CSR and PR

As much as we (PR people) would love it, PR does not ‘own’ CSR. CSR is, or at least in order to be effective should be, core of the business strategy. CSR is the way a company manages and communicates (PR’s job) its impact on society and the environment.

The way companies practice CSR has changed over the past decades; back in the 70s CSR was about philanthropy and what a business could do with some of the money it had to spare. This included supporting the arts or giving to the local community.  Later, there was a shift of thinking and companies started to act more strategically considering results and outcomes and how they could invest in society.   

CSR as we know it today is about how companies manage their business processes in order to maximise their positive impact on society while at the same time minimising any negative impact whether that is economic, social or environmental. However, one cannot deny the fact that at the end of the day, it is all about how businesses can operate profitably within this role.

Companies are now forced to act responsibly against society and this can be attributed to many factors like globalisation, the turmoil in financial markets, technological changes, scarcity of resources and many more. Companies have a great impact on society and in this globalised world this has become an increasing focus for activists.  This is why companies today, have global standards to manage their risks (even though these are sometimes not enforced as we have witnessed) which include procedures, human rights acts and even determine how companies report on CSR.

Sustainability, the latest evolution of CSR looks into the future of business and society and tries to find mutually beneficial solutions to plan for future challenges. So why does sustainability matter to businesses? Well, first, it can improve a company’s reputation both externally and internally. Second, it can bring awards and ultimately it will make the company more profitable.

Sustainability can mean a lot of things for companies like:

• Managing resources wisely
• Demonstrating leadership 
• Being clear in corporate values and governance
• Giving short term needs a long term value
•  Managing change responsibly
•  Employee engagement
• Preparing for future low carbon economy
• Supporting the communities from which they employ, trade and purchase
•  Securing the supply chain

 

Another point to mention is that CSR is complex and diverse. There are different ways in which companies implement CSR programmes and these usually depend on how a company’s products or services overlap with society and where societal needs meet business opportunities or responsibilities. Companies need to have CSR programmes that apply the company’s specific resources to help with world issues. Also, CSR programmes are flexible and they adapt according to environmental changes or pressures.

The bottom line is that to be successful, CSR has to be embedded in all activities of the company and every employee should be involved in it.  CSR should be part of the mix which includes strategy, product development, marketing, finance, HR and management. When CSR is created for PR purposes only, then it becomes greenwashing and spin.

The web paradox

Every day, millions of people around the world, carry out searches on search engines such as Google for free. We read millions of articles send emails and post comments on social media platforms for free... Really? The BBC documentary ‘The Cost of Free’, part of the BBC series ‘The Virtual Revolution’ sets out to dismiss this common misbelief by illustrating what the real cost of the web is.

We all see the web as a gift that has made our lives easier and convenient. Today, we are just a click away from any information we require. Years ago, when you needed expert advice you would go to a person who would have that knowledge and expertise; now, we get any information we need through the web. When we search for information on the web we do not have to pay anything, but then again if everything is free, how come Google is one of the world’s most profitable companies?

Well, Google, has figured out a way to transform our free search in a money making machine. Every time we search for something, our search terms, are gathered in Google’s databases. Google then uses this information to refine its search system to achieve targeted advertising. How does this work exactly?

When we search for something, we are telling Google our wants and desires. Basically, what marketers and advertisers search to find for years, we are giving out for free to Google, which has a system that can capture all that information and trade it with them. 

Every time we read something, a cookie tracking device which gives out information about our range of interests is planted on our computer, allowing Google to customise the adverts it gives us. We trade a lot of our privacy when we are online; the more time we spend online, the more information they can get about us, the more they can sell. It appears that the product online is not the content, but us! Every time we use Google, we help them and advertisers and marketers make money.

This process is also known as behavioural targeting and it is deeply worrying if we consider that companies now may have some intimate details of our personal lives. But we are also to blame about this because some of this information, we share willingly on social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. Our profiles and personalised status updates are kept online forever and used for any commercial purposes the social network providers fancy.

Another issue of the lack of privacy is that web content is pretty much permanent; our profiles, pictures and videos we share, will remain there forever, making it very easy for somebody to search about us.Have you ever tried ‘googling’ your name, to see what comes up? Because if you have not it is very likely that your future employer will, so be cautious when posting stuff online which you might regret later.

Unfortunately, the cost of using the web, in unclear for us and we do not realise how vulnerable we become by exposing so much information about our personal lives online. Are we walking blind into surveillance or do we realise the current position we put ourselves in and just feel that giving away all of this information is a fair exchange for what we get in return? Our privacy has become a commodity in return for a convenient and free online space. Is this a win-win situation then? 

Learn more about Google's philosophy here & more on how Google makes money here

Principles of Social Marketing

Social marketing is the application of marketing principles in campaigns that seek to achieve social change. ‘It uses marketing principles and techniques to advance a social cause, idea or behaviour. More specifically, it is the design, implementation and control of programmes seeking to increase acceptability of a social idea or cause in target group(s)’ (Kotler,P. 1982: 490). However, commercial marketing principles are not used in the same way as in traditional marketing but they are modified to fit the social context. 

Social marketing should not be confused with societal marketing or social media marketing.

Social marketing or cause campaigns always have a specific goal which can be either to change negative behaviour (i.e. no smoking in public areas), or to promote positive behaviour (i.e. asking people to recycle) or as Kotler et al (2002: 5) put it ‘to influence a target audience to voluntarily accept, reject, modify or abandon a behaviour for the benefit of individuals, groups or society as a whole’. 

It is very important to remember that social marketing is about behaviour change and not attitude change. A campaign for obesity is not successful if people start thinking that they should change their diet, it is only successful when they actually change their eating habits. Also, social marketing seeks to establish long-term change and not to have some short-term effect on the target group(s).  This is why cause campaigns often seek changes in public policy, organisational structures, laws and social programmes. Social marketing avoids victim blaming and focuses more on social reform. This way it often targets the government, businesses or the industry and not individuals.

In commercial marketing, marketers sell products or services whereas in social marketing, change agents sell behaviour change. There are some fundamental differences between commercial marketing and social marketing. The first as I have previously mentioned, is the product sold. (Goods & services vs. behaviour change). The second is audience segmentation; in commercial marketing the primary aim is financial gain whereas in social marketing the aim is societal gain. Thus, commercial marketing campaigns target the most profitable audiences unlike social marketing which often targets hard-to-reach groups (drug addicts or old people). Another difference is the competitive environment in which they function. In commercial marketing there might be a great number of competitors selling the same product while in social marketing the environment is less competitive, where usually the only competitor is the target audience’s current behaviour. Lastly, commercial marketing promotes a product that is wanted by the customer whereas it is often the case that the behaviour change which is promoted by the change agent is not desired by the target audience. In this and other ways, social marketing is harder than commercial marketing.

Despite the differences between commercial marketing and social marketing, the two share some similarities: (1) They are targeted; they are aimed at (a) specific group(s); (2) Research is used to build effective strategies; (3) Audiences are segmented; strategies are tailored according to the needs, wants, resources and behaviour of each segment; (4) The 4P’s of marketing (product, place, price, promotion) are considered.

References:

Kotler, P. (1982). Marketing for non-profit organizations, 2^nd Ed . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Kotler, P., Roberto, N. and Lee, N. (2002). Social Marketing: Improving the Quality of Life. USA: Sage Publications Inc.
Tench, R. and Yeomans, L.(2006) Exploring Public Relations. Essex: Pearson Education Limited

PR and spin have undermined trust in politics.. or not?

               'Lies and deception in politics are not synonymous with spin.' 

Recently, I attended the debate ‘PR and spin have undermined trust in politics’ which was organised by my university (University of Westminster). The panel was made up of Kevin Maguire, associate and political editor of the Daily Mirror and Sheila Gunn, political consultant, formerly political journalist and John Major’s spokesperson speaking for the motion and Lance Prince, former Labour ‘spin doctor’, now author and commentator and Francis Ingham, Chief Executive of the PRCA speaking against the motion. Overall I thought that the debate was very interesting and that all of the speakers had strong arguments. So what was the outcome of the debate? Have public relations and spin, undermined trust in politics, or not?

Well, you might think that the answer to that question is pretty obvious, but sometimes what is very clear at first, might turn out to be different if we look at it a bit more sceptical. Up until the debate, I used to believe that pubic relations and the work of spin doctors had definitely played a role in undermining trust in politics (in Britain). However, I had never attempted to challenge that and to consider any other factors there might be to blame and this debate was definitely an eye-opener.

It was suggested that although public relations and spin do play a role in undermining trust in politics, the real problem is rooted in the behaviour of MPs themselves and the media. Mr Price and Mr Ingham, suggested that first of all MPs have lost the public’s trust because of their improper behaviour. They are mischievous (sex scandals) and dishonest and also give the public false hope and make promises that at the end they do not keep. (Recent example: Bob Blackman, Conservative Party MP pledged to vote against any rise in tuition fees during his election campaign and then broke that promise by voting in favour of the rise). The media was another driver of mistrust is politics. This is because they are always looking for ‘hot’ stories to expose MPs. So the way journalists report on politicians reinforces the MPs’ bad image. One might say that they are just doing their job but perhaps if they didn’t report so extensively about every politician’s personal life, the public would have a better perception about them.

Kevin Maguire on the other hand who was blaming public relations for undermining trust in politics, called public relations practitioners ‘herbivores’, ‘horns’ and ‘devils’ among other. Well that was harsh! So what were the opposing views? Mr Price argued that ‘spin doctors’ should not be blamed because their job is to merely translate what politicians want to say to the public. So spin is only as vicious and bad as those who employ it. He also noted that there had not been a politician in history (Britain) who did not have a ‘spin doctor’ next to him. ‘Politicians are hooked on ‘spin’ and media management’ (Lance Prince). The conclusion was that good communicators cannot turn a bad politician into a nice one and that bad communicators cannot turn a good politician into a bad one. The outcome of the debate, which I firmly support, was that PR and ‘spin’ have not undermined trust in politics.

Social Media Webcast

This week I had to do a webcast for one of the modules in my course. This was the brief:

You are the Social Media Strategist within a PR agency. The MD of the agency has suggested that you produce a short webcast to the agency’s current and prospective clients that introduces them to certain key aspects and issues regarding social media.Your webcast is to address the following areas:

1. What is social media, why is it called socia media?

2. What are the sociological and cultural concepts behind social media and what is their relevance to PR?

3. How will the agency be using social media?

4. What are the benefits to the client?

5. What are the negatives to the client and how will they be dealt with?

Please be kind enough to excuse my poor editing skills :)

Does spin damage the democratic health of a nation?

Public Relations is often referred to as a ‘spin industry’ in which campaigns involve a partisan or distorted presentation of news/information. Tactics of ‘spin’ are often used by corporations, hospitals, even NGO’s and other organisations who want to control the news agenda to suit their needs, but the term ‘spin’ is usually associated with politics and political communication. The media is another institution that uses ‘spin’ and while they criticise public relations and the government for ‘spin’, they fail to recognise that they (media) also ‘spin’ stories when they select news content and provide their own interpretation of facts.

The widespread use of spin has negative consequences for democracy. Cutlip et al. suggest that effective democracy requires effective communication between citizens and the government: ‘In a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents, based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.’ (Cutlip et al. 2000: 448).  

Sadly it is often the case that information provided by the government to the public is misleading or inaccurate and fails to present the true picture. Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. state that ‘while democracy may depend on effective communication, not all communication is in the interests of the government’ (2006: 92). Democracy is based on the fundamental value of serving the wider public interest but there are always conflicts of interest involved in news management; there are various stakeholders to consider and not everybody can be satisfied. As a result, governments ‘spin’ the news to accommodate their own agenda. This is what was done by Alastair Campbell, a famous ‘spin doctor’ who was working for the British Government during the Iraq war. The "September Dossier" in September 2002 and the "Iraq Dossier" in February 2003 both contained fabricated information whose purpose was to justify the invasion of Iraq and to encourage public support.  

So it is clear that ‘spin’ not only damages the reputation of the PR industry but also the democratic health of a nation. Spin lowers public trust and also harms democratic processes. Unfortunately ‘spin’ is part of our culture and as Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. suggest, ‘a pervasive culture of secrecy that should be replaced by a culture of openness’ (2006: 91). There is a need for clear, two way communication between organisations and the public where news dissemination is truthful and impartial.

References:

Cutlip, S. et al. (2000) Effective Public Relations, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Tench, R. & Yeomans, L.(2006) Exploring Public Relations. Essex: Pearson Education Limited

NGO's, activism and PR

The third sector is large and diverse; it consists of non-profit and non-governmental organisations that exist to serve a social cause, which can also have a political or an environmental aspect attached to it. Third sector or voluntary organisations are in a continuous battle to improve the world, society and the lives of people who are part of it. The organisations’ causes range from fighting world hunger/poverty, aiding the unwell and sustaining the environment. Although these organisations have different aims, they all engage in the same activities which can be the ‘hands on’ activities like providing physical assistance, campaigning and most importantly advocating and lobbying. 

The key stakeholders of charities and NGO’s are the general public, corporations and local and national governments. Having said that, the relationship of corporate companies with NGO’s can often be tense, as NGO’s are always on the lookout for company misconducts and are prepared to take action if they feel like a corporation is engaging in activity that goes against what they stand for.

From a corporation’s viewpoint, NGO’s can be classified as active publics. As Grunig’s situational theory suggests (Grunig and Hunt 1984), active publics are groups of people who share an interest or concern for an issue or problem and who organise to do something about it.  According to this theory, an organisation should actively communicate with these public and to maintain a positive relationship with them, as they are likely to take action. Seeing that the relationship between corporations and NGO’s can often be edgy, it could then be in a corporation’s or even in the NGO’s interest to form a partnership with each other. Reaching to some kind of negotiation would benefit both and conflict could be avoided. 

Companies often form partnerships with NGO’s as part of their CSR programmes. This could be a win-win relationship. British retailer Marks and Spencer is famous for these kinds of partnerships. Some examples of this work are the M&S and Oxfam clothes Exchange programme in 2008 or Greenpeace supporting M&S’s policy on sustainable sourcing of fisheries products. However, on other occasions such partnerships may have their critics. Nestlé’s partnership with the Forest Trust (TFT) last year to combat deforestation (Nestle was allegedly reviewing its palm oil supply chain) was criticised by Greenpeace who organised a campaign against them claiming that this move was just a cover up and that the company had ulterior motives. This is the viral video of the Greenpeace campaign:

This is just an example of how sometimes partnerships with NGO's can backfire. Another interesting issue it that just because an NGO forms a partnership with a company, it does not mean that the NGO will have a favourable view towards it. Companies need to be cautious when selecting partners and to ensure there are no conflicting interests in the process.

An interesting report by C&E Advisory (leading ‘business & society’ consultancy) provides an insight to how companies and NGO’s perceive partnerships formed between them.  The report provides information on the nature and importance of corporate- NGO partnerships, also the challenges and opportunities that arise from them. Click to view the Corporate-NGO Partnership Barometer 2010  

Bibliography:

Tench, R.,Yeomans, L.,(2006). Exploring Public Relations. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grunig, J., Hunt, T.,(1984). Managing Public Relations. USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers

Additional reading: 

http://www.csreurope.org/solutions.php?action=show_solution&solution_id=114

Social Media Effects on Stakeholder Magagement

There are different ways in which an organisation can segment its stakeholders and that can depend on the type of the organisation and on the type of campaign. One way to segment an audience is by using the power/interest matrix (see below) which groups stakeholders according to the amount of power they have to influence others and on the level of interest they have on an issue:

This matrix is useful for identifying any blockers or facilitators to the communication efforts and to point out the amount of time and effort that the organisation would need to spend for each group. The power of stakeholders may come from internal or external sources to the organisation and this is where social media come into play.

Social media have given power to people who were not considered so powerful or influential in the past. People on social media monitor organisations and evaluate their behaviour constantly. Using social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Blogger, individuals can publicly address any issue of their concern and easily influence others and gain their support. Social media are also favoured by activists and other organisations that aim to expose organisations, as they provide easy access to a large audience and can be used for mobilising groups of people against an organisation.  

Ultimately the basic theory of stakeholder management has not changed as an organisation still needs to identify and group its key stakeholders. What has changed though is the distribution of power among stakeholders and levels of influence. In order to prevent any issues from arising, organisations need to be proactive; they need to engage with key players through an open dialogue (through social media) and keep them satisfied by providing them relevant information and taking into account their feedback on various issues.

Stakeholders and Publics: Grunig's Situational Theory

Public relations is all about building and maintaining relationships between an organisation and its publics. But what does ‘publics’ mean, exactly? And what is the difference between publics and stakeholders, two words we often hear being used interchangeably?

Stakeholders are people who have a stake or interest in an organisation. As a result, they affect the organisation and at the same time are affected by it. An organisation’s stakeholder cluster could include employees, customers, investors, the local community, the government, the media etc and is specific to each organisation.

Although many do not differentiate between the term stakeholders and publics, Grunig and Hunt (1984) for example, distinguish publics as stakeholders that face a problem or have an issue with the organisation; or as stated by Grunig and Repper (1992, p.125), ‘People are stakeholders because they are in a category affected by decisions of an organisation or if their decision affects the organisation. [...] The stakeholders who are or become more aware and active can be described as publics.’ ‘Publics form when stakeholders recognise one or more of the consequences (of the behaviour of the organisation) as a problem and organise to do something about it or them’ (cited in Tench, R et al, 2006, p.241).

So to prevent stakeholders from developing into publics, organisations must manage relationships to keep stakeholders satisfied. 

Grunig’s Situational Theory (Grunig & Hunt, 1984) asserts that publics can be identified and classified according to the extent to which they are aware of the problem and to the extent to which they do something about the problem. Specifically the theory examines how publics are formed and how this can help an organisation segment the publics accordingly in order to communicate with them. In this theory four categories of public are identified: 

• Nonpublic: No problem is recognised or exists
• Latent public: Problem is there, but public does not recognise it
• Aware public: Group recognises that a problem exists
• Active public: Group is aware of the problem and organises to respond to it.    

The type of public determines how and what you communicate to the public. This theory then, points out that an organisation should communicate with its latent and aware publics to solve any problems or issues before the situation escalates and the publics decide to take action.

There are many ways in which an organisation can segment its publics and they all provide useful tools which an organisation can use to plan its communication strategy.

References:

Tench, R. & Yeomans, L. (2006). Exploring Public Relations. England: Pearson Education Limited. 

Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Crisis Management & Social Media

Social media have brought about some positive changes to the PR industry. They provide the PR practitioner with new and better communication channels as they allow interaction and real- time communication with the audience. PR at present has the opportunity to engage with the audience as communication has shifted, from being one-way to a community network.

On the other hand, there are some challenges for the PR practitioner. The widespread use of social media means that any messages can travel fast and far to reach anybody throughout the world; nothing can be kept secret and this is particularly important in crisis management, which has become more complex and challenging.

The emergence of the ‘Citizen Journalist’

Social media have empowered individuals by giving them voice and the ability to reach a widespread audience. They now have the power to effect change. So social media can easily generate a crisis or, build one up. Bad news or even incorrect information about an organisation can spread rapidly, especially as the online world never sleeps. Also, the emergence of smartphones and tablets means that people are able to access social media anytime and anywhere.

Another popular trend is the growth of NGO’S and anti-business activists which put a lot of pressure on organisations. People on social media can be easily mobilised to sabotage a company. Organisations need to be able to react immediately and effectively. Therefore, is it essential that every organisation is prepared to handle a crisis, by having a crisis plan in place (and a social media crisis plan).

A recent example of how social media can trigger a crisis is the Domino’s pizza case in 2009 where two of its employees posted a distasteful video on YouTube in which they were engaging in food violation activities. The videos went viral online and were viewed by millions of people until they were blocked. Also, a huge buzz was created through Twitter.

What is interesting about this case is the way management handled the crisis; it also illustrates how organisations need to adapt their crisis management plans in a way that is consistent with the social media era.

What Domino’s did:

1. Management chose to communicate with its audience only through social media

2. The company didn’t issue a press release but instead posted a statement on its corporate website

3. The company shared an apologetic email it had received from the offenders

4. The president of Domino’s pizza USA apologised for the incident and gave further information in a YouTube video

5. Domino’s started twittering

The crisis communication plan was very successful and the buzz died out very quickly.

Reference: http://www.trendsspotting.com/blog/?p=1061

Crisis management: Threat or Opportunity?

Every PR practitioner will face a crisis at some point or another in his career, whether that is a small crisis like a banner gone wrong or a huge crisis like product failure. Some crises can be solved in a very short period of time while others can continue for a long time before they are completely cleared.
 

A badly managed crisis can destroy a company’s reputation as much as it can destroy the PR practitioner’s. On the other hand a well-managed crisis strengthens the company’s reputation as well as the PR practitioner’s.
 

An optimistic outlook of a crisis is that it is an opportunity for PR to raise its profile, status and role in an organisation. Very often, the value of PR is underestimated. Company CEO's are more concerned with business objectives rather than communication objectives and fail to realise how the two are linked.
 

A reputation is a company's most important asset and it is PR’s job to protect it. If a PR practitioner manages to emerge strong out of a crisis and maintain the company’s reputation, then he will be able to demonstrate the priceless value of PR.
 

For this to happen:
 

For a crisis to be handled well, the PR practitioner needs to plan ahead of it and make sure that he is prepared for any events that might follow. The truth is that most crises are predictable; the PR practitioner’s job is to think of any possible scenarios, the way each of them would be handled and include everything in a crisis manual.
 

The crisis manual needs to be read and rehearsed by everybody involved in its execution. The manual should include response papers, people’s roles, contact details and any other useful tips. It should be short (otherwise people won’t be bothered to read it) and straight to the point, avoiding technical jargon so everyone can clearly understand it.

A  useful guide for crisis management can be found in the book 'Public Relations for the New Europe' by Trevor Morris and Simon Goldsworthy, chapter 18

 

A modern example of War Spin

Last Wednesday, on our first class in Contemporary Theory and Issues in Public Relations, we watched a documentary by BBC called ‘War Spin’. If you haven’t heard of it before, ‘War Spin’, a BBC Correspondent documentary, is about how the US and British governments and military forces mislead and misinformed the public during the 2003 Iraq war. I have to say that I’ve never had an eye for politics, but anybody who watches this video can clearly see how propaganda and ‘spin’ are used in modern time public communication. 

According to Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (2006), spin or news management, (which implies propaganda) refers to “a coordinated strategy to minimise negative information and present in favourable light a story that could be damaging to self- interests” (p.3). Shawn J. Parry- Giles (2002) defined propaganda as “conceived of as strategically devised messages that are disseminated to masses of people by an institution for the purpose of generating action benefiting its source” (cited in Jowett and O’Donnell, 2006, p.5). This, as you will come to realise by reading the following story, is exactly the communication strategy the allies used during the Iraq war.
 
As the public’s opposition to the war grew stronger, something had to be done in order to regain their trust and support. So, the US Government, decided to appeal to people’s emotions by staging the rescue of a young Private, named, Jessica Lynch. The only true fact about this story was that Private Lynch had been taken to a hospital after being captured by Iraqis. What followed thereafter, was a ‘Hollywood film production’ by the US government that was broadcasted by every major news channel in the US, Britain and Australia. 

Although the Pentagon was fully aware that the hospital, where Private Lynch was being kept, had been cleared from the Iraqi troops the previous day, US Army Rangers and Navy Seals forced their way in there to ‘rescue’ her, by breaking doors and restraining doctors and other patients. Later, the Pentagon ordered a press conference to present a five-minute video of the rescue. I note here that the certain video was the only source of information regarding the incident. 

At the press meetings, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence would not offer any clear answers for the questions posed by journalists or give out any specific information about the incident. Conveniently enough, Private Lynch had suffered amnesia so she could not make any statements. 

Every bit of information was ‘spun’ in order to be presented in a way that would favour the party; from lying about Lynch’s stab and shot wounds (which were non-existent), claiming that she had gone down fighting (she later stated that her gun got stuck), the (mis)treatment she had received at the hospital (she received the best treatment available).
 
This event coincided with a lot of spinning that was taking place at that time of the war. For instance, the US government had embedded with the military 600 journalists who were being fed only with information which the government wished to release. In the process, they lied about war progress; they broadcasted videos of friendly football matches between local children and soldiers and of Iraqis surrendering, to show that enemy troops were leaning. As if that wasn’t enough, when the US military fired missiles in a residential area which killed civilians, they blamed the Iraqi military. 

The fact that reality can be so distorted and that people can be so ignorant about it amazes me. Unfortunately, at that point, their tactics were successful and they managed to lure the public on their side.


This is a part from the BBC Correspondent documentary which shed light on the true story:
 

 >

References: Jowett, G. and O'Donnell, V., (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. 4th ed. Sage Publications Inc.

To read the whole story behind  Private Lynch's rescue visit:  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/jess-m23.shtml 

 

Blogs and the 'Social Media Era'

It's no news that nowadays social media are overtaking traditional media. Don't get me wrong, traditional media will always have their place in the PR toolkit. However, social media provide new opportunities for organisations to interact with their publics in a way that was not possible before. With social media you can reach a wide audience, quite easily, with a fast and cost-effective way. Most importantly though, it can raise your brand awareness.

Blogs are a very popular example of social media. A blog can help an organisation communicate it's messages while at the same time allowing people to give feedback and share their own ideas through comments. This  helps to create and maintain a relationship between the organisation and the audience, which is what PR is all about. Therefore, a blog should be treated as face-to-face communication.

For more information about blogging (and a good list of do's and dont's), check out this presentation:

Blogging and video workshop

View more presentations from Matt holland.