Thesis semi final draft

TPR Todays Public Relations

THE 7 METHODS OF FRAMING “This will be a quote that spans spans two different lines”

Page 6

PLUS ANALYSIS SUGGESTS COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR PUBLICS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA Pg 10

SOME OTHER ARTICLE I HAVE YET TO WRITE, BUT CERTAINLY WILL Pg 10

Issue 1

Table of Contents Analysis

Page

Analysis Suggests Communicating with your Publics is a Terrible Idea

Interview

Page

The 7 Methods of Framing Framing Info-graphic

Testimonial Why Social Responsibilty is Impossible

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS PLACE HOLDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS PLACE HOLDER

Analysis Communicating to your Publics is a Terrible Idea Some proclaim that the cornerstone of

PR is unquestionably communication.

With the ultimate goal being a relationship between big business and the publics to whom its products and services are marketed. Terms like “two-way street” and “mutually beneficial decisions” are thrown around as if it is commonplace for them to be achieved. Such is not the case, and arguably might never be the case with the two methods of communication, which are currently utilized by PR professionals across all sectors.

The first technique is “Two-way Asymmetrical Communication” wherein the company speaks to its publics, hoping to engage them in a dialogue. When their stakeholders respond the company listens but make no decisions based on the responses. This technique is used because both businesses and the public like the trendy idea of engaging in conversation.

Also, businesses want to change their publics, but not themselves, and why should they? Companies with more power and influence than their publics have no need to. They get to tell the public what it

should like and why, then the public gets to respond and think that its opinions matter, everyone wins. A company listening to its publics is a lot like a parent listening to their 4 year old complaining about not having enough ice cream. The parent may want the child to be happy and want the child to like them. And sure it’s possible there might be some unintentional wisdom gained from a 4 year old’s simple expression of their needs, but for the most part its all unintelligible gibberish trying to question the parent’s decision making. Lets face it, parents don’t lose arguments to 4 year olds.

Corporations are successful because they tell their publics what they like and dislike. Yet, telling the public what they like is not unlike telling a child its bedtime. Children don’t like bedtime, they like staying up and doing children things.

Publics like to stay up and do public things.

This is where the second technique of communication is employed. “Two-Way Symmetrical Communication” is similar to Asymmetrical Communication, but suggestions from the public are supposed

Analysis

to be taken into account. While this seems ideal, lets take a step back and think about the goal of Two-Way Symmetrical Communication.

James Grunig, celebrated PR theorist, believes the goal is “to help company management to understand the problems and viewpoints of its employees, neighbors, and others (publics) as it is for these groups to understand the problems and viewpoints of management”.

With the exception of employees, what would a neighbor or public of a company know of the company’s management or viewpoints? Better yet, why would it be a good idea to let the children start having a say in running the household? History tells us that the public is less than willing, let alone capable, of having civil discourse about the decisions made by a company.

Children can’t drive cars let alone understand why a company wont recall a certain line of vehicles with faulty brake lines because the lawsuits filed against the company will still cost less than retrieving

all the faulty vehicles.

Leave the decisions to the adults.

If anything is learned from the methods of communication discussed let it be this, a company’s publics are pretty well just children and that acting ethically does not equate to profitability.

Interview The 7 Methods of Framing “We don’t need to tell you what to think, all we need is to tell you what to think about, and how to think about it” - Micheal Hunt, PR Manager.

H

ow exactly do we interpret the world around us? Is it all pure instinct, taking information as it comes to us and developing our ideas?

People act based on their interactions, not only with themselves, but with all the information and symbols they are surrounded with. We use our perceptive ability to decode our own objective

reality… That’s certainly what we’re supposed to think. In order to take on a different perspective I sat down with Spin City PR’s Michael Hunt who emphatically explained how incorrect my assertions are. Hunt’s professional title is Manager of Public Relations, but to vast majority of the public he is better known as an “Image Maker” or “Spin Doctor”.

Interview

Interview The 7 Methods of Framing How exactly do we interpret the world around us? Is it all pure instinct, taking information as it comes to us and developing our ideas? People act based on their interactions, not only with themselves, but with all the information and symbols they are surrounded with. We use our perceptive ability to decode our own objective reality…

Or that’s certainly what we’re supposed to think. In order to take on a different perspective I sat down with Spin City PR’s Michael Hunt who emphatically explained how incorrect my assertions are. Hunt’s professional title is Manager of Public Relations, but to vast majority of the public he is better known as an “Image Maker” or “Spin Doctor”.

“Listen, all of our outbound communications are a means to define reality as it relates to our client organizations, or at least how their publics will interpret it” Hunt states.

I however, am still a skeptic, so I let Mr. Hunt explain his case as to how the public has no independent

thought. “the process of defining reality is not inherently good or bad, and for that reason, we’re not the bad guys…or the good guys” he says. Hunt claims that the way their manipulation of reality takes place is through a technique called “Framing” which is widely used among PR practitioners around the globe. “think of a portrait, now think of taking a marker and drawing little boxes around every area in that portrait you want to be more prominent than the others. That is framing, or at least a simplified version so you can understand it”. He explained that framing is the technique, but within it there are a number of ideas that need to be introduced in order to fully comprehend it. A “Frame” is something that limits or defines the message’s meaning by shaping the interpretations that individuals make about it. “Inclusion, exclusion, and emphasis.

Can you remember those? Well do it anyway, they’re important” Hunt

Interview things, namely media, are framed they provide contextual cues that guide decision-making. “it makes people feel like they are learning and coming to there own conclusions, when in reality its information we’ve strategically shown them”. Finally, Hunt explained that generally framing can be broken down into 7 different categories often used in conjunction with on another. These types are Situations, Choices, Actions, Issues, Responsibility, News, and Attributes.

Framing Situations Framing situations often occurs when an organization has to meet with their stakeholders. “When we have to meet with our publics, or more generally any stakeholders, we structure the encounter so that our client is received favorably.

It’s all about meeting the audience’s naïve expectations.” says Hunt. He informed me that the situations should often suggest that the meeting facilitates two-way symmetrical communication “but we know that’s a bit of a ruse” Hunt added. He elaborated on the importance of meeting the public expectations using examples of situations like ‘grand openings’ or ‘award banquets’. He also spoke about the consequences of unmet expectations leading to the public re-evaluating the image and intentions of the organization. “Not meeting expectations means the public starts to change their opinion

of the client. Letting the public think for themselves is a bad idea, its best if we do that for them”.

Framing Choices A second use of framing applies to the choices that people make and portraying each choice as being either beneficial or detrimental. Hunt explained that the way people make decisions is not always what one would expect “people are illogical backward thinking devices. They are risk-averse and would rather prevent losses achieve gains. It makes no sense”.

Hunt again, went into detail about some of the situations that the framing of choices can influence. Such as what products to buy, where to invest your money, and even who to vote for. He Further explained some of the decision making involved with framing and people’s “infant need” to be comfortable with the choices they make. “People like ‘familiar’ so we try to make it seem like the choices they make will help make things stay the same”.

Framing Actions Another method of framing is that involving actions taken. Hunt mentioned that this system of framing often happens only when there isn’t an independent choice to be made, only an action that will affect a client. “Say for example someone has purchased a item and is now choosing a payment method, they

have already made the choice to buy it, but now we want them to choose a method of payment (action) that is more beneficial to the clients goals” Hunt states. Hunt also proposed the idea that a company can maximize the actions they want taken by framing them in a way that implies they are more advantageous to the consumer. “Regardless whether the consumer pays a lump some or in slightly more expensive incremental payments for the item, the client benefits, but if the clients goal is to increase cash-flow, they’re going to make the lump sum method sound more appealing by promoting the cost savings”.

Framing Issues Framing issues deals with presenting or reshaping interpretations of social reality.

Hunt explained that issues often arise out the dispute between two or more parties. “People like to get upset about how money that isn’t their own is spent, or how a certain group in society is treated. Issues that to which their opinions are frequently irrelevant”. He elaborates to mention, that these issues are how public opinion is formed. “We’re often hired to promote resolution to these issues, a resolution that is mutually beneficial to all parties, especially our clients”. He was firmly behind the philosophy that if your company can control the development of the issues, or even influence it, you can often shape the controversy to your liking. “Government

tax breaks for corporations is a contested issue, people think it is just a corporate give-way, but in reality it promotes economic development. Like I said, upset about money that isn’t theirs”.

Framing of Responsibility Framing of responsibility is exactly as it the name suggests; it’s the acceptance or denial of being responsible for a situation. “Companies like to take responsibility for favorable situations, and avoid responsibility for negative ones. Its as simple as that.” Hunt discussed some of the favorable events as those that present a positive public image to the client, things like charity events or philanthropic expenditure in local communities. He also sharply mentioned some of the negative consequences of being found responsible for negative events, “the client’s reputations suffers, investors pull out, the client is potentially legally liable, but most important the client loses money. If they lose money, we lose money. That is not allowed to happen”, Hunt demands. He also explained the idea of “recreant behavior” where the public believes that a company misused their authority and violated public trust, a situation Hunt said that need be avoided at all cost. “Yeah, that falls in line with the ‘they lose money, we lose money’ concept I mentioned earlier. Keep up”.

Framing News Framing the news is not a new concept to those that work in PR. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones of the PR industry. “PR supplies nearly half the content in new media. Like it or not your going to be ingesting what we’re feeding you”, Hunt claims. He discussed the mechanics of how the news is framed by explaining that first the story or content needs to be interesting within itself, then it can be disseminated with the clients preferred framing. “Our problem as PR practitioners has always been with the journalists altering our framing. They like to tailor our content to what they perceive to be the largest segment of their audience, but that frequently ruins our message” Hunt says. This negotiation of how content is disseminated is, as Hunt refers to as, “Frame Negotiations”.

systems, cultural artifacts, etc; than it solicits the emotion of familiarity that makes people more comfortable. “Like I said earlier, the public is a backward thinking collective that is afraid of change. Make them think that this person or product is just like them, then you’ll have their support”.

After Hunt had shown me some techniques for framing I certainly question more of the content I consume. However, I still remain a skeptic. I’m capable of discerning where a PR’s fingers have left their mark in various media. I can definitely make my own decisions and decide for myself what to think even if Michael Hunt says “we don’t need to tell you what to think, all we need is to tell you what to think about, and how to think about it”.

Framing Attributes Often used for political candidates or for products being sold, framing attributes means the promotion of positive characteristics and the omission of negative ones. “Nobody is going to vote for someone who regularly displeases them.

That’s why we only show the public what we know they’re going to like, and we know they’re going to like it because we’ve told them its what they should like”. Hunt believes that by aligning the focus with attributes that the public already cherishes, things like, belief

Fin

7 types of

Framing 1.

3.

5.

Situations Relationships between individuals in situations found in everyday living and literature. Framing of situations provides structure for examine communication.

Applies to discourse analysis, negotiation, and other interactions

Actions In persuasive contexts, the probability that a person will act to attain a desired goal is influenced by whether alternatives are stated in positive or negative terms.

Responsibility Individuals tend to attribute cause of events to either internal or external factors, based on levels of stability and control. People portray their role in events consistent with their self-image in ways that maximize benefits and minimize culpability.

7.

2.

4.

6.

Choices Posing alternative decisions in either a negative (loss) or positive (gain) terms can bias choices in situations involving uncertainty. Prospect theory suggests people will take greater risks to avoid losses that to obtain gains.

Issues Social problems and disputes can be explained in alternative terms by different parties who vie for their preferred definition of a problem or situation to prevail.

News Media reports use familiar, culturally resonating themes to relay information about events. Sources vie for their preferred framing to be featured through frame enterprise and frame sponsorship.

Attributes Characteristics of objects and people accentuated, whereas other are ignored, thus biasing processing of information in terms of focal attributes.

Of

Public

Relations

TABLE OF CONTENTS PLACE HOLDER

Testimonial Corporate Social Responsibility Is Impossible

rate o p r Co ation Don it P

I’ve written today to contest some of the stereotypes, misconceptions, and general slander that the public has been spouting about PR specialists and social responsibility. Slander, by the way, that they will be hearing from our lawyers about. I’m kidding… See, we’re not all money embezzling sexual harassment machines. We like to have fun too.

That being said, lets get down to business.

Lets begin with a quote from PR scholar James E. Grunig. “most people seem to view public relations as a mysterious hidden persuader working for the rich and powerful”. This is a common misconception. There is nothing hidden about them. They’re right out in the open convincing people corporations are not fundamentally driven by the generation of profit. Can you believe that people once thought that most organizations only existed to provide products or services in order to receive revenue? Startling, I know. Therefore, it’s a PR practitioner’s job to protect those corporations by convincing the public that their existence is solely social responsibility. Sure, the revenue generated by the companies promotes the domestic economies, creates income for its employees, and provides products or services, but that’s not what we’re here to talk about.

Lets talk about you; Lets talk about your needs. A PR specialist acts as a liaison between governments,

organizations, and individuals. They need to interpret the goals and motives of management, and combine that with the demands and whimsical needs of the public to create policy that is mutually beneficial.

This is done by not disclosing any information about the corporation unless you’re legally obligated. I can’t imagine living in a world where someone in PR does their best to promote good will with their publics through informational transparency. The thought makes me shudder. Let me explain a concept to you, its called “intentional concealment”. Intentional concealment happens when a company becomes aware of information that could be detrimental to their public image, thus, reducing credibility, corporate reputation, and creating a multitude of other problems. This is because the public is an

Testimonial

impulsive, emotional rollercoaster of a collection of people. Let me take you out of the context of business, and illustrate my point further. What do you think would happen if everyone knew what everyone else was thinking? The world would be thrust into chaos, yet I’m sure the public would demand that chaos be socially responsible.

What a company does not want is to find common ground with their stakeholders; this is because social responsibility is impossible.

Finding situations that promote mutual self-interest between both an organization and their stakeholders doesn’t exist. And do you know why that is? Because you’re selfish.

Say for example, a company invests in the community in which it practices business.

Whether this investment is through donations to schooling, environmental protection,

or community infrastructure, this benefits both the public and the company. The public gets more educated children or a safer environmental atmosphere, and the company, in theory, has a happier community to be surrounded with and potentially more clientele. Or at least in theory that’s how it works. Instead, the community receives all those benefits, but the company is still a money hungry villain because their only motive was to increase sales. So we are now faced with the situation of the public taking an organization’s donations, and still claiming that they’re not social responsible.

In conclusion, there is no pleasing you. Companies protect you from the information that would cause you to panic and potentially hurt yourself, and they charitably donate to their communities, yet in return receive scathing reviews. If I could offer any advise, it would be to take a little time to reflect on yourself. I’m not saying out-right that you’re the problem, no wait, yes I am.

You’re the problem.