Category: Public relations

Thoughts about public relations practice.

Are we measuring what we think we are?

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

The Institute for Public Relations celebrated “Measurement Month” in November. The organization populated its online newsletters during the month with items about how to evaluate public relations effectiveness. Offerings included “Teaching measurement and evaluation in interesting times,” “Issue measurement as a first step to issue management,” “Latest evaluation models—UK government evaluation cycle, EU guidelines, and more,” and “2024 and the changing world of entertainment and sport PR measurement.”

The goal was to highlight the importance of research and evaluation to public relations practice. The Florida-based institute was founded in 1956 to promote research-based approaches to public relations.

Also during November, Muck Rack, a media software and database company, issued its State of PR Measurement report for 2024. That report reflected survey responses from more than 400 public relations practitioners. Results showed:

  • Only 38% were “extremely confident” or “very confident” in the metrics they used to demonstrate the effectiveness of their work. Another 49% were “somewhat confident.”
  • More than one-third had trouble tracking the effectiveness of their work.
  • Linking public relations results to business goals was the most difficult measurement challenge.

Practitioners used many methods to assess results. Metrics included the number of stories placed or pitches made, message reach, share of voice, social media engagement, and effects of public relations activity on sales, leads, or revenue.

Skepticism about measurement methods may be justified

Some survey respondents questioned the reliability of every metric in the survey. Such skepticism may be justified. Just because we have measurements doesn’t mean we know what those numbers represent. We must be sure of what we are measuring. Furthermore, we must determine if our metrics are accurately assessing the situation.

For example, some businesses routinely send customers a one-question follow-up survey to assess satisfaction. The question asks how likely the customer is to recommend the company to a friend or family member.

Frederick Reichheld said in a 2003 Harvard Business Review article that the “likely to recommend” behavior was “perhaps the strongest sign of customer loyalty.” Consequently, the single National Promoter Score (NPS) question could provide a useful predictor of top-line business growth.

Since 2003, the use of the question has morphed. Managers not familiar with Reichheld’s original research now use the NPS item to gauge customer satisfaction. That use is inconsistent with the original intent. Results, therefore, may not be reliable.

A customer, for instance, might be “willing to recommend” the company. But the customer knows he or she wouldn’t normally have an occasion to recommend the business to anyone. Therefore, the customer might say he or she would not be very likely to recommend the company.

Misguided responses could cost companies

The customer may be completely satisfied with his or her experience. Managers reviewing the response, however, may think just the opposite, draw the wrong conclusions about what the business is doing, and react inappropriately. A misguided response could cost the company money.

Statistician W. Edwards Deming, father of the Total Quality Management movement, said collecting data wasn’t enough. Data are just numbers until they are interpreted. Interpretation takes human analysis. Each analysis reflects our biases about what we think those numbers are measuring. A lot depends on the unit of analysis, the way data are collected, and how results are dissected.

Deming disputed the claim, often attributed to business guru Peter Drucker, that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. Deming called an absolute belief in the measurement claim “a costly myth.”

In Out of the Crisis (1986, pp. 121-126), Deming said that not all business elements that must be managed could be measured. Managers nevertheless needed to deal with those topics. Therefore, managers had to clearly understand what data were and weren’t telling them.

To plan effectively, public relations practitioners need to know whom they want to reach, how they want to influence people in those groups, and what responses will indicate that a public relations effort has succeeded—and advanced the organizational mission. To answer these questions, practitioners need accurate measurements.

The November Muck Rack report indicates that many public relations practitioners aren’t sure they are collecting the information they need to effectively plan or accurately track the success of their work.

Feedback from individuals in key publics needed

I agree. Story placement and pitch counts measure output by practitioners, not outcomes among people in key publics or connections to business goals. Message reach, share of voice, or social media engagement focus on communication dynamics, not what people who receive those messages think about the company sending them. Correlations of sales, lead generation, or revenue to public relations activities can’t show direct causation. Public relations activities may successfully influence what people in key publics think about an organization. Nevertheless, the changed perceptions don’t lead to commercial transactions.

Public relations work might enhance an organization’s reputation, boost the value of goodwill, and help accomplish business goals without directly influencing sales or revenue. To know for sure, practitioners need direct feedback from individuals in the publics we want to influence.

American humorist Mark Twain popularized the idea of lies, damn lies, and statistics. Public relations practitioners must be confident about the data they collect and the statistics they use to plan and evaluate their work. Otherwise, they risk making costly mistakes or lying to themselves and clients. The intelligence underlying their plan might be flawed, or their measurement results might not accurately assess the situation.

Has the public relations industry missed the significance of Merriam-Webster’s 2023 word of the year?

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

The selection of authentic as Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2023 offers subtle evidence of public relations’ importance to organizations. The dictionary’s Nov. 27 news release about the choice even notes the word’s connection to “identity,” a concept related to reputation, the primary focus of corporate public relations work (see Nov. 13 post).

But no publication that I have seen so far—general or trade—has noted that being authentic is connected to effective public relations. Consequently, I suspect many public relations practitioners have missed the opportunity to use the word selection as a chance to reinforce the importance of authentic actions and messages to an organization’s reputation.

“Authentic has a number of meanings,” the Merriam-Webster news release says about the word of the year, “including ‘not false or imitation,’ a synonym of real and actual; and also ‘true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character.’”

The release adds, “Authentic is often connected to identity, whether national or personal: words frequently modified by authentic include cuisine and dish, but also self and voice. Celebrities like singers Lainey Wilson, Sam Smith, and especially Taylor Swift all made headlines in 2023 with statements about seeking their ‘authentic voice’ and ‘authentic self.’”

Authenticity affects reputation

Authenticity is at the core of reputation management. The Authenticity Factory is one of four elements in John Doorley’s reputation management formula (see Aug. 26 post):

Reputation = Performance (financial returns and quality products or services) + Behavior (organizational interactions with key groups) + Communication (messages sent through all channels to all publics) x Authenticity Factory.

The Authenticity Factor determines the effectiveness of Performance, Behaviors, and Communication in shaping perceptions among people that an organization needs to influence. The Authenticity Factor represents how consistent all actions and messages are with an organization’s “intrinsic identity” (what it stands for).

If an organization stays true to what it stands for, the Authenticity Factor is 1. Any action or message that is not authentic reduces the factor and lowers the sum of images derived from Performance, Behavior, and Communication.

The Authenticity Factor can make or break an effort to change the way people think about an organization.

Significance missed

Missing the significance of increased public interest in whether things are authentic may reflect the shortsightedness of many trade-publication editors. Much of what I read reports on how public relations efforts can support marketing objectives (see Sept. 26 and Nov. 13 posts).

But from my perspective, the public relations management function should deal first with organizational reputation, what people think about an organization in light of all their interactions with it.

Authenticity helps shape those perceptions. People, according to Merriam-Webster, have become especially attentive during 2023 to what’s authentic. Public relations practitioners should have taken note. Practitioners should have used the word-of-the-year announcement as an opportunity to point out to business leaders that:

  • Authentic actions and messages help foster a solid reputation with publics important to an organization’s success.
  • People in key publics have little trouble identifying when an organization isn’t being authentic.
  • Not acting and communicating authentically can, therefore, hurt the way people think about an organization.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Reflections on public relations practice

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

Two recent items in online trade publications caught my attention and got me thinking anew about current public relations practice:

I was surprised that these topics would be news to public relations practitioners in 2023. Haven’t we in public relations known for years about the importance of relationships and public relations’ image problem? Maybe being reminded about key concepts and our identity issues is good.

Need for two-way interactions

The Drum item said that:

  • Customer marketing should move “away from reach-focused one-way communications to a two-way dialogue that builds more meaningful connections and valuable spaces for customers.”
  • Companies should shift “from thinking of an audience to considering a community.”

Public relations scholars have been talking, writing, and teaching about these dynamics for a century. Marketers, however, may not have heard those messages.

Effective public relations requires strategic two-way interactions between organizations and those social groups (“publics”) that can determine the organization’s success or failure. The relationship-building process involves both actions (what the organization does) and communication (how the organization tells people in each public about what it does and then responds to their feedback).

Harold Burson, whom PR News called the most influential public relations practitioner of the second half of the 20th century, wrote in 2017:

“Public relations comprises two major components: behavior and communication. Of the two, behavior is more critical to the ultimate goal. … The rappers got it right: ‘You can’t talk the talk unless you walk the walk.’ Organizations had to deliver on their promises; otherwise, they’d lose credibility” (The Business of Persuasion, pp. 108-109).

The term “publics,” by the way, comes from sociology. The term describes groups in society connected by one or more elements (interests, psychological characteristics, geographic locations, occupations, etc.).

‘Audiences’ vs. ‘publics’

For me, the point in the Drum Network story about shifting “from thinking of an audience” is a recognition that “audiences” are not well-defined “publics.” “Audiences” are collectives of usually disconnected individuals who receive a common message. Audience members often have little in common beyond the message.

Therefore, the discovery of “community” in the Drum Network item is heartening. The article appears to recognize—again, from my perspective—the need for something that can transform a collection of individuals into an identified group connected by some common element. The article said valuable content about a product and interactions with others—both the supplier and other consumers—could be such connections.

“Community”—especially one built around common interests—can be an acceptable synonym for “public.”

Preferring ‘public’

Since the late 1990s, I have urged clients and students to stop thinking about “audiences” when we discuss public relations. Responses to public relations actions from a group of disconnected individuals are hard to predict. Most theories that drive our planning are built around social groups that share identifiable characteristics or self-interests. Conceptually, “public” is a more consistent term for strategic planning.

For some reason, however, many practitioners work hard to avoid using “public.” They prefer such terms as “stakeholder” or “constituent.” In my opinion, these words are not neutral synonyms for “public.” “Stakeholders” have a vested interest in the success or failure of an organization. “Constituents” are part of something.

A “public” may have no connection to or interest in an organization. Nevertheless, interacting with such a group may be critical to the organization’s success.

When I revised study guides in 2015 and 2016 for Accreditation in Public Relations to replace references to “audience” with “public,” I received several complaints from APR candidates. They didn’t like “public” and didn’t care that the term was consistent with the theory of situational publics, a concept they were supposed to learn.

Confusion about public relations

Confusion about (1) what we call public relations concepts like “public” and (2) how to describe what we do contributes, in my opinion, to the identity problem discussed in the PR News story. Author Amanda Proscia noted that many business leaders, “including many partners in marketing and advertising,” have no idea what public relations involves or how it contributes to a company’s success.

To counter that ignorance, Proscia wrote a book: PR Confidential: Unlocking the Secrets to a Powerful Public Image. It presents information that Proscia’s agency, Lightspeed Public Relations and Marketing, uses to educate clients about how effective public relations might benefit them.

I read the book. I commend her work. The book covers lots of useful information—especially for those who confuse public relations with advertising or marketing. Therefore, I’m not eager to nitpick, but the book has, in my view, two shortcomings:

  • It describes only public relations activities that are part of an organization’s “marketing mix.”
  • It never addresses the “powerful public image” mentioned in the title.

Proscia says public relations involves “managing perceptions of an organization by creating the right kind of awareness and driving actions to achieve business goals” (pp. 6 and 86). Public relations “earns people’s opinions and, hopefully, their trust” (p. 7). Public relations campaigns are “focused on shifting perceptions, then (moving) people to take actions” (p. 8).

I concur with those points. But the descriptions don’t go far enough.

The “right kind of awareness,” the book says, is earned primarily through publicity. Efforts to earn media coverage focus more on communication than organizational behavior.

The “actions” driven by the awareness generally involve consumer choices related to buying products or services, not changes in opinions about the organization supplying those products or services.

The “business goals” that the actions achieve all appear to be found in the organization’s marketing plan, not the organization’s overarching business strategy.

Reputation management

Consequently, I think the definition ignores another important way that the public relations management function benefits organizations: reputation management.

Back in 1991, just before Proscia started her 30-year public relations career, Thomas L. Harris wrote in The Marketer’s Guide to Public Relations, often called the first book on marketing communication:

“I am suggesting that a schism is in the making, that marketing public relations will move closer to marketing and that corporate public relations (CPR) will remain a management function concerned with the company’s relationships with all its publics” (p. vii).

In his second book (Value-Added Public Relations, 1997), Harris, a longtime public relations agency executive, explained this division further:

“I want to make very clear that while the purview of this book is marketing public relations, the function of public relations as practiced by corporations and other institutions, and on their behalf by public relations firms, far exceeds the marketing-support function. The principal role of corporate communications departments and public relations firms cited here and their counterparts throughout the country and world remains and, in my view, will continue to remain, to counsel management on relationships with all stakeholders on whose support the corporate health and indeed success depends—in the current lexicon, to manage the corporate reputation” (pp. vii-viii).

Proscia’s book mentions “reputation management” but primarily as a tactical consideration after a crisis (pp. 48-50). “Once a business establishes its reputation and demonstrates the value of its products and services,” she writes (p. 47), “PR can continue to build on that, creating more and better opportunities.” She doesn’t discuss how public relations helps establish that reputation in the first place.

Different experience

My career experience was different from Proscia’s. While she has worked mostly—although not exclusively—for public relations agencies and usually supported marketing efforts, I worked for military organizations, faith groups, and nonprofit corporations. My work focused on the image we projected and the reputation we hoped to earn with publics important to our success. I advised top management on what the organization needed to do to be seen by key publics as an authentically good neighbor or community asset and to enhance the organization’s goodwill (the accounting term for intangible assets).

While media relations (generating publicity) was always an aspect of my work, I usually spent more time on community relations, internal communication, government relations, corporate social responsibility, crisis communication, and, at times, investor relations or fundraising.

Proscia writes (p. 80), “PR can be applied to sell products or services, influence political leaders, attract investors, support employees, manage a crisis, educate, influence, and refocus.” Therefore, she concludes that public relations should be part of the marketing plan. But her compact book (80 pages of text) doesn’t get into how efforts beyond product promotion contribute to organization-level business objectives.

As a result, in my opinion, the book doesn’t deliver on its promise of “unlocking the secrets to creating a powerful public image.” I saw no discussion of organizational image or identity. Methods for determining public relations success focused on media placements, audience reach, and measuring publicity outputs. No methods assessed outcomes of organizational actions among key publics or perception changes related to image or reputation.

Despite my nitpicking, I commend Proscia’s book. It contributes positively to the business literature about public relations. I hope the book helps readers see the value of what public relations can contribute to an organization.

Nevertheless, the Drum Network article and the Proscia book remind me that even though public relations has been a recognized discipline in the United States for a century:

  • Public relations practitioners, unlike those in disciplines such as accounting and law, don’t share a common professional identity.
  • Consequently, public relations practitioners don’t always recognize or agree upon key concepts, terms, or even approaches to their work.
  • Furthermore, public relations practitioners don’t concur on how their knowledge and skills contribute to organizational success.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

What’s public relations?

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

Public relations—my chosen field for many years—continues to face an identity crisis. Even many practitioners today can’t agree on what public relations people do or what to call the function.

The debate has been background noise in my work since I entered the field in the late 1970s. A Google search will yield thousands of online items about what public relations is and how it differs from advertising and marketing. Other items—especially those about integrated marketing communication (IMC)—will blend public relations into a company’s marketing mix. More searches will identify multiple academic studies and commentaries in trade publications about other disciplines, such as legal, marketing, and human resources, encroaching on traditional public relations areas of responsibility.

Unfortunately, we—public relations practitioners—can’t expect organizational leaders to get the most out of our century-old management function if we:

  • Can’t agree on what roles we should play in an organization.
  • Disagree on the scope of responsibilities under the public relations umbrella.
  • Must constantly explain to top organization leaders what value our discipline brings to strategic planning and execution.

5 differing perspectives

I can offer no easy ways in this essay to sharpen public relations’ fuzzy image. I’ve been in many discussions over the years about the situation. Those talks were engaging but led to few changes. Five recent online encounters got me thinking again about the ongoing confusion that plagues public relations as a discipline:

  • A Sept. 5 online PR News item said that public relations and marketing were essentially the same. People in both functions were “all communicators with a shared interest in storytelling.” Therefore, the article called for “more cross-pollination between marketing and PR—and not just to protect their jobs, but to create truly comprehensive and powerful communications functions that drive business results.”
  • A communication executive from Greensboro, North Carolina, told members of the Commission on Public Relations Education in a Sept. 18 Zoom session that college students needed to learn that public relations people were business strategists first and communicators second. Others in the meeting—a mix of practitioners and educators—concurred. They reiterated that public relations practitioners should help organizational leaders develop policies and actions to accomplish business objectives. Public relations people should not just craft messages (tell stories) to support policy decisions that others have already made.
  • A Sept. 19 email message from the Center for Public Relations at the University of Southern California reminded me of its April 2023 Global Communication Report. It said: “In 2023, PR professionals are devoting an increasing amount of time and energy to building and protecting the reputations of their companies and their clients. That job has never been more important or more challenging … .”
  • Another Sept. 19 email message—this one from Corporate Excellence—Centre for Reputation Leadership in Madrid—included updates on its July report: Approaching the Future—Trends in Reputation and Intangible Assets. For eight years, the organization has tracked international trends in public relations and corporate reputation management. In collaboration with the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, the center has developed a model to help executives understand key pillars of reputation and trust.
  • A Sept. 20 online PR News story said that artificial intelligence was erasing the lines between public relations and marketing. “The era of intuition-driven PR is over,” the story said. Public relations people can now tap into the same data as marketers to track return on investment for both marketing and public relations campaigns. “Embracing AI means breaking down long-standing barriers and stepping into a future where your brand’s storytelling is not just compelling but extraordinarily effective,” the story said.

Do public relations people focus more on telling stories or guiding business actions that influence reputation? Does public relations work simply support marketing efforts, or does it contribute to broader business objectives?

Choice is “both-and”

In many organizations, the choices are “both-and,” not “either-or.” Seminal research reported in 1992 by James Grunig (Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management) said that public relations executives in the best-run organizations worked as both managers and communication technicians (storytellers). “Excellent” companies empowered their public relations functions to help guide actions to accomplish strategic corporate outcomes, not simply support marketing or human resources. Public relations executives managed interactions with key groups in the marketplace. How these key publics perceived the organization determined its reputation. A good reputation, in turn, contributed to organizational success.

Grunig’s “Excellence” theory has influenced how many practitioners and educators think about public relations for three decades.

But so has Tom Harris’s 1991 book, The Marketer’s Guide to Public Relations. It was one of the first popular references to distinguish marketing public relations (support for sales of products and services) from corporate public relations (reputation management). The book helped promote the development of IMC, a popular concept in many companies that deliver products or services and in many advertising/public relations agencies. IMC coordinates advertising, public relations campaigns, and sales efforts so customers see consistent messages about products or services.

Fuzzy definition

I contend that public relations has never had a clearly understood definition like other business functions—accounting, advertising, personnel, legal, etc. As a result, chief executives haven’t always understood all the ways public relations could advance an organization’s success.

I blame Edward L. Bernays, an early public relations pioneer, for part of the problem. He coined the term “counsel on public relations” in his 1923 book, Crystallizing Public Opinion. But he didn’t provide a concise definition of public relations. Instead, he described a counsel on public relations as a “special pleader” in the court of public opinion. Counsels contributed to business success by applying knowledge of sociology, psychology, and economics to business strategies that could influence public opinion and guide mass human behavior.

Later in his life, Bernays lamented that anyone—including door-to-door salespeople—could call what they did “public relations.” He said that sinister actors in business and government had tarnished the discipline’s reputation. They used public relations techniques to accomplish questionable outcomes—not engineer the public consent necessary to promote progress in a democratic society. As a result, Bernays said, many organizations found alternative names for the public relations management function.

In response, Bernays advocated licensing public relations practitioners so a government body could define the practice and control who could do “public relations.”

Alternative references grow

After Bernays died in 1995, calls for licensing declined, and confusion—at least from my perspective—about what “public relations” involved appeared to increase. Organizations continued to adopt alternative titles for the function and to move traditional responsibilities of the discipline to other parts of the organization.

Paul Agenti says in Corporate Communication (7th edition) that “corporate communication” has become the most common term for in-house public relations departments in the United States.

Among international agencies today, only Golan and Weber Shadwick appear to label themselves solely as public relations specialists. Hill+Knowlton Strategies calls itself a “global public relations and integrated communications agency.” FleishmanHillard is a global PR & digital marketing agency.

Edelman, the largest standalone agency, says it does “global communications.” Ketchem is a global communication consultancy. Burson Cohn & Wolfe does “integrated communication.”

In 1999, members of the Religious Public Relations Council changed the organization’s name to Religion Communicators Council. Advocates said that “communication” was a broader term than “public relations.”

In the USC 2018 Global Communication Report, 41% of in-house corporate communicators and 33% of agency practitioners said we would need to stop using “public relations” by 2023. The term would not accurately describe what they did.

Responsibilities disbursed

Along with fewer businesses referring to “public relations,” many organizations have moved traditional public relations responsibilities to other business functions.

Investor relations, for example, long a part of the public relations discipline, is now a distinct function in many publicly traded corporations. The National Investor Relations Institute, founded in 1969, defines investor relations as “a strategic management responsibility that integrates finance, communication, marketing, and securities law compliance to enable the most effective two-way communication between a company, the financial community, and other constituencies, which ultimately contributes to a company’s securities achieving fair valuation.” Where investor relations is a separate function, the investment relations officer generally reports to the chief executive officer or chief financial officer.

Government relations (or public affairs), another traditional part of the public relations discipline, is now found under the chief executive or corporate legal counsel in many organizations. Since 2017, this public relations subspeciality has had its own professional organization: the Government Relations Association.

Human relations departments in many organizations are now in charge of internal (employee) communication, yet another traditional part of the public relations discipline.

Puerto Rico defines public relations practice

Puerto Rico is the only American jurisdiction to eventually do what Bernays wanted. The commonwealth requires a license to practice public relations and be called a “Relationist.” The 2008 law that established the Regulatory Board of Relationists said licensed practitioners did four primary tasks:

  1. Anticipate, analyze, and interpret public opinion, attitudes, and controversies that could impact, positively or negatively, the operations and plans of an organization or individual.
  2. Advise all management levels of the organization, in relation to established policy decisions, courses of action, and communication, and take into consideration its different audiences and the social organization or the responsibilities of citizenship.
  3. Research, plan, implement, and evaluate action and communication programs to achieve public acceptance and successfully achieve the goals of the organization or individual.
  4. Plan and implement the organization’s efforts to propose or modify public policy.

These tasks reflect what most American universities teach in both undergraduate and graduate programs as “public relations” and help define the discipline. In fact, “public relations” is what future practitioners usually study in college—no matter what subspecialty they eventually work in. Two-thirds (67%) of 109 undergraduate programs responding to a 2018 survey—done by John Forde for the Commission on Public Relations Education—said they taught “public relations.” Another 14% called their programs “strategic communication.” Seven percent combined the public relations major with advertising. Two schools (2%) called their programs “integrated marketing communication,” and one program included public relations under “marketing.”

Puerto Rico requires licensed Relationists to have a master’s degree in “public relations” or an undergraduate degree in “public relations” with certified practical experience in the field.

Titles reflect roles

Now that I’m retired, I no longer have any vested interest in how the debate about “public relations” is decided. I’ve always told people that public relations is a management function that deals with interactions between organizations and groups in society. That function is responsible for enhancing corporate goodwill (the value of intangible assets) and fostering a good reputation with social groups that are important to the organization’s success. I won’t change my mind.

That perspective is one reason I helped launch a Reputation Management major in 2020 in Virginia Tech’s M.A. in Communication curriculum. I wanted our program to prepare mid-level managers for more than “storyteller” roles at companies, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Both the 2023 Global Communication Report and the 2023 Approach the Future Report appear to support our move. Those reports indicate that top executives are becoming more interested in capitalizing on good organizational reputations to enhance business success.

But my view may be in the minority among public relations educators. I’ve talked to many who think “strategic communication” more accurately describes what universities should be teaching. I disagree. I think that term indicates a focus on messaging and content production, not business strategy or management.

What an organization calls its public relations function usually indicates how it understands the role of practitioners—primarily managers who help guide corporate actions or communication technicians who tell about what executives have decided to do. The title often signals whether the public relations function contributes directly to business outcomes or simply supports functions like marketing or human resources.

The way practitioners describe themselves and what they do is another factor in how people outside the field see “public relations.” Are practitioners business strategists or content producers? Can storytellers contribute to business outcomes or manage reputation?

I’ll keep watching to see how the public relations discipline evolves and whether the term survives in both business and higher education.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Rebuilding trust vs. changing reputation

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a reputation problem, according to its new director. So do many universities, according to an Aug. 17 PR News story.

But neither the CDC director nor various university public relations advisers are talking about reputation. Comments in news stories focus on rebuilding trust. While trust is one product of reputation, a narrow focus on trust could limit how organizations try to solve their business problems. In fact, decision-makers focused on trust might overlook a key element of reputation: authenticity.

John Doorley, executive director of corporate communications at Merk & Company from 1987 to 2000 and later a communication professor at Rutgers, New York University, and Elon University, developed a reputation management formula in 2003:

Reputation = Performance + Behavior + Communication x Authenticity Factory

“Performance” represents financial returns (profits and losses) and the delivery of quality products or services. “Behavior” means organizational interactions with key groups, such as employees, customers, regulators, critics, and local neighbors. “Communication” covers messages sent through all channels to all groups.

The Authenticity Factor indicates how true all actions and messages are to an organization’s “intrinsic identity” (what it stands for). If an organization stays true to what it stands for, the Authenticity Factor is 1. Any action or message that is not authentic reduces the factor and lowers the sum of images derived from Performance, Behavior, and Communication.

Doorley explains the formula in Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. He and Fred Garcia first published that book in 2006. It is now in its fourth edition (2021).

Trust reflects people’s confidence that individuals and organizations will do what they promise. Just as trustworthiness is one facet of reputation, so are credibility, reliability, and responsibility.

Dr. Mandy Cohen, the new CDC director, has said in recent news interviews and public statements that she wants to rebuild trust in the CDC, other government institutions, and the scientific process. Even though Cohen hasn’t mentioned reputation, she appears to recognize that CDC efforts must address elements in the reputation formula. She told NBC News July 20 that her “intentional plan” to rebuild trust in the CDC involved “good execution” of the CDC public health mission, transparency, and good communication.

Cohen again talked about good performance, transparency, and clear communication Aug. 1 on NPR’s All Things Considered. She added a fourth component to her plan: partnerships and relationships with various groups. “And we’re going to be focused on building those bridges and building that trust so that folks take vaccines,” Cohen said.

Cohen’s strategy covers three elements of the Doorley formula:

  • Performance—“making sure that we are doing what we say we’re going to do.” That performance should enhance trust as well.
  • Behavior—transparency in interactions with critics, members of Congress, and others.
  • Communication—delivering clear, simple messages that all segments of the public can understand.

But the director does not appear to have thought about the Authenticity Factor (the perception that all actions and messages are consistent with what Americans would expect from the nation’s top public health agency).

The Aug. 17 PR News story shows the same shortsightedness about reputation—this time related to universities in the wake of a June U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative-action standards in college admissions. That story asserts, “The schools will need to rebuild trust for not only potential students and their families, but alumni, employees and staff of the institutions.”

The story quotes three sources. Two of them, a public relations practitioner and a public relations educator, both said that universities should act transparently and send clear messages about future admissions policies to key publics to rebuild trust. The third, another practitioner, said that admissions policies needed to reflect core institutional values.

With these comments, the PR News story alluded to Performance, Behavior, and Communication by university administrators. But none of the sources talked about the need to be authentic.

The difference between “building trust” and strategically trying to shape an organization’s overall reputation isn’t just semantic. I’m sure some will accuse me of fussing too much about the distinction. But word choice frequently reflects the scope of a person’s or organization’s thinking.

Too many public relations practitioners—and CEOs, for that matter—avoid talking about reputation. One reason may be that reputation is intangible and supposedly hard to measure. Consequently, both business leaders and public relations practitioners often use measures of trust as proxies for measures of reputation. The annual Edelman Trust Barometer is an example of such a proxy measure.

From my perspective, the focus on trust isn’t enough. The Authenticity Factor can make or break an effort to change the way people think about an organization—especially in a polarized public opinion environment. Any strategy that leaves out the last part of the Doorley formula can’t effectively build trust or change reputation.

Determining what people in various constituencies would consider authentic is often a challenge. For example, critics during the COVID-19 pandemic effectively demonized the CDC’s traditional data-driven approach to public health policy. Simply doubling down on that approach—which Cohen seems to imply (“have good performance in what the CDC is meant to do”)—isn’t likely to be effective. Polls repeatedly show that many Americans have lost trust in medical scientists since the pandemic.

Similarly, universities—especially those named in the affirmative-action lawsuit (Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)—have had a hard time countering charges that they have unfairly used race to decide which students to admit.

Both the CDC and universities need to know what key constituents are willing to believe. Critics have controlled the public health and higher education narrative for the past few years. Changing current opinions among people in some groups, therefore, may be a genuine challenge.

The partnership aspect of Cohen’s strategy could help with authenticity in the CDC effort, but she didn’t provide enough details in the two news interviews for me to speculate further.

The PR News story appears to imply that making sure constituents understand the values driving university admissions decisions will help make actions appear authentic. But what if the people universities need to reach don’t share those values?

I hope public relations staffers at the CDC and various universities are wise enough and influential enough within their organizations to help their bosses reach their real management goal: a better organizational reputation. Broadening that vision beyond “building trust” might help. But supplying solid intelligence on what key constituencies would see as authentic would be even more important.

Unfortunately, I know from 28 years in Army public affairs that government public relations efforts often lack adequate research on key groups. We in the government know what we want to say, but we don’t know what people in those groups are willing to hear or believe.

University communication offices may have more information on their key publics, but I don’t know that for sure. I suspect that access to research on key publics varies from institution to institution.

I commend Cohen’s intentions. I wish the CDC and various universities success in their efforts to change their public image. In the process, I hope that organizational leaders come to recognize the importance of authenticity in shaping reputation as they promote excellent performance, transparent behaviors, and clear communication.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Umbrella Model of Public Relations and religion communicators

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

I commend Jason Sprenger’s recent blog post about the “Umbrella Model of Public Relations” (Redefining and Rethinking PR: Introducing the Umbrella Model of Public Relations). His insights should be instructive for many religion communicators.

Sprenger came to an epiphany about public relations and how it contributes to an organization while preparing to earn Accreditation in Public Relations. Like many religion communicators, Sprenger hadn’t taken any public relations courses in college. He learned about public relations on the job. His first assignments involved writing and media relations. Consequently, he initially though of public relations tactically: writing releases, pitching stories to journalists, getting publicity for clients.

As he studied to earn APR, Sprenger began to see that public relations involved more than writing and media relations. He discovered that public relations was grounded in theory, involved strategic thinking, followed a four-step process, and focused on relationship management, not just tactical communication. He began to understand public relations as a broad management function that includes all ways that organizations interact with key publics. That thinking led to his umbrella model. It tries to illustrate all the ways public relations can contribute to an organization’s success.

Religion communicators should consider what Sprenger has learned about public relations. They appear to have lots in common with him. My surveys of religion communicators over the past decade have shown that:

(1) Most think of themselves as communication technicians, not managers. Most spend most of their time writing, editing and preparing communication products. Not too many say they are involved in strategic planning for their faith groups.

(2) Many (usually 15 to 25 percent) have not had any formal training in communication or public relations. Like Sprenger, they have learned about public relations on the job. They may not have the perspective to think of their role as more than a technician.

(3) They historically have avoided calling what they do “public relations.” Consequently, they often don’t think in “public relations” terms even when they are doing “public relations” jobs.

Earning APR might help change the way religion communicators think about public relations. The experience changed the way Sprenger saw his work. Only about 20 of the Religion Communicators Council’s more than 300 members have the credential. RCC members are eligible to earn APR through the Universal Accreditation Board. Information is available on the RCC website.