Cocreational Perspective Academic Article

In 2008, Socom Public Relations (Socom) were tasked with the objective to “re-build constructive community involvement and identify solutions to address anti-social behaviour in Alice Springs” (Socom 2008). Socom’s challenge was to focus the community discussion towards achieving a common goal, ultimately generating increased harmony and a shared sense of civic pride between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents of the region (Socom 2008). With research uncovering that “a small group of individuals dominated in the media” (when in fact six distinct stakeholder groups needed to be heard) (Socom 2008), Socom realised the need to implement an approach which inherently had “mixed motives” – one that was “loyal to both their employers [the Department of Chief Minister Northern Territory] and to the publics” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, p. 47). Ultimately, Socom needed to look to “balance the interests of the organisation and its publics”, effectively managing conflict (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, p. 47).

Utilising Socom’s award winning campaign as a guide, the following article details the ideas and ideals that govern the cocreational (two-way symmetrical/excellence) approach to public relations. Tracing the perspectives historical development, the article connects examples from the case study to the theoretical underpinnings of the cocreational perspective, highlighting how the approach can be implemented in the practical world of the public relations profession. It includes a critique of the cocreational perspectives strengths and shortcomings, before concluding with a hypothesis of its future direction in the public relations field.

With an overarching aim to “produce better long-term relationships with publics than other models of public relations” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, p. 47), “the cocreational perspective sees publics as cocreators of meaning and communication as what makes it possible to agree to shared meanings, interpretations, and goals (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 652). “Rooted in symbolic interactionism” (van Ruler 2005, p. 136) Gower (2006) notes that while public relations “began around the beginning of the 20th century” (Gower 2006, p. 181), the cocreational approach was not formed until far more recently. “Two-way symmetrical communication as a theoretical approach has its roots in the 1976 work by J.E. Grunig in which he identified two patterns of public relations practice – synchronic and diachronic.” (Gower 2006, p. 178) Indeed, Botan and Taylor (2004) recognise that the inclusion of the perspective at the forefront of public relations thinking is due to a transition in concentration from functional perspectives to cocreational approaches over the past 20 years. Acknowledging the contributions of numerous scholars over that period – including Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997), Pearson (1989), and Kent and Taylor (1998) – Botan and Taylor (2004) note that the theoretical base supporting the cocreational approach has been significantly strengthened. So while “the exact starting date of public relations practices is unclear” (Pierson-Smith 2002, p. 165), the “ideal”, “mutual understanding” (Kirby 2009, p. 42) model that is the cocreational perspective can be conceptualised as a relatively recent phenomenon, and one that has become central to the public relations discipline. Over recent years, research has begun to extend “beyond the three English-speaking countries in which it was [initially] conducted” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, pp. 54-55), with Lane (2007) adding “the early work of public relations pioneers such as Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays” was crucial in “developing approaches that take into account the feelings and attitudes of receiver publics” (Lane 2007, p. 73).

With this historical context in mind, it is crucial to delve deeper into the two-way symmetrical, cocreational perspective in order to understand how Socom’s campaign characterises the application of the meaning making approach. van Ruler (2005) recognises that from a cocreational perspective, a meaning “is not an attribute of a message or a recipient but of the interaction itself” (van Ruler 2005, p. 136). Pieczka (2008) supports this idea by outlining that there are a number of presuppositions inherent with the symmetrical model which affects the perspectives power and potential to create meaning. These include – but are not limited to – a “free exchange of information”, “equal opportunities and respect”, “innovation”, “conflict resolution (through negotiation, communication, and compromise)” and the liberation of interest groups (Pieczka 2008, pp. 352-353). These presuppositions aim to unite in order to solve “the problem of unequal power in social relationships” (Pieczka 2008, p. 353), contributing “to informed debate about issues in society” (Grunig 1992, cited in Pieczka 2008, p. 354).

To this end, it becomes recognisable that Socom’s campaign embodies how the inherent presuppositions of the cocreational perspective can be applied to the real world of public relations. As part of their communication strategy, Socom opened the information exchange by providing “a friendly and non-threatening environment for people to openly present their views” (Socom 2008). In order to provide equality and awareness of differing opinions, Socom addressed cultural sensitivities by providing Indigenous people with multiple channel options to ensure that “people had a choice in how they wished to participate” (Socom 2008). Furthermore, interpreters were used to ensure the voice of the Indigenous people was accurately captured (Socom 2008). To tackle the innovation aspect, Socom formed a ‘citizens panel’, “creating broad ownership of the problems and solutions” (Socom 2008). As there was a “widening division in the community”, Socom tackled the potential for conflict head on, enabling the sharing of views consistently via “reports from each stakeholder forum”. This alleviated cynicism that the forums were “yet another talkfest”, building trust “amongst community in a way that was respectful, open and inclusive” (Socom 2008). Liberating each stakeholder group prior to the final summit, “a panel of 15 community leaders was formed. Each speaker was allocated the same amount of time to speak on a nominated topic [and] members of the public also had the opportunity to comment” (Socom 2008).

Having examined how Socom brought to life many of the presuppositions Pieczka (2008) recognises as integral to the cocreational perspective, it is from here that an acknowledgment of the strengths of the two-way symmetrical model of communication can transpire. Bowen (2005) highlights that for any organisation, a cocreational approach is paramount to “building effective relationships with publics”, and indeed “is crucial to the long-term survival and profitability of an organisation” (Bowen 2005, p. 838). Socom’s results state that the summit concluded with a strong sense of shared ownership of the problems and the solutions by the community and the Government” (Socom 2008), and this reinforces Bowen’s (2005) contestation that “through mutual understanding and collaboration, trust and credibility can be built between an organisation and publics” (Bowen 2005, p. 838). Furthermore, having utilised a cocreational approach, Socom can now expect that “in times of decision making and crisis [for their client], publics are less likely to jump to hasty conclusions”. They’re also less likely to be the target of activist groups since they’ve shown a “willingness to listen, understand, and incorporate the ideas” (Bowen 2005, p. 838) of their publics. The “boundary-spanning” role Socom fulfilled on behalf of their client means the client now holds the knowledge of their publics, ensuring “the public’s ideas can be incorporated into organisational policy” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). The fact that “an accurate report detailing all 28 community suggestions was presented to the Government” (Socom 2008) by Socom reiterates the positive outcomes that can transpire from utilising a symmetrical public relations plan. Moreover, “scholars such as Jürgen Habermas (1984) and Ron Pearson (1989) asserted that organisations have a moral obligation to engage in dialogue with publics” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). The cocreational perspective fulfils this duty, greasing “the wheels of society, developing mutual understand through dialogue and informed debate” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). Grunig, Grunig and Dozier (2006, p. 35) add to the strengths outlined by Bowen (2005) by noting employing a cocreational perspective can ultimately save an organisation money, however the return on a relationship can be delayed.

Yet despite the cocreational approach exhibiting a vast array of strengths which organisations ought to be both aware and excited by the potential of, it is not without its criticisms. Indeed, Gower (2006) writes that “international scholars are critical of not just two-way symmetrical [communication], but of all the existing public relations theories because of their Western, ethnocentric worldview” (Gower 2006, p. 179). Considered in many quarters to be too ‘idealistic’, Lane (2007) recognises the “model’s critics seem to have particular problems seeing its relevance to commercial situations, suggesting its usefulness might, at best, be limited to the area of not-for-profit organisations only. At worst, it is perceived as an impractical, unrealistic, and ultimately unattainable ‘Holy Grail’ for practitioners” (Lane 2007, p. 73). Lane (2007) also cites the individualised corporate culture of organisations as playing a pivotal role in the potential for a cocreational approach to succeed, while Durham (2005, in Gower 2006, p. 179) notes two-way symmetry is in fact a functional approach to public relation in that it focuses on how public relations functions in organisations. Indeed, elements of functionalism can still be seen to be evident in heavily slanted cocreational campaigns, such as Socom’s. For Socom, “the media was a powerful tool to generate public interest in the consultation, encouraging members of the public to participate. It also communicated important messages by the Government” (Socom 2008). Media relations remain a key facet of the functionalist approach.

Taking into account both the inherent strengths and shortcomings of the cocreational perspective – and the aspirations of the model itself – ensures it is difficult to predict a future for the approach. Probably the main dilemma stems from the fact “two-way symmetrical communication is a proscription for how we ought to practice public relations, but it does not provide a rationale for why an organisation engages” (Gower 2006, p. 179) in the function. While Botan and Taylor (2004) have penned that “the future state of the field of public relations lies with whichever cocreationist model emerges as the most useful, the most theoretically valuable” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 659), others such as James (2009) have called for functionalist approaches to be reconsidered due to the “idealistic nature of ‘symmetrical’ communication” (James 2009, p. 111). With opposing viewpoints being contested, it seems the cocreational perspective will remain in a ‘trial and error’ phase until the debates go significantly forward (Gower 2006, p. 367). Following – and, possibly, even during this – public relations will take quantum leaps forward in further establishing itself as a key component of any organisation serious about earning relationships, and certainly results.

References:

Botan, C & Taylor, M 2004, ‘Public Relations: State of the Field’, Journal of Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 645-661.

Bowen, S 2005, ‘Symmetry’, in R Heath (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public Relations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, California, p.. 837-839.

Gower, K 2006, ‘Public Relations Research at the Crossroads’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 177-190

Grunig, J, Grunig, L, & Dozier, D 2006, ‘The Excellence Theory’, in C Botan & V Hazleton (eds), Public Relations Theory II, Lawrence Erlbaum, Marwah, New Jersey, pp. 21-62.

James, M 2009, ‘Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent’, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, vol. 10, pp. 109-122.

Kirby, B 2009, ‘Overview of Contemporary Public Relations Theory’, in B Sheehan & R Xavier (eds), Public Relations Campaigns, Oxford, South Melbourne, pp. 31-52.

Lane, A 2007, ‘Empowering publics: the potential and challenge for public relations practitioners in creative approaches to two-way symmetric public relations’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 71-86.

Pieczka, M 2008, ‘Paradigms, Systems Theory and Public Relations, in J L’Etang & M Pieczka (eds), Public Relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, Lawrence Erlbaum, Marwah, New Jersey, pp. 331-358.

Pierson-Smith, A 2002, ‘An overview of public relations: what it is, when it is needed, why it is used and how to analyse it, Perspectives: working papers in English and communication, vol. 14, no. 2.

Socom Public Relations (Socom) 2008, ‘There’s no grey. It has to be black and white’, PRIA Golden Targets Award Database – UTS Library, viewed 21 October 2010,

van Ruler, B 2005, ‘Co-creational of Meaning Theory’, in R Heath (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public Relations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 135-137.

Functional Theoretical Approach Academic Article

In mid 2005, Clean Seas Tuna (CST) had a plan to become the first publicly listed aquaculture company on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) (HPR 2006). To attract investors to its initial float, Hughes Public Relations (HPR) realised three key communication objectives needed to be addressed. Namely, it was essential to establish the credentials of CST’s CEO, Hagen Stehr, create and present a public face to potential investors, and particularly, generate “positive press, TV and radio coverage during what was a critical time” (HPR 2006).

Botan and Taylor (2004) recognise that the “functionalist perspective, prevalent in the early years of the field, sees publics and communication as tools or means to achieve organisational ends” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651). As HPR’s task was to create hype, awareness and secure initial investors to CST’s listing – rather than necessarily co-create meaning, and thus relationships – it can be seen that models associated with the functionalist approach were key in HPR’s charge to fulfil their clients brief. Utilising HPR’s award winning campaign as a guide, the following essay details the functionalist approach to public relations, before connecting examples from the campaign to the theoretical underpinnings of media relations in order to show how the functionalist approach can make the shift from text book to the practical world of the discipline. Furthermore, the essay considers strengths and shortcomings of the functionalist approach, before discussing its future viability and use in the public relations profession.

Simply put, “the focus (of the functionalist perspective) is generally on techniques and production of strategic organisational messages”, with “the major relationship of interest between the public relations practitioners and the media” (Botan and Taylor 2004, p. 651). Viewed as cutting edge in the 1980s, the functionalist approach is dominated by practice and theory developed in the USA (Stanton 2007, p. 9). The effective utilisation of media channels is paramount; with Ihlen and van Ruler (2007) noting the functionalistic approach is rooted in mass communication theory (Ihlen & van Ruler 2007, p. 244). Among others, “theories of media relations, the information subsidy, agenda setting and persuasion contribute to this functional perspective” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651). Grunig’s models of press agentry, public information, and two-way asymmetric communication, can therefore be seen to be upon the pulse of the functionalist approach. In addition, “research from a functionalist perspective has traditionally been concerned with business-orientated topics such as advertising, marketing, and (crucially), media relations” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651).

It is important to delve deeper into the media relations model to understand how it embodies the functionalist perspective, and also because this was the key communication model used in HPR’s CST campaign. As Stanton (2007) recognises, “media is business, and business works in a very different way to personal relationship building” (Stanton 2007, p. 17). As such, “competition for media space means we must be strategic” (Stanton 2007, p. 17), and this includes presenting compelling communication and content to the media in order to gain exposure through the ubiquitous channel. Media relations includes – but is not limited to – such ideas as packaging content for media use, subsidising content, providing talent for interviews and providing suggestive questions for a planned response. It extends to compiling media lists and building relationships with targeted media in order to achieve organisational ends. Stanton (2007) puts it best when he says the functionalist media relations model is a “conscious decision to take a direction and attempt to attain the objectives along the path of the direction taken” (Stanton 2007, p. 40). Research as how to best utilise a media relations campaign extends “only insofar as it advances organisational goals” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651), with the feedback gathered “used to tailor the message in order to better persuade, rather than to alter the organisation’s position” (Kirby 2009, p. 42).

HPR’s CST campaign highlights and embodies how media relations, and the functionalist perspective, can be put into practical use. Considering the objectives and rationale that overarched the CST campaign, HPR “fine-tuned” Stehr as the spokesman for the company, “offering the media a key spokesman who was at the coal face of the project [and] equipping him with media training and key messages as required to ensure consistency of information flow” (HPR 2006). HPR “developed a targeted media list, which was used as a tool in drip-feeding news releases and other opportunities to interested and responsive journalists”, while “the publicity aspect of the communication plan commenced with a general corporate profile on Stehr and his highly successful aquaculture company” (HPR 2006).

HPR (2006) note their media relations campaign achieved “extensive coverage” in print, radio and television both nationally and internationally, generating “a ripple effect throughout the Australian and overseas investor communities” (HPR 2006). Six months after HPR had been hired, “the consultancy announced Clean Seas’ historic and successful ASX listing at an 11 per cent premium” (HPR 2006). HPR’s campaign epitomises what Rowson (2001) recognises as the possible strengths available to organisations taking a media relations approach, including the ability “to raise your organisations profile with customers and potential customers”, “motivate employees”, “raise the credibility of your organisation” and “reinforce the messages you are putting out through your other marketing tools” (Rowson 2001, p. 10).

Yet despite the model also providing a relatively economical way to reach a potential audience of billions, the functionalist media relations approach is not without possible peril. Indeed, Kirby (2009) highlights noise is an important concept to consider. Pierson-Smith (2002) adds that “communications can breakdown resulting in a distortion of the PR message due to a variety of factors including physical channel noise, psychological noise exercised by the selective receiver, semantic noise due to linguistic misunderstandings, information overload or time constraints” (Pierson-Smith 2002, p. 167). Indeed, while some aspects of a media campaign can be “controlled”, Stanton (2007) recognises the threat of “uncontrolled media” as agents “who stand between a media relations campaign and the desired recipients of its aims and goals” (Stanton 2007, p. 5). This is epitomised by the ideas presented by Bourdieu (2005, in Benson & Neveu) concerning agents and forces occupying and contesting in spaces (fields). The unwillingness to co-create meaning with potential and realised stakeholders is another defining weakness of the functionalist approach, as is James’ (2009) recognition that “from the earliest days of James Grunig’s work, there has been a rejection of persuasion, influence and related areas as inherently manipulative and unethical” (James 2009, p. 112).

The HPR example highlights that many of the methods which represent the functionalist perspective, not least media relations, remain both viable and applicable in public relations today. While Botan and Taylor (2004) state “the most striking trend in public relations over the past 20 years [has been] its transition from a functional perspective to a co-creational one” (Botan & Taylor, 2004, p. 651), James (2009) has called for the functionalist approach to public relations theory to be reconsidered, due to the fact “work in critical and postmodern public relations scholarship has highlighted the idealistic nature of ‘symmetrical’ communication” (James 2009, p. 111). Pierson-Smith (2002, p. 168) acknowledges that practitioners and academics alike believe the future of public relations lies, in part, in the disciplines ability to adhere to ethical codes of practice. Therefore the challenge for the future of the functionalist perspective may rest in its ability to be one that advances the ends of all stakeholders, rather than merely the organisations. Ultimately, more research needs to be undertaken and “debates must go forward for the field itself to go forward” (Gower 2006, p. 357).

References:

Botan, C & Taylor, M 2004, ‘Public Relations: State of the Field’, Journal of Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 645-661.

Bourdieu, P 2005, ‘The Political Field, the Social Science Field and the Journalistic Field’, in R Benson & E Neveu (eds), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Polity, Cambridge, England.

Gower, K 2006, ‘Public Relations Research at the Crossroads’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 177-190.

Hughes Public Relations (HPR) 2006, ‘Clean Seas – Fishing for Investors’, PRIA Golden Targets Award Database – UTS Library, viewed 15 October 2010,

Ihlen, O & van Ruler, B 2007, ‘How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives’, Public Relations Review, vol. 33, pp. 243-248.

James, M 2009, ‘Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent’, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, vol. 10, pp. 109-122.

Kirby, B 2009, ‘Overview of Contemporary Public Relations Theory’, in B Sheehan & R Xavier (eds), Public Relations Campaigns, Oxford, South Melbourne, pp. 31-52.

Pierson-Smith, A 2002, ‘An overview of public relations: what it is, when it is needed, why it is used and how to analyse it, Perspectives: working papers in English and communication, vol. 14, no. 2.

Rowson, P 2001, Building a Positive Media Profile, Rowbark Publishing Limited, Hampshire, UK.

Stanton, R 2007, Media Relations, Oxford University Press, New York.

Publics Academic Article

In 1984, the Chinese Women’s Volleyball Team (CWVT) was iconic across the nations sporting landscape. However recently, Adidas – the CWVT sponsor – realised passion for the team amongst youths had waned. By utilising James Grunig’s situational theory of publics (1984), Ogilvy PR – Adidas’s chosen agency – aimed to transform Chinese youths between the ages of 14 and 24 into consuming, CWVT loving, active publics. Utilising the CWVT case study as a guide this article details situational theory, as well as its strengths and shortcomings. The CWVT case study was chosen due to its high level of social media focus. Social media is a burgeoning element of public relations practice.

Rawlins and Bowen (2005, p. 720) recognise that “by breaking down publics according to their perceived relationship to the issue, communication messages and strategies become clearer”. Initially then, it was paramount that Ogilvy segment Chinese publics based on situational theories dependent variables of active or passive communication behaviour (Rawlins & Bowen, 2005, 720). That is, Ogilvy needed to divide and realise who were the CWVTs nonpublics, latent publics, aware publics, and active publics. In addition, it was critical they comprehended how the recognised publics tended to communicate.

Put succinctly, nonpublics are those who do not face a problem, latent publics fail to recognise a problem, aware publics recognise problems, and active publics do something about the problem (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 145). Reviewing findings from the All China Strategic Research study, Ogilvy found China’s youth were an aware public – broadly speaking, they simply had negative connotations of the game. Moreover, Ogilvy found the internet to be the key communication tool among the demographic, with usage growing daily (Ogilvy, 2010). Understanding who their public was and how they communicated, Ogilvy was now better placed to form strategies likely “to have effects on the short-term cognitions, attitudes, and behaviours of different publics and on the long-term relationships with these publics” (Heath, 2005, p. 778).

Nevertheless, Grunig’s situational theory dictates that the strategies and tactics Ogilvy would ultimately implement in its campaign would have to consider three independent variables. Specifically, situational theory proposes the concepts of problem recognition, constraint recognition and level of involvement (Heath, 2005, p. 779). Concisely, problem recognition refers to the detection of a situation and consideration of what can be done. Constraint recognition is people perceiving barriers that limit their ability to act on the situation. And level of involvement is people’s connection with the situation (Heath, 2005, p. 779). Knowing their public wasn’t actively seeking information about the CWVT, Ogilvy needed to implement tactics low in constraint that would drive involvement and thus information seeking. Verčič (2008, p. 4050) recognises that lower levels of constraint aids information seeking and processing. Ogilvy’s research concluded their public was driven by “star power”, “coolness” and a “desire for ownership and participation” (Ogilvy, 2010).

Therein lays situational theory’s key strength – its determining ability to recognise stages, practices and factors attuned to segmented, individualised publics. This clear asset of the theory alone warrants its recognition as one of the key waves of thought among the progressive public relations profession. So, too, does the fact the theory is useful “for predicting differential responses [and] effects that communication” can have on cognitions, attitudes and behaviour (Verčič, 2008, p. 4049).

However for its positives, Grunig’s situational theory of publics is not without its shortcomings and criticisms. Notably, the theory fails to consider “valence of attitudes. Research shows that cognitions and attitudes rarely precede communication behaviour, and that people do not seek and process information in order to confirm their existing attitudes but instead they seek information that is of relevance to them” (Verčič, 2008, p. 4051). This is to recognise situational theory is organisationally geared, and while it does aid public segmentation and specification, it doesn’t work with publics to achieve meaning. Rather, information is transmitted from the organisation, but it becomes difficult to gauge whether this information – and crucially its meaning – has been grasped to the extent that the organisation desires.

Both the positives and negatives of situational theory can be seen to be represented in Ogilvy’s campaign results. Certainly, Ogilvy’s segmented social media tactics (blogging, viral ads, and online chant competition) drove usage among the identified public. In three months, the blog attracted nearly 161,000 unique viewers and the chant micro-site nearly 400,000 (Ogilvy, 2010). However, Ogilvy cannot attest each user sought the information, and as such “people cannot be influenced by messages they do not seek or process” (Verčič, 2008, p. 4051).

References:

Grunig, J.E., & Hunt, T., (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Rinehart & Winston.

Heath, R., (2005). Situational Theory of Publics. Encyclopaedia of Public Relations (pp. 778-780), California: Sage.

Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide (Ogilvy). (2010). Adidas in China. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.ogilvypr.com/en/case-study/adidas

Rawlins, B., & Bowen, S. (2005). Publics. In Heath, R. (Ed), Encyclopaedia of Public Relations (pp. 718-721), California: Sage.

Verčič, A. T., (2008). Publics: Situational Theory. The international encyclopaedia of communication, 9, 4048-4052.