Is PR Proganda?

Looking back to a definition of PR it is related to reputation management and influencing behavior and opinion. Now compare this to a definition of propaganda “Propaganda is a form of communication that attempts to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist”.” (Jowett & O’Donnell , 1999, p.1). Within the definitions there are some similarities, both look at a desired outcome whether its in best interests of the business or with the propagandist.

Ethics is a difficult subject to define it often changes for every individual.  Also PR practitioners may also have to take into account cultures “It is important to realize that public relations as practised in one country frequently differs from how it is practised in another country” (Fitzpatrick & Bronstein, 2006, p.172). With some many different things for PR practitioners to consider is it really possible not to been seen as a propagandist or attempting to spin stories. It could be argued that people are always just going to be skeptical of PR due to its history.

Whilst there are some similarities in PR and propaganda I believe that it is a thing of the past. Propaganda was used a lot to encourage war and when there was little information public could get hold of other that was they were told by PR practitioners such as Bernays or what information companies let them know.. However with so much technology today and information being so readily available to the public it would seem that propaganda can go no longer happen undercover. It is now within the public’s power to get involved and contribute their thoughts regarding PR activity.

After looking at the  topic of PR and Propaganda I have learnt that all is not black and white in the world of PR. With regards to ethics it is normally best to do what you see as ethical therefore doing as little harm to as little people as possible. Sometimes in PR you will have to spin a story in a certain direction as you are there to serve the company, although this does not always mean you are participating within propaganda.  Your main purpose as a PR practitioner is to present the company in the best possible light as that is what you are being paid to do, so if you do not always agree with what is being done then you should use your own morals to decide whether you should be a part of that or not.

What is the truth anymore...

Celebrities are not the only method companies use to try put a positive spin on the reputation. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is used heavily in PR in order to address the issues of environmental concern, giving back to the local community and to show that companies are concerned about their customers and employees. The European commission defines CSR as “a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical and human rights concerns into their business operations and core strategy”. So if CSR is just seen as another process is it all just self interest in order to make themselves look good to the public or is CSR done because companies really do care (altruism).

By embracing CSR companies come across as having good morals and they believe in practicing good business. Looking into companies such as L’Oreal they use animal testing regularly but say they are looking into new methods. The website has lots of information on CSR and L’Oreal’s ethics but using animal testing does goes against what they apparently stand for. 

“We make apositive contribution to the countries and communities in which we are present” . The website is explains clearly what L'Oreal ‘do’ yet it seems to avoid presenting any examples of their work in practice.  They have carefully chosen to tell enough information to make people believe that they care but have missed out the proof…so is this just a lie? It is difficult to say whether CSR can be just seen as smoothing over the cracks or covering mistakes.

In 2006 L’Oreal acquired The Body Shop who practice ethical trading everyday and is a business that was built on being fair, ethical and environmentally website. When comparing the two sites The Body Shop has a lot of information of charities they are involved with such as Greenpeace and UNICEF with examples of what they have contributed to these charities, e.g. conducting a study into violence against children. The Body Shop is also a strong campaigner against animal testing but being part of the L’Oreal group surely goes against this? Well according to The Body Shop they are still managed as an independent company so they do not participate in the activities within the L’Oreal group.

Looking back to L’Oreal they acquired The Body Shop a company well known for being ethical, they also have Garnier within their portfolio a brand known for being green and using natural ingredients in their products. So can it be argued that L’Oreal can buy their way into CSR and it this true for other companies?

With CSR activities become more evident in all business due to the demand from consumers for more ethical business and the environment becoming an increasing concern awards have been set up. CSR Europe holding an award scheme is it now companies participate to win such awards and boots their profiles?

So with CSR a tricky topic to define where the lines of truth and lies meet is part of CSR propaganda. Is CSR just a way to lie to the public to keep them happy or to persuade them to buy into their business? Or should customers just accept that not everyone is going to be ethical and just be satisfied that at least something in being done, and that at least it’s a step in the right direction.

Even if you do get CSR right and participate in being a responsible business it does not guarantee that it will improve your reputation. “CSR does not compensate for poorcustomer service or poor performance”. By using PR tools such as CSR it does not always mean you will have a good reputation in the eyes of the public, it is not a guarantee that you will be liked.

In my next blog I will take a look back into the topics discussed and reflect upon PR and propaganda and how this relates to the PR practitioner.

The 'face' of PR

As discussed in my previous blog to tell the truth should always be in the forefront of PR practitioners minds, especially when dealing with difficult campaigns. In reply to the previous comments on my previous blog post I believe that the emotions of the public should be taken into consideration however the basis of a campaign should be done with the greater good of the public in mind. It is finding that balance and choosing how to deliver a message which can prove difficult.

So as PR practitioners we should always look to tell the truth and follow our ethical guideline, however when it comes to celebrity PR the lines often blur. Max Clifford is a famous PR ‘guru’ who is employed by many of Hollywood’s stars with the intention of keeping their reputation in check.  Max Clifford often gets paid to hide the truth or not tell the whole truth as it’s the best interest of his clients, this was the case with Jimmy Savile “he was aware of claims about Savile sexuallyabusing girls”. With Max knowing so much information of the claims years before they came out was he really abiding to the pillars of ethics. Or does it not matter that he knew all along but did little about it.

In PR the sender of the message and the way in which the message is sent can often have a big impact on how it is received by the public. In the case of Max Clifford as he is well known and liked by a lot of people little actually hindered him in keeping the allegations quiet, so it is all down to the likeability of a company or person?

According the Perloff  as citied in Tench and Yeomans there are 4 key elements on how to judge how suited a speaker is for a specific audience these include:

Expertise- how competent the speaker is on the issue

Trustworthiness- this includes confidence and likeability

Similarity- credible speakers should be like the receiver (homophily) unless the subject concerns different experiences or expertise, in which case they should be dissimilar (heterophily)

Physical attractiveness- people tend to trust attractive speakers- which may reflect the social value attached to appearance, as in celebrity PR

Perloff is suggesting that by choosing the right person to send a message to the right audience it will have a positive impact on the way the message is sent. When looking at celebrity PR it would be using a well known and liked to be the face of the message. When looking into the public sector the most suitable speaker would be someone of authority and trust within the audience group. So by putting the right face on the right message does this mean the PR practitioner is trying to spin the message in a positive way?

Even when you get the right ‘face’ it can all still go wrong. From Kate Moss being dropped by H&M, Chanel and many other to Jamie Oliver admitting he does not buy from Sainsbury’s for his restaurants when he represented them. Working with celebrities can prove difficult and picking the right person does not always work out in the long run. Companies will drop them quickly in order to protect their reputation. Is this really part of the bigger PR picture just promoting and protecting reputations?

However even with the right person picked to send the message the issue of how the message is sent and whether the sender will receive the intended message is something that needs to be considered. When sending a message the receiver must consider any noise that could disrupt the message being sent (the right sender might affect this) and how the message is then received and decoded.

Tench and Yeomans argue that ”. So persuasion can be connected to who is sending the message and the way in which the message is received. By using celebrities or important figures to deliver the message are these big companies just participating in the art of propaganda and persuasion?

Do companies just use celebrities in their self-interest and do not care when things go wrong as long as their reputation is intact? I will be looking into the self-interests of companies and the tools they use in order to better their reputation in the eyes of the public in my next blog post.

What is ethics?

Ethics in Public Relation is often a common issue as I mentioned in the previous post.  It can affect the way in which we choose to take on project as PR practitioners and influence whether we want to represent a certain company or not. Within the medical profession ethical practice is clear cut with the Hippocratic Oath, however the same cannot be said for PR instead practitioners look to their own personal values and beliefs.  There are also the professional bodies that attempt to govern PR such as the CIPR or the PRCA.

Parsons defines ethics within the PR industry as “the application of knowledge, understanding and reasoning to questions of right and wrong”. (2008, p.9) This definition lends a basic knowledge to how we can proceed within PR in relation to working out our ethics and how far would be too far to go within a PR campaign.

There are a lot of risky campaigns that have been made especially within the public sector, such as the road safety adverts on speeding. When creating the THINK! campaigns they would have been faced with the difficult task of creating a campaign that help change people’s behaviour to speeding. The way in which they would do this would be difficult as a shocking campaign would not always be approved by everyone and they would find it too difficult to watch. However they did take a shocking campaign approach showing images of a young girl if she was hit at 40mph and then at 30mph within the speed limit. So when it comes to such delicate topics to ethics not play such a part? Do we just need to put them aside and do what is most effective? It is ok to use persuasion techniques in this example as it is for the greater good of the general public?

When considering what to do within the PR the pillars of ethics could be used as a framework which consists of:

 Veracity- to tell the truth

Non-malfeasance- to do no harm

Beneficence- to do good

Confidentiality- to respect privacy

Fairness- to be fair and socially responsible

This framework can be applied when looking at what to do with difficult subject in PR campaigns however the model can contradict itself as you may have to tell the truth, however the truth may do some harm so would you be doing any good? However if you didn’t tell the truth in order not to harm people would that mean you are not being socially responsible?

It seems there is no clear cut guidance on what to use as a guideline for good ethical practice. In my opinion it would be best to use your own ethics, morals and beliefs to help you decide what the right thing to do is. With regards to propaganda it follows no ethics it has one aim to make the audience do what you want them to do without consideration of others feelings or what is right or wrong.  So are PR and propaganda closely linked, with PR taking into consideration the positive or negative impact it may have on the audience it PR merely more communicating with the audience in the best possible way?

The origins of PR and Propaganda

Public Relations have various definitions with so many around it can be hard to define exactly what the role of the Public Relations practitioner is. I looked at the CIPR for a definition they state that “Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour”. It would seem sensible to take the definition of a professional body into account however PR can involve so much more than just reputation management it’s hard to put it down just to one definition.

With such a strong influence of reputation and changing the way people behave and form opinions within the industry there is a fine line between PR and propaganda. There is a debate of whether PR practitioners are really just spin doctors made to feed information to the public in the best possible light. So are we always told the truth by PR practitioners or just what they think we should know?

The origins of Propaganda and PR can been during the First World War when PR was used to persuade the public that the war was in their best interests and to encourage men to join the army. Edward Bernays has also used PR techniques to persuade people to smoke. The way in which he did it was to get women to light up during an Easter Parade in New York in 1929 thus making smoking in the streets seem acceptable. He was hired by the tobacco company Lucy Strike however back then the risks of smoking were not yet truly discovered.  Bernays believed “that it was possible to persuade people, but only of what is in their best interest”. But who is it down to decide what is in the best interest of the public? With the knowledge we have today on the dangers of smoking would he still have believed that it was in the best interests of the public? As PR practitioners you are asked to look after the company and portray them in the best possible light but with the topic of persuasion how far would you go if you believed it was against your morals and beliefs?

With PR having such a strong background in propaganda and persuasion does it still filter into the way PR is practised today, is there still evidence of it being used in the media today?

PR v Propaganda

So after a busy second year its time to start with my final year at University. As part of my recent assignment  I will be looking at the ethics of Public Relations and the subject of propaganda in a series of blog posts.

So join in the discussion

Watch this space 

The final hurdle

 Looking back on the whole process of the group work I feel it went really well. I have learned a lot about working within a group. Time is always of the essence and I continually learn that in my second year forward planning is needed to make the most of the time you do have to complete an assignment. Compromise and hard work is needed when working within a group to make it work, however if you pick the right group this will become second nature.

After going against Belbin’s theory of having a mixed group of personalities we found that quite the opposite works too. Belbin does suggest that “Teamworkers are among the easiest of people to work with”. As we were all Teamworkers this definitely worked in our favour as I felt it very easy to work with the rest of my group.

Belbin is one theory that can be used when forming groups however Tuckman’s theory on groups he suggests every group goes through the following stages:

• ·         Forming- when the group first gets together

• ·         Storming- people fight for position

• ·         Norming- roles get established

• ·         Performing- getting the job done

• ·         Mourning- the task comes to an end and the group may not work together again.

For our group this theory would have been more accurate than Belbin, as we went through several of these stages.

Throughout I have learnt a lot about myself and my style of working which I will take on board with other assignments. The main thing would be I need to manage my time so I don’t feel so thinly spread and rushed when getting assignments done. I have also learnt I work best with like minded people as I feel that sharing interests with people is a foundation to building a good working relationship.