This post reflects on readings for week 7.
The Australian public, and perhaps the wider world, tends to view corporate sponsorship and purported acts of corporate social responsibility skeptically. Corporations are in the business of making cash -- lots of it. Why should they spend on anything that doesn't contribute to the bottomline?
These negative perceptions must be managed when planning for any corporate involvement in social and community work, regardless of how altruistic the intent. If the public wouldn't get close to what the organization is doing with a ten-foot pole, then nothing will get accomplished, or at least not efficiently.
In Vodaphone's case, an ingenious idea to give the Australia public a sense of ownership in the World of Difference Program was used. Instead of dumping a lump of hard cash to a random charity, WOD instead gave four Australians the chance to work for their favourite charity for a year, with their salaries and expenses to be fully paid for.
On top of an already innovative idea, WOD got the endorsement of Australian Women's Netball Team captain Liz Ellis, as well as the winners of previous years' WOD to give media interviews. By placing a public figure -- the choice of a sports celebrity over an entertainment celebrity was a good one -- and "everyday" people as the face of the WOD campaign, the publicity campaign was humanized and came across as being more grassroots oriented, rather than being pushed by an aloof, faceless corporation.
WOD was able to use previous winners to push a human-interest angle that otherwise would not have been present. These case studies of individuals working for charity for a year must have had generate huge media and public interest and no doubt helped to garner more publicity and support for WOD.
Often, challenges faced by PR campaigns do not come from competing businesses, events or products, but rather from inertia and perceptions already innate in the public. By tailoring campaigns to overcome this, CSR and philanthrophy objectives are easier to achieve.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A "military" approach to PR
This post reflects on readings for week 6.
Melanie James opens this week's readings (PR strategic planning, tactics and evaluation) with an interesting premise:
I have had trouble before differentiating between strategy and tactics as both seem to be two words for the same concept. Inspired by this military-themed introduction, I did a quick dictionary search using my Mac's dictionary widget (supplied by Oxford American Dictionaries) and got the follow definitions:
At the strategic level, he or she needs to consider the objectives of the campaign (eg. increasing sales of a product), determine the total resources available ($$), then determine the individual efforts, or tactics, needed to move towards the eventual goal and finally allocate resources to these tactics.
The tactical level is more specific and interested in situation on the ground, as the phrase "during contact with an enemy" suggests. In terms of PR, when in the "contested space", contact with an enemy would not only include direct competitors, such as a rival organization, but also indirect barriers slowing progress to the goal, such as the attitudes and opinions of the public.
Here is one place where PR and conventional battles diverge. One cannot simply send in the air force to carpet bomb a company's clients into submission! Or at least not all the time. Instead, it is important to seek out and engage the organization's stakeholders, both within and without.
Sometimes, it is important that the managers of an organization view situations from a PR perspective. James discusses a case where a PR practitioner, attending an operational meeting of a large organization, manages to convince senior managers to cancel a disasterous customer service policy before it is implement. (Interestingly, this is known as a "pre-emptive strike" in military terms -- destroying the capability of a party to cause harm before they actually do.)
In terms of engaging external stakeholders, the textbook refers to a case study of the Mitchell Freeway extension in Joondalup City, Western Australia. Here, the construction company was able to successfully build the freeway extension by gradually converting the at-first partially-hostile community to become supporters of the project. The construction company went out of its way to customize noise walls at varying locales to heights preferred by local residents, saved significant greenery and wildlife from disruptiong by planning construction around them and educated the public on the advantages of the freeway extension. By showing that the company took the community's feedback seriously, the project was able to proceed smoothly and without disruption through the use of direct action and other means of frustration. (Interestingly, this is a close parallel to "softening the ground" in military terms!)
The "contested space" concept is useful to understand the role of strategy and tactics in public relations, while engagement with stakeholders both inside and outside of an organization is an integral part to PR strategies and campaigns.
Melanie James opens this week's readings (PR strategic planning, tactics and evaluation) with an interesting premise:
When you first encounter some of the language of public relations you might wonder whether you’ve mistakenly enrolled in military school. Words like strategy, tactic and target abound in public relations texts.While the field of public relations and military operations are not so easily reconciled to each other, the similar language used in both activities reflects that there is a common concept shared between both public relations and military campaigns -- the concept of "contested space".
I have had trouble before differentiating between strategy and tactics as both seem to be two words for the same concept. Inspired by this military-themed introduction, I did a quick dictionary search using my Mac's dictionary widget (supplied by Oxford American Dictionaries) and got the follow definitions:
strategy
a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aimtactic
- the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle. Often contrasted with TACTICS.
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end
- the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy. Often contrasted with STRATEGY.
At the strategic level, he or she needs to consider the objectives of the campaign (eg. increasing sales of a product), determine the total resources available ($$), then determine the individual efforts, or tactics, needed to move towards the eventual goal and finally allocate resources to these tactics.
The tactical level is more specific and interested in situation on the ground, as the phrase "during contact with an enemy" suggests. In terms of PR, when in the "contested space", contact with an enemy would not only include direct competitors, such as a rival organization, but also indirect barriers slowing progress to the goal, such as the attitudes and opinions of the public.
Here is one place where PR and conventional battles diverge. One cannot simply send in the air force to carpet bomb a company's clients into submission! Or at least not all the time. Instead, it is important to seek out and engage the organization's stakeholders, both within and without.
Sometimes, it is important that the managers of an organization view situations from a PR perspective. James discusses a case where a PR practitioner, attending an operational meeting of a large organization, manages to convince senior managers to cancel a disasterous customer service policy before it is implement. (Interestingly, this is known as a "pre-emptive strike" in military terms -- destroying the capability of a party to cause harm before they actually do.)
In terms of engaging external stakeholders, the textbook refers to a case study of the Mitchell Freeway extension in Joondalup City, Western Australia. Here, the construction company was able to successfully build the freeway extension by gradually converting the at-first partially-hostile community to become supporters of the project. The construction company went out of its way to customize noise walls at varying locales to heights preferred by local residents, saved significant greenery and wildlife from disruptiong by planning construction around them and educated the public on the advantages of the freeway extension. By showing that the company took the community's feedback seriously, the project was able to proceed smoothly and without disruption through the use of direct action and other means of frustration. (Interestingly, this is a close parallel to "softening the ground" in military terms!)
The "contested space" concept is useful to understand the role of strategy and tactics in public relations, while engagement with stakeholders both inside and outside of an organization is an integral part to PR strategies and campaigns.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ethics, truth and consequence
This post reflects upon readings for week 5, on ethics.
Towards the end of the chapter, the concept of "ethical relativism" is introduced, whereby it is noted that some acts which are good in some circumstances or cultures may not be good in others. It ends up by saying there is a need to "consider the social environment in which the standards and actions exist, and the consequences of the action".
Consider the case of the Leeds Metropolitan University, as related by Philip Young. In the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an inquiry discovered that one of the perpertrators had studied at the University. The news of this broke during the graduation ceremony of that year's cohort. Lucy Laville, head of communications at the time, immediately withdrew all graduation videos and got all press inquiries to go through her, in order to prevent the graduation ceremony from becoming a media circus.
Here, it could be said that Laville's actions in withholding information was ethical because the hard truth would have a disproportionate effect not only on the image of the Univsersity, but would also negatively affect the memories of young adults who were supposed to go through one of the most important events of their lives, their university graduation. To have allowed the hard truth to go out unmitigated would have been unethical, not to mention unprofessional.
The 1982 Johnson & Johnson Tylenol recall serves as a useful contrast to the Leeds Met University incident. In this case, 7 people died after consuming the drug. Johnson & Johnson immediately recalled all of the drugs from stores and eventually discovered that the pills were laced with cyanide by an unknown person. The company eventually went on to create a tamper-proof packaging for their medicines.
In the Johnson & Johnson case, withholding information was NOT ethical, because the potential consequences of doing so were unacceptable. More members of the public could have been killed and the reputation of the company would have been severely damaged. This time round, allowing the hard truth to be disseminated clearly outweighed the consequences of withholding that information from the public.
So, the key thing to remember when considering the ethics of any particular situation and the contemplated actions, it is important to consider the consequences of any such action on the organization and its stakeholders before deciding on any course of action. What might work for one situation might not be the right solution for the next.
Towards the end of the chapter, the concept of "ethical relativism" is introduced, whereby it is noted that some acts which are good in some circumstances or cultures may not be good in others. It ends up by saying there is a need to "consider the social environment in which the standards and actions exist, and the consequences of the action".
Consider the case of the Leeds Metropolitan University, as related by Philip Young. In the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an inquiry discovered that one of the perpertrators had studied at the University. The news of this broke during the graduation ceremony of that year's cohort. Lucy Laville, head of communications at the time, immediately withdrew all graduation videos and got all press inquiries to go through her, in order to prevent the graduation ceremony from becoming a media circus.
Here, it could be said that Laville's actions in withholding information was ethical because the hard truth would have a disproportionate effect not only on the image of the Univsersity, but would also negatively affect the memories of young adults who were supposed to go through one of the most important events of their lives, their university graduation. To have allowed the hard truth to go out unmitigated would have been unethical, not to mention unprofessional.
The 1982 Johnson & Johnson Tylenol recall serves as a useful contrast to the Leeds Met University incident. In this case, 7 people died after consuming the drug. Johnson & Johnson immediately recalled all of the drugs from stores and eventually discovered that the pills were laced with cyanide by an unknown person. The company eventually went on to create a tamper-proof packaging for their medicines.
In the Johnson & Johnson case, withholding information was NOT ethical, because the potential consequences of doing so were unacceptable. More members of the public could have been killed and the reputation of the company would have been severely damaged. This time round, allowing the hard truth to be disseminated clearly outweighed the consequences of withholding that information from the public.
So, the key thing to remember when considering the ethics of any particular situation and the contemplated actions, it is important to consider the consequences of any such action on the organization and its stakeholders before deciding on any course of action. What might work for one situation might not be the right solution for the next.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Case studies in media relations
This post reflects upon readings for week 4.
As I am currently taking a module in journalism, as well as being involved in the media, I found the readings from the textbook to be just a rehash of what I already know and learnt, just from the PR practitioner's point of view rather than the journalist's.
What really stood out for me, however, were the included case studies on the Sea Shepard Conservation Society and the SARS crisis in Singapore. These case studies provided a useful practical look into how theory is applied in two different real-life situations PR practitioners will no doubt find themselves in.
The Sea Shepards details how the non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization uses a clear and coherent strategy to gain media support for their activities. Through the use of various tactics, such as using symbols (baby animals, trees, plants, etc.) to present otherwise abstract ideas in a way that the general public will be able to relate to, getting celebrity endorsements and keeping the media well-fed with useful news and information, the Sea Shepards were able to build up rapport with the media, resulting in positive news coverage of their fourth anti-whaling expedition to Antartica.
The SARS crisis in Singapore demonstrated how the hospitals and the government used tactics which quickly reassured the public that everything was being done to contain the disease. Instead of putting an unknown hospital administrator in front of the cameras, the government sent the Health Minister, a recognizable and authoritative source, to speak on their behalf. And when healthcare workers were being stigmatized due to a number of them coming down with SARS, a campaign was launched through the media to educate and inform the public that they did not pose any threat to the public.
The key lesson to take away from these two different case studies is that the use of a clear and coherent media strategy builds up trust, respect and rapport with the media. This comes in handy when the organization makes the headlines for an event or when a crisis breaks out, as the media is more likely to see the organization in a more positive light, and passes on this view to its audience.
As I am currently taking a module in journalism, as well as being involved in the media, I found the readings from the textbook to be just a rehash of what I already know and learnt, just from the PR practitioner's point of view rather than the journalist's.
What really stood out for me, however, were the included case studies on the Sea Shepard Conservation Society and the SARS crisis in Singapore. These case studies provided a useful practical look into how theory is applied in two different real-life situations PR practitioners will no doubt find themselves in.
The Sea Shepards details how the non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization uses a clear and coherent strategy to gain media support for their activities. Through the use of various tactics, such as using symbols (baby animals, trees, plants, etc.) to present otherwise abstract ideas in a way that the general public will be able to relate to, getting celebrity endorsements and keeping the media well-fed with useful news and information, the Sea Shepards were able to build up rapport with the media, resulting in positive news coverage of their fourth anti-whaling expedition to Antartica.
The SARS crisis in Singapore demonstrated how the hospitals and the government used tactics which quickly reassured the public that everything was being done to contain the disease. Instead of putting an unknown hospital administrator in front of the cameras, the government sent the Health Minister, a recognizable and authoritative source, to speak on their behalf. And when healthcare workers were being stigmatized due to a number of them coming down with SARS, a campaign was launched through the media to educate and inform the public that they did not pose any threat to the public.
The key lesson to take away from these two different case studies is that the use of a clear and coherent media strategy builds up trust, respect and rapport with the media. This comes in handy when the organization makes the headlines for an event or when a crisis breaks out, as the media is more likely to see the organization in a more positive light, and passes on this view to its audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)