Good PR is global or context and culture specific?

Allow me to continue my today's flow of reflection but on a different topic - "Can global and local PR coexist or will the first replace the latter?"

In my opinion global PR can't cope with every task on its own today. I can not predict what will happen in 10-20 years but presumably the situation will improve, however nowadays the knowledge of specific context and culture is essential.

To back up my idea I will refer to the International Public Relations In Practice book edited by Margaret Nally who stresses that: "The successful public relations professional... recognizes that what works in one country does not necessarily work in another: individual countries need individual strategies" (1991, p.117). Failure to recognize and respond to local market conditions can lead to inappropriate work.

Alan Macdonald (ibid, ch. 3) considers a local national to be the "ideal consultant" (ibid, p. 49). Moreover local PR professionals know better which journalists and writers to sell the story to and how to gain editorial coverage and to reach suitable media.

Global PR is vital and transcontinental messages are acceptable, though these are not possible without domestic communications. This makes the saying - "Think globally, act locally" - very appropriate and correct.

PR 2.0 & Authenticity

Good evening, my dear reader!

The book PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences by Deirdre Breakenridge (2008) made me think over the authenticity of PR messages transmitted online.

The author speaks of “viral marketing as the “Word of Mouth” of the Internet”. He also calls it “Astroturfing” on the Internet”, giving the term a Wikipedia explanation - “fake grassroots support online”.

Converting this to PR it means that a lot of information published online can be inaccurate. The reason for that is the increased number of user-generated content articles and self-publishing platforms that enable individuals to expose virtually every “truth” that they want to share. So it is really easy to get lost in all this mass of data and to define which is correct and which is more of a personal users ideas and thoughts.

My premise is that in the world of Web 2.0 the function of PR practitioners has changed. It now requires more skills and duties from them and the ones that I’m talking about in this post are: sharing authentic and transparent information, creating word of mouth and building relationships of trust with communities.

For other new skills follow the link below:
http://www.theharteofmarketing.com/2009/07/pr-20-will-double-your-workload.html

And for more information on importance of authenticity in a virtual world have a look at those articles:
Social media: Being authentic in a virtual world
PR has never been truly authentic

Media War – Secrets of War Propaganda

With your permission I will return to the topic of war propaganda because I have a nice book to recommend to you.

Philip M. Taylor in Simon Cottle’s News, Public Relations and Power (2003, p. 63-79) points out the difference between “real war” and “media war”. He reveals some secrets of war propaganda that aims at gaining public support for government’s policies through “pictures” generation and control. The author brings some factors shaping the reporting of war. He also describes case studies on the Vietnam and Gulf wars.

I found this book great for giving new ideas on how world events are being misreported.

PR & New Media

Good afternoon to everybody!

While thinking through this topic I got curious about "What was first - the egg or the chicken?", or according to named terms: "PR 2.0 or new media?"
Which of the two was the stimulus for the creation of the other? And what were the reasons for that?

I raised these questions due to that every online activity, each message or e-mail are in fact Web self-presentation or, in other words, self-promotion and PR. That gave me the following idea: when PR professionals started to communicate with their clients through e-mails, they might have thought of a need to create a similar online tool that could help them reach masses of people who are not yet their customers. Is it possible that the development of social media was requested or was it the ITs, though, who made up new social media tools for people’s eased interaction?

However when new media appeared people began to subscribe to social networks, create accounts in blogs etc. for free in order to communicate with their friends, to post their thoughts and so forth. All this can happen under one single condition – to make a bit of personal information available to providers of the new services. Consequently these sites get no money from people. The only profit they may receive comes from advertising spaces sales. Their treasure is the information they get from people. These tons of data can be sold to access consumers and to send them tailored messages. On one hand, it is very useful for PR practitioners but, on the other, it is very similar to speculation of personal information without people’s agreement (BUT once more, it is definitely worth it for PR’s messages to be delivered to potential consumers).

Trust Us We're Experts

Good evening to all!

Having recollected in my last post the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber I decided to read one more of their books: Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future (2001, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam).

I expected to find some information on propaganda and political PR, but the book turned out to be about health, food safety, medical and environmental issues in PR. Though from the point of view of case studies in the named questions this book is really well written.

However on the first 30 pages of the book I found some interesting facts:
1. the website of Burson-Marsteller proclaims that "Perceptions are real... They can be managed... to motivate behavior... to create positive business results" (p.2);
2. Lindheim talking about the role of a professional perception manager says that the public is "emotional ans incapable of rational discourse" (p.3);
3. Walter Lippmann in 1921 described a "pseudo-environment" as "the adjustment of man to his environment... through the medium of fictions" (p.25);
4. the Wag the Dog movie (1998) showed the extent to which present media can manufacture false realities by demonstrating how "government advisers created a fictional war on a Hollywood sound stage to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal" (p. 24).

All these points made me think over the role of American people in power in manipulating public's perception of reality. Was such a machine the USA's creation? Why do they speak aloud about the technologically manufactured illusion in modern cinema? Why people trust so easily what they see in news knowing that it is often a fiction?

The only answer that comes to my mind is that PR professionals play on people's emotions and compression while putting a message across, and that it is much easier for people to believe that what is shown is real, rather than think over it, analyze the information and search for truth.

Today virtual reality, "Potemkin villages" (p. 11-17) and made-for-TV fabrications are all around as an undiscovered part of our everyday life.

War spin & propaganda

Hello!

I would like to share with you some of the ideas that came to me after having watched a War spin video in class on Wednesday.

I began to question myself whether PR profession is ethical enough. Unfortunately what I've seen in this video was that all those war stories, journalists' reports, news etc. are half fake! It is really shocking how much false information people can hear, watch on TV and believe in it and trust it.

From this perspective PR can be accused of being an immoral profession. Nonetheless ethical issues depend on PR practitioners' moral values. The latter are individual qualities that differ from one person to another but can define the character of actions that people undertake. This suggests that not every PR professional acts unethically. Consequently we cannot blame PR in general of immorality and cannot judge it by results of some group's depraved activities.

However PR can be identified as a really powerful tool to manipulate people, their mind and behavior. It is worrying how easy people are being mislead... Still it is their choice what to believe in, though it is PR's duty to create a wrapping, not forcibly an artificial one, but a story to present an idea in the best possible light.

The two books that I've read recently and that are very relevant to this topic are:

Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy (2^nd edition) (London and NY: Routledge) and
Stauber, John S. and Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and Public Relations Industry (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).

These books are interesting to read and raise very serious issues such as War time PR, Democracy and propaganda. So if you are interested in the question you should have a look at these books.

Welcome to my Space!

Good day to you, my precious reader!
Welcome to my Space!

My name is Natalia Glushkova.
First of all, thank you for devoting a bit of your so much valuable time to reading my journal.
Secondly, I would like to explain the concept of this blog: it is a reflection of my MA in PR course studies in University of Westminster and of the Contemporary Theory and Issues in PR module, in particular. I will try to analyze some of the questions raised in class or will give some tips to relevant literature or research. At the end of the term I will once again look through the mass of information that I'm planning to provide you with and will summarize all this in my final post.

Hope you won't regret the time spent reading my blog.
And thank you for your attention.