The world’s leading authority on public relations, Professor James Grunig recently said that social media has, “the potential to truly revolutionalise public relations – but only if a paradigm shift in the thinking of many practitioners and scholars takes place.” (Praxis, a digital PR resource centre.)
In the Praxis article, entitled Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation, he provides a lucid analysis of, and adds considerable value to, discussions on public relations and its dialectic with social media. This post – the first of a three-part series – discusses certain elements of the article that are of interest and relevance to me and, I think, the public relations profession at large.
Social
media, Grunig says, has “the
potential to make the profession more global, strategic, two-way and
interactive, symmetrical or dialogical, and socially responsible.” This will
not occur, he warns, if PR pros use it as a means of “dumping messages”,
however. Rather, he counsels professionals to interact with stakeholders and
bring information, “from the environment into organisational
decision-making.”
The
prevalence of social media has accelerated (or crystallised, it’s hard to know
which sometimes) the emergence of disparate cultures and sub-cultures. This
has, in turn, led to a fracturing of target audiences for organisations.
Segmenting target audiences has become increasingly more challenging (a new
meaning of the ‘digital divide’?).
Further, this emphasises the need for public relations professionals to be appropriately educated, at both a tactical and strategic level.
The
plethora of social media being utilised by target audiences, or stakeholders,
has placed a huge burden on PR practitioners. The technical nuances and
appropriate social behaviour for each social media ‘species’ demand prodigious
(and daunting) amounts of knowledge, as well as multi-skilling and
multi-tasking attributes.
The
conversation = public relations and social media
Another dimension of social media is that its very existence is predicated on the notion of ‘giving’, of an approach that benefits a community or society. Thought leadership plays an important part in this dialectic. Corporate social responsibility is deeply analogous to it.
All
of these elements go back to the core theory of Grunig and his colleagues, that
of two-way symmetrical communication. This is an approach which sees public relations as an activity that
enables organisations and their stakeholders to come to a negotiated, mutually
agreed set of behaviours. These are the PR programs which reap results,
according to Grunig (pictured left).
Controlling
target audiences?
As Trevor Young recently pointed out, since when did organisations have control over what their stakeholders thought or how they behaved? He’s on the same page as Grunig here, who says, “the assumed control of messages and influence has always been an illusion rather than a reality of public relations practice.”
Some organisations and practitioners might find this reality a little too tough to stomach. If that’s the case, then the social media waters are way too choppy for you, baby.
The only way to influence is to engage. This means conversational communication, two-way symmetrical communication. And not just communication. We are talking behavioural change here, as well, from an organisation and its stakeholders. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Research has discredited the media release, one-way notion of public relations and the assertion that control of stakeholders ever occurred. Stakeholders, “have always controlled the messages to which they are exposed.’ Best practice public relations, Grunig says, is “a participant in organisational decision-making rather than a conveyor of messages about decisions after they are made by other managers.”
PART TWO of this guest post by Craig will be posted next week.








