Post #7: Reading Response on Chapter Six (Chia and Synott, 2009).

Chapter Six: Public Relations Practice

Following the previous chapter on research methods used in the PR industry, the current chapter takes a look at the PR industry itself. Firstly, we are presented with the categories of PR effectiveness (Synnott, 2002, as cited in Chia & Synnott, 2009), afterwhich an elaboration of the role of PR in different types of organisations is presented. A section on community engagement was also included before the chapter ended with an overview of the challenges in this industry.

For the purposes of this reflection I would like to focus on the eight categories of PR effectiveness and the role of public relations within some organisations. As we have seen in the textbook on pages 131-132, the eight characteristics and what role models should exhibit under these characteristics are listed. As budding (is this even the term I should use on ourselves?) students of public relations, which of these characteristics are more important to us should we choose to enter the industry?

I would think that having sound work practices and approaches matter first and foremost. To be responsible for and committed to your work, having high standards, not being ashamed to seek advice (even from peers or juniors) and being objective; these are like the foundations of not just the PR practitioner, but also the journalist.  This is also related to having sound personal attributes such as being professional, creative, people-oriented and passionate about your work. With these core behaviours soundly lodged in our minds, it is in my contention that we have taken the first step towards becoming a successful PR practitioner: by shaping up our attitudes.

The other characteristic that is listed in our textbook, that I feel is important to us right now is the "Works for the profession" ideal. Wanting the build the profession and contribute, protecting its image and reputation are very noble callings to follow, and I feel it's good to keep that in our minds (if) we are to enter the industry. With that down, this makes three the number of characteristics I have determined to be important. Of course, that's not to say that the others aren't important, but I think those other characters mostly come with experience and continual training.

Now, on to the role of PR in the different organisations. Having worked in the Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee (SYOGOC) as an intern, before transiting to the volunteer stage at games-time, I've seen just how important PR practitioners can be. I believe that SYOGOC, being a government entity responsible for bringing the Games to fruition, would come under the "not-for-profit" sector and "public" sector as described in Chia and Synnott (2009).

Certainly, there were lots of volunteers to manage and the various events I participated in and helped organise certainly assisted in driving home the impression that the Games were coming, and that it'd be as best as Singapore can make it to be. I may not have realised it then, but looking back on my experiences, the reputation of SYOGOC before games-time was still pretty credible, with frequent media coverage, however big or small, of the precursor programmes that were happening, including the Asian Youth Games, which was a test-event for the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) itself. It was also during this period that I learnt how to be more diplomatic to volunteers since I was responsible for drawing up the roster for the language services volunteers as part of my duties as an intern.

During the Games itself I was a volunteer, and this was when many unpalatable events came to light. There was the "substandard food" case, and several instances of food poisoning that came to light in the media. I see now that these are again, examples of crisis management. I see now that the need for media relations was especially important, and I remember several Mediacorp-affiliated employees (Mark Richmond - deejay and Huang Zhi Hao - former Channel 8 broadcast journalist) among some of the staffers at SYOGOC. Certainly their links to the media world would have been of good use to manage issues such as these. Of course, the communication efforts also relied on new media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and so on, apart from the official sites that gave updates and information as they came. Internally, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (Minister MCYS) and Mr Teo Ser Luck (Senior Parliamentary Secretary, MCYS), were on hand to visit volunteers and give them words of encouragement. These too would be classified as PR measures, the benefits to HR notwithstanding.
It is with greater understanding now that I see how some of the various points reflected in our text work in reality, and this marks the end of my post.



Post #6: Reading Response on Chapter Five (Chia and Synott, 2009).

Chapter Five: Public Relations Research

This chapter covers some research methods used in the field of PR and its importance in the various stages. I had a misconception at first when I saw the title of the chapter, thinking of research more in the traditional sense, that is to look into the subject and discover new things about it, much like scientific research. It is only when I read on that I discovered that 'research' here, is more of finding out things from the target publics to gain an insight (as we have learnt a few weeks back, where research => insight) instead of actually advancing the field, in a sense).

Chia and Synnott (2009) first discuss the hierarchy of effects model as a guide to what the PR practitioner can do in a publicity campaign, first by formulating a message, before disseminating it out. The public will receive it, and then begin the process of comprehending it before being able to change their attitudes and hence behaviours. It is noted for the second time since Chapter 3 that behavioural change may occur first instead of attitude change.

We thus see that in this hierarchy, there are at least two timeframes in which to conduct research: before the campaign, and during the campaign. Before-campaign research (also known as input research) is done to know more about the issue at hand and the ground sentiments, this will gain us insight such as the the fact that there was no beer-infused barbecue sauce in the Australian market mention in Post 3(ii), or maybe, that the Australian public generally do not prefer to barbecue food over live coal, but feel that such food is superior in taste (case study located here). In addition, ethical considerations should also come into place here. With these thoughts in place, goals can then be set and strategies, tactics, etc. hammered out.

During-campaign, or output research is done to see how well the campaign has been executed thus far with a view to improve it if necessary. Page 136 of Chia and Synnott (2009) offers a short list of tools and tactics that we can use to perform said research. But there is something missing here: the post-campaign, evaluatory/outcome research which allows the practitioner to evaluate the effects of the campaign to see if the initially-set goals were achieved. I remember now some of the evaluatory means showed to us in our lectures, such as media coverage - the number of mentions and positive reviews of said product in the media, for example. A list of research methods and how they are classified is offered in Figure 6.2, page 146 and 147 of Johnston and Zawawi (2004)'s text.

I personally feel the discussion on other research applications is the next most important part of this chapter. Because much of PR deals with getting the message across to the public, we are heavily reliant on finding out public opinion. Not only must we do this for consumer marketing campaigns, there is also a need to find out what they are thinking especially for crisis management. In this case, the public needs to be monitored to find out any possible issues that require intervention  if necessary. A good example of this would be the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform oil spill (also known as the 'BP oil spil'), where PR practitioners for British Petroleum had to scramble to limit the fallout after the event, especially when public opinion turned against the company after their then-CEO, Tony Hayward's insensitive remarks. He issued an apology later on, but no doubt the damage was done. Among other things, BP's PR campaign after the spill focused on their efforts to clean up the mess, and owning up to their mistake which caused the spill in the first place. You can see a short opinion piece from Brian McDonald (including a YouTube video message from Tony Hayward), a veteran of the PR industry, over here.

The text (Chia & Synnott) also covers some research methods, with a slant towards promoting new media research tools such as online surveys, social networking, and even blogs. In addition, some issues affecting PR research was mentioned. I think that statistical implications is a pretty important issue to be looking at, because choosing an appropriate sample to represent the population, and without bias is fundamental to being able to interpret quantitative results properly and not have a skewed representation. In that regard, I'd have to go back to my statistics textbooks and refresh my knowledge on this.

Else, this ends my reflection on Chapter Five.

Post #5: Reading Response on Chapter Four (Chia and Synnott, 2009)

Chapter 4: Public Relations Ethics

What is ethics? Our text from Chia and Synnott (2009) gives us many theoretical perspectives on the term "ethics", and certain tools to guide us through the ethical decision-making process. Several examples of unethical PR behaviour were given to us in the early stages of the group, and it mostly dealt with misleading the public into thinking that the perpertrators were actually more famous than they were.

That said, I would like to reflect upon the three schools of thought as covered in the textbook:

1. Virtue ethics - It is about the strong sense of ethical values that lie within one's character. In relation, the Golden Mean method was raised, which to me seems like a glorified effort at fence-sitting. Although it is as such, this style of ethics has its appeal to me since a lot of issues is about finding a middle ground and mutual consensus, thus maintaining a balance at all times. However, it would require one to be quite the virtuous person of which I believe I am not. And even so, the concept of "virtue" is subjective, and the whole decision-process might take too much time to go through.

2. Deontology - This is about the concept of "duty". Duty to fellow humans, to clients, to the public, et cetera. They are heavily steepled in following codes and laws, and has resulted in national public relations agencies developing codes of conduct. Looking like it as it is, I guess one good thing that comes out from deontology is that it gives PR practitioners a framework of ethical values to work with so it isn't so subjective any more. We can be on the safe side of the law and thus soothe our own and everyone's consciences. That said, blindly following the law is inflexible and doesn't guanrantee 100% ethical behaviour all the time (Chia & Synnott, 2009). A particular example mentioned in page 109 of our textbook highlights this point, about breaking laws/civil disobedience to bring attention to an issue (likely to be used by activists, protestors and the like) (Cordingley, 2007 as cited in Chia & Synnott, 2009).

3. Consequentialism/Teleology - As it name implies, consequentialism is contingent on the consequences of actions as a deciding factor as to whether an act is ethical or not. Also known as utilitarianism (or in simple terms, "the ends justify the means"), it offers a very flexible approach to ethical behaviour. Evaluating how each situation favours the greater good on a case-by-case basis offers what seems like the perfect solution, however, there are times when going for the greater good might mean sacrifices on a lower level, even the sacrificing of lives, for that matter. So this school of thought is not without its problems. I have added in the term Teleology because the description of it, on Amanda Holt's website, does seem to fit in with what we know.

Ultimately, I suppose, any one PR action that strives to be ethical has to consider a wide range of perspectives from the stakeholders involved. And the best way to do it is through dialogue. Sometimes, however, unilateral decisions do have to be made so it falls back to us ecaluating the "correctnesss" of our actions.

In ending, I would like to offer two sets of quotes here from two different textbooks regarding ethics and public relations. These sum up how one can be ethical, and how it is relevant to us PR practitioners.:

"Aim to bring ethical considerations... in terms of character virtue, relevant rules, and outcomes, and... demonstrate to others your actions were taken in a considered, responsible, inclusive and accountable way, with reference to credible guidelines." (Chia & Synnott, 2009, p. 118).

"...if more practitioners begin to bring a genuine professional approach to public relations, then (it)... will not be something 'out there' with which the practitioner is only abstractly concerned. Instead, public relations practitioners will understand that professional ethics interacts with professional conduct and is part of an overall search for which in no way neglects 'the bottom line', but instead humanises it." (Johnston & Zawawi, 2004, p. 130).

Post #4: Reading Response on Chapter Three (Chia and Synnott, 2009).

Chapter 3: Theoretical Contexts

This chapter discusses the various theoretical concepts that influence the field of public relations. I shall list the various theories and elements covered here before proceeding with anything else.

1. Systems theory

--> Cybernetics, Requisite variety, Boundary spanning.

2. Communications theory

--> Transmission models, Persuasion, Attitude & behaviour change, Source credibility, Two-step/multistep flow, Emotional appeals, Coorientation theory, Agenda setting, Framing.

3. Public Relations theory

--> The Excellence Theory, Grunig and Hunt's four models + variations, situational theory of publics, relationship management.

4. Rhetorical and interpretive perspectives

5. Cultural theory

6. Critical perspectives

I believe we have been introduced to what has been covered here in our Introduction to Communication Studies (CMNS1110) and Managing the Organisation (IRHR1001) modules. That said, there were a few new points that piqued my interest:

Firstly, under Communications theory, where the text introduces us to Newcomb, McLeod and Chaffee (1973)'s coorientation theory. Since different individuals have different opinions on a single issue, coorientation theory allows us to draw up a diagram of the different stakeholders' stand to see whether they are aligned in thought and action. I suppose we can then use it to determine the thrust of the PR campaign/strategy.

Chia and Synnott (2009) lists the four variables in achieving consensus. Firstly, accuracy, which is related to the level of accuracy of two (or more) parties' perception of each other's views. Next is understanding, which is how well both parties know the stiuation. Following that is agreement, explained as the level of similarity between the actual views on the issue at hand for both parties, and lastly, congruence, which is whether the actual view of one party is aligned with his or her perception of the view of the other party.

The example shown in our text, incidentally from PRIA's Golden Target Awards, let me understand how this theory works in a real-life situation. In summary, I think that coorientation theory is about facilitating understanding between different stakeholders; although an excellent campaign will also depend in part on the willingness of all parties involved to be proactive and to listen to the other party, and be ready to make concessions so in the big picture, everybody benefits.

Grunig and Hunt's four models of public relations was finally talked about in this chapter. In today's context, it seems that all four models are in use simultaneously. The first model of PR is press agentry. In this, the mass media is a tool used by organisations (through PR practitoners) to send messages to their audience in a single directional flow of information. I think this is quite easily observable; we can see instances of press agentry everywhere. I dare venture that the media release is an example of this? Since it contains all the information a journalist would need to write a story and thus achieve the PR effect. Media releases are sometimes lifted wholesale and plunked into the papers, even.

The public information model, like press agentry, is also singular in direction, however, according to Chia and Synnott (2009) the information provided here are hard facts and truths, so as to inform the public about certain issues that we need to take note of. This is probably heavily used by government agencies, like in Singapore where the Traffic Police releases accident statistics from time to time to get the public to drive carefully. Perhaps the single biggest example of this model could be during national health crises, such as SARS in 2003 and the H1N1 epidemic in 2009, where the Ministry of Health, as well as hospitals provided daily updates of the situation through the various media and provided information on symptoms and any action to be taken.

Thirdly we have the two-way asymmetric model. It's two-way because not only does the organisation send information to the target audience, the feedback from the audience also makes it back to the organisationand determines the development of the next round of publicity efforts. It is somewhat similar to the reception model of communication which we learnt back in Trimester 3 in 2010. This model allows the organisation to slowly shape the behaviour of the target audience though, and my guess is it raises some issues about ethics. As for examples of this model, could it be that product surveys are part of this? The PR practitioner could design one and go out into the streets to collect data about a certain product or, say, the public impression of the organisation, then use the feedback to create a better product or service that would "manipulate" the public to do business with the organisation in question?

The last model postulated by Grunig and Hunt is the two-way symmetric model. The most ideal model, it discusses mutual understanding between both the organisation as well as the target audiences, where both are of equal stature and are able to influence each other in some way or another. Personally, like what is stated in the textbook, I feel this model is a little irrelevant because a perfect balance of power is close to impossible in real life, the situations are usually give-and-take of some sort, or when one party dominates the other. Perhaps coorientation theory could be used to smooth out the differences between the groups but otherwise, this is very much just an ideal in my opinion.

Chia and Synnott do talk about extra variations to these four models, of which personal influence is quite a lot like the guanxi concept in Chinese culture which I blogged about 2 weeks ago or so. Mixed motive, on the other hand, is rooted in game theory and has the PR practitioner try to steer the organisation towards a Nash equilibrium for both the organisation and the public.

My reflection on some of the theories covered in this chapter thus ends.