Research and Evaluation (Week 10)

Research is the key to any successful public relations, communications and/or marketing efforts, not only in the business world, but also in the non-profit and government sectors. Public Relations Research, as the name implies, focuses on the entire public relations process and examines the communications relationships that exist among and between institutions and their key target audience groups. Evaluation can then be better analyze with the factual feedbacks or results. Without research, those who administer public relations, public affairs, promotional, and related communications programs and activities for their organizations would be operating in the dark, without any guidance or clear sense of direction.

I think the key points to remember from this week’s reading were that for the public relations or public affairs officer, a useful definition of public relations research is that it is an essential tool for fact and opinion gathering - a systematic effort aimed at discovering, confirming and/or understanding through objective appraisal the facts or opinions pertaining to a specified problem, situation, or opportunity. Most public relations/public affairs officers have come to recognize the following as real “needs” for conducting public relations research:

• To collect information that public relations professionals need to have and to know to do their jobs more effectively.
• To obtain benchmark data regarding the views of key target audience groups.
• When facing a sudden and unexpected crisis, to put the issues involved into and etc.

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that for truly effective public relations research, advance planning is necessary. Before PR practitioners begin, they should clearly define their goals and objectives. They could ask themselves “what you want and need the research to do for you.” They should remember, finding out “why” things are the way they are or the reasons individuals feel and act the way they do are often much more important for public relations planning and evaluation than simply finding out “what” the facts are or “how” people feel. This would aid in providing a better evaluation both for the organizations or the PR practitioners as well and improvise even better outcomes in future.

Stating an example, when communications researchers consider doing qualitative studies, the data collection methodologies that usually pop quickly into mind are focus groups and in-depth interview studies, similarly to what PR practitioners thought of as well. Focus groups, which involves input, output and outcome research or results, under the guidance of a trained moderator -- are encouraged, as a group, to discuss freely any and all of their feelings, concerns, problems and frustrations relating to specific topics under discussion. Focus groups are ideal for brainstorming, idea-gathering and concept testing.

As part of the communications research effort, I guessed PR practitioners are interested in measuring the credibility and/or believability of the information sources, the relevance and overall importance of the messages being disseminated, finding out as much as they possibly can about the opinions, attitudes and behavior patterns of those in the target audience groups, as they respond or do not respond, as the case may be - to the various messages being disseminated and in pinpointing the best and most effective communications channels to use when disseminating messages.

Tactics (Week 9)

If public relations tactics like special events, brochures, broadcast plugs and press releases dominate the consumers or organizations answer, I guessed most of them might be missing the best of what Public Relations has to offer, through tactics.

I think the key points to remember from this week's readings were that, it may be through some form of media relations, or a speaking engagement, but each message needs at least one vehicle to be carried to the intended audience. It makes me ponder what are the best “vehicles” for your message? How can PR practitioners get the word out in the most cost-efficient way? When looking at the different options of choosing tactics, they should consider the fact that research shows that a target audience needs to hear the message about five times until they understand it and take action. Therefore, the more times PR practitioners or firms can reach your target audience, the better it is.

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that it takes more than good intentions for PR firms or practitioners to alter individual, key-audience perception leading to changed behaviors. It takes a carefully structured plan dedicated to getting every member of the PR team working towards the same external audience behaviors insuring that the organization’s public relations effort and tactics used stayed sharply focused.

I guessed when PR practitioners or firms are thinking of tactics selection or the methods of delivery to audience, they should try to remember that their PR effort must require more than special events, news releases and talk show tactics if they are to receive the quality public relations results they deserve. PR professionals and organizations will need the communications tactics certain to carry their message to the attention of their target audience. There are many available from speeches, facility tours, emails and brochures to consumer briefings, media interviews, newsletters, personal meetings and many others. However, they should be certain that the tactics they pick are known to reach folks just like their audience members.

Linking to what we have read and blog of Chapter 7, it reflected that PR planning is a vital tool while PR practitioners are brainstorming of the tactics selection where public could sense the awareness of the messages and felt appealing to them. PR practitioners and firms indeed have to do a lot of research before catering strategies to the target audiences, with creative tactics at the right budget.

Sponsorship and event management (Week 8)

I think the key points to remember from this week’s reading were that of how organizations use different tactics of special events and sponsorship to achieve their aims and goals. These could be ranging from how organizations grow its trust through communicating with values, positioning themselves in special forms to differentiate themselves from competitors and cultivating strategic alliances with the internal and external publics.

Sponsorship is the underwriting of a special event to support corporate objectives by enhancing corporate image, increasing awareness of brands, or directly stimulating sales of products and services. Sponsorship can be individual or joint; the event can be a one-time affair or a continuing series of activities. Why organizations are interested in sponsorship then? I believed this is because of the perception of how beneficial sponsorship can be. When done well, it offers significant opportunities for distinct marketing and competitive advantages, as well as showing support of the event.

The types of sponsorship that were highlighted in the text were interesting facts to be understood as well. Namely the three types of sponsorship are: philanthropic, corporate and marketing sponsorship. The third example is the most well-liked form of sponsorship, and is a common inclusion as a cost effective sales and marketing strategy. A company can benefit from sponsorship in many ways, such as for example, enhancing its image or shaping consumers’ attitudes. Often, companies are looking to improve how they are perceived by their target audience. Sponsoring events that appeal to their market are likely to shape buying attitudes and help generate a positive reaction. Coca Cola, for instance, is always looking to generate a positive influence of their products in the minds of their consumers and as such regularly support events they feel can influence consumer opinions.

However, organizations do have to take notice and beware of “ambush marketing” stealing the limelight of an official sponsor or an event. Ambush marketing occurs when one brand pays to become an official sponsor of an event (eg. athletic events) and another competing brand attempts to cleverly connect itself with the event, without paying the sponsorship fee and, more frustratingly, without breaking any laws. Ambushing, is as undeniably effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while undermining an event’s integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors. While getting ambushed is as inevitable, I guessed there are still tactics that a brand can take to minimize the damage. For example, organizations that sign a sponsorship deal should always proof read the details carefully. They have the need and capabilities to negotiate for every potential right to block out competitors as well.

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that organizations should not expect totally that sponsorship should drive sales. Sponsorship is about values and visibility. Participation may lift organization’s reputation and exposure but there are still needs to attend to the other marketing elements. Additionally, I think that organizations should not keep up a sponsorship deal that has run its natural course. Organizations should monitor the feedback from their sponsorship and beware of sponsorships that can turn “bad” overnight. On the other hand, before organizations start to plan an event or even think of whom to get their sponsorship from, it is important to research on the fundamentals to check the feasibility of the event. Important factors that can be analyzed include:

• How much the event is going to cost;
• Whether it offers an opportunity to raise revenue;
• What the organization can gain from it;
• The effect of the even on the organization’s key publics and etc.

This make me ponder on my team’s upcoming debate topic.
“Sponsorship does not generate authentic value for PR and is a poor cousin of advertising”.

What are your says then? :)

Investigating journalists’ assessments of public relations (Week 7)

To contact… or not?

This week’s blog assessment is captured from a journal article which investigates journalists’ assessments of public relations and their contact preferences.

I think the key points to remember from this week reading were that public relations practitioners and journalists have always had an uncertain relationship till date. The mutual caution disseminates around, where it doesn’t lead to a trusting atmosphere or both parties pushing the blame and responsibility around. However, I think that the fact is that both parties still have a mutually dependent relationship. The press cannot do its job without PR and PR also needs the press.

Journalists frequently regard that PR are there to obstruct their way to the important people whom they really want to talk to. Furthermore, journalists do have the perception that PR people don’t really tell the whole truth and are always out to “spin” a story to the advantage of their own rice bowl or organisation. Time and again, journalist felt that if they takes them at their words and writes a story based on the PR materials which turn out to be less than the whole truth, it actually made them feels let down or so called manipulated.

On the side note, the perception of PR practitioners differs with the above stand. They feel that the press/journalists often treat them with suspicion. Yes indeed, PR practitioners may try their utmost to provide full information and represent their organisation’s case honestly as they see it. However, I guessed they would also feel the intense disappointment if the article that appears on the newspaper the next day having to be twisted what they have said and their openness has been ‘used against them.’

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that the above results can be an unhelpful state of conflict and withdrawal of co-operation that does not serve either profession or the public well. Therefore, an understanding of the pressures on both sides may help to bring some light to the situation. Public relations practitioners often work under great pressure, just like their journalist colleagues, especially in crises or when they are trying to meet a press deadline. Therefore, I think that such pressures on the press and the effectiveness of the PR practitioners and journalists provides great opportunities for organisations and also being ethical of their personal mindset.

In conclusion, I felt that representatives of both the journalists and the PR industry should have a serious discussion about the rules of engagement before planning to do anything (eg. PR practitioner practicing good framing theory as mentioned in the journal). I felt that it is not advisable for the public that the critical faculties of the press are being blunted. Nevertheless, neither it is good that the genuine contribution of PR to the public goes unrecognised. Therefore, a mutual responsibility is encouraged, for a respectful distance to be kept between both professions and an equal responsibility for both to act respectfully towards the other. This means that honesty and integrity must abound, since both parties are catering news to the public.

It take two hands to clap. :)

P.S: Attached is a video I found on YouTube of Mac vs. PC Spoof Commercials personifying the battle between Public Relations (PR) and Journalism (and the Media/Press). Funny and interesting! Enjoy! :)

Media Relations (Week 6)

I think the key points to remember from this week’s reading were that a positive media relation is only one part of a public relations plan. However, it can be the most valuable and efficient tool, if one have a good plan and make right use of it. As professional PR practitioners, I guessed, once they know how to get their message not only accepted, but valued, as important news by their local media (let’s say in Singapore’s context), they have make a big step towards the success of their program planning.

Media relations involve understanding the needs of the media you wish to deal with and meeting those needs, wants and demands. It includes meeting deadlines, making your news releases newsworthy and easy to use, and maintaining good relationships with reporters, editors and news directors.

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that publicity through proper media relations tactics is information supplied to news medium. Nevertheless, the decision to use it and its final form are controlled by the different specific medium.

Publicity is not only low cost but has high return. Placing a news story about your event or your organization gives your message credibility and recognition, whether printed or broadcast. However, editors and news directors in the newsroom appreciate well-written, timely and well-organized news or media releases written in news style and will use them appropriately when in time to come. On the other hand, I believed they also like story tips that they can be follow up on their own time.

Last but not least, despite frequent edgy coalition between the public relations practitioners and the media, there is still a budding interdependence in these two aspects. This can be enhanced and developed hand in hand together through mutual understanding of each other’s role playing, to execute out a successful event or campaign.

The Legal Environment & Ethical Practice (Week 5)

The word legal, by definition refers rules or regulations that are relating to the law or to courts of law. On the other hand, it could be a legal subject that was established under the permitted law or by common legislation of law and most importantly, allowed under the law within different circumstances.

Public relations decisions must be construct in the context of ‘legal environment’. However, when legal threats are being examined, strategies to decrease harm must be taken into consideration of the professional and commercial risks surfacing from the legal action.

I think the key points to remember from this week’s reading were that conflicts can exist between the public relation and the legal with responses to crises. Hoger and Swen (2003: 3) these divergences into four sectors namely: understanding of time and timing; strategies and traditions; approaches to message construction and audience relationships. Therefore, PR practitioners must play a positive role in responding and evaluating to legal rights and risks. They must also negotiate with lawyers on the approaches to be engaged to minimize harm towards organizations or the publics. Public relations practitioners should also practice to follow and abide to the contract that they had signed which in turn ensure the clients and their own personal reputation as well.

The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that with the above discussion on the legal environment, this could be interlinked to the ethical and professional responsibility PR practitioners. Codes of ethics provide a basis for the shared values and acknowledged duties of PR professionals and set the moral standards with which they are expected to comply. In the Grunig’s theory, it views public relations as "an essential management function because of its contribution to the long-term, strategic management of the organization." Among the many benefits associated with improving the sense of social responsibility and ethical behavior and practices is that it will increase both their personal credibility as well as the profession as a whole.

Additionally, I felt that public relations practitioners should carefully examine whether ethical practices are commonly adopted within a culture or are considered to be ethical by the majority of local professionals. This is because a practice is not necessarily ethical just because it is widely adopted in one or more countries, as different cultures of different countries differ in its moral standards and ethics.

Therefore, public relations professionals should follow honest practices to build a fundamental trust between publics and organizations. This transparency requires ethical decision-making and an increasingly influential role at the table where decisions are made.