- by which I believe he meant collectors
and adapters of all things that might
be useful to their purpose. So we
don’t limit our toolbox to one thing or
another, certainly not now, even though
historically, the industry was aligned
with media relations.
Toni has talked extensively (and as
always authoritatively) elsewhere on this
blog about relationships, sustainability
and most recently, the discussion on a
global model following his posting of
Chiara Valentini’s paper.
It seems logical to me that if there
is global agreement on the purpose of
public relations, the next step in our
evolutionary process is to have a global
understanding of ‘why we are here’
coupled with a collective appreciation
of the necessary ‘local’ models which
would be appropriate in individual
geographic and virtual locations.
What I hope to goodness doesn’t
happen - and I believe quite passionately
that it would be a significant step back
towards the Dark Ages if it does - is
that the discussion leads to another
16
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
alignment with, or gets bogged down
on, the ‘tools’ we use, even if some of
them are snazzier, faster and a bit more
fun than the old ones.
I also think the ‘Why am I Here’
question needs to be answered in
conjunction with the ever-popular ‘Who
Am I’ (in its public relations context) so
that our shared values, ethics and beliefs
as practitioners are understood and set
firmly against ‘Why am I Here’.
Toni,
Benita Steyn
June 22 2007
❝
How well you describe the
situation in practice by referring to
an organisation that ‘thinks public
relations’ and one that ‘thinks
marketing’. But I do believe (and I know
that you do too) that both functions are
important for business organisations
and that they deprive themselves by
focusing on only one or the other–hence
my quest for clearly differentiating
between public relations and marketing.
It is my contention that this
differentiation must take place
with regards to the strategic role of
each before an organisation’s top
management will realise that they very
much need both. It is only when the
strategic contribution of each is clear,
that decisions on working together
effectively can be taken. So, in addition
to discussing the ultimate purpose of
public relations, its strategic role also
needs to be defined. (The two is of
course closely related).
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
So, I’m off to bed now and
tomorrow’s another relationship
building day for me, to be broken up
only by a foray into the world of making
muffins for my kids (who otherwise will
be vociferously debating the question
‘why aren’t you here?’).
What will you be doing? Purpose or
task? What’s your day going to be?
My question is: If relationship
building is the ultimate purpose of
PR, aren’t we back to square one
again with regards to differentiation
from marketing? And this time we are
on a much more strategic level than
differentiating between techniques.
(Marketing has been in a relationship
paradigm since the early 1990s and, if
my memory serves me correct, the first
writings on a relationship paradigm
for public relations appeared in the
late 1990s). The quick answer to a
master’s student who asked me this
question, was to fall back on Jim and
Lauri Grunig’s concept of ‘exchange’
relationships (built by marketing) and
‘communal’ relationships (built by
PR). But I sure would like to pick all
of your brains on how to answer these
very uncomfortable questions asked by
students. My answers are beginning to
sound unconvincing even to myself. And
that is when I started wondering in all
earnest about these issues…..
17
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Perhaps claiming this or that is
public relations we can look at what
organisations are and need.
David Philips
June 22 2007
❝
Coarse says an organisation is
the nexus of contracts, Sonsino of
conversations and I say it is the nexus of
values.
By the values I hold, I can attract or
repulse people and organisations. The
Value Systems evident in organisations
is all they really have to sell. Values
express the product, service, and ethos
of organisations. People are drawn to
values.
Values form the DNA of
relationships. It is a way of describing
what we mean by relationships.
Relationships aren’t ‘managed’ they
are there because of value synergies
between people and organisations
drawn to each other by values.
Benita,
Toni Muzi Falconi
June 24 2007
❝
Unfortunately the documentation
of the orchestration experience I
mentioned is mostly in Italian. The core
of it can be found in the book Governare
le Relazioni- governing relationships- (Il
Sole 24 Ore 2204-2005) authored by
yours truly, but I am afraid that even
the second edition is impossible to
find. Of course I have a copy, and I
could send you now that I have learned
that you know Spanish..(which might
slightly help). However, the Gorel
framework which came out of that work
as a working methodology in the mid
eighties (so, Benita, the issue of the
strong correlation between relationships
and public relations dates at least back
then..whereas relationship marketing
as a concept,as far as I know, dates
back to the Scandinavian Groonros
in the early nineties, as you correctly
say) has been adopted in the second
part of the eighties by a number of
mncs…American Express and (the late)
Chemical Bank to mention just two. In
Italy it is quite common for professionals
to refer to the Gorel method which has
also been adopted by Ferpis professional
training and accreditation programs.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
I have suggested a proof and will
be testing it but early trials suggest this
is an approach that works. It explains
how, with ubiquitous communication
the nexus of values inside organisations
is no longer at the top of the
organisational pyramid. It morphs and
changes and from time to time is vested
in small groups both within and outside
organisations.
The role of PR?
To examine the values of
organisations and their constituencies
and to help those groups understand
each other’s values.
Yes, it is marketing, it is HR, it is
finance and Corporate Affairs but at
much more profound level than the tool
makers and hewers of stone. They are
needed but need their sights set on the
higher calling.
My dear David,
When I see your name on our
blog (rarely…) I always smile with
satisfaction, as you are undoubtedly one
of the leading and most provokative
(with the K..) thinkers I have
encountered in our camp and your blog
at http://leverwealth.blogspot.com/ is a
must reading for anyone who is curious
and wishes to be provoked…
I am intrigued by your current
thematization of the interdependence
between effective relationships and the
values system of an organization, and of
course would like to learn more about
this.
This discussion is excellent and I
hope it will continue. May I suggest that
we keep open three parallel conceptual
lines as we proceed?
1. Stakeholder Relationship
Governance as a constitutional
framework of an organization.
Whether it is actually called PR or
not I couldn’t care less, but the basis
is that an organization is a system
18
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
of relationships which, for it to be
successful, need to be nurtured,
grown, cultivated…remember
Chance Gardener?
2. Most organizational and business
school scholars today agree with
this, so we have arrived -so to say- at
the point in which it is only up to
us to convince our interlocutors,
but in academia there seems to be
agreement that communication
is a tool with which relationships
are developed and the quality of
those relationships along with
organizational behaviours are the
only two governable variables (albeit
to a point…)which form reputation.
Of course there are many other
variables as well, but they are not as
governable.
reasons many of us now argue: it
improves the quality of decision
making and accelerates the
implementation of those decisions.
4. Last but certainly not in any way
least, the professional command
of operative and technical tools
and processes we adopt when we
listen, when we decide who to
listen to, when we interpret, when
we communicate (internally and
externally of course), when we
evaluate etc…are of paramount
importance because it has to do with
what we deliver to whoever pays
for our efforts and how we become
accountable to that party as well as
to all our other interlocutors.
Ce n’est qu’un debut…continuons le
debat….
3. Managing the communication
function does not necessarily only
imply making sure that programs are
effectively executed. It also implies
facilitating the understanding
and interpretation of stakeholder
expectations for all the rational
David Philips
June 22 2007
❝
Before we begin, perhaps it is
significant to identify why this debate
is important. We are talking about
whether/how public relations affects
wealth.
It is clear that relationship
management and the management of
relationships is an area of management
that enthuses the PR industry
(Ledingham et al 2000, Grunig and
Huang in Ledingham 2000, Valin, J.
2004, Gregory 2005, White & Murray
2004). Practitioners like to believe that
they can change relationships between
organisations and their publics in a
managed fashion.
So far so good. But one may ask: so
what? What do these relationships do.
What do they achieve? What are they for?
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Differentiation is one PR
objective.
“In a mature economy it is
increasingly difficult to find tangible
resources of differentiation and it is
the reputation and relationships which
organisations establish with their
stakeholders which are the drivers of
corporate success, suggests Danny Moss
(Moss in Theaker 2004 pp. 328).
PR as a business driver is suggested
by White and Murray: ‘PR… “definitely
involves handling a multiplicity of
stakeholders, as well as consistency over
very long periods of time. Inclusivity
in relationships with all stakeholders
is seen as correlated with company
performance. The things that really
drive a company – these are all around
relationships – are not seen as of
interest to financial commentators”
(White & Murray 2004)i.
19
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
The IABC Research Foundation,
concluded that ‘in order for
organizations to achieve the most
value from their intangible assets
they must encourage systematic
relationship-building and boundaryspanning behaviour by everyone
in the organization. The challenge
for communication managers is to
understand how they can contribute to
this process’.
This is why I am excited about
relationships and wanted to explore
if and how these claims can be
substantiated.
In addition: “Stakeholder
relationships are intangible assets and
there is a significant body of opinion
that identifies intangible assets as a
major driver in the global economy,
corporate survival and success”
(Phillips, D. 2006).
The evidence is largely built on a
bunch of assumptions (Freeman) that
just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
The concept of relationship
management being significant in its
ability to contribute to worth also
comes from outside the public relations
industry.
British Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry, Patricia Hewitt MP
has called for corporations to have
“successful relationships with a wide
range of other stakeholders” because
they “are important assets, crucial to
stable, long-term performance and
shareholder value.. In this, the Secretary
of State expresses a view that there is
a range of stakeholders and, one may
infer, domains of practice that are
significant.
I argue that “without effective
relationships all other corporate
assets are at risk. Sources of capital,
raw materials and services, valuable
intellectual assets, markets, customers
and processes throughout the value
chain are completely dependent on
relationships between people within
organisation and their counterparts
without.” Once again, the argument
favours a range of relationships,
internal and external and a range of
different forms of PR practice relevant
to relationships along the extent of the
value chain to influence value.
The actual evidence that
communication is at the core of
relationships needs to be examined
much more carefully. How? Under what
conditions? Do we know about the
effects?
How do we describe stakeholders.
Is it that group of people who take an
interest (stake) in an organisation, issue,
event? If so, look at the groups that form
in, say Facebook. Strange to see that
people with diverse backgrounds, ages
and interests meet in such environments
that often just do not conform to groups
that traditionally would be described
in demographic, marketing or typical
stakeholder segmentation.
The old models and theories fall at
the point where we can truly see user
generated social segments.
We have a problem.
So what is it that brings these people
together what is the dynamic behind
actual social groupings.
You see, even simple definitions are
a bit old. Who then is the employee?
Is it the person who works 9 to 5? But
takes time out to Twitter? Or the person
on contract, or working part time from
home? Is an employee blogging about
work, working, an employee? It is only
in an Internet mediated world that these
challenges to convention laid bare. It is
online we discover that the customer
is only a purchaser for a fraction of the
time and conversation - a conversation
that extends well beyond the traditional
interest of the company - that is until
Dell Hell brakes loose.
The debate is maturing from an
argument about affecting a range of
publics to one where this effect drives
value and the creation of wealth from
intangibles. From here, we can move
forward to seek the components of this
post modern view of PR.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
20
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
We have much more
work to do.
Ledingham Broom, Casey, and
Ritchey (2000) offer “Organizationpublic relationships are represented by
the patterns of interaction, transaction,
exchange, and linkage between an
organization and its publics. These
relationships have properties that are
distinct from the identities, attributes,
and perceptions of the individuals and
social collectivities in the relationships.
Though dynamic in nature,
organization-public relationships can be
described at a single point in time and
tracked over time.”
This idea postulates that
relationships are distinct in themselves
and have a mutuality and, through
a pattern of linkages, extend their
influence. It would also suggest that a
relationship has consequences for other
actors such that any relationship has, to
an extent, an influence on other publics
and is surrounded by an aurora borealis
of relationship interactions among other
related publics.
A lecturer can demonstrate this with
ease. By interrupting a lecture to give
a rose to a member of the audience,
the recipient and lecturer relationship
is changed. The rest of the audience
immediately assesses the meaning of
this action and bring their own concepts
as to the new relationship and their
own with the actors in an ‘aurora
borealis’ of assumptions about these
relationships. The exchange of the token
(the rose) is significant, so too are all
the connotations that such a token may
have (antecedents and consequences).
A similar effect can be archived with a
smile, wink or other signal. Whereas
the rose is tangible, the smile, wink
or other signal is definitely intangible.
Quite often, the token has a value that
is inferred or is a metaphor. After all, a
rose is but a dying flower on the branch
of a shrub.
Here we see a process of
relationship in which tokens are used
for creation of attention and influence
with a by-product of wider influence.
It is an idea we can explore from
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
research in many directions from
altruism (Hamilton 1964) to business
relationships (Bouzdine-Chameeva,
Durrieu, and Mandják 2001)
Part of this phenomena is explained
by communication - the gift of the
rose. But what makes the exchange so
interesting is that it is the values that are
ascribed by the actors to a rose and the
values ascribed by actors to the giving of
a rose that goes beyond communication.
This is a form of relationship
management that has and deals in
values. In some instances this value is
financial which can be demonstrated
by the financial effects of loosing
or enhancing relationships but the
financial metaphor is comparatively
insignificant.
A rose cost $1. Try offering the same
student 50 roses. A dramatic result. All
smiles. Now offer $50!
Same financial value but a
totally different set of values. Same
communication different effects. Public
Relations is about values.
It is also about
dissonance.
If the lecturer believes that $50 is a
great substitute for roses the same value
creates huge dissonance.
If a company has rose values
(a value system) that accord with
its ’stakeholders’ it can build a
relationships. If it has $50 values, it can
create dissonance.
This takes us to your second
point: Managing the communication
implies facilitating the understanding
and interpretation of stakeholder
expectations for all the rational many
of argue because it improves the quality
of decision making and accelerates the
implementation of those decisions.
Yes, I agree. But only if the currency
of expectations is based on values.
Otherwise we have the rose/$ problem.
So we need to understand the nature
of values and how they facilitate
understanding.
21
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Which takes us to your third stream.
The professional command of
operative and technical tools and
processes we adopt are of paramount
importance because it has to do with
what we deliver to whoever pays for our
efforts and how we become accountable
to that party as well as to all our other
interlocutors.
This is only true when we have
the capacity to identify to the client
where there the concord of values is
compatible. Otherwise the practitioner
is both fooling the client and himself.
Estelle de Beer
June 27 2007
❝
This is a very interesting debate
and the contributions made thus far
have been thought provoking. May I
propose another perspective to Benita’s
original question? Please bear with me
- there are so many issues that I think
need to be addressed in this debate that
on the surface my answer could seem
confusing.
May I be controversial? Perhaps
the ultimate purpose of what we are
doing, whether it is PR or corporate
communication, is facilitating (ensuring,
contributing to, call it what you want)
sustainability, through communication,
in a triple bottom-line (people, planet
and profit) environment – whether it be
sustainability in business, government
or civil society or between these three
entities. The sustainability that I refer
to would embrace, among others,
ethical practices and organisational
integrity, stakeholder engagement,
issues management etc. PR therefore is
not only concerned with the soft issues,
but also with the hard issues; not only
with the intangibles, but also the with
tangibles; not only with people and
planet but also with profit.
In my opinion we should be asking:
What is PR’s role in the accountability
and responsibility of the board (or the
organisation) towards stakeholders; in
the organisation’s license to operate;
in the “company” as a key component
of modern society; in the triple
bottom line; in characteristics such as
transparency, independence, fairness
and social responsibility; in the fact that
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
So can we prove any of this?
We can look to the neuropsychologists, the philosophers, and I
hope to offer a further proof.
Relationships are based on values.
Convergent values create relationships.
Relationships can be extended to a
wider social groups with similar held
values. Relationships are the way that
economies are sustained.
In PR we spend a lot of time tilling
the soil and so little time pondering the
miracle of our environment.
companies need to be well-governed
but also need to be perceived in the
market as being well-governed; in nonfinancial aspects in the organisation;
in alignment between the value system
of the company and that of society; in
leadership; in risk management etc.
Oh, and by the way, what’s wrong
with “doing things right” (governance).
It is because people have focused
too much on “doing the right things”
(strategy), from their perspective, that
we are in a post-Enron era where society
is expecting business and government
to do things right as well. You can do
the right thing and give money to the
poor, but if you do it in a way that is not
sustainable, it can do more harm than
good.
Virtually everything we do in PR
and corporate communication can be
traced back to sustainability – also in
terms of relationship management or
relationship governance.
The above is my enlightened
approach. My traditional approach to
Benita’s question would have been:
It depends on the situation and the
objectives you want to achieve – perhaps
that is why it is so difficult to define
public relations. In some instances PR
will be used to enhance the corporate
reputation; sometimes it will be used to
uplift a community or it could be used
to get people to stop smoking or finding
Madeleine McCann.
22
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
If we had asked “What is the ultimate
purpose of corporate communication”
I would have answered that it is “to
manage corporate reputation” (whether
reputation can be managed or not is
another debate). Elsewhere on this blog
Yaryna Klyuchkovska states that: “I believe,
pragmatic as it may be, that building
relationships with publics is a means to an
end, although I do have trouble defining
the “end.” Would it be too last century to
say, reputation?” My question is: Why would
this be “too last century?” “Reputation” is
very much alive and well in the business
world and the support for this concept is
growing steadily. I agree with Yaryna that
“reputation” could be regarded as the “end”
of our endeavors from a communication
perspective. However, from a business,
government and civil society perspective
we can go even further and regard
“reputation management” as a “means to an
end” – the end being sustainability (of the
organisation etc), whether it is in the public
or private sector.
What makes reputation management
an interesting perspective in corporate
communication is the fact that the
perceptions of all stakeholders of the
organisation – even those of customers make up the reputation of an organisation.
That brings me to Benita’s question
about the distinction between marketing
and communication. From what I have read
recently it seems as though the marketing
discipline is to a certain extent in dire
straits – perhaps they are now in the
position that PR was before the Excellence
Study, although very few marketers would
admit this. However, in South Africa there
are a few brave souls who are willing to be
controversial.
On the website of the University of
Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of Business
Science, I read the following last week: “So
why then has marketing in South Africa,
and around the world, been described
by some as “in crisis”? Could it be that
marketers have been worshiping false idols?
“Customer worship seems to be under
fire in certain circles. Southwest Airlines,
Rosenbluth International and others have
argued forcefully that “the customer is not
always right” and that being committed to
customer service at the expense of your
employees can be disastrous. Author Seth
Godin even suggests firing a customer “if
it’s not worth making the customer right.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
“So perhaps the answer lies not in
choosing which group to worship above
all others, but to embrace pluralism and
balance. Perhaps the “seat at the table” has
been vacated because marketers have not
effectively embraced the complexity that
comes with the organisational boundaryspanning role they now have. Perhaps
marketers need to work towards a “triple
upper line” that balances these often
conflicting purposes and stakeholders.”
These days I (Estelle) explain to laymen
the difference between “marketing” and
“communication” as follows: the one has
to do with managing the “product brand”
and the other has to do with managing
the “corporate brand”. Both use the
same tactics and both are responsible
for managing relationships – marketing
for customers (although they are now
claiming to also be responsible for “other
relationships”) and communication for the
rest.
Another challenge that we need to
deal with is the “disintegration” of the PR
function: other functions are also now
responsible for managing relationships
- investor relations (finances), employee
relations (HR), customer relations
(marketing), government relations (public
affairs), community relations (corporate
citizenship and CSR). The danger is
that PR will be left with media relations
– which will not guarantee us a seat at the
boardroom table.
However, the reputation manager could
function on a strategic level by taking
responsibility for all these relationships in
an integrated manner. “Reputation” and
“reputation management” have become
business jargon that business leaders
feel comfortable with. Other jargon
includes words (concepts if you like) like
“stakeholder engagement”, “corporate
citizenship”, “corporate governance” and
“sustainablity”. Business people (and
even accountants) are talking about and
understanding the concepts of issues,
branding, reputation management,
reputation capital, reputation risk, third
party assurance etc.
Why not use the concepts strategy,
governance and sustainability (and
related ones) as common ground between
ourselves and the dominant coalition in
order to ensure a seat at the boardroom
table?
23
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
What is PR?
Heather Yaxley
August 31 2007
❝
If you’ve ever heard the fable of the
five blind men and the elephant you will
appreciate the challenge of answering
the simple question - what is PR - which
I’ve selected for my first post at PR
Conversations.
This ancient story relates how each
man provides a different description
of an elephant based on the personal
experience of feeling one part of the
animal. Their conflicting perspectives
– is it rough or smooth, solid or flexible,
thin or fat, hard or soft - lead the men
to argue loudly over who has the most
accurate perception of the elephant.
Of course, each opinion is valid
as the different descriptions reflect a
specific starting point and personal
experience. Isn’t that a lot like trying
to explain public relations? But the
individual descriptions, based on
isolated impressions of a leg, trunk, tail,
tusk or ear, do not explain the entirety
of the elephant. So it is with PR.
Those who encounter PR as
journalists naturally believe it
predominantly involves media relations.
As such, an ability to write releases
and pitch stories is paramount.
Poor practices by press agents and
publicists give the impression that all
PR is manipulative; full of liars and spin
doctors.
If your experience is largely on the
basis of helping clients to promote their
products and services, you will believe
PR is part of marketing – a cost-effective
promotional tool focused on generating
media coverage above all else.
Similarly, if you are involved with
internal communications, financial
relations, lobbying or corporate social
responsibility activities, you may have a
partial viewpoint of the beast.
Should we turn to academia for
consensus on the entirety of public
relations? You are likely to find a
different focus depending on whether
the discipline taught in the journalism
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
or media school or alongside marketing
in business faculties. There are
arguments for PR as applied psychology
– which may imply it is a social science
or is it a liberal arts subject?
Textbooks reveal hundreds, if not
thousands, of definitions. Academic
approaches range from the modernist,
systems theory models of Grunig and
Hunt, to the post-modernist critical
perspectives of Holtzhausen, L’Etang or
Moloney.
Is PR an ethical guardian nobly
protecting the public interest or an
invisible persuader, propagandist and
evil magician?
Should we look at PR in terms of
advocacy, rhetoric or persuasion? Or
communications – but is it one-way or
two-way, asymmetric or symmetric?
Direct or mediated? What about event
management – or new media?
Maybe you see PR as building
relationships with stakeholders or
publics, managing reputation or
handling risk, issues and crises? Is it
about implementing at a tactical level or
providing strategic counsel?
Do you see PR as a multi-million
pound industry, providing exciting
and influential career opportunities?
Or are you the creative type, who
enjoys coming up with ideas for new
campaigns?
Should PR be open only to those
who have gained an undergraduate
degree in the discipline – or are postgraduate qualifications and vocational
training programmes more appropriate
for improving skills and understanding?
Or is this all a waste of time, because
you simply need a pleasant personality
and knowledge of good wine to
schmooze with key influencers? Do you
think PR is more about who you know
rather than what you know?
24
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Is this a profession that requires
expertise, or is it something that
anyone can practice? Should it be
seen as a specialist function within
organisations, or is our role to facilitate
communications and create corporate
advocates at all levels?
Should we seek a seat at the
boardroom table – or is it sufficient to
have the respect of our chief executives?
Rather than answering a simple
question, I’ve raised many more. My
own opinion is PR is like the elephant.
There are many ways of describing
aspects of the profession – and focusing
on the individual parts may not bring us
any closer to reflecting the entirety.
Rather than finding fault with
those who hold a different attitude, or
becoming defensive in supporting our
own, possibly one-sided, viewpoint,
I believe we need to recognise the
elephant as it really is.
Comments & Conversation
Ignacio Duelo
September 1 2007
We need an ability to see the whole
and draw together the conflicting
opinions to improve our wider
understanding of the value of PR – as
well as better understanding of PR in
society and organisations.
❝
This issue is a classic, and your
brief is very clear. I often speak
of “Communication” without any
adjectives, but I accept it can be a
limited term to include all we do.
Last week I attend a conference by
Justo Villafañe, a Spanish expert, who
said that the term “communication” had
been exceeded, as it cannot include
everything. He says that we have to
look for a new name, and he suggested
“intangibles management” (”gestión de
intangibles” in Spanish).
I suppose there must be many
debates on this issue in US and Europe,
but I imagine it must be interesting for
you to know that it is an issue here, in
the South.
Regards from Buenos Aires.
Heather Yaxley
September 1 2007
❝
Ignacio - thank you. Despite the
negatives associated with the term
“public relations”, I feel it encompasses
relationships with publics which goes
beyond the idea of communications.
there could be that the discipline is only
seen as providing indirect benefits. But
definitely an area worthy of discussion
- adding another perspective on the
elephant.
It is interesting to hear of the
discussions in South America - managing
the intangibles certainly covers aspects
such as human capital, goodwill,
reputation, values. But PR also plays a
role in enhancing the value of tangible
aspects of organisations too. The danger
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
25
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Benita Steyn
September 1 2007
❝
What an excellent post, Heather!
And what an excellent analogy for the
field of public relations. It is so true that
none of these world-views/perspectives/
approaches to PR are wrong. Only, some
of them are more limited (and therefore
more limiting) than others. They are
but different sides of the coin. The same
coin, that is. Only, our PR coin seems to
have more than two sides. Or does it?
Your post brings us right back to the
discussion started on PRC some months
ago (but didn’t finish), namely what is
the ‘ultimate purpose of PR’? For some
answers to this question, we might
benefit by looking in academia.
Because this is a paradigm question.
What is the central unifying paradigm
in the field that could tie all these
perspectives together? Each paradigm
has a core concept. We must look for the
core concept that encompasses all (or
most) of the different views. We must
not focus on the individual views that
the five blind men had of the elephant.
We must try to look at the nature of the
beast. Inspired by you, I am going to
try and provide a few views of what the
whole elephant looks like. After all, I
just came back from a hike in the Kruger
National Park and this entitles me to
an overall view. My overall impression:
Do you have ANY idea how BIG this
creature is (especially when you are
on foot and it is standing only 20 yards
away). No wonder I like the elephant
analogy for PR so much!
By the way: There is a lot of
confusion about the terms ‘worldview’ and ‘paradigm’ (almost as bad as
‘strategic’). I see the term ‘world-view’
as referring to the attitudes, beliefs,
values or views of social groups (i.e. PR
practitioners or marketing practitioners
or CEOs). If you are one of the zillion PR
practitioners saying that your CEO/ top
management or the marketing manager/
function doesn’t understand you, it is
because you have different world-views
for PR.
Paradigms, to me, are ‘scientific’
world-views — a set of shared basic
beliefs about how researchers view
that which they study. In this sense,
a paradigm is a model or frame of
reference that organises researchers’
observations and reasoning, and directs
their attention in making measurements
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
(the latter is very important for the
discussion on evaluation going on
elsewhere in PRC. For if you are still
in a one-way PR/communication
paradigm, you will only find it necessary
to measure ‘communication effects’,
and will not even consider measuring
‘reputation’, etc).
In summary, practitioners have
world-views, referring to the way they
view a phenomenon (such as PR), but
researchers work within paradigms (that
is why certain universities teach from
a particular perspective, even if they
mention alternatives). If you have been
a marketing student at NorthWestern
in the US, you will swear to it that
the role of PR is to support marketing
(which is why Kotler’s text books had
such tremendous influence on the
way in which marketing views PR). If
you studied PR at Maryland, you will
undoubtedly be a disciple of two-way
communication. If you studied PR at the
University of Pretoria, you will believe
strongly in its strategic role.
With regards to paradigms in PR, a
number of important ones immediately
come to mind. I see the four US models
of PR (Grunig & Hunt, 1984) as both
world-views (the views of social groups)
and as paradigms (the PR approaches
of researchers). They are however
also historic stages or eras in the field.
First we had ‘publicity’ (some still see
media relations as the most important
purpose of PR). Then came along ‘public
information’ (still the paradigm in which
most governments operate, and the
era of the house-journal). Distributing
publications was the name of the game
here. A journalism background with a
focus on writing skills sure serves you
well here. Even a major in English or the
liberal arts will do well.
The third PR model, namely twoway asymmetrical communication
(persuasion) illustrates the view of
PR as marketing communication. Very
strong in the US, it seems, and not less
so in South Africa. What about other
English speaking countries like New
Zealand, Australia, Canada, the UK?
Yes, research is being conducted in this
approach—but only so that customers
can be persuaded to the organisation’s
26
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
views. Of course this is important for
marketing—how else could a company
exist/ survive? But it is NOT the only or
most important purpose for PR.
Some enlightened souls have
progressed to the fourth PR model, twoway symmetrical communication (the
legacy of the Grunigs, for which we owe
them greatly). Here the conversation
has turned to conducting research to
identify stakeholders, publics, issues and
activists (and not only customers). No
longer is the focus on communication
effects (how must we package messages,
how will it reach the audience, and did
they understand and remember it), but
TO WHOM must we be speaking, and
WHAT should the MESSAGE BE in the
first place). Now this is a paradigm shift
par excellence—if only it would become
the world-view of most practitioners
(and their CEOs too).
What is important to understand,
is that the paradigm influences the
‘focus’ of PR. Of course publicity will
always be part of PR, but it is not
the ONLY purpose. PR will always
support marketing (providing that the
marketing function survives!), but it is
not the MOST important purpose of PR.
Two-way symmetrical communication,
that became the foundation of the PR
relationship paradigm, is today seen
by some (enlightened souls) as the
ultimate purpose of PR. But it is not the
‘dominant’ paradigm (i.e. not the way
most people see it).
Although it was ‘Made in the USA’,
the four PR models/ world-views/
paradigms have for centuries described
the approaches to PR all over the
world. Of course they were not the only
approaches—there are many other ways
to see PR.
To name just a few: there is
‘professionalism’ (versus seeing PR as
a subset of something else); there is
Pearson’s ‘ethical’ model for PR; there is
Simoes ‘conflict’ paradigm (the purpose
of PR is to legitimise organisational
decisions); there is Cottone’s (and
Ursula Stroh’s) application of the chaos
paradigm to PR; there are critical
perspectives—too many to mention. (If
you believe very strongly in any of them,
let us hear more about your views).
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Moving to Europe, I want to mention
another important paradigm that
merits our attention, namely ‘reflection’
(applied to PR by Susanne Holmstrom
of Denmark). The Europeans (according
to different articles by Van Ruler,
Vercic, Butschi & Flodin) do not
find a debate about ‘communication’
versus ‘relationships’ relevant. What
differentiates PR from other functions
in their view, is the concern it brings
for broader societal issues – the fact
that any problem is approached with
a concern for the implications of
organisational behaviour towards, and
in, the public sphere. This concern is
implicit in all PR definitions — whether
the field is defined as ‘relationship’
management; ‘communication’
management; ‘image’ management
or ‘reputation’ management. Public
relations is thus seen to be a strategic
process of viewing an organisation
from an ‘outside’ perspective—being
concerned with issues and values
that are considered publicly relevant,
pointing to ‘legitimacy’ and ‘public trust’
in the organisation as central concepts
of PR in Europe.
By the way: Speaking of ‘Europe’
is of course a generalisation – there
are many other approaches and not all
European countries are the same. (One
problem is that many articles are in
other languages, so English-speaking
people don’t understand and therefore
don’t know). Reflection seems to me
to be strong in Scandinavia, Germany,
the Netherlands, some parts of Eastern
Europe maybe—or is it only Slovenia
(Dejan Vercic)? How strong in Italy,
Toni? What about Portugal, Joao? And
Enric, what is the situation in Spain?
Anywhere else?
Anyway, we are talking here about
the merits of a particular approach,
wherever it came from. We are searching
for the ‘ultimate purpose of PR’. So the
question is: Does reflection not present
a more encompassing view of the nature
of the PR beast? Could this not be a
unifying view? Are there any definitions
of PR that does not fall within this
view? (Please let us know should
you find some or know some). Is the
reflective paradigm not a more unique
contribution than a ‘communication’
paradigm (because everybody
communicates); or a ‘relationship’
27
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
paradigm (because everybody builds
relationships). Is this not a contribution
that will earn some respect from top
management or other functions?
Como esta, Ignacio—a mi, me gusta
mucho conocerte. Por favor, escribe otra
vez. Ignacio: Can you see ‘intangibles’
as being part of the reflective paradigm?
If organisations practise reflection by
‘listening’ to stakeholders and other
societal members and considering
what they hear; if they adapt their
policies and behaviour to societal
values, expectations, norms and
standards; and communicate truthfully
and transparently (without spinning
Toni Muzi Falconi
September 1 2007
❝
The sheer beauty of this post,
Heather, is that, at the same time, it
provocatively opens and closes what at
least some of us have always looked on
as a disturbing, possibly purposeless but
in any case… a can of worms.
I am sympathetic to the elephant
metaphor, even if I cannot imagine
today any profession (or anything
else, to be honest, and this may be
disrespectful to the generic principles
part of the relatively new generic
principles/specific applications
framework to effective global public
relations…) which five, even not so
blind, individuals today would not
describe at least as differently as
Heather did with public relations.
The legal, medical, accounting,
teaching and you-name-it profession
have in these last years imploded and
disintegrated in such a fragmental way
that, if only yesterday we seemed to be
amongst the few wondering about out
quote real unquote identity, today, and
even in this-here discussion, we appear
to have more certainties than those of
many of my more aware friends from
those professions…
Having said this, may I suggest
(to touch on another fable..) that the
elephant is also naked?
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
or whitewashing), then the natural
outcome is that the organisation is seen
to be ‘legitimate,’ a good corporate
citizen, socially responsible, which will
earn it a good reputation and deserve
public trust. What do you think? Or
which PR approaches have you been
following in Argentina?
In other words….I am much more
concerned with how others see h/im,
talk about h/im, diffuse their perception
of him than what s/he is really (and what
does quote really unquote mean?).
Benita does a thorough, detailed
and very useful recap of what we may
observe from the perspective of anyone
interested enough in the issue to study
it.
I very much like the distinction
she makes between worldview and
paradigm, and I fully agree with her
intelligent suggestion that the reflective
approach (reflexive?).
I don’t know Benita… the two terms
are used in different interpretations of
possibly the same meaning by different
authors…when I am in doubt I use this:
reflective/reflexive…an easy way out) is
not only perfectly compatible-with but,
in my view, an essential component-of
that new global framework for the
effective practice of public relations
which, since the Grunigs’ first and
even more recent conceptualizations,
has been the principal objective of
many efforts to improve, refine, detail,
describe ….also confuse… of many of
us.
28
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
In a way, Benita, although I agree
that the two-way symmetric is not the
dominant worldview (wish it was, as
for you), it is certainly the dominant
paradigm today.
And this is good news although
we must recognize, as the Grunigs’ I
know certainly do (never encountered
persons of their intellectual standing
and reputation so open minded and
willing to absorb reasonable and
rational suggestions and criticism and to
promptly integrate them into their next
presentation….), that much work still
needs to be done (and fortunately so…)
to refine where we have arrived.
So, Heather, I believe the elephant
that I see seems to be very similar to the
one both you and Benita and a growing
number of researchers, scholars,
certainly students see.
when supporting the others in the
rest of their teaching. Unfortunately
(or maybe not so?) this is often the
result of political correctness….maybe
institutionalization? and maybe this is
a reason why Larissa is so resistant to
this term…that, as the true libertarian
she is, she is disturbed by the pop star
syndrome which accompanies their trips
around the campuses all over the world?
We must be grateful to Heather
for having brought us back to basics,
so-to-say, to oblige at least some of us to
discover we agree on what the elephant
looks like. I hope that the next post will
elaborate on how and what we should
be doing to ensure that our stakeholders
(clients, critics, activists, journalists,
politicians, public servants etc…but
most of all our colleagues) use a similar
pair of glasses….
I was truly impressed to learn that
many of my students, before beginning
their class with me, believed that the
two way symmetric model is also
dominant in practice - I of course
explain to them that it is not so! And
this, only because -I found out- just
about every other professor in the
course mantras the fourth model even
Benita Steyn
September 2 2007
❝
I certainly hope, Toni, that you
are right with regards to two-way
symmetrical communication being
the dominant PR paradigm, i.e. the
scientific worldview from which PR is
taught. But I am not convinced that it
is. Maybe within those universities that
teach PR, especially at the post-graduate
level. But what about the ‘PR’ courses
taught within journalism schools?
Within marketing courses? What about
the thousands of (vocational) colleges
where most PR people seem to get their
training (if they get any at all)?
And even if two-way communication
is the dominant paradigm, we hardly
have reason to rejoice. Because what the
whole Princeton Review furore seems to
be pointing to, is that a lot of PR people
(in the US and possibly elsewhere as
well) don’t have tertiary training and
even if they do, it is not necessarily in
PR.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
So it is going to take a long time
before the world-view too is two-way
communication.
But let’s look at this positively–
maybe these are isolated incidences,
maybe it is the older generation, maybe
it is different now.
Also, I don’t think we should
close the can of worms even if it is
disturbing. We should open it wide and
keep it open until we all understand
what is going on–namely that it is not
necessarily a ‘defragmented’ field, but
different sides of the same coin (or
different ways to view the elephant).
If people internally (PR practitioners)
don’t understand what it is all about,
then we don’t have a chance that others
outside the field ever will.
29
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Catherine Arrow
September 2 2007
❝
Well this is interesting. And to push
on with the animal analogies, I may end
up seeming like a one trick pony on
this one, but here’s my ‘Five men and an
Elephant: Part II’.
Once, there was an elephant, and
five men trying to discern its shape and
form. As they argued and discussed
their various perceptions, they failed
to realise it had fallen into a great
sleep. While it was asleep, it became
surrounded by an inner cocoon of
new knowledge and an outer shell of
skepticism and criticism that obscured
both its shape and purpose to the
world at large. Some saw it as a large
blot on the landscape, while those
that could only see bits of it endowed
it with - alternatively - deity and devil
characteristics, depending on where
they were standing. Then something
interesting happened. The elephant
woke up. While it was asleep in its
cocoon, it had become even bigger - so
big, it could no longer see its entire
reflection in the waters of the river. So
it wandered off and started chatting
to people about what it could do, how
big it was and what it might be called.
Some people gave it an entirely new
name, while others decided it was safer
to just name the bits of it they liked
or understood most readily, and some
opted to describe some of the many
things it could do.
Sadly for the elephant, our five
original protagonists were still huddled
around the cocoon and failed to realise
that not only had the elephant changed,
it had long-since left the building.
The evolution of the entire beast had
escaped them, so they sat around an
old paradigm warming their hands
and debating a shell. Those who had
witnessed the cocoon had also failed
to notice it waking up and lumbering
off on its bigger journey so they welded
their assumptions to the empty cocoon
in perpetuity because this was much
more comfortable than having to alter
their world-view.
Meanwhile, our elephant set off on a
very long journey, showing bits of itself
to the world at large - some of which
were recognisable in some places, some
of which were not. On its journey, it
continually asked people ‘What am I”?
“Look - I can do all these things - what
do you do”? During his travels, he met
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
lots of other elephants, some of whom
had been asleep, some of whom were
settling down for a bit of a kip and
others who hadn’t yet gone through the
same evolutionary process. This didn’t
mean that all the elephants were wrong,
it just meant they hadn’t all begun the
same journey - even though, ultimately,
it was one that they were all destined
to make. Our elephant also learnt to
type (see how versatile it had become)
got itself an avatar in Second Life and
began to describe itself to younger
elephants who were able to understand
immediately what it was all about and
started to be like that elephant too simply because they were not hampered
by the vision of an old cocoon.
So where does that leave us? It leaves
us with the old joke:
Q: “What time is it when you find an
elephant in your refrigerator?”
A: “Time to get a new refrigerator”
Recognising the evolving elephant
is what we have to agree on - and
then be brave enough to go buy a new
refrigerator for it to sit in. We need to
acknowledge not what the elephant
once was, but what has the elephant has
become - along with the current state
of other ‘elephant journeys’ around the
world.
And here comes my ‘one trick pony’
line - our evolved public relations
elephant is concerned with building
relationships that allow publics/
stakeholders/organisations/communities
(call them what you will - I like people
best) to function towards optimum
mutual benefit. Once you recognise that
as the shape, then the trunk, legs, ears
all make perfect sense. This then means
that when people see only one part, we
can neatly explain that yes, of course,
the trunk is a very important part of the
creature, but only a part, not the whole.
Like many of you out there, I have
trawled through the hundreds of
definitions of public relations, flipped
my trunk through the literature, talked
to practitioners and academics and
groped blindly for the shape of things to
come. But the evolved elephant is right
there under our noses and has been
within a sniff of us all for some time.
30
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Its purpose is to build relationships,
its strategy is how to create, facilitate
and maintain those relationships
and its tactics provide the detail and
functionality required to make them
work.
The reflective practitioner first seeks
understanding of all those involved,
recommending and undertaking the
necessary actions that will ensure
that organisations are truly ‘doing’
rather than just ‘saying’. Next comes
communication, in the form of dialogue,
participation, adjustment - of action
and ambiguity where necessary - and
further understanding, and finally the
actions, that allow the relationships to
progress and develop at whatever level
has been determined, be that the public
Ignacio Duelo
September 6 2007
❝
good, a commercial transaction, social
improvement, democratic interchange
and development or the recognition and
acknowledgment of change.
I said it was a big elephant. And
in keeping with the discussion on
ambiguity elsewhere, it is neither a black
nor a white elephant. It is, of course,
mostly dressed in grey.
Intangibles are corporate image,
brand, reputation, knowledge and social
responsibility. While the brand is a
promise that the organization makes to
its stakeholders, reputation is the result
of its behaviour in its stakeholders’
minds. And here is an example, if I
don’t misunderstand, of the concept of
reflective paradigm. There is some sort
of symmetry between the organizations
and the stakeholders, but it is the former
who consciously traces a plan to follow a
path and reach certain image out there.
So the symmetry is not so natural, but
provoked by one of the parties involved
in the relationship, in order to legitimate
itself.
The reflective paradigm seems to
be, in my mind, like a mirror where
the stakeholders, while looking at the
organization, can see themselves and
feel identified in their needs, their
illusions, their wishes and, why not,
their fears, which they share with
the organization. If they expect the
organization to solve these fears, or even
to embrace them, and the organization
knows this and behaves coherently, I
guess we are in a reflective situation.
And even if the PR of a company doesn’t
have a strong theoretical background
or a tertiary degree, he will have to
understand this need of reflectiveness if
he wants to be successful in his job.
As Catherine says, first comes
listening and then speaking, after
understanding the needs of your
stakeholders. If the organization
answers properly to those needs, it
is legitimated in the public sphere
before the audiences. And the media
(traditional and social media) play an
essential role in that legitimation, with
their own interests.
Am I right? Have I understood your
point of view? Am I an idealist? Please
correct me if I’m wrong.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
31
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Toni Muzi Falconi
September 6 2007
❝
Carla Guedes
September 17 2007
❝
From my point of view, Ignacio,
you have understood very well but I
insist, to the point of useless repetition
maybe, that the listening-understandinginterpreting-of-stakeholder-expectations
phase, if performed before
organizational operative decisions
are taken, improves the quality of
those decisions, hastens the time of
their implementation and therefore
influences, long before organizational
communication, actual organizational
behaviour and performance.
The Portuguese
perspective:
Another issue - there is a problem
from my point of view - is how some
Schools teach PR: the principles, the
tools and the practice.
I believe there’s still some
misunderstanding about the term PR,
specially if we are speaking about small
to medium business (and some others,
bigger…). Some relate it only to media
and press releases, other to advertising,
some to lobby.
There is some confusion about
what a PR Consultant can make for a
company and what is the role of the
marketing expert and whether both
can work together with success. People
think about cost/benefit (don’t see the
difference between ouputand outcome)
and don’t understand the importance
of building a trust bank and long
term relationships in order to create
confidence and reputation!
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Anyway, if we think about
perceptions we can easily understand
that a PR professional deals with many
targets. His/Her job is to advice the
company, the CEO - by designing a
strategic communication plan - about
how do “talk”, how to communicate
with the stakeholders according to his
business and objectives.
32
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
The Value of Public Relations
One of the questions often discussed in tandem with the conversations on ‘What is PR’ is the question of value, the
scope and size of the profession - as well as running debates on whether public relations is a profession or an industry.
The question of value was first raised in one of Toni Muzi Falconi’s first posts, a theme which he developed and
presented as a ‘paper in a post’ late in 2006.
Toni Muzi Falconi
November 8 2006
❝
How big is public relations? And why
does it matter? The economic impact of
our profession
This paper argues that our identity
as a profession – not just a service
industry of practitioners for hire, not
just a management function of the staff
variety – has a strong connection to
issues of size and economic impact on
society at large.
Being big does not make public
relations a profession. But being
measured in the same way as other
professions may be a critical step toward
being seen in the same light. To do that,
we must think outside the budget.
In doing so, we may be better
positioned to differentiate what we do
from marketing and advertising, and
perhaps even to seize the attention of
government, institutional and corporate
policy makers in a way that goes far
beyond the level of notice we have
achieved in the past.
Thus, it behooves the global
professional community to discuss and
concur on new and agreed upon criteria
of evaluation.
Is There a Better Way to Measure
Our Economic Impact?
Until today most efforts in
qualitative evaluation and quantitative
measurement of our economic impact
have analysed public relations as if
it was, in itself, a service industry.
The demand – believed to be mostly
originated from the private sector
– meets the offer of services provided
by agencies, consultancies and solo
operators. Little, if any, attention has
been focused on the economic impact
of professional public relations in its
entirety.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
That would have to include public
relations increasingly performed in all
three sectors of society: private, public
and social. In fact, in most countries of
the world (many in Europe and Latin
America, as in most of the emerging
economies), the public sector accounts
for more than 50% of estimated active
public relators; while the social sector,
albeit the smallest of the three, is
nonetheless experiencing the quickest
growth.
If we interpret the economic impact
of the profession on society at large as
the “induced economic output” of public
relations activities on a society, rather
than just the income which is annually
exchanged between buyers and sellers
of public relations services, we arrive at
figures which are substantially different
from the ones we have passively
accepted as reliable. Until now, that
has meant adopting the same criteria
normally used for the advertising
industry.
The researcher creates a (more
or less) representative basket of
organizations; inquires about the size
of their annual allocated budgets;
compares these to the year before;
extrapolates the resulting figures
to a (more or less) valid universe of
organizations; and finally comes up
with a figure purporting to show the
economic impact of public relations in a
specific country or territory.
In short, public relations and
advertising are treated as if they were
both capital intensive activities. Their
economic impact is equal to the sum
of budgets allocated by organizations
to sustain activities considered,
respectively, as public relations or
advertising.
33
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
But considering the different
processes which affect the two activities,
it seems clear that, while both obviously
require financial resources, public
relations is much more labour intensive
than advertising. While increasing the
effect of public relations very much
depends on the number of qualified
professionals involved in a specific
activity, a similar magnification of
advertising impact may be simply and
effectively accomplished by further
financial investment in media space
and/or time.
Adopt an economic multiplier which
accounts for the increased productivity
delivered by those professionals,
as it would seem senseless for an
organization to invest resources in
activities whose final value is considered
equal to or lower than their gross
costs. Once more, the difference from
advertising is that the highly variable
value of media space and/or time already
considers the potential effect of the
advertising messages, whereas this is not
in any way true for the value of public
relations activities.
This appears a sufficient reason
to say that public relations is a labour
intensive activity, not unlike accounting
or legal or medical. Advertising, on
the other hand, requires, a substantial
financial investment (in addition to
creativity, planning and managerial
processes, of course). This is not
necessarily true for public relations,
as the latter relies more on the time
invested by professionals in either
activating relationships with influential
publics or communicating with these
publics via media relations, organization
of events, publications, etc.
New Methodology Applied to US
Example
The implication is that it may be
viable to analyse the economic impact
of advertising by summing the total
of financial resources invested by
organizations to acquire media space
in various outlets. But this is not a
similarly valid criteria to analyse the
economic impact of public relations,
where a great majority of (and in many
cases, all) economic resources invested
by organizations are represented by the
gross costs of the professionals directly
or indirectly involved.
From this perspective, to estimate
the economic impact of the public
relations profession in a given area,
country or region, one would therefore
need to:
Identify the number of
professionals involved.
Estimate their gross annual cost to
the organizations they work for, or on
whose behalf they supply counsel and
services.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
To identify the number of
professionals involved in public
relations activities in a given country
or territory, one must first establish
what counts as public relations. For this
purpose, I suggest that public relations
activities are those performed by an
organization which involve:
Creating, consolidating, improving
and managing conscious and planned
relationships with an organization’s
influential publics: i.e., those publics
whose decisions, behaviours, opinions
and attitudes produce consequences
on the organization and who, in turn,
are impacted by the consequences
of the same organization’s decisions,
behaviours, opinions and attitudes.
Of course, one may decide to adopt
a tighter or even a looser definition
of what constitutes a public relations
activity for an organization, and
consequently come up with different
numbers of professionals involved. But
the structural process remains the same.
To illustrate the need for agreed
upon criteria coming from the public
relations professional community, let me
cite three recent examples involving the
USA, the UK and Italy. The United States
Bureau of Labour Statistics (http://www.
bls.gov/) considers as public relations
managers those who:
…plan and direct public relations
programs designed to create and
maintain a favourable public image for
employer or client; or, if engaged in
fundraising, plan and direct activities
to solicit and maintain funds for special
projects and non profit organizations…
34
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
And as public relations specialists
those who:
…engage in promoting and
creating good will for individuals,
groups or organizations by writing
and selecting favourable publicity
material and releasing it through various
communication media. May prepare and
arrange displays and make speeches.
For 2005, these definitions would
yield a number of 44,000 for the first
group and 191,000 for the second, for a
total of 235,000.
However, these numbers exclude,
for example, professionals employed
in internal/employee relations, in
financial/investor relations or public
relations research. Moreover, they do
not count the many operators who
from day-to-day are actually involved
in public relations according to the
broader definition I gave above, but
are either not classifying themselves as
such or maybe not even aware of being
public relators (for example, the many
communicators for development which
work for organizations like the World
Bank or the United Nations).
It also seems surprising that, in
1999, the US Census Bureau indicated
that there were 68,000 managers and
149,000 specialists, for a total of 217,000
public relators. This implies that in six
years, the profession has only grown by
less than 10%, i.e. far less than 2% per
annum! This is hardly credible.
However, the number in this case
matters less than our objective to define
a reliable process with acceptable
indicators. If we adopted my proposed
broader definition of public relations,
which is possibly closer to today’s
reality, and if we added all internal and
financial communicators, researchers as
well as those unaware public relators,
we could guesstimate that in 2006 the
United States had some 400,000 public
relators. That would imply that almost
one in every eight hundred Americans is
involved in public relations.
To validate this estimate, it would
be sufficient to isolate specific sample
areas; conduct a detailed census
involving public relations professionals
and their organizations operating in
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
the private, public and social sectors;
extrapolate and project the results; and
remember to ponder existing economic
and cultural indicators.
In order to estimate the gross annual
cost of a public relations professional
to an organization in a given country
or territory, there are sufficient official
and reliable economic statistics that
may be adopted. These costs will differ
according to the level of seniority,
expertise and responsibilities in the
organization; as well as the level of
economic development of the specific
territory and the market strength
of public relations in that economic
environment.
Again, if we take the USA case, the
same Labour Bureau statistics for 2005
indicate the average annual salary of
the 44,000 managers was $86,000,
while that of the 191,000 specialists was
$51,000. The total 2005 income of those
operators is therefore equal to $14.5
billion, which would mean gross costs
of at least $16 billion for the employers/
clients (based on the more conservative
Labour Bureau count of PR managers
and specialists, and not the reasonable
larger estimate).
Again, this is another aspect which
could be fairly easily investigated on a
sample basis. The outcome would vary
from country to country, including
regulations and customs that determine
employer gross costs over salary.
3. Finally, to identify a useful and
reasonable multiplier to calculate
the added value produced by the
individual professional, economists
who have studied other labour intensive
professions (i.e., accounting or law
or medicine) tend to agree that the
multiplier should vary between 1.5 and
3, according to the value attributed
by the organization to the individual
professional (which however is already
somewhat reflected in annual gross
cost).
This criteria, certainly debatable
but seemingly reasonable, also bears
a relationship to the traditional fee
billing procedures used by consulting
companies in public relations.
35
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
That is, wherever possible and in
the best of instances, the employee
gross cost to her/his agency should
be multiplied by three and billed to
a client. The billed amount therefore
includes the consultant’s cost (one
third), the general expenses of the
organization connected to the day-today activity (a second third), while the
third third allows for the amortization
of investments, depreciation as well as
gross margins of the organization.
So, if we return to the USA and
multiply by, say, an average of 3 the $16
billion per annum gross cost of public
relations managers and specialists, we
could say that the annual economic
impact of public relations professionals
in the USA (as counted by the Labour
Bureau) is equal to $48 billion.
Applying the Methodology to
Another Country
A second relevant example is that of
the Republic of Italy.
In 2001 the Italian Government
(Ministry of the Public Function)
implemented an official census to
calculate how many public relations
professionals operated within the
country’s Public Sector, and came up
with an overall figure of 40,000. This
included all employees who at the time
operated in or for the central and local
public administrations’:
• offices of relations with publics
• offices of media relations
• and offices of the spokespersons.
These are the three functions
officially recognized by the Italian State
as subject to the provisions of the law
150/2000 on public communication.
The Italian public relations
professional association (Ferpi) used
this base figure as a starting point
to estimate how many professionals
operated in the private and social
sectors of the Italian economy, and
came up with a figure of another
30,000 (25,000 in the private sector
and 5,000 in the social sector). The sum
of all numbers indicate that in 2001,
there were 70,000 public relations
professionals operating in Italy.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
In recent years, this number has
significantly grown and is now estimated
to be in the 90,000 range, i.e., one
every 700 Italians. In Italy, the average
annual gross medium cost in dollars
per professional is possibly $40,000. By
applying the same average productivity
multiplier we used for the USA (i.e., 3),
we could say that the annual economic
impact of the public relations profession
in Italy is $11 billion.
To cite a third example, the United
Kingdom’s Chartered Institute of Public
Relations recently published research
which estimated 48,000 public relations
professionals in the country, and an
overall figure of $10 billion as a total
annual economic impact. This implies
that each UK professional produces an
average economic impact of $210,000
($210,000 x 48,000 = $10 billion).
But with these estimates of the
number of professionals, we encounter
a double conflict with the Italian and
USA figures. It would seem that in Italy,
taking a proportional perspective, the
public relations profession has a bigger
economic impact than in the USA! On
the other hand, it is also not credible
that the UK – the European country
where public relations is most diffused
and advanced – has barely more than
half the professionals counted in Italy,
even though the two countries have
more or less the same population.
It is clear that the estimates are
based on different criteria and that the
UK criteria were more stringent than
Italy’s. Furthermore, the individual
estimated economic impact of the
UK professional is greater than the
American figure.
Applying the Methodology
Globally
Basically, if one were to look at
the whole world, one could roughly
identify and separate at least three
major macro-regions along a continuum
on the basis of economic development,
market strength and development of the
professional:
36
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
A more private-sector-oriented
and professionally consolidated
macro-region, where we may estimate
(based on the country examples above)
one professional for every 700/1000
inhabitants.
A more public-sector-oriented
and less professionally developed
macro-region, where one may estimate
one professional for every 1000/2000
inhabitants.
And a third mostly public-andsocial-sector oriented but professionally
developing macro-region, where one
may estimate one professional for every
2000/5000 inhabitants.
Considering a global population
of more than six billion, we may
reasonably attribute 700 million
inhabitants to the first region; 1.4 billion
to the second; and 3.9 billion to the
third.
This would imply:
• 700,000 to 1 million
professionals in the first
macro-region
• 750,000 to 1.5 million
professionals in the second
• 800,000 to 2 million
professionals in the third.
Summing up, we may estimate
anywhere from 2.3 to 4.5 million
professionals in the world today. If we
apply a highly conservative individual
total economic impact of $100,000 for
the first group (based on an average
annual salary of $25,000, a gross cost of
$33,000 and a 3 multiplier) to the first
number; an even more conservative
$50,000 to the second group (reflecting
an average annual salary of $13,000, a
gross cost of $17,000 and a 3 multiplier);
and a definitely conservative $25.000 to
the third group (reflecting an average
annual salary of $ 6.000, a gross cost
of $8.000 and a 3 multiplier) we would
still arrive at an annual global economic
impact in the area of $130-230 billion.
But Why Does It Matter?
What is the purpose of all this
exercise, and why is it so relevant for
the public relations profession to review
existing criteria for self-identification
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
and evaluation/measurement of its
economic impact on society? The
arguments can be presented from four
perspectives.
First, as Harold Burson recently
noted, “The broad umbrella of PR
is being equated with the discipline
of support to marketing.” It is
highly relevant for public relations
professionals to be fully aware (and also
be prepared with convincing arguments
to make their stakeholders fully aware)
that their own professional activity is
distinct from advertising and marketing.
This is an old, old issue which has
accompanied the development of our
profession since its inception and early
institutionalization at the beginning
of the 20th century. The reality that
public relations is more labour intensive
while advertising is more capital
intensive provides a strong argument for
differentiation.
All too often public relations, in
organizations of all sorts, is placed
under the marketing communication
umbrella and, at times, even under the
advertising umbrella. This defeats the
ongoing process of institutionalization
of the discipline as it has been growing
and developing over these recent years,
and we must find and constantly use
convincing arguments to promote
further differentiation. The capital vs.
labour intensive argument appears to be
a forceful one.
Second, if we consider the normal
day-to-day estimates of the economic
impact of our profession that we have
passively accepted over the years
and compare these to advertising,
the differences seem to be way out
of proportion. Indeed, they seriously
misrepresent public relations as
a tiny addendum to the overall
marketing and advertising budget
of the organization. If we can argue
from reliable and convincing estimates
that succeed in narrowing the gap,
while at the same time bringing light
to the true nature of public relations,
this becomes highly relevant in
reinforcing our professional relevance
and in strengthening the position and
power of public relations in various
organizations and societies in times of
economic downturn or organizational
restructuring/change/downsizing.
37
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Third, many new entrants into the
profession today come from specialized
studies in colleges and universities
where public relations is taught as
a unique discipline. The body of
knowledge which public relations has
developed and accumulated over the
last 20 to 30 years, albeit much in need
of reinforcement, is solid enough to
establish this notion of a profession on
its own, although strongly related to
others.
But there is a dire need for the basic
recognition of the above indicated
differentiation and it does not seem
reasonable to continue to stimulate
these new professionals to think as if
they were destined only be a sideshow
in the advertising/marketing areas of
organizations.
Fourth and finally, this reinforces the
sound argument that public relations is
not merely, nor even mostly, a private
sector and/or outsourced consultancy
It is important for public relators
worldwide to be fully aware of this, as
the largest public relations investors in
the world today are more likely to be the
US government, the UN, the European
Union or the World Bank, rather than
the ExxonMobils, the Shells, the Procter
& Gambles or the General Electrics.
All of this reasoning unveils a whole
different perspective of the profession
which immediately highlights the
necessity for such arguments to be
discussed within the professional
community and its immediate
boundaries every day and everywhere.
And this to the benefit of the public
interest.
Comments and Conversations
Brian Kilgore - Toronto
November 10 2006
or service based profession. It is equally
and in some countries even more
consolidated in the public and social
sectors of society.
❝
Sometimes problems (assuming a
situation is worthy of being called a
“problem”) are so complicated there’s
no point in solving them.
One of my partners has just finished
a project with a bank where some
complicated problems /opportunities
/ projects are being broken down to
$250,000 chunks. Before approval is
given to solve a problem, it needs to be
in pieces no bitter than this.
In the “how big is PR” question,
perhaps some organisation — Global
Alliance again? — can arrange for a
common definition of PR, country by
country.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
The International Association of
Business Communicators, is yet another
example of how clear it thins, says a
certain percentage of its members are in
public relations and a certain percentage
are in corporate communications (plus
more in other disciplines / professions)
but does not bother to define its terms,
making the numbers valueless.
If one in 700 Italians are in PR, I
bet they are counting hotel desk clerks
greeting the tourists coming to “BrandItaly” and probably dozens of people
within businesses who would not be
within a PR department.
38
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
As for “value” of PR.
Impossible to measure without
agreement. If a PR person works with
a personnel department on a staff
retention project, does the failure
of an executive to resign, therefore
removing he need to pay a head hunter
$50,000 to find a replacement, count as
$50,000 in PR value? Plus, should we add
another $150,000 in PR value to cover
the learning curve of the replacement
employee? In both cases, money not
spent because the PR person created a
good tag line for the retention program.
Does a photogapher who takes
pictures that are sold to a business and
then given the to a newspaper along
with a news release count as one of the
Italian 1 in 700?
And does the value of the inkjet ink
used to print the picture to show the
client, count?
There might be more useful,
practical, research that could be
conducted instead of this economic
value stuff.
Communicating for Sustainability
in Cape Town May 12-15 at the 4th World PR Festival
Toni Muzi Falconi
May 6 2007
❝
How do we keep business on this
comeback trail? Public relations will play
a critical role in the process. How do
PR professionals help business remain
trusted?
We listen and understand the impact
of policies on all stakeholders. We need
to keep our clients focused on the
stakeholder, not the shareholder model.
A new level of transparency is expected
from companies, asking for input from
enthusiastic consumers and informing
communities about the rationale for
a new power plant before going to
government for approval. Respect
for employees is the “new green”
with continued communication on
performance and purpose a necessity.
We should not allow ideologues
to stigmatize these new corporate
initiatives as “just PR” because we are,
in fact, changing the face of business so
that it can succeed in the twenty first
century. We are helping to provide the
license to operate by letting business
again be trusted to do what is right. I
disagree with the UK’s Daily Telegraph
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
article by Jeff Randall who says “You
cannot PR your way to a sustainable
reputation. Those who think they can
are confusing form and substance; they
are doomed to fail.” The best PR is about
substance, communicated well to all
shareholders. (oops…a little slip here: I
believe he means stakeholders…)
This quote is from Richard
Edelman’s blog most recent entry and
is worth importing in this post which
has to do with what will happen in Cape
Town (South Africa) in a few days when
hundreds of professionals and scholars
from all over the world will convene
and participate to the 4th World Public
Relations Festival which, this year, is
dedicated to the theme: Communicating
for Sustainability
The event is organized by the
Global Alliance for Public Relations and
Communication Management, and by
PRISA, the South African professional
association.
39
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
I would like however, also picking
up on Richard’s quote above, to
establish a correlation between the two,
in my view, quite different concepts of
communicating for sustainability (the
theme of the Festival), and sustainable
communication (a recurring theme of
this blog) and see if there is merit for
further conversation.
In the best of all worlds I would say
that communication for sustainability
happens when an organization
(private, public, social) decides that
sustainability is a value which needs to
be communicated with its influential
publics.
By sustainability I intend a voluntary
feature (i.e. going beyond hard and
soft legal requirements) which the
leadership of an organization decides
to integrate in its performances (i.e.
products and services, activities,
functions, behaviours) in order to
ensure (…or, at least, to perceivably
attempt to ensure) the short,
medium and long term satisfaction
of its stakeholders while reducing
to the minimum undesired (by the
stakeholders) collateral effects.
With sustainable communication,
instead, I mean that the communication
function of any organization needs
to ensure that all communicative
behaviours of the organization be, in
themselves, sustainable i.e. respond to
the above definition of sustainability,
and this of course applies not only to
the activities of the communication
function but to all other communication
based activities which other functions
of the organization perform with their
respective stakeholders.
Now Richard writes that ‘pr helps
business remain trusted by listening and
understanding the impact of policies on
stakeholders’. I very much appreciate
that he does not limit our role to
listening, but also to understanding
(which is very relevant)….the impact of
policies on stakeholders.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
I would also add, after having
understood what one has listened,
the role of interpreting stakeholder
expectations to organizational
leadership, so that it may improve the
quality of its decisions and accelerate
their time of implementation (as I have
maybe too often expressed in this blog).
The implication is that by limiting
oneself to just listening to and
understanding the impact of policies on
stakeholders we are very close to the
marketing model (scientific persuasion
style) which listens mostly to improve
the organization’s chances of success
by improving its communication, and
not by changing its own decisions
before deciding to communicate them
( the fundamental difference between
marketing and change or, as many
prefer, transformation management).
If I interpret correctly, even before
approaching the conceptualization
of the stakeholder relationship
management model which has become
so embedded with social media, as
Richard has neatly and clearly repeated
to (and convinced) us over these
recent years, in this case we still need
to transit by the two way symmetrical
model, which assumes that listening to
publics (or stakeholders) benefits the
organization’s processes so that both
parties may benefit from the developing
relationship.
Am I misrepresenting?
The question is of course
relevant: if we are to assume as
correct my interpretation of Richard’s
position expressed in this post, then
communicating for sustainability gives
for granted that communication is by
itself sustainable, while if this ain’tnecessarily-so (i.e. an organization
communicates the value of sustainability
but often adopting many unsustainable
forms of communicative behaviour)
then we are simply back to the scientific
persuasion model.
40
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Brian Kilgore
May 6 2007
❝
Toni Muzi Falconi
May 6 2007
❝
Brian Kilgore
May 7 2007
❝
Regarding your definition: >ensure
(…or, at least, to perceivably attempt
to ensure) the short, medium and long
term satisfaction of its stakeholders
while reducing to the minimum
undesired (by the stakeholders)
collateral effects.
I asked a fellow PR person what she
thought sustainability meant, and her
definition was along the lines of mine
(…keeping on…) and her example was
tree farming.
Well, from a very limited point of
view, this definition is not different from
the one I proposed (which is obviously
more suited to the organizational
perspective).
the short, medium and long term the
possibility of cutting other trees and of
being better valued than competition
for those products and services. I do not
frankly see the difference.
An organization cuts, grows, plants
and cuts trees: i.e. in other words, it
collects various material and immaterial
resources, combines them, transforms
them and puts on the market derived
products and services, making damn
sure that it doesn’t compromise in
Toni, your system certainly does not
like me. My 4:45 posting above is only
a very small part of what I wrote — I
thought somewhat deeply about the
theme, commented on other speeches
that are going to be made...Frustrating.
Anyway, enjoy the conference.
Quasi-related… story in the best
Canadian paper today about the
potential of a staffer in a Canadian
government communications / PR
department being a spy for China.
Toni,
João Duarte
May 8 2007
❝
Cut down a tree, plant a tree, let the
second one grow, cut it down, plant
another one…
You quoted Richard saying “I
disagree with the UK’s Daily Telegraph
article this morning by Jeff Randall
who says ‘You cannot PR your way to
a sustainable reputation’. Those who
think they can are confusing form
and substance; they are doomed to
fail.” The best PR is about substance,
communicated well to all shareholders.
(oops…a little slip here: I believe he
means stakeholders…)
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
If you run into any Canadians in
Cape Town, this can be something to
talk about.
The Public Relations Society of
America elected Queen is to speak
in Cape Town. I look forward to any
commentary you might post on her
performance.
Although I agree with everything
Richard says about the purported
transformation that PR is trying to
accomplish with business models
(Richard is surely one of the most
trustworthy sources for this kind of
comment), I seem to note in this quote a
different message.
To me, and obviously assuming
that the quote is outside its whole
context, the sentence underlines (in
a pretty confused way, I also agree)
41
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
that the ancient dichotomy between
communication and acts (still taught in
many PR schools all around the world)
is no longer valid. The best part of
this paradigm would be to agree that
it is bad PR to accept that you can rely
only on a communication that doesn’t
reinforce your acts.
Still based on this paradigm
one can identify some different
modes of relationship between your
communication and your acts:
1.
With regard to the reinforcement
criteria:
•
Communication that reinforces
your acts
•
Communication that contradicts
your acts
1. With regard to the purpose of
communication
•
May 8 2007
❝
I truly apologise for the mishap and
I would be very interested in reading
your thoughts which did not make it
here sofar, should you wish to make the
undue effort…..
Joao,
Yes, I definitely agree with your
arguments with a couple of caveats
which I believe are relevant:
a.
Communication that is
constitutive of your acts (this is
the kind of situation we have, for
example, in public information
campaigns).
However, I think we should all
accept that actions are communicative
in themselves and therefore there
is not such thing as sustainable
communication without sustainable
action. Relationships are not built
by isolated acts, but by actions (this
incorporating also our explanation of
our acts and its perception)
Do you agree? In this context, what
does “communicating for sustainability”
mean? Could it mean that we spend too
much time thinking according to the
paradigm of the dichotomy between
acts and communication (while trying
to stay particularly focused on the
communication side)?
Communication that merely
describes your acts
BAK,
Toni Muzi Falconi
•
Organizations often communicate
to develop and raise expectations
rather than report actions. This
is, for example, a feature highly
present in financial and political
public relations as well, as you say,
in public information activities.
These approaches are in themselves
essential to social, political and
economic development of these
respective markets. Agree?
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
b.
b. As much as I agree that there
is no sustainable communication
without sustainable action, one must
also consider that sustainable action
may happen with unsustainable
communication and unsustainable
communication may accompany
sustainable action.
Right? Or wrong?
This is what I very much hope will
be, at least by some, discussed in Cape
Town.
42
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Toni,
Markus Pirchner
May 8 2007
❝
Ad (b) - I’m not sure if I understand
the difference between
“sustainable action may happen
with unsustainable communication”
and
“unsustainable communication may
accompany sustainable action”
Toni Muzi Falconi
May 8 2007
❝
An organization may act sustainably
i.e. for example implement a corporate
responsibility program addressed to
its employees while its communication
department deliberately misinforms
its shareholders or while its marketing
department misinforms its customers.
Conversely an organization may
implement a sustainable program for its
employees while implementing one way
asymmetric internal communication…
They seem to express very similar
(identical?) ideas. Anyone care to kickstart my brain? :-)
Anyhow, do we have sufficient data
to drill down into the interdependencies
of (un)sustainable communication and
(un)sustainable action? As far as I can
tell, this hasn’t been a priority topic in
PR debates in Austria, lately. At least not
amongst practitioners.
We arrived at identifying a list of
indicators capable of tracking those
correlations but did not, as of today,
proceed in this elaboration to discern
operational guidelines which would
allow us to verify in which part of
the diagram any specific program or
tool or channel would fit in order to
detect gaps and areas of improvement.
Maybe someone would be interested in
proceeding along these lines.
As for your last paragraph, I had
tried, with very minor success, to
involve in the quest you mention the
FERPI corporate social responsibility
(CSR) working group exactly along
those lines.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
43
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
An open letter from Teheran: what do you think?
Open letter to:
Toni Muzi Falconi
May 6 2007
❝
The Honorable Head of IPRA
The Honorable Head of PRSA
The Honorable Head of
International PR Union
I hereby present my sincere
congratulations on your appointment as
the head of IPRA. I first heard about you
from Jeyda Ayde and have invited you for
Iran First International PR Conference
but you could not participate due to the
overlapping of programs.
Iran’s First International PR
Conference was actually the first link
between Iran’s public relations and
the world of public relations and due
to the efforts of PR Kargozar Institute,
this relationship improves every day.
This movement could help to create a
culture of peace, equality, friendship
and a world free from violence and
dictatorship in which people with
different cultures and ideologies enjoy a
peaceful life.
Your speech in opening ceremony
in Brussels contained new and
important points which had not been
heard before and were promising. As
you have mentioned in your speech, I
wish you success in making for positive
changes in IPRA during your one year
management.
Herewith, I, as a public relations
practitioner who pursues the course of
public relations and is very partial to
its advancement, would like to mention
some points:
I suggested to the then head of IPRA
in 2004, that this institute as mother
association take the necessary actions
and consult with UNESCO to register
a day as the world’s day of public
relations. The answer was that since I
was not a member of the association,
my suggestion could not be proposed in
directorate assembly.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
I have not understood the relation
between non-membership and
considering a simple suggestion which
could have many positive effects for
the members of global society of public
relations. Could the philosophy of IPRA
be other than this? It seems that sooner
or later “the global village of public
relations” materializes. A phenomenon
beyond Maclohan’s global village,
which may seem too exaggerated.
The cornerstone of global village
is communication and establishing
communication becomes true only in
the global village of public relations.
This raises the question that why the
main members of this global village are
so passive and inert toward different
international changes – positive or
negative. Why there is no name of
international pr associations particularly
IPRA in creating and promoting
peace and equality? What are our
responsibilities towards the citizens of
public relations global village? Do we
fulfill our duties?
I believe that lack and weakness
of communications is the root of all
wars, violence, and misunderstandings.
And this issue redoubles the vocation
of international public relations
practitioners.
What it would be if we name the
year 2008, the year of public relations,
developing communications between
different nations and cultures, the year
of restoring peace and avoiding violence
and inviting all the politicians to peace.
Yes, public relations could be in such a
status: safety, peace and global stability,
humanities, relative welfare, admiration
of friendship and fraternity, promoting
the spirit of equation and thousands of
other beautiful and holy words.
44
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Therefore, paving the ground for
achieving peace is an inherent vocation
and duty of public relations. Public
relations is not just a business. If we
consider it a commercial tool, this field
will continue suffering from increasing
abuse.
2. Creating teams: public relations
units particularly the associations
related to them need professional
teams to materialize their
international, national and regional
– and even organizational and local
– goals and vocations.
Unfortunately, today’s public
relations is far from its philosophy. The
spotlight of Arthur Page is not on public
relations anymore to clarify things. It is
at the service of heads of organizations,
lobbies, opportunists, political systems,
and sybaritic people and this has
become a pretext under which public
relations is abused.
3. Goal setting: what are the goals
that international public relations
pursue? And what are the tools that
help us achieving these goals?
Especially in commercial and even
in communicational activities, social
and ethical responsibilities that are the
base of Venice and Athens Code are
not observed and the citizens’ rights
of public relations global village are
disregarded. What is the responsibility
of public relations practitioners in this
fair and welter of information? What
are the international plans for securing
public relations against corruption and
abuse? It seems that there are a lot of
problems in the professional system and
globalization of public relations.
The International Public Relations
Association, especially you as its
head, considering your brilliant
professional background could certainly
act successfully and effectively in
materializing this aspiration of public
relations global society.
What should we do?
Certainly there are different tools
such as registering a day as public
relations’ day which could be effective
in professional consensus in universal
level.
Hoping for that day
Mehdi Bagherian
Secretary General of Iran
International PR Conference
Member of Iran PR Practitioners’
board of directors
1. Developing the “global unique
system of public relations”:
part of this system is created by
public relations associations and
institutions but they seem not to be
very successful in it till now.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
45
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
The Government of Tanzania at the forefront of public relations management
…an in depth interview with Mindi Kasiga and Gerhard Butschi
Toni Muzi Falconi
June 21 2007
❝
In a recent post I referred to the
Tanzanian Government case which
Mindi Kasiga and Gerhard Butschi
presented at the Global Alliance’s recent
World Public Relations Festival in Cape
Town, as one of the two most inspiring
and innovative presentations.
Without further ado I will now pass
you on to a highly interesting interview I
did with Mindi and Gerhard.
One further note: take a good
look at the digital management
website where the pro.com software is
explained in detail. What a great piece
of hard and productive work!
QUESTION 1: Why was the
President so committed to the
Communication Initiative from the
outset?
The Communication Initiative of
the government of the United Republic
of Tanzania started in 2002 during
President Benjamin Mkapa’s second
term in office (which lasted from 20002005). President Mkapa was determined
to lead the war against corruption and
to coordinate decision-making processes
governed by professionalism, objectivity,
integrity, impartiality, transparency
and good governance. By this time,
civil society and pressure groups had
become aware of their role in educating
and communicating to the public
and also providing criticism of the
government when needed. Moreover,
Tanzania’s multi-party system provided
a platform for opposition parties to
explain or dismiss government success
stories. The overnight explosion of the
media resulted in a situation where
allegiance to the government was no
longer a given. This was contrary to
the media environment of the 1980s
where two or three state owned print
media ensured that government was
portrayed in a positive light. In view of
all these changes, President Mkapa was
concerned that government’s success
stories were not being heard. He was
also concerned with the capacity in
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
his office in the areas of information,
communication and outreach. It was
his commitment and tireless efforts
that drove the initiative to increase
and improve communication with the
Tanzanian people.
By the end of Pres Mkapa’s
second term (2005), the situation had
deteriorated for the government. The
new market driven economy (that
replaced socialism) had transformed
the Tanzanian society completely.
Especially in the big cities, people
became much less tolerant of
government communication that only
technocrats could understand because
the packaging was too difficult to
digest. During the early years of his
first term (2005-2006), the current
President, Jakaya Kikwete, committed
himself to the Communication
Initiative and promised to give it more
prominence and support in order
to make sure that it was sustained.
This has resulted in every Ministry
currently having communication units
staffed by at least two professionals
(who have received extensive training
where necessary). Furthermore,
most Heads of Communication now
attend management meetings in their
ministries, thereby participating in
policy-making and implementation.
A government communication forum
attended by all communication
specialists in the different Ministries and
the Directorate of Communications (the
latter situated in the President’s office)
takes place every week, supported by
teleconferencing when the need arises
as well as informal daily interaction
between the communication specialists.
QUESTION 2: How were the Cabinet
Ministers convinced to cooperate in
the effort?
At first it was very difficult
to get Ministerial buy-in for the
Communication Initiative. While a
few were genuinely interested, highranking officials close to them were
46
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
very sceptical. However, Government
was committed to make Ministers
more aware of the importance of
communication. Therefore, in 2005,
President Mkapa invited the South
African Minister of State in the Office
of the President, Hon. Essop Pahad, to
address the Tanzanian Cabinet. A similar
effort was undertaken in 2006 (during
the current President’s term) whereby
Minister Pahad was again invited to
Tanzania to speak on the importance of
Government Communication.
These efforts played a big role in
convincing many Ministers that the
Communication Initiative is indeed
important. As political figures, the
Ministers also understand the need to
communicate different initiatives and
policy implementation processes that
are ongoing in their ministries as well as
the danger of not communicating to the
people.
QUESTION 3: How did the rest of the
bureaucracy react?
The biggest challenge was not
to convince the Ministers about the
importance of communication but
rather the bureaucrats and technocrats
in the government — a battle that is still
continuing today. Some of the deliberate
efforts to make them aware were the
following:
The high level meeting where former
President Mkapa called all Permanent
Secretaries, Regional Commissioners,
District Officials, some Parliamentarians
and a few Ministers together with
Media people and articulated the
need for government and the media to
communicate to the people of Tanzania.
Another step was high-level
communication training that was
tailor-made for Permanent Secretaries,
Policy Directors, and departmental and
ministerial spokespersons.
A process to establish a Government
Communication Policy has also made
many Permanent Secretaries aware of
the Communication Initiative.
A study tour for senior government
officials to South Africa and United
Kingdom to study communication
structures was another deliberate
step to create awareness of the
Communication Initiative.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
QUESTION 4: What was the early
Burson Marsteller audit about and
what did it say?
This report was commissioned
by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) as part of their
project with the Government of
Tanzania to build communication
capacity. The overall brief was
‘to enhance the capacity of the
President’s office to enable more
effective, accountable and transparent
communication of the Government’s
policies and activities, so as to
encourage greater participation in the
business of government by the citizens
of Tanzania.’ The project focused
on the communication capacity in
the President’s Office and the entire
government, and complements UNDP’s
participatory Democracies Programme
that has a major civic education
component.
The report covered seven main areas
and its recommendation for actions with
regards to sustained enhancements in
communications capacity were focused
on the following: vision, policy, strategy,
structure, mechanisms, training and
equipment. The goals were that, five
years after the recommendations in
the report have been implemented, the
following should inter alia have been
achieved:
Vision: The Government provides
timely information to the citizens;
the enhanced communication is
contributing to increased transparency;
communication structures initially
implemented at key ministries are
adopted throughout government; and
relations with the media has improved.
Policy: A government
communications policy has been
drafted and implemented in order
to achieve the above-mentioned
vision. The policy constitutes a series
of operational guidelines and the
authority for following them. (The
report also outlined some of the needed
requirements and statements for this
policy).
Communication Strategy: For
proper implementation of the above
policy, a two-way communication
strategy is needed which identifies
messages, audiences and the means of
47
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
getting the messages to and from the
audiences. This requires a high degree
of co-ordination across government
departments. Also, messages need to be
developed within a framework, in which
each level of message respects the level
above and informs the level below. This
whole process needs to be undertaken
in a systematic manner.
QUESTION 5: How did the UNDP
help in selecting professionals?
The UNDP Deputy Resident
representative to Tanzania at the time
received the Burson Marsteller report
and conceptualised the project for
the government of Tanzania. After
the appointment of the Director of
Communications (which was part of
the recommendations), the two of
them worked on a concept that fitted
government as well as UNDP structures.
They agreed in principle that after the
project has taken off (after five years),
all structures and personnel needed
would be absorbed by the government
and communication will no longer be a
UNDP project but rather a Government
Communication Initiative.
Jobs descriptions were prepared
and positions were advertised in local
newspapers. Initial staff members
recruited were the following:
• Communications Officer with
Media background (through
UNDP)
• Communications Officer with
Marketing background (through
UNDP)
• Electronic Communications
Officer (through the
Government)
• Communications Officer with
Communication Arts (through
UNDP)
• Communications Officer with
Political Science background
(through the Government)
Director of Communications with
International Relations background, also
acting as Deputy Private Secretary to the
President (through the government).
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
QUESTION 6: How were these
professionals subsequently trained
and by whom?
All staff went through training
programmes right after they joined,
with the exception of the Director that
had to be trained before everybody else.
Initial staff members also undertook
several study tours to South Africa and
the UK. One of the recommendations
from the South Africa study tour of early
2003 was that Benita Steyn’s book on
Corporate Communication Strategy be
studied by all Tanzanian government
communicators.
The first comprehensive joint
training was conducted by Dr. Gerhard
Bütschi from Switzerland in September
2003, and again in early 2004. Other
training courses were conducted by
the World Bank’s Training Institution
DevComm, the University of Dar es
Salaam, as well as private consultants
from South Africa and the UK.
Once Digital Management’s software
solution for strategy formulation,
planning, implementation and
evaluation of the public relations/
government communication function
had been acquired by the Tanzanian
Government (sponsored by the World
Bank), Benita Steyn (from South Africa)
and Dr Gerhard Bütschi presented an
intensive week-long theoretical training
course in strategic communication
management and evaluation (attended
by 47 government communication
specialists). This course was preceded
by a series of electronic briefings.
Thereafter Tanzanian communication
specialists participated in two phases of
systems training on the software.
QUESTION 7: How do you
distinguish ‘information’ from
‘dialogue’?
If one revisits the four historic PR
models, information as a purpose
of PR refers to the dissemination
of information from organisations/
government institutions to stakeholders
(that is not based on research or
strategic planning, and therefore
does not presuppose previous
knowledge of their concerns, needs or
expectations). We therefore see it as a
48
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
one-way approach to PR/communication
characterised by the government’s ‘need
to tell’ and, at its best, an effort to satisfy
a stakeholder’s ‘need to know.’
Dialogue is the foundation of the
4th PR model, namely the two-way
symmetrical/participatory approach
to PR/government communication
that has effects that benefit both the
organisation/government institution and
its stakeholders/citizens. We therefore
see it as the ‘need to share views,
expectations, and concerns in an effort
to facilitate mutual understanding
between government and stakeholders,
based on dialogue (participatory
communication) rather than monologue
by government’. Government
communication specialists serve as
mediators between government and
the stakeholders, interpreting them to
each other, adjusting their relationship
by using negotiation to bring about
changes in the knowledge, attitudes and
behavior of both the stakeholders and
the government.
QUESTION 8: When and how did the
software come in the picture?
After Government leaders
realised that they needed a digital
communication management solution
to manage the complexities of two-way
communication between State House/its
Directorate of Communications and
their stakeholders; 26 government
Ministries and their stakeholders; as well
as coordination between State House/
the Directorate of Communications and
the Ministries/departments/agencies/
their communication units.
The international tender process
started in October 2005 and was
concluded in 2006 when Digital
Management AG Switzerland was
selected the preferred partner in the
Communications Initiative.
QUESTION 9: Why is the software
so important and which are its real
benefits?
The software consists of an
explanation mode (view) as well as a
data entry mode.
The explanation mode outlines the
theoretical principles that underlie the
software (most notably the strategic
alignment of PR tasks/activities/plans/
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
strategies to top level strategies and
policy frameworks) and is thus an
important self-help tool to fulfill the
expressed need of building capacity
amongst communication specialists
in Tanzanian ministries/departments/
agencies as well as the Directorate
of Communications situated in State
House (President’s Office). It creates
understanding of why the paradigm
shift to participatory communication is
necessary and thus serves as a motivator
to discontinue outdated practices such
as a focus on information dissemination.
The explanation view provides
descriptions of each step in the process
as well as access to a glossary with
over 600 terms, covering not only the
PR/communication field but also related
fields. The glossary thus standardises
terms and puts all 50 communication
specialists in the Tanzanian government
on the same page (so to speak) in
achieving common understanding of
complex concepts.
The comprehensive methodology
of the data entry mode serves as a road
map to lead government communication
specialists along each step of the way in
their efforts to digitize the government
communication function, especially its
new focus on managing stakeholders,
issues and reputation risks, and
evaluating the success of communication
projects and campaigns. Each step
is accompanied by ‘yellow pages’,
providing information and tools and
methodologies on ‘how to’ formulate
strategy and complete the planning and
evaluation templates provided. It is thus
a learning tool, even in the data entry
mode.
Benefits for the Tanzanian
communicators are that they become
more effective. Strategic alignment
between broad government policy
frameworks and strategies, and
communication strategy and plans
is obtained, as well as an enhanced
reputation for the government through
issue and stakeholder management.
They also become more efficient in
that duplications and redundancies
are avoided, virtual teamwork is
optimized, budgeting and cost control
is improved, and people, processes
and funds are managed and reported.
The efforts of 50 communication
specialists in 26 Ministries and State
49
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
House are coordinated, streamlined
and synchronized with regards to
strategies and communication activities,
efficient use of resources (people,
time and funds) is achieved and there
is continuous improvement through
organizational learning.
QUESTION 10: Is it not an excessive
superstructure with many binding
constraints?
No. As you will see above, the
software enforces standard procedures
and provides common understanding
of complex concepts and processes
in every ministry which is more of
an advantage than a disadvantage. It
fosters and enhances cross-ministerial
collaboration and provides an
information-sharing platform, available
to all members of the government
communication fraternity.
That is, elevating communication
practice from a technical focus on
information dissemination and media
relations to a strategic role in developing
an overarching communication
strategy that supports government
policies and frameworks. Furthermore,
implementing and evaluating
communication projects and campaigns
to ensure that the people of Tanzania
has a voice in government, that their
expectations are met as far as possible,
and their concerns and needs are
addressed.
QUESTION 11: What led the World
Bank to support the project?
The World Bank has been supporting
Tanzania as a stable Government for
many years. The software fulfills the
aim they share with government leaders
namely of guiding and entrenching
participatory communication processes
in State House and the 26 Ministries.
Innocent Mungy
MCIPR
June 22 2007
❝
I am one of those who were not
only impressed by the efforts by the
Government of the United Republic
of Tanzania, but left UK where I was
working as an Information Officer with
The Department for Constitutional
Affairs, in Her Majesty’s Courts Service,
and decided to come home (Tanzania)
to be part of the history being made by
Tanzania Government.
I have been working as a
Communication Specialist in The
Vice Presidents Office as Head
of Information, Education and
Communication Unit for the past year.
I must admit, despite my 17 years as a
PR professional, I have never seen such
a determination in PR/Communication
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
specialists in believing in a process they
think can and will bring changes and
create a more better service delivery
to the nation, as I have seen in the
Tanzania Government Communication
initiatives!
Even though I left my beautiful
“home” in London, my family and my
job, I do not regret it. It is amazing how
the Tanzanian Government is serious in
making sure this project is a success. I
am proud to be part of this initiative.
There are lessons to be learned
by other Governments in Africa. The
Tanzanian Government Communication
initiative, is one of the best success story
one can loud and learn a lot from it.
50
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
The digital communication
management software is something
I can not forget to mention. It is
something that has changed my
professional way of looking at handling
communications, and to mention
just one feature in the software, all
Government specialists can share good
practices, be it a communication strategy
or plan how as one big family, can learn
from each other!
I look forward in using the software
and assist my Government achieve
what has been identified as a major
project in engaging Tanzania citizens in
government decision making through
communication/PR!
Benita Steyn
June 23 2007
❝
I am also one of those impressed
with the Tanzanian Government’s efforts
to effect a paradigm shift – moving
away from information and publicity
(media relations) as the purpose of
government communication towards a
two-way participatory communication
approach with the Tanzanian people.
I have been just as impressed with the
government communication fraternity’s
determi-nation and commitment in
aligning themselves to this broad policy
framework of government leaders, and
their quest for knowledge on how to
implement this change effectively and
efficiently.
However, when I saw Jim
McNamara’s paper ‘The Fork in the
Road’ on the website of the Institute for
Public Relations (www.instituteforpr.
com) last night, I couldn’t help but
think of the Tanzanian ‘Communication
Initiative’. This government took the
‘high road’ when they came to the ‘fork
in the road’. It has been a textbook
case so far: a top management pushing
a two-way communication approach;
building capacity amongst their
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Ambassador Kalaghe, the outgoing
Director of Communication in The
Presidents Office and the rest of
his team, Kisare, Mindi, Asha and
others, have been a blessing to the
rest of the Government specialists in
MDA’s. Our “tutors/professors” Dr.
Butsch and Benita, have been very
helpful supporting all communication
specialists in learning strategic
communication as well as how we
can use the software to deliver
communication processes as may deem
fit in our country.
communication specialists; empowering
them with strategic communication
and evaluation knowledge; and
providing them with arguably the most
sophisticated software tool for strategy
formulation, planning, implementation
and evaluation of the public relations/
government communication function.
In my view, the Tanzanian
communication specialists have now
also arrived at the ‘fork in the road’.
And which road are you going to
take—Kisare, Mindi, Asha? (Directorate
of Communications, State House);
Innocent? (Vice President’s Office);
George, Job, Jumanne, Eva, Alex and all
the others from the Ministries?
Are you going to travel together
with your government on the high road,
enabling and supporting them in their
quest for participatory communication?
Or are you going to take the low road,
followed by most, its turnoffs described
by Jim McNamara as an unwillingness
to measure outcomes; full of excuses
51
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
on a lack of time to do formative and
evaluation research; pleading a lack
of knowledge and resources to do
environmental scanning?
Because you see, true ‘participatory’
communication will stand or fall on:
Environmental scanning and
monitoring — assessing the climate
and keeping track of what is going on
out there; detecting trends before they
become issues.
Communication auditing —
evaluating communication programmes
and campaigns (developed to address
identified problems, issues and risks),
and assessing their success.
Therefore, I challenge all of you
who have already begun the journey on
the high road to remain there, not to
be sidetracked by short cuts that seem
quicker and easier at first glance, but
will make you loose direction so as not
to arrive at the final destination at all.
Public relations auditing and
government reputation studies
– identifying stakeholders and their
concerns, expectations, values, norms
and attitudes (before they become
activists).
Social auditing — determining the
effects of the government’s behaviour,
policies and strategies on their
stakeholders, and how the effects must
be corrected.
Benita,
Benita Steyn
June 23 2007
❝
Do not be too tough on our
Tanzanian friends…what they have
accomplished so far is exceptional
and of course it would be a great
disappointment for all (and hopefully
for their stakeholders..i.e. Tanzanian
citizens and their various bosses and
interlocutors) if they failed to proceed
along the ‘high road’ as Jim McNamara.
Let me tell you what a highly popular
USA blogger (normally never tender
with how we hype social media and
conversation), privately wrote to me the
other day commenting this post:
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
“QUESTION 7: How do you
distinguish ‘information’ from
‘dialogue’?”
THAT’S IT!! A discussion of that is
critically important obviously. But it is
also key in understanding some of the
flaws in the social-media paradigm,
you know. I’d also ask: How do we
know we are dialoguing with the right
people? How do we best manage the
asymmetric aspect of today’s Web
dialogue. i.e. how do we discriminate
what to listen to and what to filter out?
Perhaps the foundation of the 5th PR
model. Hugely important stuff, Toni.
Thank you for sharing.”
52
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
This instead is me again…
I am obsessed by the idea that to
be an effective professional the first
thing we must learn to do is how to
identify ‘the right people’ to dialogue
with. It seems so obvious, so easy, so
simple….but the more one thinks about
it the more one realizes this is truly
our biggest challenge…not only…but
also the one we have fewer intelligent,
innovative and updated tools at our
disposal. I believe we really have to
discuss about this in depth and at
length..there is no easy fix.
dialogue, as long as we do not hype it
too much, it is certainly more symmetric
than elsewhere, except and not always
for face to face…
But I do want to comment on the
third point my friend makes when he
writes: how do we discriminate what to
listen to and what to filter out?
The issue of discrimination of
content, but even more importantly of
certain stakeholders to whom we decide
not to listen to, raises another can of
worms about which we think little and
talk none amongst ourselves…
I will skip over the asymmetric bit
about social media dialogue, although
I do recognise it is an issue in itself.
However to be fair as much as I agree
that there is asymmetry in social media
Benita Steyn
June 24 2007
❝
Toni: Please don’t get me wrong. I
have the greatest admiration for what
the Tanzanians have accomplished so
far. I did not mean to be negative—
rather, I wanted to point out the pitfalls
on the ‘high’ road. It was a plea for
‘please don’t do what so many others are
doing.’ (This is the lecturer in me). After
I read your post, I immediately sent
them a communication explaining what
I meant. But if any of them is reading
this, they are welcome to come and box
my ears in public (or in private).
The ‘high and low road’ scenario
is actually my own addition to Jim
McNamara’s article. This was a phrase
coined by Clem Sunter, a well-known
corporate figure in South Africa who
made many speeches all over the place
before the ANC became the ruling
party in 1994–spelling out the high
road and the low road scenario and the
consequences of the wrong choice for
South Africa.
I am as obsessed as you are about
the most important thing in being an
effective public relations professional is
to identify ‘the right people’ to dialogue
with. I want to add to that ‘and to listen
carefully so that we know what the
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
dialogue should be about’. Sometimes,
by listening and finding out what to talk
about, we will be led to the right people
to talk to.
That is why my post above named
environmental scanning (by whichever
means), PR auditing (identifying
stakeholders) and government
reputation studies, as well as social
auditing BEFORE talking about
communication audits. Although Jim’s
article was mostly about evaluation
research (and I agree there is a problem
with that not being done), to me that
is not where it starts. That is not the
most important research that PR people
should be doing. If we don’t select the
right people to talk to and if we don’t
select the right things to talk about (and
sometimes find the right people to talk
to in this process), it doesn’t actually
matter much whether the messages got
through or how they were received. To
me the strategic role of public relations
evolves around ‘listening’, with the aim
of selecting the ‘right people to talk to’
and/or selecting the ‘right things to talk
about’.
53
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Fires in Greece Crisis Communication and a serious example from Portugal on synergistic communication and the power of networks
João Duarte
June 24 2007
❝
In recent debates on PR
Conversations about the level of
strategic practice of PR, the value of
licensing, the role of active professional
associations or even the misguided
conceptions about lobby, I must
confess I couldn’t bring much positive
experience from Portugal unless that
great advantage that lies in the fact that
we can still do things from scratch and
try to learn from the best examples
all over the world. So now I want to
share with you an example that should
probably be in a case-study collection
about the best of public relations in
Portugal (at least I would like to think
that way)…
At least most of readers in Europe
must be aware of the gigantic tragedy
going on in Greece because of
tremendous fires of yet unknown
origins, but with strong suspicions
of deliberate fires. As they where
increasing, these fires have also
set a political crisis upon a highly
criticised Government facing upcoming
anticipated elections.
But, as a NY Times article shows,
there are sufficient angles to write
stories able to touch people from pretty
much everywhere in the world. As
Portugal is, according to reports by our
Government, the southern European
country with the highest number of
registered fires (or at least of situations
that mobilize the civil protection forces)
between 1980 and 2005, having had
10 times more fires than Greece in that
period, I thought this was worth writing
about.
Yes, we suffered a lot from the
blazes, from a changed climate and
from bad coordination of civil forces by
bad politicians and decision makers but
some got the lesson. Last year the total
burnt area decreased some 78% with the
civil society playing an active role in this
and this year we have reasons to be even
more confident thanks to the power of
public relations.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
It all starts as a group of companies
recently decided to act against fires
after a couple of years of tremendous
fights against devastating blazes. The
“Companies against Fire” Movement
(ECO Movement) was set up by a group
of 23 major companies in Portugal and
started based on the belief that the most
important asset that these companies
could bring to this cause was their
communication networks. The group of
companies includes the most important
retailers, banks, the Portuguese post,
insurance companies, consumer goods,
paper producers and media companies
among others. Some printed messages
in shopping bags; others printed them
on sugar packs served with coffee but all
had the common purpose to reduce the
estimated one third of human related
fires, half of which are due to negligent
behaviour. The movement started only
recently and the impact of its actions is
not yet known. But the fact is that the
messages are going through and, believe
it or not, the actual number of fires
in 2007 is not even near the usual in
Portugal for this time of year.
This movement of companies
is coordinating directly with Civil
Protection Authorities and has also
donated goods and services that range
from bicycles to jeeps, from computers
to satellite mobile communication
systems and even special software to
coordinate the fire fighting resources.
From the PR point of view, this
movement is not set on a highly visible
media relations strategy but rather
on an effective number of direct
communication actions. It does have a
representative with a very high profile
(a former CEO of Portugal’s biggest
company) to gather goodwill but hardly
to be considered as a typical hire-acelebrity-to-give-the-face-for-the-cause
kind of campaign. All communication
efforts are synergistic and this is what
makes the network so powerful. Each
of the involved companies’ acts as a
54
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
multiplier of the messages and the
Government (mainly Internal Affairs
and Agricultural ministries) thanks them
a lot because they are actually saving a
lot of public money and showing a sign
of a strong civil society.
From our professional point of
view, I would like to consider that
these companies’ public relations are
showing a tremendous way to add value
to society and protect the common
good. Companies are acting together
for a specific target and they are putting
the best of them at the service of this
cause. I just wonder if it would work
Heather Yaxley
August 31 2007
❝
This is an interesting example, and
one to watch in terms of its long-term
effectiveness and ongoing commitment
of the companies involved.
I suppose such activities could be
termed as CSR - or claimed as social
marketing.
It is useful for society to have
messages more widely distributed and
rightly organisations are able to use
their existing resources to do this - with
minimal additional cost, very often.
Toni Muzi Falconi
August 31 2007
❝
Very interesting indeed, Joao. A good
example of how we may to exchange
good practices, rather than only
complain about others criticising us ( a
common accusation we receive…).
I don’t want to bore you to tears,
but some years ago I wrote an essay on
the annual publication of the University
of Torino dedicated to social (public)
communication, in which I argued that
in more than 5 times out of 10 these
initiatives, in the best of cases, amount
to a waste of money and, in the worst,
are actually counter productive. Of
course, they satisfy the onanism of the
politicians, the authorities and the non
profit organizations involved…but such
satisfaction most of the times benefits
from public resources.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
the same for other causes like reduce
risk behaviours that generate road
accidents, reduce corruption behaviours
and other kind of mass phenomena. I
also wonder how to better describe this:
corporate diplomacy, public relations,
corporate social investment or simply
communication in the public interest…
But I am not sure how effective
simply getting a message out is today.
Perhaps you have not the overload
of one-way communications that we
see in the UK. Are the companies
also engaging their more active
publics (employees, customers, local
communities, etc) in the campaign? That
could really help motivate some people
power around a significant social issue.
A subsequent public debate about
this ‘preposterous position’ (as it was
then defined) sparked a number of
other similar public statements by some
of the more aware politicians which led
to a more attentive framework in which
at least some of those public funds
were being used and also led a few
professional associations to require the
government to do a better job.
Apparently, the case you indicate is
not amongst these, and has produced
positive effects.
However it would be good to
collect more info and analyse the
correlation between the initiative and
the decrease in fires. In Italy a few years
ago, influenced by the enthusiasm of
its authors only two months after it
55
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
was launched, the then President of
the Republic (my only Italian living
hero Carlo Azeglio Ciampi..) publicly
praised the communicative launch of
the introduction of new severity against
reckless driving because the immediate
results in the fall of accidents had been
positive, only to find out later on that
the only reason Italian drivers were
more attentive was the extraordinary
mobilization of the police to enact
that new severity. Once this relaxed,
everything went back to normal and
actually got worse.
As for these fires, as you well know,
they are often provoked by individuals
and gangs who speculate on burned
land or even blackmail authorities… and
I wonder how much public behaviour
really has to do with the phenomena.
In any case, my qualms with social
and public communication initiatives
has to do with other reasons which I will
here dwell with, having however said
that there is nothing more powerful, to
prove the value of our profession, than a
successful social (public) initiative when
it is well done. The problem is that this
hardly ever happens.
As you all know better than me,
there have been, all over the world,
many studies on the effectiveness of
communication and many indicators
have been developed. Most studies I
know of say that a communication is
effective if: a) the contents are familiar
to the addressees; b) the sources are
credible and , but in fewer instances, c)
the contents are in themselves credible.
I won’t explain these in detail here,
but what seems to happen most of time
for social and public communication
initiatives is that:
to evaluate and complain, have not
done their homework. I argue that one
should always pre test contents with
representative samples of carefully
selected publics according to those
three indicators in order to adapt both
contents and sources to fine tune both
before launching and, after the launch,
post test to evaluate results in order to
improve follow ups and new initiatives.
Banal? Yes, of course and this relates
to the whole issue of evaluation and
measurement of outputs, out takes,
outcomes and outgrowths which is
constantly being debated in this blog.
The point here is that if you
are using public funds you, as a
communicator, have an extra social
responsibility (although I today wonder
how true this really still stands, as
an increasing number of initiatives
undertaken with private funds also
imply modifying public and social
behaviours, opinions and decisions….).
Not only must you do your homework
to avoid dispersion of public funds, but
also to avoid counterproductive results.
Many anti smoking, anti drug, anti
obesity, anti drunken driving, anti-youname-it initiatives stimulate, amongst a
growing segment of antiestablishment
antagonists (mostly youngsters, but
also elderly anti prohibitionists and
liberal radicals with whom I very much
identify myself with..), just those very
behaviours which are said to produce
negative effects simply because the
sources are not credible and they
castrate the validity of the contents.
A similar phenomenon happens also
when credible sources get involved in
recommending non credible contents…
they are addressed to a generic
public (i.e. they do not succeed in
attracting the attention of interlocutors
because they give for granted that the
contents are in themselves sufficiently
interesting to attract their attention
when they are not);
the sources of the contents are
not credible. Both of these variables
imply that the communicators,
sometimes inexperienced and more
often hasty to make a quick buck
knowing that noone will ever bother
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
56
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Our discussion in Toronto today
about fires in Greece related to buying
futures in olive oil.
Brian Kilgore
September 1 2007
❝
João Duarte
September 4 2007
❝
It’s a small world, and events in
various places certainly can resonate
thousands of miles away.
In Toronto, we’re already familiar
with paying more for gasoline because
a tanker sinks in Malaysia, although we
think the gasoline companies are liars,
generally.
Heather, I did some further research
on how these companies are involved.
They are mostly facilitating resources
(goods and services) to civil authorities
and using their communication
networks not simply to spread
information but to raise awareness of
the risk behaviours associated with
simple day-to-day patterns. The tactic is
largely to reach people while they are
involved their daily routine (shopping,
going to the post office, in the public
transportation, fueling, etc.).
on fires, 64% of the fires are classified
as of “Undetermined Origins”. I guess
here is where some of those situations
that both of you mentioned fit. And
I would probably agree that the best
public service that those companies
could be involved in was in facilitating
ways to research on fire origins. We are
so moulded to think that the solution
to fires is prevention that we sometimes
forget that effectively knowing what
really causes them is (at least) equally
important.
Among those most frequently
involved by the companies’
communication efforts are customers
but also the community (schools, scouts,
etc) and employees (they are carriers
and receivers of the messages). Taking
into account that the whole process
is done in articulation with the Civil
Authorities and the Government, and
that it also involves the Media, I’d say
that’s a pretty sophisticated network.
It is also interesting to note that
you mention the credibility issue. One
of the companies involved in the Eco
Movement is normally rated as “most
trusted brand” by a Reader’s Digest
annual survey. You know, one of those
surveys that tend to show a direct link
between how much (and how well) you
invest in advertising and how trusted
you are.
The only apparently important
missing are the environmentalists. They
that so often are seen as “opponents” by
the companies…
Toni, I think that the relevant
difference here is that private resources
are being made available for a public
cause, therefore making those
companies act in the public interest.
Could this be a source of Trust for
a company or a test to how trusted a
company is as a source? I can’t really
tell. But then again, as Edelman’s Trust
Barometer apparently shows, people are
trusting companies more than they are
trusting Governments...
Toni and Brian, according to
available stats, only 3% of fires have
Natural Causes and about 1/3 of all
fires are related with Human Activity
- roughly 16% of all fires are due
to negligent behaviour, the same
percentage of fires attributed to criminal
actions. But the strange thing is that,
at least in our 2006 National Report
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
57
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Lobby in Portugal: When the PR industry doesn’t succeed in producing social change
João Duarte
August 16 2007
❝
Portugal has a 33 years old
democracy achieved after a peaceful
military revolution that ended a
dictatorship that had lasted for several
decades. Propaganda was one of the
major strengths of our dictatorship
(as with all the other similar regimes)
and people-to-people grass roots
communication was the major
weapon of the revolutionary. But
Public Relations in Portugal is still to
accomplish some important revolutions.
Here’s why…
And thirdly because major companies
never experienced any problems in
reaching top decision makers. It’s not in
their interest to give that kind of power
to the small and mid-sized companies,
who merely rely on their representative
associations, who have some access to
the decision-making power according
to their resources. Let’s just say this
isn’t about those major companies
preventing small ones from doing it,
but rather about them doing nothing to
help.”
During Portugal’s democratic
period, many essential conditions
for the practice of public relations
(like a public sphere more or less
free of governmental control) started
to develop and with our entrance to
the European community in 1986
the economic conditions for the
development of a public relations
market seemed to put us on the right
track.
Martins Lampreia has been pursuing
the cause of lobby regulation in Portugal
and explains that
However in some essential aspects
we remained tied to the past. One
of those is the fact that the official
definition of the PR profession in
Portugal still dates back to the seventies
and the fact that several professional
associations where formed and
disappeared and we are still to have
a representative, active, open and
proactive professional association.
But probably the best example of
our PR industry trying to achieve social
change and being prevented from doing
it is the case of lobby. Martins Lampreia,
one of the three Portuguese accredited
lobbyists at the European Parliament,
recently explained in an interview that
“There are three main aspects as to
why lobby doesn’t function in Portugal.
First of all, there is a prevailing idea that
lobby is an Anglo-Saxon activity that
doesn’t concern us that much. Second,
every time the media talk about lobby,
they bring up the negative side of it,
exposing this or that (negative) case.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
“Portugal is one of the few countries
in which a third of the MP’s are not
under exclusivity regimen at the
Parliament. (…) So before the question
of transparency in lobby there is the
question of transparency from the
politics / MP’s because they are often
acting as lobbyists for the companies
they represent.”
Having said this, perhaps the
following facts extracted from this
article doesn’t surprise you that much:
After recent moves from PR agencies
and professionals in Portugal claiming
the public relations’ professionals right
to enter the parliament to speak freely
to members of the parliament (a right
that is only conceded to journalists),
the President of the Parliament (after a
putative study of similar cases) declined
to concede this right saying that “there
are juridical questions that prevent
that the right of parliament journalists
to have permanent access to the
parliament is enlarged to employees of
those companies”.
58
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
This moves us back to a situation
which most European countries have
already undergone several years ago.
That situation of having to argue the
legitimacy of lobby, something that (as
Jordi Xifra explains in an article on
PoRtraits magazine - begins
“in the duty of the public decisionmakers to be informed about all those
interests implied when it is necessary
to take a decision, whichever the
What’s your opinion? Do you know
similar cases around the world?
Comments and Conversations
Filipe Pereira
August 29 2007
ambit. The legislator or someone
having a management position, like
the judge, have the duty to listen all
involved parties. And the civil society,
as an involved part, should defend its
interests, based on information and
argumentation. These are their only
weapons.”
❝
It is wonderful to know that finally
Lobbying is beginning to be discussed
as one of the relevant areas of PR in
Portugal. The efforts made by Martins
Lampreia have finally reverberated in
the sector and I can only hope that this
discussion will not come to a halt until
we agreed on the definitions and rules
for the PR Professionals.
I would just like to introduce the
term Advocacy and as a close related
concept. The main difference between
Lobby and Advocacy is the fact that
Lobby has a focus on legislation.
Advocacy is considered to be the act
of pleading or arguing for something
or in support of a cause. Lobbying
is specifically related to legislative
procedures. There can be better
definitions than this one but I believe it
states the essential.
Therefore, when referring to Lobby
or Advocacy, as areas of Public Affairs,
we should be able to identify the
specific meaning of them within precise
definitions.
In my mind, one of the reasons for
not having these definitions already
set up and running, is because its
absence allows a breech on how
legal and judicial forces regulate and
identify other known concepts such as
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
‘Corruption’ or ‘Traffic of Influences’.
They become, in most cases, confused
with Lobby/Advocacy. Not being able to
set a clear legal and normative division
between concepts, the perpetrators of
illegal activities can state their cases,
arguing differently from the legal
perception and hiding their operations.
This absence of definitions is also
the reason for why public opinion and
media still tag Lobby as a pejorative and
pernicious activity .
As regards the presence of PR
professionals in Parliament, I see it
as a clear case of misunderstanding
of Politics, that identify the presence
of these professionals as something
negative while defending companies’
interests. Having this perception,
Politics don’t want to be seen working
hand to hand with PR professionals as
well as they feel it is an invasion of their
space of debate and decision. While
Journalists are mainly considered as
an unilateral “tool” for visibility and
political strategy, PR professionals are
seen instead as “potential threats” to
political information and reputation
management.
59
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Bruno Amaral
August 29 2007
❝
On the other hand, we have to
bear in mind that not all of the PR
professionals act in transparent ways
or follow the code of ethics and
deontology. Therefore, and in parallel
with the definition of concepts and the
allowance to be in Parliament, I would
also suggest that the PR Industry in
Portugal solve their differences (if any)
once and for all, being able to create a
single class representative and invest in
a stronger, better articulated and stricter
way of regulating the activity.
I also agree that the matter should
be introduced to high schools and
university courses in order to produce
graduate professionals from the areas
of Law, Business Management and
Communications.
Regarding legislation, I believe the
main problem resides in the dormant
PR organizations. Like Apecom and
ARPP. I agree that some people use
that legislation gap to act as lobbyists.
But would that be enough to hold
back legislation? Is that such a wide
phenomenon ?
Any organisation fighting to
consolidate PR practices in Portugal can
simply look around, follow the best path
it sees while trying to avoid this kind of
small traps.
Portugal has one advantage though.
Being one step behind takes away our
excuse to make mistakes in this field.
We’ve seen Brazil build it’s national
Association of PR. To circumvent it’s
restrictions to the practice of PR,
several others emerged. Practising
public relations but calling it something
completely different.
Tony Muzi Falconi
August 29 2007
❝
In Italy, way back in 1976 a coalition
of mp’s (catholic, today’s minister
of justice; socialist; republican and
communist) proposed a bill which,
while recognizing officially the national
association of public relations, also
required the regulation of lobbying
activities along the lines of the then
american registration and reporting
requirements. I remember this well
because it is no secret in our community
that I had drafted the text as vice
president of Ferpi and put together the
coalition of mp’s at the time.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
I look forward for further
developments on this issue!!!
But of course, first, Portuguese PR
associations need to wake up, agree
on a common goal and support that
agreement with actions.
The bill, following the usual ups and
downs of my country’s very complicated
parliamentary procedure was approved
unanimously by the labour committee
of the House, but then defeated in the
full House conversion process following
a blatant attack on the lobby regulation
requirements by the then general
director of Confindustria (employers)
which appeared on the first page of the
Corriere della Sera (our most influential
daily).
60
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
He was against because this
provision would have amounted, he
claimed, to one more constraint on the
quote freedom of enterprise unquote.
The project was subsequently
revised and reproposed many times but
never succeeded in going anywhere.
Also today there are a few proposals
deposited in Parliament but stranded,
although there are many more members
of the elite which are in favour than
there used to be.
In the meantime (and this is only
meant as a lateral thought) I have
convinced myself that it would be
sufficient for the House or the Senate to
agree a change in its internal regulation
concerning access and privileges and
reporting requirements in exchange
for these privileges, rather then going
through the actual motions of a formal
bill to obtain the same effects….and the
other institutional organisms would
follow. In fact the Region of Tuscany
has approved some time ago a bill
recognizing of representation interest
groups, and other regions are working
in that direction.
Many lobbysts belong to Ferpi but
others prefer to distance themselves
from public relators because, they claim,
quote we are not involved in spin but
in advocacy and we stick to facts…..
unquote.
There is an increasing number of
lobbying consultancies and some of
them are becoming household names.
To name but two: Running which
was formed some five six years ago by
Claudio Velardi (who used to be chief of
staff of Massimo D’Alema, today foreign
minister, when he was premier in the
late nineties) and which today is at the
center of a group of companies involving
research, education, television and
daily newspapers; FB Comunicazione,
headed by Fabio Bistoncini who until
recently was vice president of Ferpi
(the Italian Federation of public
relations)and long before had learned
his trade as manager of institutional
relations for SCR, the then largest
public relations consultancy. Another
well known lobbyist is Samaritana
Rattazzi (a prominent member of the
Agnelli family)who today works also in
partnership with Edelman.
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
Most large organizations
(corporations, associations) have
professional lobbysts inside their
organization and, in any case, tend to
use consultants.
Most large pr agencies have at least
one lobbyist, some are specialized in
european affairs, others in regional
affairs, but most are involved in every
level of the public policy process.
One curiosity, which I believe does
not apply to many countries, has to do
with the issue raised in this dicussion
of active members of parliament being
lobbyists directly.
We have always known that major
interest groups like trade unions,
activist groups, shopkeepers, employers
etc.. all contribute substantially to the
election of representatives of their
interests.
But in Italy the Constitution
indicates that a member of parliament,
contrary to the United States tradition,
represents the whole of the electorate
and not her/his constituency (either
voters nor geographic origin). Therefore,
although it is no secret, single elected
representatives of interest groups
(sometimes, when they remember or
somebody reminds the…) make an
effort not to exagerate…..
I have also often thought that Italy
being behind, we could learn from the
mistakes of others…helas!! not true
unfortunately. We arrive late and usually
in much worse conditions.
Our African colleagues like to
enhance the concept of post modernity
in the sense that they do not necessarily
have to go through the same evolution.
Hopefully this could be true for the
adoption of technology but I am
afraid, judging at least for an italian
perspective, that this doesn’t hold true
for human behaviour and certainly not
for the public policy process, whose
compexities and complications are
significantly contributing (although this
is not the only cause..) to the progressive
exit of my country from the area of
advanced industrial democracies.
61
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Filipe and Bruno,
João Duarte
August 30 2007
❝
Welcome, my friends, to this
conversation on a reality that both
of you are very aware of. I know that
you had been monitoring the blog for
a while and I’m very happy that you
decided to take part in it.
Regarding the overall situation
of Lobbying in Portugal I just heard
that Martins Lampreia is organizing
a conference in Lisbon with Siim
Kallas, European Commissioner who
is leading the European Transparency
Initiative and who will talk about
“Shapping the Lobbying Rules”. In
a time when Portugal is responsible
for the Presidency of the European
Union this conference will gather other
important speakers such as Catherine
Stewart from the Society of European
Affairs Professionals or Christian de
Fouloy Chief Lobbyist of the EU Lobby
network. I just hope this conference can
further help to put the spotlight on this
problem and I will try to report back to
this blog on its contents.
with many other that say the same)
that ours is a profession while lobby is
an activity from the specialty area of
Public Affairs. Some consider it mainly
an activity for lawyers, international
relations or others. I rather view Public
Relations as a profession which deals
with “publics” and lobby as a way that
“publics” have to take part in the public
life and defend their interests.
Toni’s thought-provoking comment
about probably being easier to change
the internal regulation of the house
than going through a motion of a formal
bill makes all sense. I guess that’s
what the leaders of the Portuguese PR
agencies who wrote to the President of
the Parliament wanted to happen, but
with unfortunate results.
Regarding the issue of making
developments based on the perception
of the other’s mistakes, I do agree we
need some more autonomous thinking
(although I wouldn’t call it post
modernism).
Although, as Filipe mentions, the
broad field is Public Affairs and Lobby
is just one of its areas, when it comes
to saying bad things about lobby, PR is
almost always at the top of the critic’s
mind. Check out this website which
runs an award for the worst lobbying
campaigns in Europe. So for the
purpose of clarification I’d say (agreeing
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
62
PR Conversations
www.prconversations.com
Contributors who made posts to the “What is PR”
conversation:
João Duarte - Portugal
Judy Gombita - Canada
Toni Muzi Falconi - Italy
Yaryna Klyuchkovska - Ukraine
Markus Pirchner - Austria
Benita Steyn - South Africa
Kristen E. Sukalac - France
Heather Yaxley - UK
Catherine Arrow - New Zealand
Global opinions on public relations and its impact on society, from local perspectives.
63