This was in depth reading into the different phases of a PR program and the things which should be included.
The plan explains how the PR practitioner should initially identify the opinions, objectives and goals of the program. The process is then one of first setting the objectives, then planning and working out the budget, implementing the program, and finally evaluating.
The reading has an in depth explanation of the process, so it will inevitably be extremely useful for the project... however i have to say in its simplest form the concept of identifying what people think, and deciding what you want them to think, with an aim to create that change in perception, is a worrying thing. Noted as being appart of the "setting objectives" phase of a PR plan, i disagree in the ethics of a body, such as a corporation, with a clear access to more resources and persuasive power in comparison to the individual, being in a position of coercion to a different view point.
This is at the heart of an asymmetric approach to PR.
Instead we should be moving towards a symmetrical approach which aims to not only represent the interests of business but also the interests of the general public by giving them an opportunity to not only retain their own point of view but voice it if they see the need.
I realise that encouraging people to possibly disagree with you doesn't really comply with the general model for PR plans, but maybe it should. Because honestly if what you're trying to sell (be it a product, idea, story, person) doesn't have enough integrity to undergo criticism, then i think we need to ask why we're trying to sell it in the first place.
- Louisa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Louisa I agree with your comments on a symmetrical approach to communication. Ideally corporations should be discussing issues with all stakeholders that may be affected by decisions, but I don't think that this is widely practiced in most cases just yet.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comments of PR plans and their aims to change the perceptions of audiences, I am under the impression that this is not such a bad thing. Isn't public relations all about creating a positive image for the client? And if it the client’s image is negative isn't the practitioner’s job to portray them to the public in a positive light? I believe that all public relations practitioners and advertisers are doing is wrapping up our own perceptions of what we consider to be important and then sending them back to us in align with their message.
Hey Kayla,
ReplyDeletethanks for the comment, you raised some interesting points.
Maybe we need to reassess what's important to us.
Maybe we need to reassess the ethics of PR practice in an age where consumption without thought means a real risk the future of our society.
I absolutely agree with the idea that PR practitioners and advertisers are just selling us what we want to hear, in-line with their message. And yes, that is their job. But the reality of our current situation is PR people wrap up their nice little package ready for consumption, and the public buys it. Be it a product, person or story, if its "sold" to the masses in the right way it will inevitably be bought.
I suppose the question is whether or not you have an issue with this situation.
Personally, i do. I don't believe in encouraging people to blindly consume anything, instead supporting a symmetrical approach as the logical alternative. Companies for sure are free to try portray themselves in a positive light, i just think this isn't cool unless the audience has an opportunity to engage with what they're saying.