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.
No comments:
Post a Comment