"To think theoretically is to use a set of assumptions about how the world works in order to be able to predict and make conclusions about what happens." This means that an extensive amount of social understanding is necessary to make decisions regarding public relations. If, as a PR practitioner, you want to create a positive image for your client, you need to understand the way the general public will react.
Grunig's four models approach to public relations provides an explanation of the development of public relations to it's current practice.
Model 1, Press agentry, is associated with getting attetion for the client at any cost. Employed primarily by celebrities and left-wing organisations, it is most commonly known to the general public as 'publicity stunts'. Although this model has a high rate of negative return, it works to do just as it says, to gain the attention of the public by means of a stunt. For example, environmentalists chaining themselves to trees to prevent logging is a publicity stunt. This model relies heavily on media attention for it's success, and usually will be undertaken in a place that has a high population density, like on the sidewalk of a main road. Press agentry is one of the most crude forms of public relations.
Model 2, public information, is aimed at giving the population accurate information, without attempting to influnce opinions. This model is most commonly employed by the public sector and non-profit organisations. For example, the impartial results of a sports match would be classed as public information. This is a more noble model of public relations, but usually has no distinguishable benefit for the client.
Model 3, two-way asymmetric, is one of the most commonly employed models of public relations. It is basically aimed at 'selling' the client. This model tel the public what to think, and is highly effective to the wider community. An example of this model basic advertising, like the 'Enjoy Coca-Cola' campaign. This line alone tells the population what to do and think.
Model 4, two-way symmetric, is the most effective model. This model works on the basis that the client and the public give each other information and a compromise is reached which will generally advantage both parties. For example, companies taking surveys to enhance sales is two-way symmetric, because the company gains information about the population's requirements and the population benefits. Another example of this model is corporate sponsorship. The population is more likely to buy from the shop that sponsors their child's football team - the shop sponsors the team, and in return, the parents shop there. This is the most effective form of public relations because studies show that ethics are an important factor in public relations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your blog on the the theory of public relations largely deals with the same content that i mentioned in mine. I disagreed with the reading that the limitation of Grunig's symmetrical model is limited by the fact that there is debate over whether everyone can benefit from this approach to public relations. It is an advantage of this form of public relations in that it aims to consider all parties by the research that is undergone to consider a range of opinions and needs. Another limitation of this model that the reading did not cover is the instance in where an example of public relations can be more than one of the forms that Grunig outlined.
I liked the quote you started with Sara, it's the all-encompassing answer to the question "why theories?" Reading your first paragraph actually highlighted to me the real reason why theories are so relevant to studying PR.
You gave a healthy nutted-down version of Grunig's four models approach... it would have been good to read more of your thoughts on them.
The examples you gave for each model were useful though, and the subsequent application to the PR behind that example.
Your example of a company taking a survey of their publics to enhance sales was interesting. When reading it, I got wondering (on a slight tangent!) about company surveys. Considering they set the questions, do you think that they might somehow be setting the public up to get the answers they might prefer? I'm not sure, it might be wrong certainly, but could it create a slant in public opinion once the results of the survey were released? Then it comes down to ethics... The company should release a survey with a genuine interest in the opinion of the public, not "rigged" so they can gather results behind them that are favourable. It's an interesting chain of thought!
Post a Comment