CSR: a new business trend (?)

These days if we look at the website of any big company we are very likely to see that they have a section called Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, Responsibility, Environment and Society, Our Mission or something that tells us what the company is doing for the environment or the community. That is what CSR is all about. 

There are many definitions of what Corporate Social Responsibility is but the main idea is that CSR is the way a company develops its activity by producing a positive impact on society and the environment.

Companies are being aware that by developing CSR activities they will have higher profits in the long-term and that is why now they are incorporating these activities as part of their strategy. CSR is, however, not solely owned by Public Relations, departments such as human resources as well as the business development department may also be involved. 

Some of the benefits of incorporating CSR to the company's business activity can be: 

- Higher appeal for job seekers and also higher engagement by employees through fundraising activities and volunteering. 

- Strong reputation and corporate image among all stakeholders.

- Brand differentiation by showing different ethical values.

- Customer loyalty

However, many people also claim that CSR:

- does not always fit with the nature of the business and that, thus, it is in-congruent to develop these activities.

- is simply a way of green-washing a company's image

Companies are increasingly becoming more social responsible because their stakeholders are more concerned about social and environmental issues. By doing so, it is very important that the company understands the issues that concern its stakeholders and see how the company could do to cooperate with that cause. 

However, just because a company's most important stakeholders believe in that cause does not mean that the company should undertake that activity with the only purpose of satisfying them and ultimately having higher profits. Just when a company behaves ethically, feels represented and represents the cause and it fits into its values and business operation; is CSR going to benefit the company and enhance its reputation. Otherwise, despite the fact of being social responsible, a company can be subject to criticisms that in the end can produce more negative effects.

On the whole, a company should just develop CSR activities that fit into the company's values and just if the whole company feels commited to the cause and has made sure that these activities will benefit society and/or the environment. What is your opinion on CSR?

I found this link to a website where there is information about many company's CSR involvement. PROs can post news about their company's CSR activities to inform its stakeholders. http://www.csrwire.com/

Google and the cost of free

Back in 1996 Larry Page and Sergey Brin realised the need of creating a service that classified all the information on the Web in a logical way so that it could be searched quickly when needed. This was the start of one of the most used search engine and one of the biggest companies in the world, Google.

Google now forms part of everyone's life, either as a search engine, mail provider, picture and video platform, as a mobile operating system or as any other service form its never ending list. But, do we really know what we are exposed to when we use any of Google's services? 

Sergey Brin and Larry Page

Page and Brin wanted to offer a service that was free for everyone to use. However, they also had to cover costs so finally they decided that the solution was advertising. Nevertheless, they created a different type of advertising, tailored advertising. Depending on one person's search, ads related to that topic will appear on two sides of Google, at the top and on the right hand side. Whenever a user clicks on these ads Google receives money from advertisers and this is how they make their money.

As shown in the BBC series "The Virtual Revolution" by Dr. Aleks Krotoski, Google controls a lot of information about us. As stated before, with every search we do on its search engine, Google knows our interests and problems; by using Google Maps, Google can know where we live, where we go... and that is not everything! Google even scans your emails if you are using its Gmail service so that it can, again, place some ads related to the content of your emails. 

All this arises the question of how far Google is meddling in our personal privacy. If they keep information about our interests and information contained in our mails such as telephone numbers, addresses and names of friends, and this information is leaked and goes public we can be at a high risk if all these data fall into a stranger's hands.

In the episode "The Cost of Free" from The Virtual Revolution, a journalist of the New York Times could put name to a woman just by putting together the information of her search results. In 2006 AOL had released the search results of thousands of users which were just named by a numerical code. The journalist wanted to prove that even though the users were anonymous they could be identified just by its searches.  

We trust Google when we use its services because we believe we do it privately and anonymously, however, the reality seems to be quite different. Despite Google's ethical codes we are still exposed to some risks when we make use of the services they offer. The concept of privacy has changed in the 21st century but we still have to think how far can these companies interfere in our private lives and whether there should be some kind of regulation as fas as the use of private data is concerned. 

I deeply recommend watching the episode "The cost of free" from the BBC series "The Virtual Revolution". It is worth knowing more about how Google works and what it implies for all of us.

Here you find a clip of one of the episodes of "The Virtual Revolution": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECLBQfLwD0s
A short speech of Google's Director of Communications.

Political campaigns and their risks

The main goal of Political Public Relations is to use the media to communicate a particular party's beliefs in order to achieve public support for political policies. Political PR is as its busiest times during election camapaigns. Since 2008 we have gone through two presidential campaigns in two of the most influencial countries in the world, the United States and Great Britain. 

The Obama campaign revolutionised the art of political campaigning. We all know that in the US they spend millions on campaigns and that they always try to do something more spectacular than their election rival. However, the last presidential election in the US exceeded all expectations, not only they spent a lot of money on their campaigns, but the president-to-be, Barack Obama, created a precedent that, as experienced in the UK, will be used in the future.

Apart from the usual trips to different states and cities, appearances on TV, speeches, debates, support clothes, stickers, mugs, etc. Obama incorporated the use of social media in his campaign. He engaged his voters and possible voters through his website, Facebook and Twitter site, Email, Obama TV, mobile phones, MiGente, YouTube and a never ending list of social media platforms. His campaign was successful and  brought him to the White House. The key of his campaign was engaging with his audience, make them part of his campaign and communicate all the time.

Cameron at a conference

His now counterpart, David Cameron, was aware of his success and together with his communication advisors they designed a campaign that many claimed has some similarities with the Obama campaign. Cameron revealed that they had contacted around 500,000 people by email, on Twitter and on his Facebook site introducing a viral campaign much similar to the one of Barack Obama. His messages stressed the idea of hope and change. On one of his first appearances on TV Andrew Neil asked him if the Tories could deliver and Cameron anwered "Yes we can".

During the campaign we saw and heard many similarities to the presidential campaign in the US in 2008. Some of those are shown in the pictures below, as for example when The Sun published a picture of David Cameron emulating one published during the Obama campaign.

Other similarities include the intense use of social media to communicate and engage with voters and the way both candidates appeared in their campaign meetings.

 
However, not all went well for David Cameron. British politics work differently than politics in the US and in Britain, if you are in the public eye, you are exposed to become an object of ridicule. And this is exactly what happened to David Cameron. The opposition party, the Labour Party, created a poster with Caneron on it and Clifford Singer created a webpage where spoof posters of David Cameron's official poster were posted. The original poster was controversial as it seemed that the Tory leader had been airbrushed and the creative director used this as an excuse to continue ´retouching´ Cameron's posters.

There are some risks when you engage with your public and allow converstation. Then you can expect bad comments, criticisms and become part of everybody's jokes. However, that is the risk that David Cameron and his communications team took and, despite his not-so-successful use of social media, he managed to get away with it and win the elections.

What are your thoughts on the use of social media for political public relations? Do you think politics are using it unaware of the consequences?

- For visuals about Obama's presidential campaign refer to the following website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruffini/with/3065114384/

- To see the whole range of spoof posters on David Cameron's campaign visit: www.mydavidcameron.com

Social marketing: The 'good' marketing

Social marketing uses marketing techniques to achieve a change of behaviour on a specific cause. The main goal of social marketing is reaching social good and this differs from the prime objective of commercial marketing which is financial.  

Social marketing was recognised as a formal discipline in 1971, after Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman published "Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change" in the Journal of Marketing. They arrived to the conclusion that the principles used in marketing with the intention to sell products could also be used to "sell" ideas and change attitudes and behaviour. 

The objectives of social marketing are long-term behavioural changes and they normally are related to health and environmental issues. Thus, its main clients are non-profit organisations, health services and government. 

When intending a behavioural change it is essential to target the right audiences and segment them into different groups. Depending on the group we are looking at, we will approach them in one or another way. 

Having realistic expectations and testing the tactics is also very important. As the results of a social marketing campaign will just be seen in the long-term, sometimes even as long as 5 years, knowing that the tactics used are the right ones for the audience we pretend to target becomes critical.        

Of course, monitoring throughout the campaign is also very important in order to react properly if there is a hint that some of our tactics may not have the result we are expecting.   

If you want to know more about social marketing, do visit the following link:

http://www.social-marketing.org/sm.html

Spin-doctors, PR and politics

The word 'spin-doctor' seems to have originated in the United States and probably comes from baseball. However, the first definition of 'spin-doctor' as how we know it currently dates back to 1977 and appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a person who provides a favourable slant to an item of news, potentially unpopular policy etcetera, especially on behalf of a political personality or party".

The term 'spin-doctor' started to be used in Britain in the 90s and was associated with the rise of public appearance of Peter Mandelson and other New Labour media experts, with Alastair Campbell as its main figure.  Alastair Campbell was the Director of Communications and Strategy for Tony Blair between 1997 and 2003 and was considered to be one of the greatest 'spin-doctors' in British politics. 

Alastair Campbell

He is said to have manipulated the press during his time working for Downing Street and to have used journalists to communicate the news he wanted to. However, he also revolutionised political communications in the UK. He managed that tabloids supported the Labour Party and also kept lobby journalists informed more than his predecesors; he established two daily briefings, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

Campbell resigned after the death of civil servant Dr Kelly who appeared death after it was leaked that it was him who talked to the BBC and told them that no weapons of mass destruction were to be found in Iraq and that the government had inserted false intelligence into the dossier presented to defend the reasons for the war. Many believed that it was Campbell who had rewritten the dossier but it was never proved. 


On 1 March the University of Westminster held a debate around the motion: Have PR and spin undermined trust in politics? Kevin Maguire, political journalist of the Daily Mirror, and Sheila Gunn, fomer political journalist and spokesperson for John Mayor, argued that Public Relations and spin had undermined trust in politics and that they had seen it with their own eyes. On the contrary, Francis Ingham, CEO of the PRCA, and Lance Price one of the former 'spin-doctors' on Downing street, claimed that it was not PR practitioners the ones to blame but journalists and even politicians, as Ingham pointed out, the ones responsible for the lack of trust in politics.


After the debate the motion was put to the vote and finally it was agreed that Public Relations had not undermined the trust in politics in the UK with 78 votes.There were 61 people who voted for the motion. Do you agree with the result?

For further information on spin and Alastair Campbell refer to:
- Richards, P., (2005). Be your own spin doctor: a practical guide to using the media. London: Politico's
- Oborne, P. and Walters, S., (2004). Alastair Campbell. London: Aurum Press
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_SP-HMhJtc&feature=related

The use of social media for PR purposes

These days everybody is talking about social media and its effect on society. It seems that everything we do now is linked to social media and this is, in a way, true. Social media is affecting our daily life and decisions in a manner that has exceeded all predictions. 

Businesses have also become aware of the importance of social media and have now incorporated it to its communication channels and Public Relations plays an important role as far as the use of social media in a company is concerned. 

The use of social media by corporates started mainly with a marketing purpose in mind but now, they have realised that the use of social media with public relations purposes can benefit the company in an incredible way. 

Public Relations has a huge amount of social media tools at its disposal. These tools can be used to build and promote brand reputation, raise awareness, target a wider audience, interact with them and enable a two-way communication, communicate specific messages to desired stakeholders and receive suggestions from them. These are just some examples of the benefits of social media for a corporate communications use.  

With platforms such as Facebook companies can create fan pages with which they can form a community and interact with it. This way they can inform their audiences more directly as well as listen to their personal opinions. The same happens with Twitter, although it offers the advantage that the message is spread quicker to a wider audience. With YouTube, for instance, the CEO can communicate a message to the company's stakeholders or viral videos can be posted with the purpose of raising awareness; and Linkedin, for example, can help companies to find new employees. 

Letting the message outside and allowing interaction also implies the possibility of receiving criticisms. When this happens, it is essential to answer positively and quickly so that these critics do not get viral and start flooding the company's social media sites. For this reason, it is vital that Public Relations constantly monitor what is been said in social media about the organisations they are working for. 

The following webcast goes through these and oher issues concerning social media and its relation to PR. I hope you enjoy it!

This video is part of an assignment and has an educational purpose. Images have been taken from different sources on the Internet.

NGOs, threat or opportunity?

There is a little bit of controverse when deciding if NGOs and activists represent a threat for corporates or if they can actually be an opportunity for the organisation to show the community that the company also collaborates with good causes.

Corporates sometimes fear NGOs and activist groups because they can affect the company negatively when the cause they defend does not fit with the way the company operates. Then they use tactics such as mass events, stunts, Non-violent Direct Action (NVDA), surveys and reports, controversies via different channels, and rogue websites to attract traditional and online media, stimulate public debate and press the organisation to change their behaviour or activity.

Members of UkUncut at a shop

When these situations happen, the PR department of the company should try to listen to the demands of the NGO and try to reach agreements so that the matter does not go public and affects the company's image and reputation. Some NGOs have an insider approach which tends to be less radical and allows conversations with the company in order to negociate changes which are positive for both parties.

Nonetheless, NGOs can also benefit corporations. With CSR activities, companies collaborate with NGOs or support community causes. This way they are doing something good for the community and at the same time they are reflecting a good image of their company.  As everything in life, NGOs and activist groups have positive as well as negative effects for a business. The challenge is on finding a balance. Companies should engage into conversation with pressure groups and try to arrive to agreements beneficial for the company as well as for the community or the environment. 

Stakeholders and PR

Knowing the audience of your organisation is very important as it helps to define the company's strategy. For PR practitioners it is essential to define the company's stakeholders in order to convey the right message.

There is different terminology used in PR books to name those who can affect or be affected by the activity and actions of a business. Different terms are used audience (which seems to have fallen into misuse), stakeholders and publics.

One of the most important theorists in Public Relations, Grunig, defines a stakeholder as someone who has an interest in an organisation. In his opinion publics have a stronger interest in the organisation and are more active than stakeholders. In his situational theory he differenciates between different types of publics. The non-publics are those groups that are not very affected by the company. The latent public is someone who might have an interest in the organisation; then there is the aware public who, appart from having some interest in the company, also know the company. And finally, the active public are those people who can affect the company. Grunig describes the different types of publics in his situational theory, which in contrast with other theories is not static and claims that relationships can change.

Power-interest matrix

Another important stakeholder theory is the power-interest matrix. It does not define stakeholders; they must be defined by the organisation and, because relationships between a company and its stakeholders can also change, they have to be monitored continously. This theory divides groups by power and interest rates and explains how the company should deal with them depending on their power and interest.

There are many theories on stakeholders such as Bernstein's Wheel and Esman's linkages theory. However, Grunig's situational theory and the power-interest matrix theory are the ones that most fit with the current PR practice.

Bad crisis management, a case study

A crisis can arise at any moment and sometimes it can even affect and destroy companies with a very good reputation. This is what happened last year to the biggest automobile producer, Toyota. 

Toyota had a very good reputation in terms of quality and reliability of its cars. Over its seventy years of existence, Toyota had established itself as a leader in the Japanese market and in 2007 it became the world's biggest auto producer. However, in the beginning of 2010 Toyota's leading position started to be in danger. 

Since September 2009 Toyota had been receiving a lot of critics as the causes of some car accidents in the US were pointing to its direction. It seemed that some Toyota models were having acceleration problems. At first the company denied it was their fault and tried to blame customers, but then changed its strategy and informed that it could be a problem with the floor mats of spefic models. They started then a recall of millions of cars. The reason of this recall were floor mats. 

After more rumours and accidents, in January 2010, they were obliged to recall another 2.3 million cars due to problems in the gas pedal. From this moment on Toyota changed its communication strategy as critics began to overwhelm them. The company started informing their customers constantly. Toyota's president, the quality president and the director of Toyota in the US attended press conferences, gave interviews and even appeared before a US committee.

Toyota's president (left) listens to the
House of Representatives' Committee

The consequences of this crisis were devastating for Toyota. They lost millions of dollars, had to pay a fine and its stock market value dicreased in 17% in just a couple of months. But what is worse, their reputation was extremely damaged.


Toyota did not get it right as far as its communication strategy is concerned. They were late in responding complaints, doubts and critics; when they did it they never accepted their culpability (probably because they were recommended to do so by its lawyers) and its leaders waited too long before appearing publicly. The paradox here is that in December 2009 they had appointed a new Head of Communications.

It is very likely that if Toyota had decided to be more transparent from the very beginning and approached its customers faster, the consequences of this crisis would not have been that intense. They owned a good reputation and now it has been damaged because of a bad handling of a crisis. However, now they know what not to do again.


To learn more about the Toyota crisis watch the following video from a presentation I held at my Corporate Communications module.

Objective: Crisis Avoidance

The word that everyone wants to avoid, be it an organisation, a government or an individual is CRISIS. Everyone, by all means, wants to prevent a crisis to arise. This goes without saying. The question we may ask ourselves is if we can avoid it and if not, what we can do to soften its consequences.

The answer to the first question is complicated as there are times when crisis can be prevented or predicted but, others, when there is nothing we can do to stop them happening. This last case is for example in the event of natural disasters. Under these circumstances, there is nothing one can do to elude the crisis but if we are prepared, we can minimise its effects. For this reason, it is very important to always be prepared to face a crisis, either to prevent it from happening or to attenuate the consequences.

Here is a list with some tips to guarantee a good recovery from a crisis. They are mostly applicable for a company but they can also be extended to any public institution and even an individual.

- Be prepared for the worst. Companies should plan in advance what should be done in times of crisis. They should establish guidelines that can help them operate in bad situations and determine who has to be in charge (preferably a PR professional) and the tasks everyone should carry out. 

- Respond immediately. There is no point in waiting too much to inform the company's stakeholders. This makes the matter grow bigger and can even generate worse consequences, especially if someone else spreads rummors or gives false information about thecompany.


- ALWAYS tell the truth. In times of crisis companies tend to be economical with the truth because they are afraid of more adverse effects if they are transparent. However, telling the truth is the best way to make your customers and other stakeholders trust you. 


- Communicate directly and continuously. These days social media lets companies engage into conversation with its stakeholders, which makes it one of the best channels through which to communicate during a crisis. Not only it reaches many people in a matter of seconds but it also allows a continuous conversation between the company and its stakeholders.


- Build a good reputation. Reputation is essential to diminish the effects of a crisis. It takes years to build it and it can be destroyed immediately. However, if the company owns a good reputation, the company may still be able to cope with the crisis and overcome it. Of course, later on the PR department will have to work on rebuilding the reputation to the state it was before the crisis. 


These are examples of the most important actions to be implemented before, during and after a crisis. The way a crisis should be handled depends on the type of crisis, the company and other factors including the company's environment and its position in the market. 

When the Truth must be kept secret

These last days on television, newspapers, radio, blogs, twitter, on the street... we continuously hear the news and information about the uprising in Egypt. Thousands, millions of people are taking the streets in the capital city to protest against the repressive regime of Mubarak, who has been oppressing its inhabitans and has been involved in corrupt activities. They demand his immediate resignation, but Mubarak seems not to listen.

We are able to receive all this information because we live in a global world where anyone can get news 24/7, where correspondents are sent to the focus of news, where journalists work all day and expose themselves to danger so that we can be informed about what is going on in the world. And, sometimes, it is not easy for them to do their job.

Protests at Tahrir Square, Cairo

In the Egypt riots these last ten days we hear how difficult it is to inform about a repressive country in hard times. Despite the fact that we are in the 21st century some governments do not care about international law or press freedom when it is about preserving their image. 

Journalists are informing that Egyptian police, Mubarak's secret police and supporters are attacking them, arresting them, confiscating their equipment and even destroying it. Why do they do that? Well, the answer is very simple. Mubarak's government wants to avoid that journalists tell the truth about the situation in which his country is right now. 

Journalist on the floor being stopped by the army

Media crew from various countries have suffered from the attacks. At first it seemed that just Arabic language news channels (al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya) were the target of pro-government protesters, but in the last few days press crew from Britain, the US, Spain, Greece and France have also been injured. 

As Mubarak cannot control the protests and Egyptians, he at least tries to control the media. His first movement was to cut Internet access in the country so that the population could not inform others via Emails, Facebook or Twitter. His tactic worked for some days but operators quickly found a way to overcome Mubarak's cuts. When the Internet was restablished, the next step was the media, broadcast and print media. 

At this moment nobody with a notepad or camera in hand is safe in Egypt. The government is determined to hide the truth and will do anything to achieve that. However, Mubarak and his supporters are not being successful. This time he will not end up being victorious by playing with the truth. Fortunately, the world seems not to accept anymore war spin and propaganda. 

Below you can watch a video showing the experiences of two journalists attacked in Cairo. 

War Spin

The first lesson of the module "Contemporary Theory and Issues in Public Relations" was about spinning during war times. 

Terry Lloyd, journalist who reported from Iraq

In times of war, governments want to have public opinion in favour. This is why it is important to show a positive image of their actions. Spin during war times has long been used but the most recent and clear example is the Iraq War. 

During the Iraqi War thousands of journalists travelled to Iraq as embedded journalists to report from the first war line. However, the allies tried to manipulate the journalists from the very beginning by providing them with the information they wanted, by not answering some questions which could put them in a bad position, by keeping hundreds of journalists away from the front line and just receiving information from TV channels, etc. 

José Couso, cameraman who died during the Iraq War

But this is simply propaganda. The sole purpose of this was to keep a good image of the allies throughout the war. They used the media, one of the most trusted channels of information by the public, to place themselves as the “savers” and demonise the Iraqi Government.

The use of PR during war times leads usually to spin, persuasion and propaganda. As future PR practitioners we should think about the boundaries of our job, if we lie or hide the truth to protect our client and if it is ethical to use other professionals to spread what we want to be believed. 

For more information realted to War Spin visit the following links:
- BBC News: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm
- Time: 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004965-1,00.html
- Blog of a University of Westminster student:
http://contemporarypr.blogspot.com/2010/01/war-spin-pr-and-propaganda.html

Welcome!

Hello everybody and welcome to my blog "Thoughts on Public Relations". 

In this blog I will be posting thoughts and information about contemporary issues in Public Relations. The blog is part of a module which explores contemporary theories and issues in PR from the MA Public Relations I am currently studying. 

I hope you enjoy your time reading other people's and my thoughts on different issues involving PR. Feel free to comment, suggest any ideas or ask any questions you may have.

Hope to see you blogging here!  

Marina