Stakeholder, Audience and Publics theories

This weeks lecture presented by Michaela contained detailed information on the different theories on the above topic. Who are an organisation's stakeholders, audience or 'publics' and why is it important to study stakeholder, audience and 'publics' theories in PR? Stakeholders, audience and 'publics' can be defined as all the different groups of people who are affected by an organisation's activities. These people carry the the reputation of an organisation and an organisation depends on them to create and maintain their good reputation. In my opinion, PRO's need to know an organisations stakeholders in order to plan and create effective campaigns and communication strategies for all the different group for business growth. A typical structure of an organisation's stakeholders may include the groups shown on the diagram below.

I particularly liked Grunig and Hunt's situational theory which was discussed in class because it was easy to understand. I learnt it can be used to look at groups and what they think about an organisation at a particular time. They identify four 'publics' namely the non public, latent public, aware public and active public which an organisation may need to address or target for a particular campaign because they may be affected by this particular issue under discussion. (Grunig and Hunt 1984).

In my opinion, the use of Tesco trying to get planning permission for its new store as an example to explain the theory was practical and made it easy to follow. In this example I realised, the non public would be the people who have not heard of Tesco and does not care about it whilst the latent and aware publics are those who know of Tesco but have not made up their mind whether to support them or not. I learnt that in this situation, Tesco has to engage with both the latent and the aware publics as winning their support would be vital to getting the permission. The active audience on the other hand will be those who support Tesco in their bid for the new planning permission.

Broom and Dozier (1990) model was also quite interesting to follow. They identify nine ways to segment stakeholders.These are demographic, pyschographic, geographic, organisational membership, covert power, role in decision making, influencers, opinion formers and decision makers.

What I found most intriguing is that despite the fact that all theories can be used in combination, some theories are more appropriate for particular campaigns.

I later read Cutlip et al (2006) and I agree with their argument that "useful definitions describe program publics... on the basis who they are, where they live, what relevant organizations do they belong to, what they do that is relevant to the situation, and so forth" (p.321)

I also think Hallahan (2000) proposed five types of publics based on knowledge and involvement is brilliant. This is because the theory takes into account the inactive audience who seem to have been sidelined in Grunig's situational theory as they can still be important constituents for an organisation". He groups them us

• aware publics (high knowledge - low involvement)
• active publics (high knowledge - high involvement)
• aroused publics (low knowledge - high involvement)
• inactive publics (low knowledge - low involvement
• non-publics (no knowledge - no involvement)" (Tench and Yeomans 2006 p.153)

You can read more on it in his article, Hallahan, K., (2000). 'Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations'. Public Relations Review 26(4): 499-515.

Public Relations and Ethics. Can PR ever be ethical?

Wednesday the 6th of February's lecture was on PR and ethics. I found the class very useful as I am highly interested in effective regulation of the PR industry which partly borders on ethics. We were introduced to some theories on PR ethics which included the Kantian and the Bantham theories and we did some practical exercise on some given scenarios.

I liked the classroom exercise because it gave me a practical insight into the ethical dilemma that awaits me as a budding PR practitioner. We were put into small groups to make ethical decisions on different practical scenarios and give the basis for whatever decision we settle for. This resulted in a heated debate which to me depicts the difficulty and relativism involved in making ethical decisions. What I realised was that, some people made their decisions based on moral values and stakeholder interest. Whilst others based their decision on business interest. For e.g. when we asked to show by hand how many of us were will work on a PR campaign for a Tobacco company, some of my classmates declined to work on that account if their consultancy won the account because, to them, tobacco was a killer drug and their morals were against it, where as myself and others will be willing to work on the account because of the huge amount of money involved in the project.

In this case the first group took their decision on moral grounds whilst the latter looked at the business interest. On the whole, I found the exercises very thought provoking and challenging. Some instances could be very sensitive for example the scenario where a director used the racist comment "nigger in the woodpile" and the class was asked if he should be fired for such comment. The class was divided on this issue. whilst one group favoured his dismissal, others thought he could be cautioned. This also clearly highlights the difficulty associated with ethical decision making in PR.

Personally, it was very useful as it gave me a practical insight into some ethical issues within the PR industry. Now I feel I am better equipped and well prepared to make good and ethical decisions based on my personal value systems, business interest, stakeholder interest, legal implications and many more. I think the bottom line for ethical decision making in the course of my work will be determined by the particular situation I found myself in at a time.

I also learnt that in some situations there could be conflict between personal moral values and business interest. What I found fascinating is the fact that some businesses, especially PR consultancies, can be flexible in such situations and give their staff the option to choose not to work on such projects. This sounds interesting and I look forward to enjoying that experience when I begin to work in PR.

The lecture has enriched my knowledge because I am now aware of the fact that, PR people draw on different moral and value systems to make ethical decisions. I also know that legal and cultural relativism play an important part in ethical decision making.

Personally, I think a balance between moral values and business interest seems to be the best way forward for good decision and ethical PR practice.

The question now is, can PR people ever be free from the ethical dilemmas they face each day, as they undertake their duties? After careful thinking, I believe the answer can be said to be 'No' because our job as PR people centres on building good reputation for our clients whilst taking into consideration 'public interest'. However, it is my conviction that our ability to make sound and good decisions in all given situation is what matters.