Social Media plays an extremely important aspect of PR and any other life these days.
Here is my Webcast,as a part of the University of Westminster assignment.
Social Media is very important for businesses and brands as well.
I hope this video will clear the question of what social media exactly is and how it works and helps to make a business or brand a number one activity.
Watch and enjoy.
"Whoever controls the Media, controls the mind" - Jim Morrison
The last session we were discussing political PR and spin-doctoring in this context. The film we were showed tells about Alastair Campbell and his work during Tony Blair was in duty. Alastair Campbell is actually known as a real spin doctor. Not going deep into details I just express some of my emotions after the film.
First of all-I've never known that actually every step of politicians is measured: where to stand while photoshooting, what to say, how to move. Everything is written by political PR people. I was surprised that absolutely everything is counted. We saw an episode where Vladimir Putin (ex-president of Russia) arrived at Downing Street 10. Lot's of people(including Alastair Campbell) were discussing every step of 2 politicians. Finally Putin messed all the plans (haha as usual) not arrivivg to the discussed point of photoshooting. Second what is not so surprising but still left strong emotions in me is that Campbell held press-conferences for the journalists twice a day-in the morning and what is more important in the evening. Again telling everything from the position of a strict PR person that atrces every small step. He said what to write and what not, which questions he will answer and which not. Everything professionally,but so strictly.
We were also shown a piece of a press conference where one of the journalists was to ask Blair unfavourable questions. Campbell knew that(it's amazing just how such PR people can know everything happening around). During the conference he just didn't give the chance for that journalist to ask even a short question.This guy was totally ignored.
That is how political PR works: PR people try to control everything (media,journalists,their questions). And try to present the story in a better "light".
However being a professional it's hard to believe that Alastair Campbell got his name of a "spin-doctor" without any reasons. Watching the film I began to understand from where the roots grow.
Months before working on a debate on famous PR profs, my responsibility was to find as much information about Alastair Campbell as I could. And believe me he is not a saint at all. Just remember the Iraq Dossier when Campbell gave an incorrect fabricated information. That later became a reason for public panic as well as a suicide of an official of the Ministry of Defence. You still think that Campbell is such a good man? No he is not, but,abruptly, he knew what he was doing. It's hard to help rule the country and mislead so many people for almost 6 years, if u don't know what PR is and if you are not a professional.
However such people as Campbell undermine public trust in political PR. It's not a surprise that people tend to think that Politics is all about spin doctoring. Actually political PR experts play an important role in connection between the government and people.
It's not just PR people to blame but also the politicians who fail to do their things right.
Going back to spin doctors I can once again repeat that not all the political PR professionals are like Alastair Campbell. Trying to spin the information and control the media spin doctors can face troubles,when the media stops being interested in what they say and becoms intersted in themselves. The same happened to Alastair Campbell.
World is so vague these days so I leave the ability to decide whether all the political PR guys are spin doctors or not -to you. Political PR is not always clean and some actions should be critisised,but that doesn't mean (like in any field) that it as all dirty from head to toes.
The definition "third sector" is a synonym to the NGO's.
Not going very deep into details (I hope the Wikipedia link will answer most of the questions) i just can say thet this sector is one of the largest.
For example only in Russia there are 277,000.
All of them play important roles:some more,some less.
There are bright examples of International NGO's that operate globally like UNESCO or World Health Orhanisation.
Their aims to maintain good relationships through all the countries in terms of public health and culture.
However NGO's do not limit their responsibilities just in one field.
There are many examples of NGO organisations that operate in terms of other global issues like energy and other resources consumption, food consumption, environmental issues and protection, distribution of resources among different nations.
It's not a surprise that holding significant power in their hands NGO's pay huge loads of attention to the PR. They now hire good PR practitioners to help them achieve their goals.
Actions can be different: stunts,flash-mobs.polls,surveys,celebrity participation and many more.
In this case PRofs in the organisations should always be all there.
With the rise of the NGO's activism and people's trust in NGO's power big corporations (and not only just big ones,and not only corporations) PR practitioners should create special plans or actions in case NGO's try to hit on the organisation.
Reading the Russian Laws when I was writing this post I came up with thoughts that Russia has so many NGO's,but they actually cannot really influence the Government and it's policies.
First of all, Russian law concerning the NGO's was adopted not such a long time ago.
Secondly, Russia is an "amazing" king of country, where the Government is everything-"its Tzar and the God and all the Saints" in one body.
What I came up with reading the law, is that it is constructed in a very tricky way (as usualy Russian Government does). It depicts all the do's and don't of NGO's in Russia, providing them ephemeral freedom-however if we look deeper in the law it makes so many obstacles (oficially supported by Consitution) that none of the NGO's will ever affect any body or member of the Government.
At least not the international ones.
Actually, during my not so long (but actually not so short) life I've never heard of any case when NGO's succeded in reaching it's goals fully if there is Russian Government on the way.
When PR talks about any action it makes it always says about the "audience". There are no actions made just for the sake of it, but that directly target the "audience", "stakeholders", "publics". Seems so natural,isn't it? But if we look deeper in the issue-who are actually those stakeholders? How to define them? How to orientate actions on them? There is a whole bunch of questions that apper in the mind.
Well, first the term "stakeholders" appeared in 1963 and defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist". Actually this definition is too narrow. Another definition that is now widely used and seems to be more relevant is the definition of Professor Freeman, given in 1984 in his book "Strategic Management:A stakeholder approach" (1984). So the definition is "A stakeholder in an organization is (by its definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objective". There is one more definition made by Johnson and Scholes (2002): Stakeholders are those who have a stake or interest in a particular organisation, i.e. they depend on organisation to fulfill their own goals, and on whom,in turn, the organisation depends.
Professor Freeman talks about stakeholders
I prefer to agree with Professor Freeman,as I think that he detects relations between stakeholders and the organisation as double-sided,instead of Johnson and Scholes,who seem to make stakeholders the head of everything. So, now the definition is clear. But who can be a stakeholder? There are several groups of stakeholders:
Employees
Trade Unions
Financial Investors
Customers
Suppliers
Distributors
Local Community
Local and General Government
Industry groups
Media
However the term"stakeholders" is often interchangable with wide term "audience". Is it actually possible to interchange these two trems?
Well the difference is not so huge.
Grunig and Hunt(1984) say that "publics are stakeholders that face a problem or have an issue with an orgaisation".
However here it is necessary to say that Ralph Tench and Liz Yeomans agree with Grunig but the same time describe the difference between "audience" and "stakeholders".
They describe a kind of "drift" from stakeholders into publics, when the problem or issue arises. And thus stakeholders form general public and can influence and affect the company.
Like in the example of McDonalds when customers concerned with their obesity organised campaigns for healthier food.
Our favourite Grunig and now Repper(1992) also say that relationships with stakeholders help to create stable,long-term relationships that are actually extremely important fot the company.
There are different approaches of mapping stakeholders. Here are 3 of them:
Bernstein’s wheel
Esman’s linkages theory
Power-interest matrix
The last but not the least goes the Situational Theory of Publics by Grunig and Hunt (1984).
I want to tell more about it. It seems to be a very good example of mapping the public as Grunig and Hunt predict that public are not just passive users of information, but they can be really active: change their decisions and thus move from one group to another.
So Grunig and Hunt divided public (we remember they were more for "public" than "stakeholders") into:
Non Public
Latent Public
Active Public
Aware Public
So who is who though?
Non Public - as seen from the name these are people not interested in your organisation. Your organisation doesn't affect them as well as they just don't influence on your organisation
Latent Public - those who probably will be affected by your organisation or will affect you, but just don't know it yet. They are very probable of becoming "active" or "aware" public
Active public - is the most active (ha-ha really obvious) public that will participate as actively (again) as they can in the life of your organisation. The would like to know who,what,where,when and why in your organisation. They are really interested in what is going on.
Aware Public - those who know that they are affected by you. They try to get information from you as an organisation.
This Theory of Grunig and Hunt is really a practical one and can be easily used in real life.
So here is an overview of stakeholders now it's for you to decide which theory and ideas you like most.
Sometimes there are situations when negative information about the company goes out of control and threatens the business. That may be true, as in the case of batteries ignition in laptops of famous manufacturers or falsification as "syringe panic" around the Pepsi in 1993. Every crisis is different, but there are some general guidelines that will help find a way out. Following them, PepsiCo is not only out of the crisis, but even broke a five-year sales record.
The speed and stay ahead. When the situation got out of control, the company is in the "catching up" position. The first day of the crisis is a crucial time, to be followed by the reaction of the company. Procrastination creates an information vacuum. Do not even hesitate, it will be immediately filled with rumors, speculation and commentary competitors.
Information transparency. It is necessary not only to provide the media with all the necessary information, but also to answer questions of any audience in sufficient volume. In 1993, PepsiCo made visits of the journalists to the company's factories, helped in the shootings, explained in detaisl the principles of equipment work and why the syringes were not physically able to get into the cans with drink. Moreover, even ordinary Americans could call the company and ask a question. Dozens of people were ready to respond the hotline anytime. Every question that remains unanswered is food for speculation. Any lack of information immediately filled with rumours. If the crisis was provoked by the company enemies, they will take advantage of the situation. For example, you can be asked what kind of material is used for the bottles plug for the drink. If you leave the matter unattended, you can soon crawl rumors that you make plugs of lead or uranium. Audience will "eat" any even unbeliavable information. Better say that plugs are made of special plastic, that passed every kind of test, non-toxic and hypoallergenic.
Honesty. Honesty is the best policy. This proverb has a financial basis. It would be naive to believe that the controversial moments are not interestin for the journalists. If journalits are interested, you can be sure: sooner or later the truth will come out. Hiding the truth and the destruction of documents could not save Enron, but at the same time has ruined the once prosperous auditing company Arthur Andersen, involved in the scandal. If the company made a mistake or there was an accident at the enterprise , it is better to openly admit it, be the first to announce the comments and action plan. So did Deutche Bank, which in 1994 became the victim of a swindler Schneider. It was a severe blow to the reputation. The Bank didn't not just admit his mistake, but also funded the completion of projects initiated by Schneider. "No worker will pay for our mistakes," - said the press service of the bank.
Initiative. You must become the main source of news about what's happening around your company. Even if you have to disclose negative information, it is better to do it yourselves. In any case someone gets the initiative, and better, if you are, because then you will be able to give your own interpretation of events.Make media play according to your rules. The mechanism of action is simple: journalists like to receive information before anyone else. Give it first, and journalists will take it from you. Provide enough information, with details and reporters won't seek it from other sources. Provide information in advance, and then the alternative source would be simply uninteresting.
Coordination. It is important to understand that any disagreement within the company will be interpreted not in your favor. If the manager says one thing and his deputy simultaneously gives an interview where he says the opposite, the affair receives an unfavorable version. In a crisis, the fact of disagreement within the company itself undermines the credibility and confidence in the case of crisis - it is the second key factor after time. PepsiCo in its time wasn't only carefully instructing their employees what and how to say about the case, but was also sending out the information to all their members and connected businesses.
Work with multiple levels. In a crisis, the audience is not limited to the media. People at PepsiCo worked on several levels:
Media: Press conferences and visits to enterprises were organized to journalists; consultants worked to provide journalists with any sufficient information,informational materials were prepared, even the details of packaging technology were given to the media.
Consumers: Specialinformational videos were provided for consumers (videos were even launched on satellite channels), in broadcast and traditional media explaining why the syringes just physically could not get into the can with Pepsi.The company distributed information directly.Special hotline was organised, and any citizen could ask a question.
Employees and partners: The staff was given the information about the incident and the correct interpretation of events. And all the partners of the company were given the detailed information.
Governmental organizations: PepsiCo didn't only cooperate with the FDA, but actively participated in the investigation and provided full access to information.There were other groups such as company's shareholders. For each group specific arguments and information is given, it is delivered to the audience by the appropriate kinds of channels.
To cut it in a nutshell I can say, in a crisis situation the company must respond quickly, act in advance, work in coordination to get the initiative and become the main source of information at all levels and avoid the information vacuum.
Crisis is an event that happens in every sphere. The development of the world is impossible without striking situations that can affect the industry or even destroy the business. But luckily people try to learn from mistakes.
However,a proverb says "it is easier to preclude, than to cure", many actions on crisis PR and management are taken after the strike happened. These actions are taken to destroy the effects that already exist.
However these days much attention is paid to the preventive measures and actions in the first hours/days of crisis.
There can be 2 ways out of the situation-if use the crisis correctly and do everything wisely, crisis can become a friend,not a foe.
After the Pepsi "syringe crisis" it has been reported that actually Pepsi bacame even more recognisable trademark than before,the sales of Pepsi after the crisis went up rapidly and it left rival Coca-Cola behind.
This is an example when a crisis can become an opportunity.
The example of a bad crisis management is BP (BP spills oil).
Actually as the crisis is a challenge for the company,it is also a gerat challenge for PR practitioners.
Completing the role of connectors between the world and the organisation, PR profs have a lot of things to do. They have to make right decisions and right moves to overcome crisis and what is more important leave the brand audience still loyal.
It is also a great challenge for PRos to"make a credible showing" and to support the high level of professionalism.
These days PRos have such tool as Social Media. Actually it can also become a friend or a foe.
With the invent of Internet and Social Mrdia platforms,news now spread even quicker than before.
But just imagine what can happen when news is bad for your roganisation?
In this case you should be really fast in your decisions. (See the presentation of Ogilvy below)
PRos play an extremely important role-their decisions either save or kill the brand.
The Chinese sign of "crisis" comes to my mind this time
It consists of 2 concepts:danger and opprtunity. Chinese people are clever enough to understand that crisis can be both.
So it seems that Chinese sign supports my article this time and really explains a lot.
Here is the Presentation of Ogilvy: Social Media For Crisis Management
On the last session of our studies in the University Of Westminster we had a great opportunity to watch a BBC film on war spin.
The theme is extremely essential as "war spin" seems to appear almost in every war.
The example we saw was the story of Private Lynch, that became a war hero in the times of Iraq War.
The media widely covered the issue of a poor 19-year-old girl captured by Iraqis and saved by the US forces.
Actually when the film began I couldn't quite understand what happened on the screen: soldiers with guns were running under the song of 50Cent. Looks weird. It all seemed like the shots from a movie,not like a real documentary. All the moves,words and actions of the army-guys seemed to be rehearesed.
Well actually it all was a fiction.
Private Lynch wasn't captured and tortured by Iraquis,she was perfectly fine in one of the Iraq hospitals,and all the personnel treated her well.
According to one of the witnesses it was a complete madness.The forces broke into the hospital and acted like heroes of an American action movie.
Actually one member of staff who helped the girl to be passed to the US army forces (while actually it wasn't allowed for him by Iraq law) was killed by the US army.
He was killed for his help!
Isn't it absolutely crazy?
Meanwhile the American journalists in Iraq covered the issues happening in Iraq at that time.
Tip here: They were passing from 12-16 hours in the depot.
Question: how could people who sit all day long in the depot,not seeing what is actually happening around write the truth?
Answer: By no means
So here is the essence: the US government used the inability of people know the truth and their lack of information of what is happening in Iraq to promote US actions as only possible, reasonable and important.
The slogan of this war is "Maximum imaginary-minimum insight".
Well, here I can say, comes the concept of PR ethics. I know that political PR has never been really ethical,bit how can it all be so dirty and unjust?
I think PR profs should fight more for their profession to be seen as ethical. Isn't it the theme of conversations held for such a long period of time?
Anyway, US PR profs and the government had an extremely distinct view of what they wanted to get as the result of their actions. They had clear tactics and strategy. And it is really hard to say that their actions were unsuccessful. The huge nation and some other countries of the world believed in the US actions.
Taking my eyes away from the problem of Iraq I can say just one thing- here PR people worked well.It's hard to deceive so many people,but the US Government and PR professionals made it.
The got what they wanted.
I think that we as ordinary people,as well as journalists (in this case locked on the depot) should get the access to the information on a free basis, so that it is our idea whether to believe military forces and government or not.
Unfortunately, I think, it won't be realistic in future.
Here comes the power of people. Noone wants to lose it so easily.
These days the power is in the hands of those who have the information and believe me-they won't let us bite even a tine bit of their "power" cake.
P.S. For you to think:
George W Bush succinctly explains his job- The catapult of Propaganda
