Stakeholder Segmentation: are the existing models still valid?

One of the fundamentals of communication is to bear in mind whom you're talking to. In PR specifically,—and more so with organisations—this develops into a more complex subject since the priority of the stakeholder group keeps changing, depending on the intended communication. There are many ways of looking at stakeholders. But to start with, during class, we looked at the three nomenclatures: stakeholders, publics and audiences. Is there a difference? An elementary Google search lays out the distinction very clearly. Stakeholders are affected by an organisation's actions. Audiences are those who participate in any activity—by reacting, or being present, etc. Publics, on the other hand, are said to be a collective of various groups. Therefore, by that definition, can we say that under the umbrella of publics, stakeholders and audiences reside? 

To decide about prioritising one's communication to stakeholders, various theorists have come up with their models that would help create effective strategies to achieving desired goals. Grunig's situational theory states that there are four types of publics: 

• Latent: a group that faces a particular problem as a result of an organisation's action, but doesn't recognise it. 
• Aware: recognise the problem.
• Active: a group that organises to discuss and react to the problem. 

The theory further segments publics based on the range of issues to which they're responsive. But in the new media environment, these distinctions, according to me, are a little old-fashioned. When you're planning your communication activity, with New Media in mind, these boundaries between latent, aware and active are so blurred that the strategy (an effective one) has to target all three without much of a distinction—or utilise the same media platforms that the biggest group uses. The limitation with this theory is that it doesn't take into account the role of media which has morphed dramatically since the theory was first published. Given the types of platforms available to organisations, how does one segment the stakeholders? So we considered some other alternatives. 


We examined Bernstein's wheel. But again, by virtue of being dated, the way in which an organisation communicates with its publics has evolved. Marketing has become an overwhelming umbrella under which many of the stated practices fall, and PR still struggles to create its own niche. Further, it's limited by its seemingly one sided style of communication. Given the presence of Web 2.0, the conversation as we all agree isn't one sided anymore. However, it is an improvisation over Grunig's seemingly rudimentary divisions, since it at least takes into account the various environments for an organisation. 

Then there's Esman's Linkages theory which divvies stakeholders into what impact or relationship they have with the organisation. Enabling links being the ones that are crucial to the organisation's survival, functional offering inputs, normative linkages being the peer companies and the diffused linkages are termed as the group that has an interest in the organisation's activities. While this model does take into account various groups, it doesn't take into power of influence based on the organisation type. For example, there are some companies where the diffused group might be more influential than perhaps the normative ones. Also, interestingly it relegates media into a very small role, which is unusual given how widely it's consumed, and the current media climate. 


The Power-Interest Matrix, although seemingly simplistic, segments stakeholders into a matrix on the basis of power they wield and the interest they might have in a particular issue. It seems effective because it's fluid, and stakeholders can be moved from one section to another based on what is being communicated. 

Broom and Dozier too came up with ways organising stakeholders:

• demographics 
• psychographics 
• sociographics: covert power/position/reputation/organisational membership and role in decision making process
• behaviours 
• communication behaviour

This system, although cumbersome, does seem fairly apt in understanding the intricacies of stakeholders that have a bearing on the organisation, its decisions and activities. However, yet again, the media isn't taken into account. 


Each one of these models seem fraught with deficiencies that perhaps have emerged with changes in technology since they were first published. Perhaps, we now require a new method of segmenting stakeholders based on their relationship with the organisation, and the tools of communication available to connect with them. However, crafting one that's rigid would again be futile since relationships between stakeholders and companies are fluid (in the context of customer loyalty). Therefore, a model that's flexible is also key to developing working model for stakeholder segmentation in today's PR scenario.

The secret power of political lobbying

Image, courtesy: Stock Exchange

Each time I think of the word "lobbying", I'm reminded of India's very own version of lobbying for power: bribery. It's simple, effective and pervasive like the flu virus, and has held the country in its grasp for decades. In western countries, lobbying needs something else—not money in real terms. It's the revolving door; ensuring that corporations have a voice in the governmental decision making, and can often turn the tide in their favour. The "Super size me" documentary forces one to ponder on the implications of power that corporations wield. And in this, the role of a press officer. When you have an organisation as big as McDonald's can essentially lobby its out of allegations, aside from bad press for a bit, is there much to contend with? In this instance, the role of the press officer is particularly interesting. What is she/he supposed to do? We saw that the lady in the documentary sounded poignantly helpless—and it can't be missed. Is that the situation faced by most press officers in large corporations?

NGOs: Activists or terrorists— a PR professional's perspective

Image from: Amazon.com

There was a time when organisations could get away with murder, and no one would be any wiser. But then came along that three letter word that changed many things—including government policies: non-governmental organisation. For most people, an NGO is a body that stages protests and does all kinds of crazy things to gain attention; perhaps with little success in meeting their actual goals. But in class, I was pleasantly surprised to note that there are actually a number of ways in which they affect change. Right from negotiating with organisations to improve their practices, helping form regulations in partnership with governments to mobilising people about important issues by informing them. 

We also watched the very popular documentary titled "Super size me". It raised a critical question: where does individual responsibility (in this case of eating unhealthy food) end, and corporate responsibility begin? I couldn't help but wonder about the corporate communications person's position. It wasn't a position to envy. She was torn between her job, where obviously her employers asked her to ignore the film maker. What would I have done in her position is what I kept asking myself. When one is sitting in classroom, it seems very easy to say that you will do the right thing. But transport that into a real life job, and the notions of ethics, right and wrong, greater good and other textbook definitions of a PR practitioners role seem lofty. This isn't to say that being a righteous, and ethical practitioner is ridiculous or unattainable, but it's very demanding nonetheless.  

NGOs play a crucial role at times, in pointing companies in the right direction. It doesn't seem entirely bizarre that a company that's a preoccupied with running a business might lose sight of "greater good". The fact that NGOs can often serve the company's need to not damage their community, and environment says that it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Of the recent commendable achievements for an NGO, I can think of 38 degrees's accomplishment in getting the government to turn around on selling England's forests. It's heartening to know that in our world where market economics are force greater than any known to mankind, beating governments and companies in their game of perpetuating their goals selfishly is something NGOs have been doing successfully—and rightly so!


In the end, it keeps boiling down to this for the PR professional sitting on either side of the fence: keep your eyes peeled, and if you find an ally, keep them close!


This topic was a part of our discussion in our contemporary issues in PR class.

Recipe for crisis management?

Image courtesy: SXC

Today, in our Corporate Communications class, some of my classmates presented case studies on crisis handling/ reputation management. Cases in point were: Cadbury's salmonella story, Toyota Prius, and Dasani bottled water by Coca Cola. Although we all debated the finer points of why these brands suffered the crises they did, the discussions brought to light the question of "is there a template for crisis management?" As our course leader said, and I wholeheartedly agree, if crisis management, and reputation handling was so simple, surely multinational organisations would buy a book, and we would all be condoning their follies. But as it turns out, there isn't really a recipe. There's no set method that tells you what to do exactly. Like my classmate pointed out with the Cadbury case, it was also a question of timing: summer time when chocolate sales are usually low in the UK 

Every single case study we discussed today brought up the phrase "immediate response". In my last post on crisis communication, I questioned how is an organisation to react when the people within it don't know what's going on? This time, we go beyond such an obvious question. Here's we ask: when do we sound the alarm bells,being PR professionals within an organisation? At what point, does it make sense to approach the higher-ups, and say, "Oops! We have a problem!" It also brings up the issue of cultures, as is always the case with any PR story! With Toyota, people said that part of the reason it didn't react "in time" was because of the in-house teams that were advising the company. It was only after substantial public outcry, did they hire an agency in the US. Compare that with Peugot's quiet recall  of cars made with Toyota during the same period, which although was a mere safety measure, it was a pragmatic to check nonetheless.

While all these are points that one should consider while examining any PR disaster—and there are many where a brand's existing reputation has provided that essential buffer—Toyota in particular strikes me as a reverse case. Cars have failed before. But this one came across as terrible...why? One of the reasons that struck me was, aside from the delay in response, perhaps the very values that people buy into with Toyota were shaken. Safety, trust and security...when a brand doesn't deliver on its promised values, perhaps it's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, no? 

But as they say, we can at best learn from other people's mistakes, and hope to make even lesser ones of our own. 

Not doing what you propagate?

On Feb 2nd, BBC2 aired a documentary called Who gets the best jobs? Richard Bilton investigated the question of social mobility offering rich ones better jobs, by virtue of their existing privileges. In the process, he interviewed people from many professions. Typically, doyens from these fields gave their own views, some pro and some against the belief. He also met with some bright young students looking to get into professional jobs, and not belonging to privileged backgrounds. 


In all of this an unwitting man—Modus Publicity, director, Julian Vogel—exposed himself in a not very flattering manner. Whist he spoke about how his firm often hired interns from well off backgrounds (only adding to the debate of socially mobile class getting a chance at the good jobs), and failed to answer if that was his business model (to hire people as interns so as to not have to pay them), he seemed utterly blindsided by Mr Bilton. Of course, while the PR industry has been up in Twitter commenting about it, and posting their feelings, it seems shocking that someone in his position would let himself open to such an interview. But in his defense he says, his company isn't the only one to employ interns without paying them. Interesting question there!    

Let's make a war: the art of spin

All warfare is based on deception: The Art of War


When one considers the definition of war, it's hardly ironic that it's everything we know to be true of it. What? I'm not making sense...am I? We know that in most cases war is disproportionate levels of aggressions. We know it involves mortality. We know that we have come a long way since waging them for survival and preservation of our species. And yet, we  can't seem to apply this understanding to refrain from engaging in meaningless wars. At the surface of it, this might seem like a terribly simplistic thing to say. But, really, did anyone ever benefit from them? Nope, I'm certain the answer is no. How is then that most leaders feel no remorse or guilt in leading their own countries, and being responsible for massacre? 


For our contemporary issues in PR class, we were shown a documentary produced by BBC, called War Spin, narrated by war correspondent John Kampfner. It's subtitled as Saving Private Jessica: Fact or fiction? From focusing on the story of Private Lynch who was allegedly saved from Iraq through a mission carried out by American troops, it then continues to detail the systematic way in which the American government, followed by the British government led its people into believing that the Iraq war was an honest mission to find WMD, and Saddam Hussein. Many things have been long since established, among them the fabricated nature of the war. 


But the documentary in itself is instructive of many things. It tells us that with a very adept communications strategist you can convince the world of anything, even a war. It's all about changing perceptions and painting the right kind of picture. At the same time, it also calls into question the morals (or lack of them) of the people who played key roles in creating this mirage of a war. 


Propaganda, and public relations have been associated, and questioned as two sides of the same coin for many reasons by academics and practitioners alike. In this case, the propaganda was to paint a different picture of a country that was simply looking for a reason to plunder an oil rich nation, and created one. This they did using some novel, and classic techniques. 


Step 1: Announce it to the world 
Step 2: Find some allies to help prop your story
Step 3: Invite journalists, and embed them, but be very careful about what they have access to
Step 4: Make sure that they receive only that information that you want them to know. Nothing more; nothing less
Step 5: If the people of the country, and other nations start asking questions, cook up stories about great war heroes and their tales of bravado: e.g.—Saving Private Lynch.

The documentary also informs one about how beguiling the rest of the world bought these stories. This wouldn't have been possible without the crucial cooperation of the media around the world that dutifully fed back information that was "drip fed" through daily briefings. At long last, many journalists did smell a rat, but the economics of running media conglomerates and need to be the one who got the story trumped the need to be accurate and questioning. While one can't point fingers at the media for the same reasons,  there will be others who will be looking to maul the strategists, and reputation managers.

After watching the documentary I felt awed by the sheer genius, not to mention magnanimity of the ruse. It does take exceptional skill and brilliance to orchestrate something like that. And while there's no denying that propaganda (in context of war) and persuasion are wrong, we should stop faulting Public Relations practitioners. It's not about condoning them, or criticising their actions but making sure the reprehensible ones don't get away with a change in government. Above all, it poses one very big question: whom can you trust to do the right thing? 

The craft of crisis management

Murphy's law is a crisis's best friend. And for a PR practitioner, his/her biggest foe. Whether it's an organisation or an agency representing a client, having a crisis plan is akin to rehearsing the fire safety drill once a month. Not only does it save precious minutes in an emergency, but usually saves lives too. In the PR world, it keeps heads from rolling in the aftermath. 


In a day and age, where if you didn't like the way you were served your morning coffee, you tweet about it, and if your coffee chain is following the steps I'm going to mention, you will in all probability receive a free one—you can't afford to not be aware of your environment! Especially, if you happen to be on the side of the coffee chain, and are a PR person like me, it means "constant monitoring" for reasons we all know too well. 


Of the many crises we may have witnessed in the recent past, there are two that strike me as important lessons in crisis management. Yes, on number one position is BP. And the second is Tiger Woods. 


We all read tens of web pages dedicated to vilifying BP, and some that even came to its rescue. Their PR efforts were rubbish, and perhaps soon there might even be a book on it titled: How not to handle a crisis: Lessons from BP! Indeed, there are lots of lessons to take away.


But when information is just beginning to "spill" out (pun intended!), and a company often has little to no information, how can one "Tell it first, tell it fast, and tell it all?" In hindsight, it seems almost unbelievable that a giant like BP would let its comms fail so miserably. It did. And then for an instant, I'm driven to think about being the proverbial "bad guy". Everyone hates oil companies, and they're bound to attract flack. So the question then is, can you really save face when you know you will be pelted anyway? 


Which brings me to lesson number two. After women came falling out this closet (and thankfully not skeletons of them), Tiger Woods as a brand plummeted faster in stock value than even dead weight in the sea! But instead of placating gossip mongers, and their hunger for lurid details, he chose to remain silent. Much of what we know about Woods is part of very well-established "image". What goes on in his life isn't for public consumption, whether it's pre or post the "revelations". In the face of criticism, brands dropping his endorsement deals like hot potatoes, it takes remarkable courage to simply apologise and offer no information. Some think it was stupid to not say anything. My raison d'etre behind such a tactic would be: whom would it benefit to reveal the sleaze behind the affairs? What's the point in dissecting the details when he would anyway lose his endorsements, and further embarrass people?  


Call it legal smarts, or an ineffective PR machine, the man stayed tight-lipped. His performance has dropped, but even after Vanity Fair's article that prods people close to him, little is known from the horse's mouth. The brand has lost its sheen, and it perhaps will never be the same. But as with all of history, public memory is fleeting. More importantly, if you take responsibility, you will also be condoned. I don't know where Tiger Woods or BP stand in public eye after their epic falls, but I do know there are three key things to note. 

In a nutshell: 

• Be honest 
• Take responsibility  
• Offer information before everyone else 

But before everything else, keep your eyes and ears open! 

Image, courtesy: dreamstime.com