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