In 1904 business journalist, Ivy Lee, set up an agency with the hope of removing the secrecy surrounding businesses and their policies. Lee believed business secrecy lessened business credibility in the market-place and led to people’s general distrust. Lee set out his beliefs and aims in his Declaration of Principles:
‘This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the open. We aim to supply news. This is not an adverting agency; if you think any of our matter properly ought to go to your business office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement of fact. Upon enquiry, full information will be given out to any editor concerning those on whose behalf the article is sent out.’
Lee’s principles became a model for business communication. Information would be prompt, delivered politely, and with complete frankness. Bad news would be reported as openly as the good, and information would not be covered over with advertising copy or deceit. There is no aim to stylize information like that of the Press Agentry Model. Attention could still be captured but it would be with truth at the core.
Surely to win back a distrusting audience and to inform people of what is going on this form of public relations would be considered the best?
Lee’s Declaration of Principles is what Gunig and Hunt would define as a Public Information Model. Providing information is the key to its function. It is not looking to persuade or change opinion but simply to give information out accurately and openly. The Information is available to everyone in the public and therefore lets people know what is going on. Contemporary examples of this could be council meeting information, or highway agencies informing people of road widening for example.
So, the question to ask, 108 years later, how relevant are these set of principles today?
On the surface, honesty, in theory, will build reputation and trust. Lee knew the principles needed in crisis communication. He also knew how truth gained respect, and a cover-up is always spotted. These ethics, in practise are still relevant today. However, in a more informed and educated society, people expect more than to be just told, people expect choice and the ability to have their voice heard they want to know their opinion is considered if they are to carry on trusting the organisation providing the information.
The global market is continually growing, aided further by technology. The ability to communicate is at an all time high. The Public Information Model, set out in Lee’s Declaration of Principles, was there for everyone, openly and freely. We know in today’s society the importance of targeting our audience. It is fine to spout the truth, but what is the point if it falls on deaf, uninterested ears. Truthful information is powerful and worthy only if it is direct, targeted and relevant.
Friday, 22 February 2008
Monday, 18 February 2008
Phillis Report. Assignment one
To maintain a truly democratic government effective communication is paramount between the lawmakers and the law abiders, i.e. governmental departments and the citizens.
‘Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.’ (Cutlip)
To show themselves as a government with the ability to embrace the true meaning of democracy, when New Labour came into power in 1997, special advisors, which included press secretary Alastair Campbell, were employed to head campaigns that would heighten governmental communication. However, this media induced form of political communication led people to associate the idea of ‘Spin’ with the new government. A stigma so strong that ten years on and Alastair Campbell is still known by many as the doctor of ‘spin’
A leaked email lead to further scandal, with suggestions that one of governments own appointed advisors, Jo Moore, had called 9/11, ‘a good day to bury bad news.’ Concerns were growing over public mistrust, added to this was a decline in elections, particularly between the young and ethnic minority groups. Therefore, it was these growing concerns, as well as the failure to dispel discontentment over governmental secrecy, that led to the publication of an independent report.
Sir Robert Phillis published his report in 2004. Amongst the findings were suggestions of real mistrust for the government and the media this included the way the government was portrayed with in the press, a worrying fact seen as New Labour at the time had adopted a strong reliance on the media to get their messages across.
Communication within governmental departments wasn’t seen as ‘core functions of the mainstream civil service.’ The report also claimed there was evidence to suggest a lack of resources including training in these key areas.
Although The Freedom of Information act had come into place in 2005, there was no evidence to support any effort had been made to remove the traditional culture of secrecy surrounding government.
On the surface, the government’s appointment of specially trained advisors looked like real efforts were being made to help form a more democratic government that would keep people informed and be open to feedback from constituents. However, their strong reliance on the media did not help their cause due to the public’s general mistrust of the media as a communicational body.
As a democratic party, the government needs to be seen to be doing things that would be positive for the people. To gain credibility they need to use the media as a powerful tool that can highlight their achievements and policies to the wider audience. Yet I believe it is fair to say that Tony Blair and the New Labour government will be better remembered for the war on Iraq rather that its positive input on the education system, or the introduction of the minimum wage.
For me, the report highlights the communicational problems the government have and the lack of structure and importance it is putting on certain areas and departments. It makes me question how much truth is getting through to the voting public, and whose truth are we hearing? Mass communication is fine, if it is mass truth that we are hearing.
The recommendations of the Phillis Report, such as more direct communication with the public, the redesigning of government websites, a strong central communications structure, are all encouraging if followed. It means that government are making real efforts to encourage public opinion forming. But the question to ask is, does this do anything more than what the ‘special advisors’ first did, other than make the information that they choose to share appear largely more user friendly, and at the same time become more widely available?
‘Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.’ (Cutlip)
To show themselves as a government with the ability to embrace the true meaning of democracy, when New Labour came into power in 1997, special advisors, which included press secretary Alastair Campbell, were employed to head campaigns that would heighten governmental communication. However, this media induced form of political communication led people to associate the idea of ‘Spin’ with the new government. A stigma so strong that ten years on and Alastair Campbell is still known by many as the doctor of ‘spin’
A leaked email lead to further scandal, with suggestions that one of governments own appointed advisors, Jo Moore, had called 9/11, ‘a good day to bury bad news.’ Concerns were growing over public mistrust, added to this was a decline in elections, particularly between the young and ethnic minority groups. Therefore, it was these growing concerns, as well as the failure to dispel discontentment over governmental secrecy, that led to the publication of an independent report.
Sir Robert Phillis published his report in 2004. Amongst the findings were suggestions of real mistrust for the government and the media this included the way the government was portrayed with in the press, a worrying fact seen as New Labour at the time had adopted a strong reliance on the media to get their messages across.
Communication within governmental departments wasn’t seen as ‘core functions of the mainstream civil service.’ The report also claimed there was evidence to suggest a lack of resources including training in these key areas.
Although The Freedom of Information act had come into place in 2005, there was no evidence to support any effort had been made to remove the traditional culture of secrecy surrounding government.
On the surface, the government’s appointment of specially trained advisors looked like real efforts were being made to help form a more democratic government that would keep people informed and be open to feedback from constituents. However, their strong reliance on the media did not help their cause due to the public’s general mistrust of the media as a communicational body.
As a democratic party, the government needs to be seen to be doing things that would be positive for the people. To gain credibility they need to use the media as a powerful tool that can highlight their achievements and policies to the wider audience. Yet I believe it is fair to say that Tony Blair and the New Labour government will be better remembered for the war on Iraq rather that its positive input on the education system, or the introduction of the minimum wage.
For me, the report highlights the communicational problems the government have and the lack of structure and importance it is putting on certain areas and departments. It makes me question how much truth is getting through to the voting public, and whose truth are we hearing? Mass communication is fine, if it is mass truth that we are hearing.
The recommendations of the Phillis Report, such as more direct communication with the public, the redesigning of government websites, a strong central communications structure, are all encouraging if followed. It means that government are making real efforts to encourage public opinion forming. But the question to ask is, does this do anything more than what the ‘special advisors’ first did, other than make the information that they choose to share appear largely more user friendly, and at the same time become more widely available?
Friday, 15 February 2008
Pr, Histories and practises, An introduction
The time has come to get our teeth into some more in depth theory on the practices of Public Relations, and how it fits into specific areas in communication and society.
Our first real taste of how the public relation wheels really work took place in the form of a two day workshop with Myc Riggulsford. Myc has previously worked in broadcasting and journalism, and has enjoyed high profile positions such as press officer for the A.A before becoming Head of Public Relations for The U.K Transplant Service. Since 1991, he has owned his own consultancy company, The Walnut Bureau, and is currently in a position where he can work 100 days a year and enjoy the rest of the year on his organic farm in North Devon.
It was armed with this past experience and knowledge in the field of communications that he came to speak to our group.
Myc began by distinguishing the main groups that are associated with not for profit public relations. These include government and its individual departments, charities, pressure groups and organizations that include research facilities. We looked at their agendas and how they worked along side each other.
By looking at the agendas that each group had I started to realize the importance of knowing how to deal with specific organizations. Myc highlighted the power certain groups hold, for example, the R.S.P.B, whose membership currently stands at around two million members, although they act as a charity organization they hold tremendous power. The government currently want to use the sea surges near the mouth of the River Severn to power electricity using turbo power, but because the wetlands are owned by the R.S.P.B they refuse permission to build there.
We then looked at what public relations actually is, a concept that has never been fully explained by theorist. We looked at public relations as a communicational tool and looked at some of the models used.
Based around a receiver and a message recipient we also looked at the barriers faced by the message getting through to the public through technical, social and legal problems.
We also looked at areas to consider when pitching ideas to a client on these included the audience, objectives, strategy and the good old S.W.O.T analysis.
We looked at the models used in the public sector as forms of communication.
The Deficit Model.; Giving out information that has to be learnt with a; ‘you must know this, it is important,’ approach to communication.
The Dialogue Model; Not just telling you the information, also looking for the way the public reacts to it. A form of two-way communication.
Myc also explained the principle of Upstream Engagement. Trying in advance to find out possible worries or problems that could be faced. There was obviously no Upstream Engagement when it came to peoples present complaints about the smell of B.O in pubs after the smoking ban came into force! Upstream engagement is about trying to second-guess outcomes.
To finish we looked at a variety of past campaigns that have taken place. We looked at the powerful message that could be contained in using images alone, (a great tip for preparing PowerPoint presentations.) We looked at how important it was to know who to target and how to target them. We did this by looking at different historical movements and how they linked together in the form of religious faith, rights and protest on social changes.
By categorizing what is important to the individual, and on what scale, i.e. personal, family, local, international etc, we were able to see what areas to tap into the subconscious and the importance of targeting universal interests, such as money, power, sex, fame and food.
I found the 2 days very useful to start to structure my understanding on what is needed to gain successful communications and how, if used in the right way, to reach the right audience, with the right message the effect communication has as a powerful public relation tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
