Spin doctoring and its potential to choke democracy

For a start, we should remind ourselves that Public Relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.

By merely defining this term, critics can already start to shake their head and argue that the profession cannot claim to manage reputation as it has its own reputation to work on.

Today, the abbreviation ‘PR’ has entered everyday language, as has some of its jargon (campaign, press release, image, spin doctor, soundbite, on message, off message, rapid rebuttal, minder, positioning, relaunch) – but rarely with positive connotations. As Moloney (2006) argued, the jibe ‘It’s a PR job’ describes words or actions about which there is a perceived or actual gap between presentation and reality, a gap that is either actively disguised or not owned up to. That is the gap connoted by other commonplace phrases such as ‘It’s a PR disaster’ or ‘It’s just spin’. The term ‘PR’ generally carries a negative charge.

Perhaps it is the term spin that is spoiling the PR party as it is directly related to PR practitioners and their activities.

For clarity’s sake, we should loosely define spin as a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. Spin often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

Politically speaking the activity happens in a democratic state; where the activity can be identified as information manipulation; where the information is more accurate than inaccurate; and where the purpose of the spin is known, i.e. to enhance the standing of the government or opposition party. But spinning is, above all, associated with the persuasive management of journalists to secure favourable media coverage.

Some techniques of spin include: selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position; non-denial or denial; phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths; burying bad news: announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one, or delaying in the release of bad news so it can be hidden in the "shadow" of more important or favorable news or events. So it is true that securing favourable media coverage is the ultimate goal.

PR puts itself in the quay before public opinion when it favours powerful, sectional causes and vested interests at the expense of broader public ones. The public now rejects PR not because it is weak propaganda but rather the complaint of the public is that the powerful use PR propaganda against the public interest. Eventually, this negatively has effects on democracy. These effects include: the PR ‘voices’ of dominant groups in society are heard more than those of less dominant groups; PR gives advantages to special interests at costs to the public  interest; and this asymmetry of communication expresses and reinforces unequal power relationships (Moloney 2006).

Now when some people start to shout louder than others, the media (journalists) ought to come in and level the playing field. Unfortunately, they oftentimes also seem to have their agenda to pursue. Ownership and control of the media is always at work and eventually, the “fourth estate” have their hands tied as well. Ultimately, the already-choked channels of communications are cluttered with the debris of pseudo events and phony phrases that confuse rather than clarify’ our channels of communication are decayed with credibility gaps.

If not taken care of, the above situation leads to information subsidy, a technique which suits business interests as spin doctors prepare briefs for journalists- one frequently used method for heavily influencing, if not controlling, media scrutiny and comment about capitalism.

Moloney (1996) identified commercial lobbying – the hiring of lobbyists – as another PR technique expressive of dominant influence. This is what brings us to Alastair Campbell, arguably the most influential public relations person in British history.  The then chief press spokesperson for the government was responsible for the presentation of government policy, which would soon become propaganda and there was a place for that. Allegations that words and evidence about policy were ‘sexed up’ (exaggerated) in order to maximise political support were levelled against Campbell.

In a video News from No. 10 we watched last week in class, it would be clearly seen that even the question who sets the agenda (the media of PR practitioners?) is not easy to answer, not to talk of the blame-game of who is the real spin doctor, the Campbells or the media? As for Campbell, the manipulating and inflating of issues put him in trouble in his dealings with intelligence experts over the 2002 September dossier justifying the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

In spite of all this, we should always remember that every organisation that interacts with other agencies may be said to engage in public relations. It is inevitable.

Maybe a good conclusion would be words from Edward Bernays, the Father of Spin himself who said: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power. We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."

In this video, Campbell answers questions about backroom media deals and New Labour spin

Additional reading:
Moloney K (2006), Rethinking Public Relations, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London and New York

Of NGOs, Activism and PR

When the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer rightly revealed that NGOs remain the most trusted institution and that across all regions of the Western world trust in this institution has increased overtime, it did not come as a huge surprise to me. This third sector is inevitably becoming large and diverse. It is no longer a secret that Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have played a major role in pushing for sustainable development at both local and the international level.

Campaigning groups have been key drivers of inter-governmental negotiations, ranging from the regulation of hazardous wastes to a global ban on land mines and the elimination of slavery. The list is endless.

Helped by advances in information and communications technology, NGOs have tremendously assisted to focus attention on the social and environmental externalities of business activity. Examples are numerous where multinational brands have been acutely susceptible to pressure from activists and where NGOs have successfully challenged a company's labour, environmental or human rights record. Even those businesses that do not specialize in highly visible branded goods are feeling the pressure, as campaigners develop techniques to target downstream customers and shareholders.

Taking it from the top in case you are not very sure, the term NGO, ubiquitous as it may sound, is used to describe a bewildering array of groups and organizations - from activist groups 'reclaiming the streets' to development organizations delivering aid and providing essential public services. Some are research-driven policy organizations, looking to engage with decision-makers, while others see themselves as watchdogs, casting a critical eye over current events

As Edelman rightly suggested, the surge in trust may be attributed to a growing affluence and the resulting demand for environmental responsi­bility, education, and public health. This therefore, makes them useful but maybe not always sufficient.

However, it is their relationship with corporate companies in both private and public sector that begs more questions than answers.  It is common knowledge that not all NGOs are amenable to collaboration with the private sector. While, many are showing a willingness to devote some of their energy and resources to working alongside businesses in order to address corporate social responsibility, some will prefer to remain at a distance, by monitoring, publicizing, and criticizing in cases where companies fail to take seriously their impacts upon the wider community.

No wonder some people like Kristin Demetrious (2006) have said that activists have ignored the constructive practices of the PR industry and … the PR industry has ignored the constructive practices of activists while well know PR gurus like Kevin Moloney have described issues-based PR as a ‘cottage industry’




Morgan Spurlock's documentary

This brings us to release of ‘Super size me’ a 2004 American documentary film by Morgan Spurlock who explores McDonalds’s and in general fast food industry's corporate influence, including how it encourages poor nutrition for its own profit. The reason for Spurlock's investigation was the increasing spread of obesity throughout U.S. society, which the Surgeon General has declared "epidemic.

When we were asked as PR practitioners-in-the-making what we could do if we were head of communications at McDonalds, the majority of us came with ‘typical PR answer’s that we would make it plain that the food clearly stipulate all nutritional contents; that there are lots of healthy options available and it all boils down to individual choices (to eat McDonalds food daily).

While McDonalds CSR office chose to ignore Spurlock by not answering him, I like a response from one of the officials who after being quizzed in the documentary said “We are part of the problem but we are also part of the solution”. This scenario certainly confirms that activism is the dynamic new edge of the newly defined area of public communication. I should also hasten to agree with Tench and Yeoman (2006) by concluding that activists are regarded as a challenge to PR practitioners working for corporations but it should also be borne in mind that activist organisations employ PR practitioners too.

The following is part of Morgan Spurlock's documentary

Additional reading:
Tench, R. & Yeomans,L. (2009). Exploring Public Relations (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall
http://www.iisd.org/business/ngo/roles.aspx

Stress-testing Stakeholders Models in terms of Social Media

Virtually all businesses and organisations operate within a complex system of interests and influences. It is therefore paramount for management to assess and evaluate these external forces in order to adjust them with corporate objectives. Individuals and groups who depend on the organization to fulfill their own goals and on whom, in turn, the organization depends, are called stakeholders, or publics, as others may like to call them.

But much as the words are used interchangeably, they are, to an extent, different.  Authors Grunig and Repper (1992) describe the difference by saying ‘People are stakeholders because they are in a category affected by decisions of an organisation or if their decision affects the organisation. Many people in a category of stakeholders – such as employees or residents of a community – are passive. The stakeholders who are or become more aware and active can be described as publics.’

The PR gurus go on to say that ‘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’.  Davis (2004) points out that ‘publics sound more important than stakeholders’.

He goes on to say that some groups, for example pressure and cause-related groups, do not form out of a stakeholder mass: they exist as publics immediately because, by definition, they are active.

In other words, he is saying publics have an importance attached to them because of their specific interest and power, current and potential, while for stakeholders the levels of interest and influence are relatively lower and more generalised.

However, in as far as making corporate decisions is concerned, it is necessary to know about the an influence. The advent of social media means that when identifying stakeholders it is necessary to have a look at informal and indirect relationships too, and not just to focus on the formal structure of the organization.

A useful model for this purpose is to visualize the stakeholder environment as a set of inner and outer circles below. The inner circles stand for the most important stakeholders who have the highest influence.

The stakeholder environment

On top of analyzing stakeholder power in terms of their ability to influence people and developments, it is also necessary to evaluate the extent to which stakeholders exert their power. The power/interest matrix therefore, is a useful tool for evaluation the expectations and the impact of particular stakeholders.

The matrix generally measures  the interests stakeholder groups have to impress and if they have the means and power to do so.

Stakeholders in sector A neither do not have a high own interest in corporate plans nor do they have to power to exert much impact. Organizations should keep these groups informed to a lesser extent, but should not invest too much effort into them.

Stakeholders in Sector B do have a high interest in the corporation and its actions. However, they have limited means to influence things. Despite their low power, such stakeholders could be valuable and it is advisable to keep them informed about the issues they are interested in.

The relationship with stakeholders in Sector C could be difficult. Institutional investors or legislative bodies are normally in this sector. They behave passively most of the time and show a low interest in corporate affairs. Despite that, they can exert an enormous impact on the organization, and it is necessary to involve them according to their interests.

The most important stakeholders are those with high interests and high power, to be found in sector D. They have to be involved in all relevant developments.

However, the coming in of social media brings levels the playing field and hence gives an opportunity to for everyone to follow what is happening and hence to access similar information. Eventually, the less interested become more interested and hence acquire some power. Thus, such a strategy allows to form new alliances and to shift power

This on the other hand could be a threat because apart from easily opening up to opponents, some stakeholders still hold the power and ought to be treated as such. They need to have access to some not-for-public-consumption information.  

Nevertheless, all organisations need is to be proactive; 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.  

Moreover, this type of analysis can provides opportunity to sub-divide larger stakeholder groups into smaller groups. These sub-groups could be treated differently in order to meet their individual needs and to get their support.

References:

The manager.org

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

Opportunities brought by crises

An issue ignored is a crisis ensured, Henry Kissinger rightly put it. When Toyota was faced with a crisis in 2009 which forced them to recall over 8million cars, they did many things to respond to it. Its spokespeople filled the media with messages of reassurance, its PR people blogged and tweeted non-stop to fill the information vacuum; its website was full of details about the recall and its call centre was working flat out to deal with customer enquiries.

Nevertheless, this still proved a losing game as the company still incurred more than US$ 30 billion loss, faced multiple lawsuits and a 11% drop in share prices, among others. Toyota’s hard-won reputation faced and perhaps is still facing the biggest challenge in its corporate history. Catastrophic.

And just like many companies and organisations, Toyota’s main problem lied primarily in what happened before the crisis erupted, rather than its response to it. Thus, central to Toyota's problem was its perceived delay in identifying and addressing the situation in the first place. As Jonathan Hemus of The Guardian rightly reported, corporate denial appeared to have been the order of the day, with the company following the advice of the Japanese proverb: "If it stinks, put a lid on it." What a mistake.

Toyota could have done better to avoid the recall

Most effective crisis management takes place before the problem escalates out of control during the "incubation" phase. Unfortunately, Toyota, like many companies, missed the first crucial first step: understanding that perceived risk is potentially as damaging and costly as actual risk. They ignored the problem until they were forced to take action.

Toyota should have known better that some of the biggest potential crises have been identified and addressed before they ever escalated out of control. And this is crisis management at its best.

This action, however, requires an organisational culture that is vigilant for potential crises; an organisation that puts communications on every agenda; has open lines of communication from staff to management and all stakeholders; and has a willingness to address unpleasant truths.

Toyota’s issue should certainly serve as an example to many companies, especially with the advent of New and Social Media today when the world is freer, and everyone has free opinions and information and everyone is an expert and a publisher.

Granted, managing a crisis is more complex. But companies ought to realise that today there is more knowledge, there’s zero tolerance to risk and inevitable greater demands for transparency.

Crises certainly bring with them dangers and opportunities. But by often thinking the unthinkable and preparing and rehearsing a contingency plan, crises bring PR practitioners opportunities to demonstrate their value and hence raise the profile of organisations and companies.

The following slide and video  is perhaps helpful to PR practitioners facing crisis and are still in the dark oh how best to deal with them.

Crisis Management

View more presentations from Brett Atwood