Public Relation Models Essays

Public Relation Models Essays Public Relation Models Essay Public Relation Models Essay The purpose of this essay is to achieve better insight into the different methods of conducting real-life public relations nowadays. Theoretically, several models have been developed to categorize the different types of PR practice/practitioners; analyzing the usage of these models by PR professionals will reveal the extent to which they are valid in real life. Because these models deal with the communication-flow involved in PR, the essay will begin with a basic outline of how human communication works and how it can be applied effectively, using theory from Stappers (1988) and Dervin (1989)- Stappers offers a basic conversation model which describes the information and communication processes, while Dervin discusses the role of audiences in communication. The next step will be to analyze the aforementioned PR models and shortly describe them, starting with Grunig’s (1989) set of models (symmetrical and asymmetrical) and moving on to Van Ruler’s (1997) tested models (the technician, sales manager and intermediary). The final section of the essay will concentrate on real-life examples of how the PR models are applied, related to commercial business and international public relations, provided and examined by Lordan (2006) and Grunig (1993). The examples will include customer input to organizations and the use of Grunig’s models in US politics. A detailed analysis will follow which will lead to the conclusion of how the communication-flow models apply to real life, and how valid each models is today. Communication: how does it work? To generate awareness of the communication process, Stappers created a general communication model. To successfully communicate, the receiver of the message does not only have to receive the information but also understand the meaning of it. Accordingly one can divide the receiver’s tasks into â€Å"phases such as noticing, observing and knowing† (Stappers, 1988, p. ). If one would combine these activities, one can use the term ‘information source’. When the receiver is observing, he or she gains knowledge. This is called the information process – â€Å"it consists of the receiver and the information source† (Stappers, 1988, p. 3). It will become a communication process when the receiver communicates the message to someone else. Within the communication p rocess there is a sender, who supplies another person with a message. A communication process is when a person, the sender, supplies another person with a message. According to Stappers, communication revolves around second-hand experiences (benefiting from other experiences), and also passing (sending) them on, allowing others to benefit from your experiences. This can be considered as an optimistic view of what genuinely happens; one should regard it more as a desirable result of communication. Communication enables us to share each other’s experiences and evolve with them, this is why this model can be seen as a two-way flow of information; one sends, receives and shares. Dervin came up with a similar conclusion to communication (specifically two-way), by discussing the importance of the audience during public communication campaigns. According to Dervin (1989), the audience is not â€Å"an amorphous mass† (p. 20), but rather a group of people who can learn from and teach (through feedback) the sender. If you listen to your audience you can understand what they need and possibly satisfy them (as well as yourself), thus building a bridge to your â€Å"Uses (Helps)† (Dervin, 1989, p. 18) over the gap that would exist if audience feedback was absent. This â€Å"sense-making approach† to communication simply states that two-way communication is superior to one-way communication. Using this basic information on communication-flow, we are able to explain how communication works in the different PR models offered by Grunig and Van Ruler. Grunig’s PR models: Asymmetrical vs. symmetrical communication Grunig has introduced four basic models for public relations. Each model represents the values, goals and behaviours practiced by organizations when they act upon public relations. Grunig (1989) states that the models are â€Å"simplified in the same way that a perfect vacuum or perfect competition are simplified representations in other sciences,† i. e. these models represent clear-cut, ‘perfect’ types of PR practice that may not necessarily be recognized in real life. However Grunig tries to identify and display the underlying reasons for applying a certain theory by a public relation practitioner. Grunig’s models are ‘press agentry/publicity’, ‘public information’, ‘two-way asymmetrical’ and ‘two-way symmetrical’. According to Grunig, these four models simultaneously contain and represent the companies’ inherent values, goals and behavior. The models can be divided in two groups, the distinction of which lies in the communication methods used. Grunig describes that public relation practitioners  follow either an asymmetrical or symmetrical way of communication on which they base  their actions and which determines what kind of relationship an organization has with its publics. If one should examine to which ideology or perception the PR-practitioners act upon it could help to develop further more effective public relations efforts. The ‘press agentry/publicity’ and ‘public information’ models consist of one-way communication whereas the ‘two-way asymmetrical’ and ‘two-way symmetrical’ methods consist of two-way communication. One-way communication revolves around the company communicating to its audience with no feedback. As a dominant current world view, PR is still seen as â€Å"persuasive and manipulative† (Grunig, 1989, p. 40). The first presupposition fits within this world view, which Grunig describes as ‘Press agentry/ publicity’. This model seeks media attention in any way possible for example through product and trade fairs. This model is sometimes associated with propagandistic public relations- the PR focuses mainly on the positives of the organization and its products/services, and it emphasizes on benefiting the company, not the audience/publics, ‘the audience are passive receivers who ought to be â€Å"persuaded or manipulated† (Grunig, 1989, p. 40). ‘Public information’ similarly focuses on publishing positive (yet truthful) information about the given organization; however it is reluctant to disseminate negative information. Grunig states that (in contrast to the first model) this model tends to manipulate the publics unintentionally. For example, bands who participate in the Live Earth concerts have ‘public information’ PR which concentrates on the benefits of fighting global warming, while ignoring the fact that preparing and carrying out the concerts adds a lot to global warming (Vozel, 2007). Both of these one-way communication models are used by PR practitioners to inform the publics about the organization without any research of the publics (Grunig, 1989). The two-way communication models are more complicated in that they involve research of the publics in order to support them as well as the organization. ‘Two-way asymmetrical’ communication uses research to find out what has to be done to satisfy the public while still focusing mostly on benefiting the organization without the changing organizational behavior. Therefore, behavioral change, as Grunig puts it, from the side of the audience is hoped to benefit the organization rather than both involved parties. This model can be seen as manipulative because an organization uses it to satisfy the public mainly for its own good-will. ‘Two-way symmetrical’ communication, similarly to ‘two-way asymmetrical’ communication, involves research of the publics. However, it differs in its purpose- instead of focusing on the benefits of the organization, it emphasises on a mutual understanding between the organization and its publics. Practitioners fine-tune the needs and wants of both the organization and its publics to achieve harmony and find better solutions to problems together (synergy). Organizations using this model are known to bargain and negotiate with their publics and develop strategies of conflict resolutions. According to Grunig (1989) only the ‘two-way symmetrical’ communication model is genuinely symmetrical. In contrast to the other three models, ‘two-way symmetrical’ communication is the only one that does not focus solely of the benefits of the company. ‘Two-way asymmetrical’ communication also involves the publics but tends to use persuasive and manipulative messages to support them, as seen in the ‘press publicity/agentry’ model. Practitioners who use ‘public information’ may also manipulate publics (although it could be unintentional). Furthermore, Grunig (1989) argues that ‘two-way symmetrical’ communication is the best of these models because it is the only one that uses moral and ethical approaches in PR. After identifying and distinguishing the four PR-models, Grunig states why an organisation practices a particular one. He concludes that the reason why a model is applied lies in what he calls the ‘dominant coalition’. This term implies that these models ‘function as a part of an organisation’s ideology’ and become ‘situational strategies’. Grunig also comes to the conclusion that the top management, ‘the power elite’ , (which works separately from the PR practitioners) establishes strategic target publics and subsequently passes this issue to the PR practitioner, who has to accomplish this task in coherence with the ‘organisational culture’. Finally to summarize, it can be said that several ways of practicing public relations can be identified. Reasons why a company chooses to act upon a particular model is strongly determined by its ‘dominant coalition’. Van Ruler’s PR models The following models also deal with the concept ‘two-way symmetrical communication’. Furthermore recent developments will be elaborated. With the outcome of Van Ruler’s research as a basis one could distinguish three models which determine how public relation officers (PROs) regard their role in the profession of PR. This can be distinguished by deriving the underlying views from the given answers by leading PROs in the Netherlands. The three models are: The Technician, who only wants to accomplish his /her goals. There is no role for the receiver (the public). Sales manager, who focuses on building a positive image of the company, the receiver is passive. Intermediary, who is responsible for creating and maintaining a closed mutual relationship, between the organisation and its public. The receiver is active. She describes ‘the technician’ as someone â€Å"who is tactically concerned with the production and dissemination of communication productsà ¢â‚¬  (Van Ruler, 1997, p. 97). She refers to this view as a ‘technical one’ which implies that this person is just â€Å"subservient to the technical demands of the execution of his duties† (Van Ruler, 1997, p. 7). The second view a PRO can have is characterized as ‘sales manager’. Van Ruler (1997) describes it as a synchronization of the behavior of the public with the view of the organization (p. 97). This view can also be characterized as an ‘instrumental one’ meaning that this person is merely following the guidelines and sets up the organizational strategy. ‘The intermediary’ is the last view derived from Van Ruler’s research outcomes. The intermediary regards his or her job in â€Å"building bridges and trying to stand between and organization and publics† (Van Ruler, 1997, p. 97). This perception of the profession includes being interested in some sort of exchange between both, the organization and the publics in order to gain mutual understanding, as Van Ruler describes it. This is why this view can be perceived as a ‘professional’ one meaning that this person is more distant, he or she is like a third party between organization and public who tries to intermediate in order to bring both in ‘ tune’. This identified model is, to some extent, similar to Grunig’s ‘two-way symmetrical way’ of communication. Both models contain many overlapping characteristics. The theoretical framework delivered by Grunig sets up certain values in a particular view. Van Ruler distinguishes similar models, only with different terminology, for example ‘intermediary’ or ‘professional view’ instead of Grunig’s words ‘two-way symmetrical communication’. By using different terminology Van Ruler puts the same process in a different context. Van Ruler differentiates her models and provides additional material to Grunig’s outcome, by stating that while these presuppositions can be easily identified, they cannot be easily found in the practical field of a working PRO. This arouses the question as to whether or not the ‘two-way symmetrical’ method of information is only possible in Grunig’s theoretical framework. This is because Van Ruler, through her research, tried to identify the ‘two-way symmetrical’ way of information in the daily work of selected PROs and was not able to identify it. The communication-flow PR models in modern-day practice: Real-life examples Grunig and Van Ruler described interactions with the publics by using the terms ‘intermediary’ or ‘two-way symmetrical’ flow of communication. Lordan describes these interactions as increases in ‘interactivity’ between a company and the audience by stating the possible benefits as well. He states that the ‘interactivity’ already exists by means of having focus groups or by conducting customer testimonials. However, there is now a movement which is far more comprehensive. Currently, Lordan (2006) has stated: â€Å"customers are being asked for their input in shaping all elements of an organization† (p. 27), especially within the field of communication he adds. Many activities which were handled by communication specialists are now partly determined by the public itself. For instance Lordan (2006) says the Super Bowl commercials, â€Å"are often held up as a barometer of professional communication trends† (p. 27). Nowadays, organizations are asking their customers to shape their message and commercials by letting them develop creative concepts and by involving them in the campaigns. Reasons for this behavior of the consumer according to Lordan can be given with the example of ‘American Idol’, a show where the audience is obliged to vote for the contestants and therefore actively influence the outcome (â€Å"greater excitement†). Another reason is the change in technology, from ‘old media’ such as newspapers and television which â€Å"happen to us† passively to new media like websites or mp3-devices which he states â€Å"demand interactivity- we happen to them. † The willingness to expose themselves can be regarded as an indicator that consumers â€Å"anticipate – even prefer – greater influence in the communication process. † (Lordan, 2006, p. 28) With this Lordan is not referring to the general communication model described by Stappers. The difference is that Stappers refers more to second hand information; he would regard the sending of the message as the communication process. YouTube is also an example of giving evidence for the high demand of being capable to add something to the media, to be interactive. Since YouTube consists of what the user offers. Lardon also says that because of these recent developments PROs fear about their job security. This is due to their job being partly taken over by the audience. Assuming that, more involvement of the target receiver is harming the ‘control’ of the sender. This implies that several views are still predominant, which are also partly characterized in the concepts ‘two-way asymmetrical communication’  (Grunig)  and sales manager (Van Ruler). Even though consumers are enabled to participate, Lordan (2006) argues that the consumers still are warranted. This is because the company still â€Å"reserves the right to select or to refuse the final participants† and that it is still up to the media professionals â€Å"to determine the rules, the access and, in some cases, the outcome† (p. 28). To conclude Lordan (2006) states that, if a PRO has faith in his or her profession, in a manner that he or she sees it as something â€Å"where the goal is mutually beneficial relationships between clients and audiences† (p. 9), the trend of interactivity is a concept which could enable the PROs to improve their performance instead of give away their jobs. The perception of losing control about the intended message is related to Van Ruler’s model ‘sales manager’. Van Ruler describes this model as a view which involves ‘synchronizing’ the public opinion with the organization’s opi nion. So, active influence and power are wanted to be on the side of the organization and not as Lordan (2006) states â€Å"a mutually beneficial relationship† (p. 9). Grunig’s approach can also be taken in to account. Grunig (1989) says that PR departments should work as on ‘open system’ in which there is interaction between the client (organization) and the audience. Grunig named this approach the ‘two-way symmetrical’ flow of information and gave presuppositions which highly influences a company’s behavior. Consequently it can be said that even though Lordan claims that ‘interactivity’ could work with a ‘two way symmetrical approach,’ it is quite different in reality. Namely the concept of the ‘sales manager’, the fear of losing control described by Van Ruler, is dominant. Grunig (1993) follows the idea that the ‘two-way communication’ model is quite rare in real PR practice too, by offering several examples from his analysis on international public relations- e. g. in a campaign for Lithuania, a PR, Bernays, used â€Å"many of the techniques of the public information model† as well as the two-way asymmetrical model; also Grunig (1993) mentions that throughout the 20th century many international clients of the US were supported with asymmetrical PR, â€Å" PR firms will stoop to represent the interests of dictatorships†. Grunig (1993) does suggest a possible reason for this use of PR in politics, â€Å"The majority of public relations practitioners who work for international clients enter the business because of experience in journalism, advertising or politics. Because of this background, they devote most of their efforts to media relations and lobbying typically practicing the press agentry, public information or two-way asymmetrical models of public relations†. Conclusion In this essay we went through a movement from general to specific in order to analyze whether or not the discussed PR models are valid in real-life PR practice. We started off with a basic outline of what desirable communication is (according to Stappers and Dervin), and moved on to describe Grunig’s and Van Ruler’s models and how they use communication, as well as what their similarities and differences are. From this section of the essay it can be concluded that the most preferred and ethical models are the symmetrical models, i. . the two-way symmetrical communication model and ‘the intermediary’. Through our analysis of how PR is used in real-life examples, we saw that while various asymmetric methods are used in commercial business and international PR, the ‘perfect’ symmetrical models are not really valid. A reason for this may be that PR practitioners in real-life are not necessarily educated as PR professionals, but rather come from oth er backgrounds, whether it is advertising, journalism or politics (as mentioned by Grunig, 1993). References