Download Is the Action Suited to the Word

329
Is the Action Suited to the Word? How Public Relations and Other Related Terms are
Portrayed in International Newspapers
Tina Carroll McCorkindale
Cal Poly Pomona
[email protected]
Lynn Gregory
University of Vermont
[email protected]
Shakespeare’s Hamlet (2003) in Scene II said, “Suit the action to the word, the word to
the action.” Prior research has found that public relations, defined by Hickson as the
management of credibility, may have a credibility issue itself (cited in Stacks, 2002). Pincus,
Rimmer, Rayfield, and Cropp (1993) found journalists indeed have negative perceptions of
public relations professionals. One of the influences of this negative perception may be the
media. Jo (2003) found a close relationship between the negative connotations of the term public
relations in network news and newspapers to the organization type. However, studies have not
addressed other euphemisms of public relations, such as corporate communication, and have not
looked at the use of the term public relations beyond a national scope.
This study will utilize a content analysis to explore the use of the terms public relations
and its counterpart, corporate communication, to determine differences in its contexts and usage
in three international English-speaking newspapers: The New York Times, The Financial Times
(London), and The Daily Yomiuri (Japan).
Perceptions of Public Relations
According to Morley (1998), many organizations believe “anyone can do PR,” which has
slowed the acceptance of public relations as “an important business discipline within countless
companies and in the business community at large.”
Pincus, Rayfield, and Ohl (1994) point out that understanding the current perceptions of
public relations in certain influential areas such as business schools is a starting point to examine
the future shape of public relations. Moreover, Morley (1998) suggests an important barrier in
public relations may be people use the term to be synonymous with “publicity” or “propaganda.”
Prior research has investigated the negative perception of public relations in business
schools (Pincus, 1994; Carroll 2000; Williams, 1996). However, little research exists that has
investigated the causes of these perceptions. Relating to business schools, Pincus (personal
communication, 1999) said when references are made to public relations, they are generally
inaccurate, misleading and/or derogatory in nature. Therefore, Pincus said the term public
relations is relatively missing from the bigger discussion of “communications” as popularly
defined in business schools. Instead of using the term public relations, Pincus suggested a title or
label should be used that attracts business schools and that recasts public relations into a context
that truly fits into the business mentality. Edelman Worldwide (1993) provided nine suggestions
for improving the understanding of public relations in business schools; however, changing
media perceptions was notably absent.
Few research studies have analyzed the use of the term public relations in the media.
Henderson (1998) analyzed articles published between January 1995 and December 1996 in the
New York Times and other periodicals to determine negative connotations of the term public
relations in the print media. She found the majority of references were negative and inaccurate
while only a small portion, less than 10 percent, were positive.
330
Jo (2003) investigated the connotations of the term public relations in both newspapers,
such as the New York Times, and on major television networks. Using Hutton’s six frameworks
(persuasion, advocacy, public information, cause related, image-reputation management, and
relationship management), Jo found similar results to Henderson’s 1995 study. Twelve percent
of the mentions were positive, more than 40 percent were negative, while the remaining
mentions were neutral.
However, some aspects of public relations may be described by other terms or
euphemisms. Many other titles are used, especially referring to an organizational department,
such as corporate communications, public affairs, corporate relations, reputation management,
public information, and media relations, just to name a few. Derogatory terms include flack and
spin (Wilcox, Cameron, Ault, & Agee, 2003). While the term public relations may have
perception issues, other terms such as corporate communication may be different and its use
more appealing.
Theoretical Basis
Grunig’s four models of public relations help to explain the behavior of public relations
organizations and individuals, and also offer guidance for best practices (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, &
Dozier, 2002). The four models of public relations are: publicity/press agentry, public
information, two-way asymmetrical communication, and two-way symmetrical communication.
The first two models, publicity/press agentry and public information, are traditional one-way
practices whose purpose is to support activities of other departments, such as marketing. Public
relations practitioners who perform the publicity/press agentry model generate favorable
publicity for the organization, while keeping unfavorable publicity out (Dozier, Grunig, &
Grunig, 1995). According to Grunig and Hunt (1984), practitioners in this model “spread the
faith of the organization involved, often through incomplete, distorted, or half-true information”
(p. 21). Evaluating a program’s success in the publicity/press agentry model includes focusing on
outputs, such as counting the number of people who attended an event.
The public information model views communicators as “journalists in residence” who
neutrally disseminate information, without acting as advocates or mediators (Dozier, L. Grunig,
& J. Grunig, 1995, p. 208). Accurate information is disseminated but unfavorable information is
not volunteered. In these one-way models the practitioners give information, but do not seek
information from the organization’s publics through research (Grunig, 1989). Evaluation in the
public information model includes keeping a clipping file to determine the success of a program
(Dozier et al., 1995).
The next two models are two-way communication models, which use formal or informal
research to gather information about publics and to share that information with management. The
two-way asymmetrical model uses information to manipulate or persuade publics to behave as
organizations want them to behave (Dozier et al., 1995). This is why the model is asymmetric
because the effects of the model are imbalanced in favor of the organization (Grunig & Hunt,
1984). The asymmetrical model also utilizes attitude theory, in which the public relations
practitioners analyze research to tailor the information in ways the publics would most likely
accept, generally through an attitude change (Dozier et al., 1995). Evaluation in the two-way
asymmetrical model includes performing research before and after the program to detect attitude
changes.
The two-way symmetrical model emphasizes a change in the attitudes and behaviors of
both the organization and its publics (Dozier et al., 1995). The public relations practitioner acts
as a mediator to develop a mutual understanding between the organization and its publics.
331
Practitioners use tactics such as bargaining, negotiation, and strategies of conflict resolution to
change ideas, attitudes, and behaviors of both groups (Grunig, 1989). Before starting a public
relations campaign, surveys or informal research are generally conducted to determine the
attitudes or behaviors of the organization and its publics. Research also should be performed to
determine how much the organization and its publics understand each another, in which case the
co-orientational model is useful. According to Dozier et al. (1995), even though symmetrical
practices build the best long-term relationships with publics, practicing these models regularly
can be very expensive.
Grunig and Grunig (1992) stated each of his four Grunig’s models could be a normative
theory for public relations, and Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model “should be the normative
model for public relations” (p. 291). Grunig (1989) said the four models of public relations “are
representations of the values, goals and behaviors held or used by organizations when they
practice public relations” (p. 29).
Method
This study investigated the use and context of term public relations and expanded Jo’s
(2003) study to include the term corporate communication in three international newspapers: The
New York Times, the Financial Times (London), and The Daily Yomiuri (Japan). Jo’s (2003)
study used Hutton’s (1999) six frameworks, but there may be some degree of overlap of the
terms. Therefore, this study will use Grunig’s four models of public relations in place of
Hutton’s frameworks.
A search of Lexis-Nexis from January 2005 to December 2006 found significantly more
mentions of public relations (n = 3752) in articles than corporate communication (n = 216). The
Daily Yomiuri had only three mentions of the term corporate communication in the two-year
sample. Using a systematic random sample, 311 articles were selected for analysis from a
population of 3968 articles. If a study mentioned a term more than once, the first three uses of
the term were coded.
Jo’s (1993) study removed the use of the terms public relations agency, public relations
firm, and public relations manager. However, mere mentions may impact the perception of the
terms especially dealing with executive or upper management promotions in major newspapers.
Therefore, this study will include all mentions of public relations and corporate communication.
Latent content coded included the type of article, the connotation of the term, context in
which the word was used, model of public relations used, whether the article was image control,
and type of story. Type of article related to the desk where the article was published, such as
business/financial, world, sports, etc. Connotation of the term was coded as positive (accurate
meaning of public relations such as good PR or PR success), neutral, and negative (dilemma or
failure of reputation management such as PR fiasco, spin, PR nightmare). Context in which the
word was used included whether mention related to politicians, nonprofits, business
organizations (which include corporations), and so on. Grunig’s four models of public relations
(press agentry model, public information model, two-way asymmetrical, and two-way
symmetrical) were also coded. However, it should be noted if the mention was simply
identification or information, it was coded as part of the public information model. The coders
also determined whether or not an article tried to reactively improve the image of a person or
organization. Finally, whether the article was hard news, soft news, or an opinion/editorial was
determined.
332
Manifest content included the date of the article, column, page, and word count. An openended analysis of the term such as the phrasing or use of the term (e.g., head of corporate
communications, public relations exercise) was also conducted.
Intercoder Reliability
To test for intercoder reliability during the pretest, two coders coded the same 20 articles.
Differences were discussed and clarifications were made.
Results
This study examined differences of the terms corporate communication and public
relations found in three international newspapers: The New York Times, The Financial Times
(London), The Daily Yomiuri (Japan). Concerning the type of article, soft news/feature was the
most frequent (65%), followed by straight/hard news (28%) and editorials (7%). The two terms
were used most often in relation to individuals (51%) followed by business organizations (26%).
Of the three newspapers, the term public relations in news stories had more negative
connotations (24%) than corporate communication (1%).
Term comparisons
Table 1 demonstrates differences between the connotation of the term (positive, neutral,
or negative) and the term itself (corporate communication or public relations). A chi-square
analysis found significant differences amongst the terms and connotation. While there were no
differences between the two terms and their positive connotations, there were significantly
more negative occurrences with public relations (n = 42) compared to corporate communication
(n = 1).
Significant differences were also found between the terms and Grunig’s four models as
indicated by a chi-square analysis (see Table 2). Most uses of corporate communication were
present in the context of the public information model (88%). However, corporate
communication (2.2%) had significantly fewer occurrences of the press agentry model than
public relations (35%). Twenty-five percent of public relations occurrences were negative
compared to less than one percent of corporate communication.
When the relationship between the term and whether the subject of the article was
reactively trying to improve its image was analyzed, significant differences were found (Table
3). Again, corporate communication (7.3%) was mentioned significantly less in articles that tried
to improve an image compared to public relations (27%).
Newspaper comparisons
Differences among the three types of newspapers (The New York Times, The Financial
Times (London), and the Daily Yomiuri) were analyzed using chi-squares (see Table 4). While
the use of either term was similar between the New York Times and The Financial Times, The
Daily Yomiuri had only three mentions of corporate communication in 2005 and 2007. There
were not significant differences between the connotation of the term and the newspaper.
TABLE 1
Term and Connotation of the Term
Positive
Term
Public Relations
Corporate Communication
Total
Note. Χ2(2) = 35.68, p < .01
n
18
15
33
Neutral
%
10.3
10.9
10.6
n
114
121
235
%
65.5
88.3
75.6
Negative
n
%
42
24.1
1
.7
43
13.8
Total
n
%
174
100
137
100
311
100
333
TABLE 2
Term and Grunig’s Four Models
Press Agentry
Term
Public Relations
Corporate Communication
Total
n
53
3
56
Public Information
%
30.5
2.2
18.0
n
104
117
221
%
59.8
85.4
71.1
Two-way
asymmetrical
n
%
6
3.4
17
12.4
23
7.4
Two-way
symmetrical
n
%
7
4.0
0
0
7
2.3
Note. Χ2(4) = 58.08, p < .01
TABLE 3
Term and Presence in article to reactively improve image
Yes
Term
Public Relations
Corporate Communication
Total
n
47
10
57
No
%
27.0
7.3
18.3
n
127
127
254
%
73.0
92.7
81.7
Total
n
%
174
100
17
100
311
100
Note. Χ2(1) = 19.89, p < .01
TABLE 4
Term, Connotation of the Term, and Newspaper
Positive
Term
The New York Times
Public Relations
Corporate
Communication
Note. Χ2(2) = 22.8, p < .01
The London Times
Public Relations
Corporate
Communication
Note. Χ2(2) = 29.8, p < .01
The Daily Yomiuri
Public Relations
Corporate
Communication
Note. Χ2(2) = .617, p = .74
Neutral
Negative
n
%
Total
n
n
%
n
%
%
6
2
10.7
3.8
33
51
58.9
96.2
17
0
30.4
0
56
53
100
100
7
13
13.0
16.0
28
67
51.9
82.7
19
1
35.2
1.2
54
81
100
100
5
0
7.8
0
53
3
82.8
100
6
0
9.4
0
64
3
100
100
Discussion and Conclusion
This study examined the use of the terms, public relations and corporate communication,
in three international newspapers: The New York Times, The Financial Times (London), and the
Daily Yomiuri (Japan). This content analysis expanded Jo’s (1993) content analysis which only
analyzed the term public relations in national newspapers and broadcast stations.
Findings indicate the term public relations was more likely to have negative connotations
and be used in a press-agentry sense compared to corporate communication. In addition, articles
were more likely to use the term public relations when trying to improve their image than
corporate communication. Corporate communication was more than likely used in a positive
sense and used to describe company positions compared to public relations. This supports
334
O’Dwyer PR Services Report’s finding that the most common term that described the public
relations function in Fortune 500 companies was corporate communication (cited in Wilcox et.
al, 2003). Examples of some terms of how public relations was used include public relations
hangover, public relations firestorm, public relations disaster, public relations campaigns, etc.
Corporate communication was more likely to identify a position such as head of corporate
communications. Other uses of corporate communication include phrases such as corporate
communications world and corporate communications market lead. There were also several
mentions of corporate communications as a descriptor of a telecommunications company.
Based on the above findings, negative views of the term public relations were
overwhelmingly prevalent in the three newspapers compared to corporate communication.
Future research should investigate other terms such as public information or reputation
management, to name a few. Therefore, users of the term public relations should further analyze
its use in case they may have to engage in a corporate communication campaign themselves.
References
Carroll, T. (2000). How public relations is perceived and taught in MBA programs: A survey of
business school professors. Master’s thesis.
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public
relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edelman Worldwide. The importance of public relations in graduate business programs. May
1993, 6.
Grunig, J.E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: CBS College
Publishing.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a Framework for Public Relations Theory.
In C.H. Botan & V. Hazelton, Jr. (Eds.), Public Relations Theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L.A. (1992). Models of Public Relations and Communication. In J. E.
Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 285321). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Henderson, J. K. (1998). Negative connotations in the use of the term ‘public relations’ in the
print media. Public Relations Review, 24, 45-55
Morley, M. (1998). How to Manage Your Global Reputation. New York: New York University
Press.
Pincus (1999) Personal communication – email.
Pincus, J. D.; Rayfield, R.E., & Cozzens, M.D. (1991). The chief executive officer's internal
communication role: A benchmark program of research. In Grunig, J.E. & Grunig, L.A.
(Eds.) Public relations research annual III (1-35). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Pincus, J. D., Rayfield, B., and Ohl, C. M. (1994, Spring). Public Relations Education in MBA
Programs: Challenges and Opportunities. Public Relations Review, 20(1), 55-71.
Pincus, D. J., Rimmer, T., Rayfield, R. E., & Cropp, F. (1993). Newspaper editors’ perceptions
of public relations: How business, news, and sports editors differ. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 5(1), 27-45.
335
Shakespeare. (2003). Hamlet. Washington Square Press.
Stacks, D. W. (2002). Primer of public relations research. New York: Guilford Press.
Wilcox, D. L., Cameron, G. T., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (2003). Public relations: Strategies
and tactics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Williams, J. (1996, Oct-Nov.). Top Business Schools See Value of Communication Skills.
Communication World, 13(8), pp. 36-38.