Comments on: Public relations: changing the world

By: Why ex-journos (maybe) can make good PR bosses | Public relations and managing reputation

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:36:54 +0000

[...] to be educated on what constitutes public relations, including its strategic dimensions and its underlying academic rigour. And, secondly, they need experience in a hands-on capacity so they understand the tactical breadth [...]

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:57:43 +0000

Good points, Catherine. I think you are right when getting a totally equal relationship is admirable in aim, but unlikely in outcome. My personal take on it is that win-win, as you say, is the more realistic and we should be pretty happy with that, especially in a world that is run by shareholder representatives (e.g. CEOS et al) rather than by people’s representatives (e.g. governments).

Thanks for the thoughts.

By: Catherine Sweet

Catherine Sweet — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:54:39 +0000

WOW, Craig- this article (and yes, I think it has that stature rather than a throw away tweet or basic blog) opens up an issue that has been bugging me for years. Two way communications? Oh yes…. that is the essence of high end, strategic corporate communications that enhances reputation through effective stakeholder relations. It’s what I have been trying to provide for my organisations and clients for years.

But “symmetric”? I have my doubts. If James and Larissa Grunig actually mean symmetric as in “equal”, then I have some problems with that. No organisation’s stakeholders have exactly the same investment in the organisation; quite simply, investors care about different things than do suppliers. And employees have a different investment in the communication than do politicians, customers or activists, who will look upon the organisation as one of many with whom they have a relationship. Information flows are rarely “equal”- organisations tend to have more information than the other stakeholders.

The good PR person will be a conversation facilitator, but also a translator. One who can listen to the stakeholder and translate what is said so that the management knows what to do better, to be more successful. A good PR also knows how to “weight” the different needs of stakeholders. And they can help the stakeholders too frame their needs in language that works with the other stakeholders- the management, the employees, the investors. If the Grunigs mean “win-win” communication, then OK.

But in their last work before retiring, the Grunigs took Excellence Theory into ethical territory, suggesting that the only “ethical communciation” was two way symmetric communication. So we need to be very careful to define what symmetric actually is. In my professional experience, you lose the plot when you forget that some stakeholders are more important than others.

By: Journalists for PR boss? Don’t ask; its discrimination! | Public relations and managing reputation

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:44:21 +0000

[...] the main, the two-way symmetrical, relationship building and accommodation aspect of public relations was ignored. The broader [...]

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:23:43 +0000

Greg, you’re killing me! I have neither the intellect nor the patience to be an academic. Thanks for the thought. though. I’ll leave the hard work to Prof Grunig…

Your thoughts from years ago were pretty spot on, weren’t they?

Check out this man’s blog, people. Another high quality resource.

By: Greg Smith

Greg Smith — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:27:34 +0000

You should be an academic, Craig. James Grunig took five years and many thousands of pages to say: “PR is about listening and talking to people.” Unfortunately, no one has had the time to come up with something newer, though I had a crack at it in my Masters in 2002/03 with a model called trllogic communication – a step on from Grunig’s and Hunt’s dialogic (two-way) model. Trilogic communication is two-way communication, but adds a third dimension: it is continuing and live. Today, this is Twitter. Okay. Remember this is 2003, when I wrote:

“A company now no longer considers the dated opinion [feedback] from its customers but also has to consider live customer-to-customer prattle, active consumer feedback in the form of blogs, chatrooms, relay-chat, on-line forums and newsgroups. Previously, a company would provide information and a customer could send

“PR as yet has been relatively slow to grasp the meaning of this technology. Blogs, in particular, are a means to facilitate feedback. While not quite as “live” as a chat room or relay-chat, they allow people the space to express opinions about any topic. You can quickly and easily through all of the above-mentioned tools, provide your own version of events.”

@prlab

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:44:52 +0000

Those with an appetite for more on Professor Grunig’s thoughts, check this: http://www.prconversations.com/?p=478 Very much worth a look.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:09 +0000

Thanks Sean; always good to get your feedback. Re length – you are right, of course. Can’t help myself. Just felt the internal logic of the piece made more sense as a single entity. I look forward to seeing what you come up with on your blog (and if anyone reading this hasn’t checked out Sean’s blog, do so – it’s a cracker.

By: Sean Williams

Sean Williams — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:36:35 +0000

Craig, this is an interesting but very long post. You might consider breaking it into several and tweeting it out…

Whether PR can save the world, I am not sure. I like to bring the communication angle back into the discussion, the purity of exploring how our communication activities bring about understanding and knowledge, not just about how they motivate to action.

I’ll write more about this later on my blog.