It's Not Just PR

Public Relations in Society

W. Timothy Coombs, Sherry J. Holladay

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118554043
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Advertising
• Index: Business

In the second edition of their award-winning book, W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay provide a broad and thorough look at the field of public relations in the world today and assess its positive and negative impact on society's values, knowledge, and perceptions.

• Uses a range of global, contemporary examples, from multi-national corporations through to the non-profit sector
• Updated to include discussion of new issues, such as the role and limitations of social media; the emergence of Issues Management; how private politics is shaping corporate behavior; and the rise of global activism and the complications of working in a global world
• Covers the search within the profession for a definition of PR, including the Melbourne Mandate and Barcelona Principles
• Balanced, well organized, and clearly written by two leading scholars

1

Does Society Need Public Relations?

Conceptualizations of what constitutes public relations cast a wide net and demonstrate a lack of consistency. And when something is labeled by the media as a “public relations” action, it seems to be with a negative, disparaging tone (e.g., “mere public relations,” “PR spin,” “PR hype,” “PR rhetoric,” or “a public relations stunt”). As described in the media, virtually anything that a corporation or its representatives does may be labeled as “public relations” and treated with suspicion. Activities as diverse as attempts to explain a negative financial report, launch a new product, encourage employees to volunteer in the community, and donate money to a charity, have all been identified as “public relations.” What, then, is not public relations?

Critics of public relations tend to focus attention on what they call public relations efforts involved in defending the most obvious and egregious violations of the public trust: cover-ups (such as Enron, Tyco, and HealthSouth), CEO/CFO scandals, the spokesperson who deceives the public in order to defend the actions of the organization, and illegal dumping of toxic chemicals. Attempts to minimize or conceal these scandalous actions often are cast as “PR ploys” designed to deflect the negative impacts of questionable corporate actions ­including suspicious financial reports, management misbehavior, dubious environmental records, or human rights violations. Public relations becomes equated with stonewalling. Stonewalling is the attempt to hide information or delay its release. The public relations practitioner becomes a barrier to the truth, not the bringer of truth.

Scandals attract attention. Good deeds and the mundane are less likely to generate media exposure. What go unrecognized are the more commonplace and typical PR efforts that characterize the daily existence of organizations (e.g., employee communication, community relations, etc.). Examples include announcements about promotions, recognition of awards won by an organization, or efforts to support local charities or community groups. These more accurately characterize the PR efforts of most organizations. Very few PR practitioners are ever in the position of managing major scandals like those generated by News Corporation, Lance Armstrong, and Olympus. Public relations is the subject of heavy criticism in a number of cultures. Upon learning of these criticisms, people are often left to ponder if society needs public relations. Without it, would society be better or worse off? Both professionals and academics have tried to defend the practice. Often the defense attributes to public relations very lofty pursuits, which seem rather unrealistic. By reviewing the good and bad of public relations we can better appreciate its place in society.

The first half of the chapter examines the negative effects of public relations. We start by reviewing media portrayals. Most people learn about the practice of public relations through media coverage of the field and use of the term. Hence, the media help to construct people’s perceptions. Public relations has some individual vocal critics as well. We examine the main critics and the reasons for their disdain. As a corollary, some of the popular press books on public relations are surveyed. Public relations can be its own worst enemy by emphasizing the aspects most despised by its critics.

The second half of the chapter considers the utility of public relations in a democratic society. Practitioner and academic defenses of public relations are presented. The chapter ends by offering our conceptualization of public relations. We provide a definition of public ­relations that highlights the role of communication, relationship ­management, and mutual influence between organizations and stakeholders. This ­provides the basis for understanding where public ­relations fits into the needs of society.

Media Use and the Term “PR”

In late 2012, Internet reports began to appear that Instagram, an application for sharing digital images, intended to sell any photos flowing through the application to advertisers. In other words, Instagram could sell any of your pictures that you posted through Instagram without your consent or compensation. The CEO of Instagram, Keven Systrom, quickly began blogging and backtracking on the idea as people began canceling or threatening to cancel their accounts. One media outlet characterized the CEO’s response as “more spin than anything else” (Adhikari 2012). In December of 2012, the Armed Forces of the Philippines released a statement saying the organization would celebrate National Human Rights Consciousness Week with a variety of events designed to show their commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A news story, critical of the Armed Forces, said the statement “is pure and simple PR spin” (Legaspi 2012, para. 10). These examples illustrate how the media often report on public relations as actions that are style with no substance or even a type of deception.

Although we frequently hear people refer to public relations, the practice of public relations is not well understood. The media may be at least in part to blame for the public’s lack of understanding because they tend to use the term “public relations” inaccurately and to focus on some types of PR practice while ignoring others. It is important to consider seriously these portrayals of the uses of public relations and its professionals because they shape people’s perceptions of what PR is, when it might be used, and what PR professionals do. The unfortunate part is that, as is shown by systematic research into media portrayals of public relations, comparing them with the reality, these portrayals are negative (for instance, they equate PR with deception) as well as quite limited. They fail to capture the full range of PR activities and focus mainly on publicity functions. Additionally, the media often label communications and actions as “mere PR” when they really are not what PR professionals would consider public relations. Overall, the media’s use of the term “PR” seems fraught with negative connotations. Empirical research has established the extent of distortion in these portrayals. In 1988, Bishop discovered PR was equated with “publicity” in the newspaper coverage in a sample of three newspapers. Keenan (1996) found nearly half of the references to public relations in major network media coverage reflected the press agency model. Public relations was portrayed as nothing more than trying to generate media coverage. Julie Henderson (1998) examined the use of the term “public relations” in 100 popular press media articles. In about 5 percent of them the term PR was used accurately, in ways that would be acceptable to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the professional association. This is problematic because the media are a key source of cues for building reputations when people have little interaction with an entity (Dowling 2002). Most people learn about public relations from the media, not from practitioners.

The problem of limited or inaccurate conceptions of public relations is compounded by the negative use of the term itself, as in the Instagram example, and by negative comments about PR. Henderson’s (1998) research found that in only about 7 percent of the articles could the references to PR be considered “positive.” Spicer (1993) found the majority (83 percent) of references to public relations in print media were negative.

Scrimger and Richards (2003) explored Canadian journalists’ uses of metaphors of violent conflict to describe communication between organizations and the public. They examined articles where journalists used the term “public relations battle” or “public relations war.” They found these phrases were invoked even though the reality of the situation often did not justify the use of inflammatory metaphors. In more than one-half of the cases (55 percent), the terms were used in the first paragraph of the story. In all cases the choice of word was the journalists’; no sources were directly quoted as using either of the two phrases. Thus, their research demonstrates that journalists are prone to frame situations as “violent confrontations” (PR wars or battles) in spite of the fact that the participants do not describe their situations in this way. The media coverage offered a conflict frame even though there could be areas of consensus or agreement between the parties. These types of portrayals could lead the public to misperceive typical PR practices as involving disputes rather than collaboration. Research consistently demonstrates a negative portrayal of public relations and/or use of the term in the media. Media treatment of public relations is an indirect form of criticism. Others have been more direct in their disdain for ­public relations.

Criticisms of Public Relations

It is not difficult to locate critiques of the practice of public relations. Critics of public relations are numerous, vocal, and profess allegiance to a variety of disciplines. Critiques can be found in popular press books and in journalistic discussions of public relations. These sources are now reviewed to understand why public relations is considered by some to be a pariah in society.

Popular press attacks on public relations

Two popular press books stand out for casting a critical eye on the practice of public relations: PR! A Social History of Spin (1996) and Toxic Sludge is Good for You! (1995). Popular press books, in contrast to more academically oriented books, are aimed at a wide, general audience. It is noteworthy that there is little agreement in them on what constitutes public relations. These popular press books reflect an attitude that seemed particularly prevalent in the 1990s, a time that corresponds to the growth of corporate power. An underlying theme in both books mentioned above is that large corporations are dangerous and that public relations is one of the tentacles on this dangerous octopus.

Often popular press books present examples from the history of public relations, select dramatic illustrations to reveal its “unethical nature,” and focus on how contemporary businesses (or governments) use PR to pursue economic objectives at the expense of the public interest. The examples serve to represent the whole. Synecdoche is used as an argument. If part of what public relations does is bad, then everything public relations does is bad. A part comes to represent the whole.

Stuart Ewen’s PR! A Social History of Spin, recounts the development of the practice of public relations by focusing on the commonly recognized pioneers of public relations, Edward Bernays (the “father of public relations”) and Ivy Lee, and identifies scholars who influenced their thinking (e.g., Walter Lippmann, Gustave Le Bon). He also contextualized various public relations efforts conducted by private industry and government within various historical, economic, social, and corporate periods. Ewen writes that his book focuses on “the social and historical roots that would explain the boundless role of public relations in our world” (1996: 3). Interestingly, Ewen does not define a key word in his book’s title, “spin” (nor does it appear in the index), perhaps because he assumes the savvy reader will assume that PR and spin are synonymous. (From the title alone, how is the prospective reader supposed to know that this is a book about public relations?)

Near the end of the book Ewen writes that public relations is designed to “circumvent critical thinking” and is “rarely intended to inform the population about the intricacies of an issue” (p. 412). He expresses concern over the fact that the techniques used have become increasingly “sophisticated” and “pervasive” (p. 409). A theme of this work is that PR poses a real threat to democracy because it undermines open, public discourse. Powerful corporations can hire skilled PR professionals and gain access to the media in order to advocate their policies and points of view; they thus exercise enormous influence, which the average person cannot match. He suggests that the general public is untrained and ill-informed in sophisticated PR methods, and not equipped to assess PR output.

In the final section of his book he advocates education in media literacy in order to equip citizens with the analytical tools needed to critically analyze media messages and images; this education should begin in primary grades. We believe that media literacy is a laudable goal, and people should be discriminating consumers of mediated messages. However, public relations is not the sole force responsible for its need. Ewen’s book reflects a distrust of corporations: people must be wary of the deceptions enacted by corporations. And, as he says, public relations is a perfect mechanism for corporate deception.

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton’s Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry, offers a highly critical view of PR which focuses on how it is used to deceive the public. Their goal is to enlighten the masses: “We want the public at large to recognize the skilled propagandists of industry and government who are affecting public opinion and determining public policies, while remaining (they hope) out of public view” (p. 16). They argue that the democratic process has been railroaded through the use of PR techniques. When we think corporations are doing something that is socially responsible or for the good of the public, we had better look more closely because we are merely being fooled. We should remain suspicious and scrutinize their PR actions to unmask what corporations gain from seemingly noble acts.

The book is comprised of interesting, lively-written case studies designed to reveal PR’s role in influencing public opinion and policy. Examples range from the tobacco industry’s attempt to get women to smoke to phony grassroots movements (astroturf) to McDonald’s partnering with the Environmental Defense Fund, from the Environmental Protection Agency’s involvement in getting communities to accept sludge farming to Hill and Knowlton’s role in securing US citizens’ support for the Persian Gulf War, and to Burson-Marsteller’s part in securing support for NAFTA. Again, PR is presented as an all-powerful tool used by powerful interests (corporations, governments) to gain and maintain their power.

A recurring criticism in Toxic Sludge is Good for You! is that PR efforts are not easily recognized as such, which makes PR even more insidious and powerful. Advertising (usually) can be recognized as advertising and is commonly understood to represent something that a corporation has paid for and therefore invites critical examination. However, they argue, PR practices commonly include the coopting of journalists who, owing to financial and personnel cuts in their news organizations, have become dependent on PR practitioners for pitches for news stories, use of video news releases, and basic access to information in order to meet deadlines. This results in journalists producing news stories that actually benefit corporations rather than the public (meeting the public’s “need to know”). What we think is “news” (because it appears in a newspaper or other media outlet) is really a pitch for corporate interests.

Stauber and Rampton also question the motives of organizations that partner with activist groups in efforts to appear socially responsible. While we might think that working with such groups is a sign of concern for the activists’ issues, the corporations are the ones that actually benefit from the alliances. The authors claim that these alliances are used to benefit corporate interests and prevent the groups from interfering with business operations. By “coopting” the activists, corporations are able to gather information from the groups and “know the enemy.” These alliances are designed to improve the image of the corporation and allow them to continue business as usual without truly addressing the contentious issues.

At times the authors seem ambivalent about the specific techniques and uses of public relations:

The PR professionals who work to manage our opinions and emotions are not doing this because they are evil, but because PR is a financially rewarding business. From their viewpoint they are simply providing a service to their paying customers. If PR poses a threat to democratic values, it is ­ultimately a manifestation of the deeper contradiction in corporate America – the gap between our dream of a governance “by the people, for the people” and the reality of a society deeply divided by unequal access to wealth and power (p. 203).

In contrast, they later write,

Many PR practitioners are engaged in promotional and publicity campaigns for clinics, schools and deserving charities that benefit the public. The techniques of public relations are not all inherently bad. Everyone at some time uses their skills of persuasion to communicate ideas, to sell products, promote a point of view, or “schmooze” socially. But positive uses of PR do not in any way mitigate the undemocratic power of the multi-billion dollar PR industry to manipulate and propagandize on behalf of wealthy special interests, dominating debate, discussion and decision (p. 205).

However, they do note that

Citizens and individual PR practitioners can use ethical public relations techniques to right social wrongs, clean up the environment, promote minority rights, protect working people and make their communities better. But we consider it an illusion to imagine that PR is a “neutral” technology that can simply be adopted uncritically to achieve socially responsible ends (pp. 205–6).

This last sentence seems to endorse the idea that the practice of PR is inherently corrupt.

While Stauber and Rampton admit they do not offer a “magic solution” to the problem posed by PR in society, they hope that their book will help people to “first, learn to recognize the influence of PR in your life; second, seek out alternative sources of information; third, become personally involved in local efforts to directly address important issues at the community level” (p. 204).

A film version of the book is available: Toxic Sludge is Good for You: The Public Relations Industry Unspun. Here is the creator’s description of the film:

While advertising is the visible component of the corporate system, perhaps even more important and pervasive is its invisible partner, the public relations industry. This video illuminates this hidden sphere of our culture and examines the way in which the management of “the public mind” has become central to how our democracy is controlled by political and economic elites. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You illustrates how much of what we think of as independent, unbiased news and information has its origins in the boardrooms of the public relations companies.

Using interviews, the film repeats the primary points of the book. There also are interviews with former public relations professionals. These repentant individuals reveal the manipulative secrets of their trade. The focus remains on people’s ignorance of public relations’ role in creating the news through publicity efforts and how willing media representatives can be co-opted. Once more there is an underlying theme of the dangerous corporation. When non-corporate entities use public relations it is acceptable, but those corporations are sinister.

Stauber and Rampton are active in PR Watch, a quarterly publication from the Center for M...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction to the Second Edition
• 1 Does Society Need Public Relations?
• 2 Ethical Implications of Public Relations
• 3 Who Practices Public Relations?
• 4 Public Relations Influences Society
• 5 Shifting the View of Public Relations
• References
• Index