Duty to tell the truth

‘Spin has become the ubiquitous term for public relations tactics.’ wrote David Miller and William Dinan in their book 'A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power' (2007). The current Public Relations industry is trying to drift from this opinion and blur the image of Public Relations being spinning and lying to the public. It is not easy to stop the stereotype that have grown since the first practitioners such as Edward Bernes and Basil Clarke.



Image by Jens Lumm

What makes it even harder is that current practitioners are admitting that lying is a part of the business. One of Britain’s most famous Public Relations practitioners Max Clifford often acknowledged that he lies on behalf of his clients. He happily admits: ‘I’ve been telling lies on behalf of people, businessmen, politicians and countries for 40 years. It shouldn’t be necessary, but it is. I’d rather be honest, but I cannot be all the time... All PROs at all levels lie through their teeth.’ Many practitioners are devastated by his words and are trying to challenge him in public debates. In 1994 he debated with Quentin Bell about the transparency of the industry and in February 2007 Clifford took part in the PRWeek debate ‘PR has a duty to tell the truth’, against morally and ethically strong personalities from the Public Relations industry such as Peter Crumpler. Max Clifford won the vote at the end of both debates. 

After the debate Peter Crumpler said that he was ‘dismayed and disappointed’ by the result and that this is a bad sign for the future of the industry. His opinion was supported by Simon Cohen, founder of ethical PR agency Global Tolerance.

At the same time, there are some positive voices behind Max Clifford openly expressing his actions. Daniel Rogers’ opinion of the debate that took place in 2007 was: ‘The fact that PR people admit they need to lie occasionally is a sign of growing honesty and confidence in what they do’.

He admitted that by having a debate on ethics in Public Relations, ,the  industry showed evidence of a new maturity. Rogers found optimism in Public Relations people admitting they needed to lie occasionally, which made it different from spinning, when practitioners tried to hide the truth .

Download podcast from PRWeek Ethics Debate 2007

Celebrity endorsement and NGO

  

Stephen Fry raising money
for Red Nose Day

NfpSynergy by publishing its new survey, questions one of the most effective and quickest methods of bringing attention to an organisation’s cause, which is celebrity endorsement. The research shows that only one in five young people aged 11-25 would support a charity because a celebrity happened to endorse it. Furthermore, the number of people supporting charities because of the person representing it decreased with age. Two of the most ideal celebrities to support an organisation’s cause are Stephen Fry and David Tennant. 

As the ‘Celebrity Endorsement and support for charities’ survey shows it is not enough to put a ‘face’ to a charity’s cause in order to get funds. A celebrity’s popularity changes quickly and today’s ‘in’ celebrity might quickly become liability. That is why when deciding to use a celebrity for a campaign it is essential to select the person carefully. 

The demand for celebrity endorsement will not pass, even though there is proof that it is not as profitable as people think. After the survey was been published, PRWeek at the begging of February revealed that Cancer Research UK is seeking an agency to launch a celebrity campaign, while Save The Children appointed House PR for a brief that includes celebrity engagement. The question is why celebrity endorsement is so popular within charities? The answer is obvious, we are live within a celebrity culture. Charities have had to become more commercial, because society has become more commercially orientated and as a result the charities have had to adapt to this.

What to look for when choosing a celebruty for your cause:

Stakeholder vs Public

The terms stakeholder and public are often difficult to distinguish. Depending on what type of literature you reach for, they have different interpretations. Stakeholders have been identified more often in the business literature according to their relationships with organizations. Public on the other hand has more presence in the public relations and other mass media literature.

One of the definitions of a stakeholder given by R.E. Freeman in ‘Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach’ says that a stakeholder is “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives.” He describes it in the wide sense of a stakeholder. In the narrow sense of a stakeholder he means “any identifiable group or individual on which the organization is dependent for its continued survival.” Later this definition has been expanded to include groups who have interests in the corporation, regardless of the corporation’s interest in them. In simple words, stakeholders include everyone who has an interest in the organisation such as employees, customers, shareholders, communities and suppliers.

The term ‘public’ on the other hand has been related to the recipients of messages from organizations. The term ‘public’ can be understood as an audience that has become segmented into more homogeneous subsets that help communicators choose appropriate channels in order to reach them. James Grunig in ‘Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management’ has differentiated the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘public’ in the following way: organizations choose stakeholders by their marketing strategies, recruiting, and investment plans, but the public arise on their own choice and choose the organization.

Even though the definitions and names can be confusing for Public Relations practitioners it is the most important to understand to whom, why and when the message should be communicated. Successful campaigns must also consider how messages will be interpreted by its receivers.

Social media, new crisis management tool

There is no simple set of rules that will manage to solve every crisis. The worst thing for the public during a crisis is not knowing. That is why social media is becoming a more popular tool in order to keep people informed during a crisis. Social media allows issues to be identified and managed extremely quickly online, as well as allowing for quick and direct interaction with all stakeholders providing information about the current situation.

During the Icelandic volcano eruption in April 2010 two brands within the same company (SkyTeam) Air France and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines showed radically different approaches to using social media during this travel industry crisis. 

KLM showed an effort to keep its customers updated. The information pages were constantly modified, with clear information on the options available to stranded passengers. There were some problems with changing the booking but in a crisis of that scale it is forgivable. The most impressive thing was KLM’s outreach through social media, primarily Twitter and a Facebook. 

On the 20^th of April 2010 KLM published on its facebook profile a video from KLM’s CEO & President Peter Hartman with a message to customers.

Here you can watch the message (source Youtube):

 

The company did not stop at that. The wall on facebook was constantly updated with the latest news and even opportunities to rebook flights through facebook. 

The company added a Question & Answer tab to the Facebook page in order to take more inquiries and make the communication process quicker.

KLM was highly involved on Twitted by posting news about the situation, re-booking trips, information and links as to where passengers could get more detailed information. As a result KLM’s response was favourable. There were lots of comments appreciating the company’s efforts. The reputation of the company had risen and people got to know that in a crisis they are not alone. 

Air France completely ignored the social media communication channels, which surprised its customers. The company posted a few notes on its facebook profile but the information was very poor and general.

There were no posts being Twitted and the company did not reply to any comments. It was very clear that The Air France was not interested in using social media. What was even worse, the official Air France web site was rarely updated and contained very little information about how to rebook or get a refund. No information and poor communication resulted in call centres becoming over run with the amount of telephone inquiries.  The company lost its good reputation and many clients were disappointment with the poor performance while dealing with the crisis, especially comparing it with KLM’s effort.

When a crisis hits it is important to have a plan in place and a way to deal with complaints. A well established presence in social media as shown in the example above can make it easier to handle the crisis and talk to stakeholders. Without social media presence it is more difficult to take part in dialogue. In order to provide customers with the best possible service during a crisis, it is essential to engage them through social media platforms beforehand, that way they know that this is the place to go when they need information about the situation.

Social media is a powerful platform and can be a great tool to approach customers while facing a crisis. Many corporations and government bodies have found social media tools to be a great way to communicate quickly and regularly with the audience.