Responsible Advocacy in Modern Day Public Relations

In 1947, Edward Bernays defined public relations as “the engineering of consent” (in Parsons, P. 2004, p106) and believed that it was this manipulation of ideas carried out by the elite of society that defined its practice. Whilst Bernays has always been acknowledged as the father of public relations for his subsequent works, it is this statement of manipulation, coupled with disregard for responsible advocacy, which has led the industry to be misunderstood and misplaced in society.

A modern day definition of an advocate is a person that is

“... inextricably identified with that organisation or cause for everyone who sees or hears you or even knows what you do for a living” (Parsons, P. 2004 p106). 

That is to say that, it is the role of an advocate to speak on behalf of, or act in defence of, their cause; and in doing so, are simultaneously demonstrating their moral standing on such an issue. It stands to reason that a vegetarian would not represent a chain of butcher shops; representing a cause you do not believe in is not only unethical – betraying the trust instilled in your publics – but it provides a conflict of interest between the two parties.

For public relations to be successful and useful, it must enhance social utility within society. Public relations practitioners cannot hope to effect a change in public opinion unless they have a positive and credible message to communicate; generally, a message is only credible if it is ethically sound, and conduct has been based on virtuous motives.

Like all corporations before them, non profit organisations use public relations activities to convey their key messages to their publics – acting as advocates for their cause. Their very existence means that they do not have the economic resource to provide outlay for this type of activity, and, until recently, have found it difficult to influence media coverage. Yet there has been outcry in this sector when organisations have been deemed to:

“overstep the boundaries of ethical practice to publicise their organisations’ efforts, yet still achieve positive results because of market conditions that favour low-cost, high-impact public relations materials.”  (Bronstein,C. 2006, p77)

The League Against Cruel Sports were criticised for such practice by releasing graphic video news releases – themselves a product direct from the PR team – portraying a bloody foxhunt. It is a common ploy for those eager to build audience share to use such a tactic, but its execution and airing of shocking footage falls short of what is deemed ethical.  

It seems that whilst economic resource remains scarce and other organisations continue to partake in such activities, the abandonment of responsible advocacy is presented as the most attractive option, and with it brings the risk of organisational reputation and negative public scrutiny.

  

Justification for such actions by non profit organisations may come in the form that their actions ultimately serve the greater common good – and not for capital gain. This approach is at odds with the teachings of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who taught that we as individuals have an obligation to tell the truth under all circumstances, and as responsible advocates, have an organisational responsibility. Losing this integrity leads to a breakdown in trust. As Bronstein states:

“Nonprofit practitioners who employ irresponsible practices must recognise that they run the risk of undermining their organisations’ reputations and accomplishments, and violating the rights and interests of stakeholders.” (Bronstein, C. 2006, p80)  

However, the advent of the Internet has changed the landscape of communication, and according to practitioner George Pitcher exerted a “levelling effect” (in Bronstein, C. 2006, p73) on online public relations, breaking down wealthy corporate barriers and allowing communication to take place where everybody has the same status and equal voice.

“...the advent of low-cost, high-impact electronic communication affords nonprofits an unprecedented opportunity to contribute to public discourse.” (Bronstein, C. 2006, p73)

The use of online mediums goes further, however; speed of delivering information, ease of securing facts almost instantaneously and a broader range of voices and perspectives has put pressure on the journalism industry to “be more innovative and responsive in their reporting, and more wide-ranging in their search for stories and sources.” (Bronstein, C. 2006, p73) Using blogs as an effective public relations tool demonstrates the ability to not only attract an organisation’s publics, but also to influence its influencers – shaping the opinions of journalists and media alike.

Low-cost and high-impact campaigns are the key drivers behind unethical practice – and with the Internet offering this as well as democratising the press, it seems to easily fit into the place once occupied by irresponsible advocacy. 

When high profile or large organisations flout ethical boundaries, they suggest that their behaviour is entirely appropriate; and to those smaller, economically-challenged organisations, exposure and scrutiny seem a small price to pay to achieve their objectives.  

By placing the primary cause or issue ahead of their responsibility to advocate ethically, an organisation is risking reputation, trust and integrity. Since PR is about reputation, it would seem ironic that the industry’s own PR is flawed by its own ability to disregard simple ethical codes. Practitioners must rise above their own self-interest, and question any tactics they care to undertake with Kant’s approach, as opposed to a utilitarianism one – would I be willing to be the recipient of my action?

Unethical practices may feature heavily in the media, partly due to the industry’s inclination towards negative news and scandal. However, ethical practice remains at the heart of good business practice –

“...better than unethical ones when it comes to reputation and public image and enhancing the trust that oils the machinery of relationships between organisations and their publics.” (Parsons, P. 2004, p158)   

Responsible advocacy can be fostered through relationship management by creating umbrella organisations and resource sharing within these firms.  Dialogic communication, the means of interaction between organisations and publics in which all participants have an equal chance to contribute and no participant exercises control over another, in most circumstances using the Internet, means organisations can arrive at shared truths and mutually accepted practices.

The advent of the Internet has caused a huge shift in communication – not only enabling individuals and organisations  “with relatively modest resources to reach a global audience instantaneously twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week” (Hallahan, K. 2006, p108) but providing a voice for everyone, including non profit organisations “...the Internet has potential to equalise power relationships in society and to provide a ‘voice’ to otherwise marginalised groups.” (Hallahan, K. 2006,  p108)

This of course is not to say that the Internet and use of online PR does not face its own ethical minefield – quite to the contrary. The very fact that the World Wide Web is largely unregulated, allowing any user access to anything at any time, and also leading to the dawn of citizen’s journalism, creates a headache of its own. What PR practitioners must observe is ethical codes and the delivery of responsible advocacy in every sphere. Only by following these practices can we begin to nurture those relationships we have spent so long forging between organisations and its publics.

What would Superman do?

Back in the 1980's, before MySpace, before Yahoo and definitely before Facebook, Superman and Clark Kent lived relatively separate existences; by day, the boyish charm of Clark Kent, whose conservative mannerisms and passive, introverted personality, went relatively unnoticed by his reporter colleagues. By night, the hero known globally as Superman saved damsels from burning buildings, fended off lynch mobs and stopped the Earth from succumbing to apocalyptic meltdown. One need never know that Kent and Superman were, in fact, one and the same; despite a thin guise consisting simply of glasses and a dodgy suit, even love interest Lois Lane was duped.   

Fast forward to the turn of the century and our two men of the moment face a conundrum; the advent of the World Wide Web and the consequent pervasive nature of social media, in its various forms, means information travels at an astonishing rate. News that Superman has saved a small child from drowning might be broken on Facebook way before CNN even had a chance to get their reporter to the scene - indeed, Kent himself might even have spotted a cry for help on Twitter, such is the speed of the World's biggest news wire. 

All of this is well and good, but as a socially savvy man, Kent would surely consider that, in a world of 'selves', Superman would have his own Twitter profile - @superman, naturally - and Clark a separate one entirely (@ClarkKent, if it wasn't already taken). Superman would have a Facebook Fan page, with over 3 million likes, and Kent his own, low-key profile where he would 'friend' colleagues and family and post photos of his weekend spent watching football and walking his dog. All of these channels would be operated from the same email address and the same IP address. So what if, unbeknown to him, an intelligent chap somewhere invented a piece of software that aggregates all of your online profiles, lumps them together, with your image, and places them in your sidebar in Gmail? What if when you send someone an email, all this information appears alongside your message? Kent's carefully-constructed cover would surely be blown, with devastating consequences for Superman's army of admiring supporters. 

The reality is that Rapportive, a Gmail add-on that "shows you everything about your contacts right inside your inbox" is an opt-in service and one would hope that Kent would never be as foolhardy as to subscribe to such a service. But if one click of the mouse is all it takes for your online presence and any such 'cover' to be blown, might we question if it's worth having it there in the first place? Are we sharing too much online and is our privacy being compromised for simplicity? 

I encountered this debate recently when discussing with social media marketer Damian Pang whether to mention your job role and who you work for on your own Twitter profile. He considered that there are those that successfully curate their own brand – who they are, their interests, who they work for, or who they would love to work for – and project ‘Brand Me’ succinctly and effectively. Then there are those that simply aren’t comfortable with sharing that kind of information. If you want to tweet about the dim sum you ate at the weekend and not be decried for being mundane or ‘off-brand’, then you might consider keeping your account strictly personal, giving no indication of who you work for in your Twitter bio – therefore giving you ‘free rein’ to be as off topic as you like.   

Of course, this works for those who aren’t necessarily seeking employment, but when you’re job hunting and need to stand out from the crowd, showing you have an online presence, and one that is carefully nurtured and controlled, and engaging in content that is of relevance to the sphere you want to work in, is crucial. The same is true for many high-profile figureheads of big brands – take my former boss, for example, Scott Brownlee, Head of PR for Toyota GB. Scott is the perfect example of putting a face and personality behind Tweets – users can learn about the brand, but also find that he’s a human being too. As a result, ‘human’ brands succeed far better in conveying their key messages than a small picture of a logo would. All because we as humans are deeply social beings who crave human contact and fade when excluded from our fellows. Scott made the choice to make Twitter personal and as a result, his brand has prospered. But with add-ons like Rapportive, surely we’re all going to have to make like Scott, avoiding the dim-sum tweet, even if it is from a separate Twitter account, and ensuring that whatever we say is on-brand because, after all, what you write online exists forever, and as Rapportive proves, can be aggregated simply by using the right software. Is it a situation we are willing to accept? I wonder what Superman would do – I’m not even sure he can save the day here.    

The new face of Direct Marketing

Direct marketing refers to any marketing that has direct contact with a consumer. In a changing communication landscape, this means that social media can be defined as direct marketing activity, but, as Roger Warner of Content & Motion considers, the fundamentals remain the same: personalisation, privacy and relevance. 

Direct marketing should target the right people - the advent of sophisticated spam filters means many users won't even get a glimpse of your mail shot, so you've got to give users a reasons to focus their attention. Consider whether the recipient of the message will truly find it of value - investing time, money and effort into something that will only add to the mass 'noise' already dominating the Web is not cost-effective and means you run the risk of eroding your brand. Organisations that win are those that engage in positive and useful communications with their customers and prospects. We're all bombarded on a daily basis by marketing messages, but features like the Facebook News Feed force you as an organisation to provide likeable, relevant content, based on the principle that the more engagement you get - 'likes' - the more visibility you gain. 

Keep it relevant - if you've got a large database of customers, it's worth analysing what you already know about them. Use demographic tools, and personalise your mail so it resonates with your customer.

If you only remember one thing when utilising direct marketing, it's privacy: only stick to a mailing list where customers have provided their consent to receiving mail or updates from your organisation. NEVER forget the Golden Rule: it is a legal requirement to give recipients the option to 'opt-out'. Go the extra mile by making it clear how a user can unsubscribe - customer satisfaction, even of the customers you are losing, is paramount.

First, we had the website; then came email, and now we've got the Facebook Revolution. Whilst I've no doubt the communication landscape will continue to evolve, it's worth considering an analogy that Dave Kerpen (2011) provides, which nicely sums up using social media for direct marketing:

"With Facebook, you have the added advantage of performing [all of these processes] in a place where 600 million or so of your customers are hanging out. It's the idea of fishing where the fish are, rather than expecting fish to come to your boat, or in this case, your website" (p169)

Social media tools exploit man's desire to interact with his fellows, and so utilising these channels to directly market yourself to your audience - so long as you're engaging, relevant and timely - is a pretty smart move. 

Measurement and The Barcelona Principles

Values are required in all departments of an organisation, not just PR; measurement is an everyday tool, and a vital one at that.

At a conference I attended last summer on the strategic value of PR, Mike Daniels from the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) claimed that only 11% of clients asked for social media measurement. He went on to say that in the majority of cases this is mostly handled by marketing, product departments, R&D - any department except communications.

As organisations adapt to the radical change in the communication landscape - and with it, the realisation that social media is here to stay - measurement falls low on the agenda, as comms teams focus on integration and convincing the board to permanently direct resource to social media functions.

It's hardly surprising that measuring online channels is afforded little priority, given that the measurement of long-established traditional methods, such as print, are questionable. The crude debate of using advertising value equivalent (AVE's) is as prevalent as ever, with its supporters claiming it justifies the existence of the PR function to non-marketers, whilst those opposing it decry its failure to capture outcome, message delivery or presence on online channels. Furthermore, the multipliers used by organisations vary wildly, and are often random and therefore not credible - AMEC found multipliers ranging from 0.5 to 7 when it researched its use in organisations.

In response to this debacle, The Barcelona Principles were established in 2010 as a joint venture between AMEC, the CIPR, the PRSA and the Global Alliance for Public Relations, in order to agree a set of evaluation and measurement guidelines. The Principles are, in brief:

1. The importance of goal setting and measurement - goals should be as quantitative as possible and address the who, what, when and how much impact is expected from a PR campaign. Traditional and social media should both be measured as well as changes in stakeholder awareness, comprehension, attitude and behaviour.

2. Media measurement requires quality - this principles considers that taking a figure on the amount of coverage received, for example, is meaningless. Instead, media measurement should account for the tone, credibility of the source and media outlet in order to determine the value, and should also consider message delivery, prominence and visual dimension. Crucially, quality can positive, neutral or negative.

3. AVE's are not the value of PR - as discussed above

4. Social media can and should be measured - measurement must focus on communities and conversations, not coverage

5. Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results - shifts in awareness, comprehension, attitude and behaviour, relating to purchase, donations, brand equity, corporate reputation and employee engagement should be measured - outcomes, not results.

6. Organisational results can and should be measured

7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement - we already know how social media is driving the changes in transparency, but this highlights the need for it to be replicable, also

In summary, what the Principles suggest is that we must move from evaluating outputs to evaluating outcomes, and create a culture where continuous improvement is at the core. Good communication makes the difference - good communication is not a money return in the bank and can't be seen on the balance sheet.

Organisations must also budget for measurement from the outset, not as an afterthought when the kitty is almost dry; experts suggest 5% of your total PR spend, which might sound a lot, but not if we consider that this 5% provides you with an honest assessment of how you're performing.

Augmented Reality: it's like real life...but better

Augmented Reality - it might sound a little like an oxymoron, considering you can rarely amplify reality itself. But with augment meaning 'to add more of the same thing', it indicates exactly that - a heightened real-time experience of a brand, of which we can learn more about the World around us.

Mashable describe it as "a live, direct or indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics, or GPS data."  Educase provide a simpler definition, and proclaim that Augmented Reality - or AR - "takes a real object or space as the foundation and incorporates technologies that add contextual data to deepen a person's understanding of the subject."  Both Common Craft and Econsultancy.com heap praise on the concept, and posit that it is "an engaging way of combining live video with computer-generated data and visualisations." 

In essence, your vital ingredients are a smartphone with an internet connection - such as an iPhone, Blackberry or Android-powered device - and the relevant software, usually in the form of an app. Experts agree that whilst AR using smartphones is just catching on, the future will see AR utilising infrastructures as small as a pair of spectacles - meaning the naked eye will directly experience augmented reality, leading to a more engaging experience.

Two recent examples I located of AR in action are from different sides of the Atlantic, but are great examples of technology enhancing one's brand experience. American's leading board sport apparel maker, Airwalk, invited customers to download the GoldRun app, before visiting one of 2 sites, one in Los Angeles and one in New York, where the AR experience would take place. Using the smartphone's camera function, users would locate 'virtual shoes' that were GPS-linked to each location. On doing so, users were then taken to an exclusive Airwalk e-commerce site and given a passcode to purchase a limited edition pair of shoes.

The effect was "basically a store that didn't exist. It only existed on your phone through augmented reality." (Source: clickz.com)

Meanwhile, North London premier league outfit Tottenham Hotspur unveiled the world's first ever Aurasma-enabled team shirt, a technology that "seamlessly blends real-world images and objects with interactive multimedia content such as videos and animations, called 'auras'". Fans must first download the Official Spurs News app to their smartphone - at £1.49 a pop - and then point their Aurasma-enabled iPhones and iPads at the front of this season's Premier League t-shirt to see footage of this season's goals. Videos are updated throughout the season and will include exclusive behind-the-scenes footage, player interviews and news. Photos of the players wearing the shirts when reproduced in newspapers will also trigger video content, so long as they feature the Aurasma logo. Furthermore, the official team photo will 'come to life' when viewed through Aurasma.

With all this in mind, what does AR spell for the future of PR? Firstly, we'll see a cultural shift from consumers being recipients of content to taking an active role in gathering and processing information - an extension of man's desire to connect with others and be part of a community.

There'll be rapid uptake as smartphone device have become ubiquitous and accessible to most.

Organisations will see ROI, as using AR means you can demonstrate more than one product in a range, driving traffic to your website where you can show consumers even more.

Finally, the arrival of AR heralds faster learning with fewer resources - it's cost-effective for organisations, but PR practitioners must stay one step ahead as consumers become knowledge-rich.

PR for PR

It would seem slightly ironic that the PR industry needs, essentially, a PR overhaul. But it's true. Many a seasoned practitioner would be quick to admit at times, PR has had an image problem, regularly being confused with its cousin 'spin', which is characterised by tacky red tops and a certain Mr Clifford.

But it's not just spin that has caused confusion around the industry; it would seem that PR's very own practitioners, those who have cut their teeth at a time when newspapers were still big business and posting a press release first class equaled 'hot off the press', have become unsure as to what modern day public relations is. For those 'old school' PR's who are yet to embrace stakeholder activism - social media - and continue to be alienated by blogs, Twitter and the online universe, then the industry is facing an identity crisis.

It can be argued that the first step to giving the PR industry an image overhaul is to redefine what public relations in the 21st century is. For those working in the industry, it is vital that they understand how consumer generated content has radically changed the communication landscape, and what this now means for the day-to-day running of organisations. Adam Lavelle, from the board of Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WMMA) says: "Before the rise of social media, public relations was about trying to manage the message an entity was sharing with its different audiences. Now, PR has to be more about facilitating the ongoing conversation in an always-on world."

Dan Tisch, chairman of the Global Alliance for PR and Communication Management, adds to this: "The role of public relations and corporate communications has shifted from creating content to attempting to influence the content created by others."

Indeed, the rise of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, MySpace and YouTube have not only brought down the geographical and social barriers in place pre-Internet, but as a medium it has facilitated participatory information sharing, and in doing so, it has been "the enabling mechanism for a communications revolution that is driving significant changes in the dynamics of society." (Phillips and Young, 2009, p3). Thus, it is changing the landscape of PR and marketing as we know it at an astonishing rate - organisations "once had the impression that they had control of what was said and believed about their activities." 'Digital natives', or those who have grown up with and are familiar with the online world, have become accustomed to a new level of transparency, and "operate under the assumption that everything they do will eventually be known online." (Brogan and Smith, 2010)

In the past, when passive consumption through watching TV was the norm, there was no alternative to dealing with PR and marketing. PRO's and marketing executives were able to execute campaigns relatively unchallenged because the channels didn't exist to say otherwise. Now, individuals not only contribute to these conversations, but they run them too, a phenomenon known as commons-based peer production.

For decades, communication has been one-way, top-down, but now the tools exist for many to many, two-way communication, and the PRO's of yesteryear must accept this change and incorporate it into their PR toolkit with gusto, no matter how daunting the prospect may be. Only with this change can PR's image begin to be salvaged.

Conducting a Social Media Audit

Tapscott and Williams posit that "the new mass collaboration is changing how companies and societies harness knowledge and capability to innovate and create value" (2006, p20). Whilst audits have been common practice in companies for the past 30 years, now, with the increasing expansion and fragmentation of the communication landscape and where "mass collaboration can reshape an industry overnight" (p31), organisations have no choice but to audit their online presence in addition to their offline activities. In doing so, brands can avoid oversharing, project a consistent voice and be best placed for dealing with crises.

The following is a rough guide to auditing an organisation's - or even an individuals' - presence online.

- First, list all online profiles where your brand has a presence, even if its an inactive presence: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, Tumblr et al.

- Next, secure domain names on all sites (remembering to remain consistent - don't drastically vary usernames unless your are forced to). Some websites will do this for you, such as Know'Em.

- Check the levels of completion on each site - by this, I mean you should complete the very basic information, in particular contact details. That way, even if your brand isn't active on that site (yet), users can be directed to somewhere that is active.

- Branding - check that all logos, slogans and colour schemes are up to date. Consistency, consistency, consistency - the root of all successful branding, be it for companies or personal use.

- Style Guide - are all contributors sticking to the house style? Is the 'voice' consistent across all channels? In a socially connected age where the corporate voice is becoming irrelevant, its okay to be informal and engage with your audience, but remember that online content exists forever and one slip up can be to the detriment of the whole brand. If in doubt, don't post it.

- Content and Regularity - striking the balance between posting too little and posting too much is a fine art. You want users to know they can contact you via that channel should they have a query, but you don't want them to be checking your Twitter feed for the last time you were active. If in doubt, draw up a communications calendar, whereby you schedule posts/tweets, and respond to queries in a structured way.

- Sharing - vital for driving more traffic to your channels and increasing visibility is the option to share tweets or posts with other users. Have reshare options clearly set out at the end of each post. Similarly, you may choose to share interesting articles from other brands or opinion leaders too, but consider that you are not embellishing false or controversial viewpoints before you post.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and may vary from industry to industry. Such audits should typically take place once a month, or more frequently in digital industries where change lurks round every corner.