Following the discussion on PR Conversations, Bill Sledzik made an intriguing reflection in his post “Symmetrical PR meets the Cluetrain Manifesto”. There he compares the Cluetrain Manifesto postulate with concepts of two-way symmetrical communication model.
I’m a big fan of the Cluetrain Manifesto, but I have to admit I do not look at it from the 2WS-perspective. Don’t get me wrong: I passionately believe that having ongoing conversations with publics is the ultimate way for businesses to succeed in the future. But I just don’t believe in their symmetry. Moreover, I don’t think it’s healthy to focus on it, rather than focus on the very relationships. Relationships are rarely, if never, equal, or symmetrical. People are not masses, they are individuals with different social, economic and symbolic powers. Still we perfectly and, not the least, mutually beneficially, exist together in the complicated web of social relationships, be it with our parents, peers, governments or businesses.
In case of big corporations with multiple stakeholders, sometimes millions of them, symmetry is further not possible due to the human attention span limits, so well defined by Clay Shirky in “Here comes everybody”. As I wrote in my previous posts, no matter how open and democratic the digital social sphere si, it is not possible to listen, not even mentioning respond, to every voice out there.
It’s time to acknowledge that as great as it sounds, symmetrical communications is not a realistic implementation, for better or worse. However, getting to know our publics, and by that, forming relations with them based on mutual understanding and good will, now that is not only possible, but also necessary for success. Internet and social media tools present an unique opportunity for businesses, and public relations industry in particular, to focus on buiding these precious relationships with our audiences.
In fact, maybe for the first time in history, we should become their audience. After all, it’s us who depend on them, not the way around.
This weekend I got engaged in the discussion on PR Conversations, started by the controversial article by Heather Yaxley: A Radical view of PR. Discussion unveiled to assess the Excellence theory, and Dr. J.Grunig gave us an honor by participating in the conversation. This is a great discussion to take place due to EUPRERA conference coming up in Milano in October on institutionalising of PR.
One of the biggest challenges for PR as a discipline is finding a common definition of PR and its role and functions in an organisation. The discussion clearly reveals a gap between academic position on defining PR, and the social reality of its practice today.
As I realise that there will always be tensions between practice and theory in any field, I find a couple of trends in this conflict disturbing. It is academic determination to move PR further away from marketing ignoring the web 2.0 trends altogether. The more I study social media, and business trends to employ web 2.0 tools in their communication efforts, both internal and external, I see the need for these two departments, or sciences for that matter, to work closely together in order to produce best results for both companies and their publics. Integrated communications today is the most optimal model for organisations to successfully operate in the society which is both highly fragmented, media savvy and technologically advanced. Isolating PR from this development will result in marketing taking over the tasks public relations traditionally has been doing for decades, and is very good at.
Another thing which disturbed me in the course of the debate is learning something brand new about PR’s role in an organisation. While studying Masters in PR in Leeds Metropolitan University, I have never heard that PR’s function in an organisation was to provide “publics a voice in the decisions of organisations that affect them”, as Dr. Grunig and his advocates claim. I have learned that PR’s role was to help an organisation to navigate in dynamic environment by advising on the communication strategy which will in the long term strengthen the organisational reputation. While organisational reputation and societal welfare are closely interrelated it’s no longer a question whether company should behave ethically, and address the needs and expectations of its stakeholders. But being the voice of the society in an organisation, and serving the interests of the society as a whole (addressing stakeholders from the societal perspective, not only organisational, Grunig claims), rather than serving the interests of the employer - this is a new thing for me.
I have a feeling that from one extreme, often being the devil advocates, we are now moving to the next extreme, being pro-bono angels, neither of which reflects the reality of practice of public relations today. What about finding the golden middle, by trying to learn from the mistakes of the past, and continue doing what we do best: add value to both the organisation and our publics through informative, transparent and two-ways communications. Let’s admit it; we have neither competences nor aspirations to speak on the behalf of the society in its divergence and complexity.
