Has the advent of digital media brought greater communication symmetry and balance?
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) defines public relations as “the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.”(Cipr.co.uk, 2017). In the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) in 2011, a definition of public relations was created through crowdsourcing on their website and the final definition was “Public relations is a strategic communications process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organisations and their publics” (Apps.prsa.org, 2017). Although there are some clear differences in these definitions, and in many of the other definitions available, there is often the common point of a “mutual understanding/ mutually beneficial relationships” in such definitions, which would mean that Public Relations works to the advantage of both the organisation and their publics. The mention of “relationships” and “understanding” also suggests that both parties are aware of what they are member to. It suggests that publics know that what they are seeing or reading is being paid for by the organisation itself, that the product will benefit them from using it, and the organisation will profit from it.
Since the advent of digital media, organisations have been quick on the uptake with the use of this new media channel, however this essay will discuss whether or not the use of digital media in public relations has brought with it greater communication symmetry and balance. Kirat (2007) stated that “online is a major medium that PR practitioners should use efficiently and rationally for effective public relations” but is this what is being done, or are organisations forgetting that the internet should be used as a platform to allow dialogue with publics and not as a one-way conversation like older forms of media limited them too? It goes without saying that if used in the correct manner the internet will make a PR practitioner’s job much easier. Ihator (2001) said that although target publics are easier to reach through the internet, “due to fragmentation, complexity, time constraint and interactivity of computer communication, corporations may be unable to carefully package their message and make it consistent across all media channels”. This is just one of the ways in which organisations are not using the internet in the best way possible.
Grunig and Hunt describe four models of public relations (1984);
The Press Agentry/ Publicity Model
The Public Information Model
The Two-Way Asymmetric Model
The Two-Way Symmetric Model
With each model, the closer they get to PR excellence. The fourth model, The Two-Way Symmetric Model, involves both dialogue between the organisation and its publics, and a mutual understanding between the two. This is what would be called PR excellence, and although this is what the majority of definitions of PR are based upon, it has appeared to be near impossible to continuously create. The internet has, however, played a key part in making PR excellence much more achievable.
The first version of the Internet, Web 1.0 enabled us to read and view more than we ever could before with just the paper media. We could access public pages online and view posts from bigger and international organisations. This change was made even more prominent with the switch to Web 2.0 in 1999. Web 2.0 brought with it user-generated content. It switched the internet from being comparable to a newspaper article to being more like one large forum available to anyone who could afford it, which is now over 90% of the population in the uk (Ons.gov.uk, 2017). Now, in 2017, after making full use of Web 2.0 for over almost two decades, the younger generations are growing up as digital natives, a term coined by Prensky (2001), and from them, many are turning into citizen journalists. Publics are no longer waiting for news to be given to them, they are instead writing their own news, and often are quicker to do so than the media press. This means that now, more than ever, this two-way symmetrical communication is crucial. Customers can write reviews, complaints, and praises all over the internet for the whole world to see. “Widespread discussion of interactive social media and social networks enabled by what is termed Web 2.0 has led to discussion of ‘PR 2.0’ denoting the potential for these new forms of media and public spaces to realise the two-way symmetrical model of communication recommended in Excellence Theory of public relations” (Macnamara, 2001, p.21) This issue is summarised by Grunig in Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation;
“Communication professionals previously could control the flow of messages and influence from the organisations they represent to their publics—usually by trying to control the information entering traditional media. With the advent of digital media, the arguments continue, neither public relations practitioners nor journalists working in traditional media are able to control the flow of information. Anyone now can be a journalist, members of publics can talk freely to each other about organisations, and information is widely available to everyone with little cost and effort” (Grunig, 2009).
It seems that some organisations are unable to understand the interactive ways in which Web 2.0 can be used. Macnamara (2001, p.21) writes “A number of reported case studies suggest that there are grounds for concern that some organisations are attempting to engage in public communication in the Web 2.0 environment using one-way information transmission and a control paradigm of communication characteristic of mass media and Web 1.0.” Macnamara goes on to say that some of the case studies include both “inappropriate and unethical practises” but also confirms that in spite of this malpractice “some organisations are engaging in new productive ways with their stakeholders using interactive social media and social networks” (2001, p.21).
Macnamara’s findings showed that although many practitioners said they were implementing social media for “gathering feedback and building relationships” just as many practitioners said they “use social media for marketing and brand promotion” sometimes with sales as the objective. However, “as most marketing, promotion and sales-related communication is predominantly one-way, making this claim for high levels of interactivity inconsistent”(2001, p.32). What is meant by this is that although practitioners are saying they are building relationships with their publics on social media platforms, if they are doing this through marketing and promotion then they still aren’t opening a dialogue with their publics, but are instead continuing to practice model 3 of the public relations models from Grunig and Hunt (1984).
Model 3 from Grunig and Hunt is the Two-Way Asymmetric Model. In this model information travels to and from publics, some feedback is introduced however the power still lies with the organisation. So, if organisations are still practicing their PR in a Two-Way Asymmetric Model when their publics have access to give their own feedback, they are missing out on a key opportunity of opening dialogues with their publics.
Many practitioners appear to use the mixed motive model (Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. 2013, p.126). “This new ‘mixed motive’ model reconceptualises the concepts of asymmetric and symmetric PR, reflecting the dynamics of PR practice and the mixed methods observed in organisations in past research” (Dozier et al. 2001). Murphy (1991) explains this in terms of game play; if a symmetrical approach is taken and the organisations “try to adapt to what the public want and vice versa” then the result is likely to be unsatisfactory on both sides, however in the mixed motive approach organisations “want to move forward in their own interests but also to reach a solute acceptable for the other side.” For example, although a public may want a reason and an apology as soon as possible after a crisis, the organisation will often find it beneficial to wait and only tell the publics what they need to know. Although this may have worked in an era before the digital age, it now seems that the publics are the ones in control, and that their motive is quickly becoming the only one that matters. In this digital age waiting is becoming less and less of an option, as the speed of communication is becoming more important than ever. On one hand it is great that a company can release a campaign and it go viral within a couple of hours, however this same speed is now expected in a crisis too, as the public are becoming more demanding of answers. Furthermore, if a company doesn’t give them the direct answers that they want, then people will turn to forums and social media where there can talk amongst themselves to find out the same answers. If the company were to answer more speedily then they would be able to put their own spin on it, and make the narrative a more positive one. This is what Richard Branson did in 2014.
One great example of the use of Social Media in a crisis was in 2014 when a Virgin Galactic test flight sadly crashed, killing one pilot and injuring another. Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin immediately took to twitter to share his condolences.
“Richard Branson
✔@richardbranson
Thoughts with all @virgingalactic & Scaled, thanks for all your messages of support. I'm flying to Mojave immediately to be with the team.”
Branson, R (2014)
Branson sent out this tweet immediately, before writing a longer, more emotional blog post that same evening, referring to the pilot as “brave”, which worked to influence the media’s narrative; he put a spin on it. Through putting this message into the public domain, with little hesitation, the public instantly are aware of what is being done around the matter, and a sense of empathy is evoked. By publishing this on a site such as twitter, he is allowing for a dialogue between him and the company’s publics.
This switch up of power is confirmed by Phillips and Young (2009, p.1), who say “the internet changes everything… for public relations the unavoidable conclusion is that nothing will ever be the same again”. With “equal access and the free flow of information, the internet supports a true democracy, unlike any other medium before it.”(Evans, 2011, p.2). Heibert (2004) suggests that this means companies should be forced to be much more transparent; although a direct dialogue with publics is now much easier, this two-way dialogue allows for publics to not only talk to organisations, but also to each other. Grunig said “people now are less constrained by the information that traditional media choose to make available to them” (2009), meaning that they can put their own information into the public domain, and this information may not be in line with what companies want you to know. This has not only been caused by social media sites, but also review sites and forums. Now, before booking a hotel it is checked on tripadvisor; the opinions of other customers are valued more than the opinion of the company.
Philips, (2015) talked about how since the advance of digital media there has been a shift in power from state to citizen. With the power now in the hands of the public, it is becoming more and more important to give a sense of transparency (Heibert, 2004). This two-way model can either work for or against a company. In 2014 Under Armour U.S. came under scrutiny after the 2012 Olympic Games. Under Armour are a sportswear brand, and provided the US Speed Skating teams with competition suits; none of their athletes medalled in the games which was a big contrast to the 2012 Vancouver games when they had collected 4 medals. Various athletes commented on a design flaw in the suits; they were putting information into the public eye that Under Armour did not want to be there. However, just as quickly as this bad press had been put out there, Michael Phelps and Lindsey Vorm took to social media to sing the companies praises. The brand worked well not to disrespect the athletes and still continue to sponsor the U.S. Speed skating team. This shows how without the company saying anything, a brand can be both attacked and rescued using social media. However it is worth noting that without the input of Phelps and Vorm, Under Armour would have had a much bigger issue on their hands.
One more interesting example that shows how the balance of power between companies and publics has shifted since the advent of digital media is the Rage Against the Machine campaign in 2009. The X Factor had been pushing each of its winners to the No.1 spot in the music charts every Christmas for the previous five years, and so Rage Against the Machine fought to knock Joe McElderry from the top spot. With their success, Rage Against the Machine achieved what was once thought to be impossible; social media was able to outweigh the power of months of prime time marketing and audience engagement. This shows that although The X Factor has a massive reach and is able to put their product in front of millions of people’s eyes, the spreadability of social media means that the message is put into the right people’s ears (Scott Gould, 2017). This shows that getting people to see your message is only half the battle; the real goal should be getting people to talk about it.
Through looking at these examples and theories we can see that although the advent of digital media has brought about the opportunity for greater communication symmetry and balance, this is not always put into practice in the best way possible. The public now have a voice, and if organisations do not acknowledge their public’s voices through the use of social media, then people will share their voice with other customers instead. Although it may seem both obvious and logical that a company should do its best to supply its customers with all the information possible and listen to what they’re consumers have to say, it seems that all too often this is not happening, and instead organisations are simply continuing to feed us what they want us to hear in a two-way asymmetrical manner. In the wake of this, the public have begun to fight back in order to get their voices heard, and so are now entering into dialogues with each other, whether organisations want to be included in these conversations or not.
In summary, although some companies such as Virgin seem to understand the benefits in communication that social media can bring, other companies only seem interested in using it to put out more of their information when instead they should be looking at what their publics have to say. Grunig (2009) found that “programmes of symmetrical communication are more successful than asymmetrical communication in building relationships between organisations and publics” and so for an organisation to not make full use of digital media in creating symmetrical communication, they are missing a key trick.
References
Apps.prsa.org. (2017). What is public Relations? PR Definition: PRSA Official Statement. [online] Available at:
Cipr.co.uk. (2017). What is PR? |Chartered Institute of Public Relations. [online] Available at: https://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy/careers-advice/what-pr [Accessed 17 Nov. 2017]
Dozier, D.M., Grunig, L.A. and Grunig, J.E., 2001. Public relations as communication campaign. Public communication campaigns, 3, pp.231-248.
Evans, A., Twomey, J. and Talan, S., 2011. Twitter as a public relations tool. Public Relations Journal, 5(1), pp.1-20.
Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T.T., 1984. Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J.E., 2009. Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism, 6(2), pp.1-19
Hiebert, R.E. (2004). Commentary: New technologies, public relations and democracy. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 1-9
http://apps.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/PublicRelationsDefined [Accessed 17 Nov. 2017]
Ihator, A.S., 2001. Communication style in the information age. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), pp.199-204.
Kirat, M. (2007). Promoting online media relations: Public relations departments’ use of Internet in the UAE. Public Relations Review, 33(2), pp.166-174
Macnamara, J., 2010. Public relations and the social: How practitioners are using, or abusing, social media. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal
Murphy, P., 1991. The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 3(1-4), pp.115-131.
Ons.gov.uk. (2017). Internet users in the UK- Office for National Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.ond.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2017 [Accessed16 Nov. 2017].
Phillips, D. and Young, P., 2009. Online public relations: A practical guide to developing an online strategy in the world of social media. Kogan Page Publishers.
Phillips, R., 2015. Trust me, PR is dead. Random House
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp.1-6.
Scott Gould. (2017). Rage Against The Machine: The Case Study In Spreadability vs Reach – Scott Gould and Friends. [online] Available at: https://scottgould.me/rage-against-the-machine-the-case-study-in-spreadability-vs-reach/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Tench, R. and Yeomans, L., 2013. Exploring public relations. Pearson Higher Ed.
Twitter. (2017). Richard Branson on Twitter. [online] Available at: https://twitter.com/richardbranson/status/528276299371249664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inc.com%2Frebecca-borison%2Fvirgin-galactic-crash-twitter.html [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017].