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.