CSR is not a product of PR

“Today, corporate social responsibility goes far beyond the old philanthropy of the past – donating money to good causes at the end of the financial year – and is instead an all year round responsibility that companies accept for the environment around them, for the best working practices, for their engagement in their local communities and for their recognition that brand names depend not only on quality, price and uniqueness but on how, cumulatively, they interact with companies’ workforce, community and environment. Now we need to move towards a challenging measure of corporate responsibility, where we judge results not just by the input but by its outcomes: the difference we make to the world in which we live, and the contribution we make to poverty reduction.” Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer

Corporate Social Responsibility has indeed come a long way since signing a few cheques to charity. It is evolving to become a way of doing business, and an increasing number of organisations are changing their business models to fit into this new environment. As we've seen over the years with Nike, Gap, Nestle and many other MNCs, have been been under the limelight for their less than ideal business practices. As we understand the greater significance of our consumerist lifestyles, the only way of sustaining ourselves is by moving to a "sustainable" way of producing, consuming and disposing things. And organisations are also focusing on these concepts. But, there are many industries where changing business models will not compensate the damage to the environment. As a result, such companies engage in other activities. While the intent is usually goodwill, CSR has gathered a bad reputation because it's construed more as an image building exercise by organisations than a genuine attempt to contribute to the community. 

For all those companies that are indeed guilty of trying to seem like they care about their community, and the impact they're having on the environment, there are an opposite number who're genuinely looking to alter their business to deliver on the CSR promises. The fact that organisations such as CSR Europe, and regulations set up the UK government help in bringing firms to the book. But, as is the case with most consumer oriented organisations, it's often a customer, or a disgruntled employee who blows the whistle on their malpractices. From all the ongoing conversations about transparency, sustainability, and similar industry trends, there are something that most organisations are aware of, if not implementing: 

• The likelihood of attracting customers who're interested unsustainable products is diminishing—slowly but steadily 
• Sustainable business models are the only ones that will be able to compete in the future market place where resources are bound to be scarce
• The internet, social media and other technologies are making it impossible for companies to hide any step of their production processes. While there's a thin line between company confidentiality, and transparency to stakeholders, it can be easy to trespass it due to the internet, and companies need to be careful. 

As more organisations realise that they can't hide behind philanthropy, and  making genuine contributions is an imperative, it becomes obvious then that PR has little role in convincing audiences that the organisation is really oriented towards its operational environment. Winning trust is a by-product of CSR (and shouldn't be the end goal) but it's one that's very hard earned. 

From soapbox to notebook: political communications come a long way

Wowing people to vote for a political party has come a long way since screaming oneself hoarse over a soap box. (London's Hyde Park with the Speaker's Corner is one such relic.) As Obama unfolds his plans to run for the second term, his landmark campaign that drew on the strengths of new media, will no doubt set the bar higher. Millions spent. Millions were wowed and he won a term as the president. However, attributing this win to his new approach to campaigning alone wouldn't be right. There still remain some fundamental aspects to winning over an electorate. 

In the US particularly, it's acknowledged that presidential elections are as much about image management, and projecting the right kind of personality, as it's amount having the right backers. In the UK,  humour and policies are key to who wins. This isn't to say that USA is given to frivolous showmanship as opposed to real policies. But, one can safely say that image management (case in point: Gordon Brown's Leader in the living room during last year's elections) in GB doesn't fly very well. We looked at images of Maggie Thatcher pre and post her standing for elections, and though the makeover is obvious (the infamous 28 eggs a week diet!), one can't say she won for her looks!

But aside from the candidates themselves, there are other operatives in this process that lubricate this delicate procedure of getting them elected. Their campaign managers, and of course the media. There's complex web of relationships that often lie at the heart of such political appointment. The media, as we know, still retains its position of disseminating information to the masses, and its opinions are often taken seriously. 

While many political strategists and others disagree about the impact newspapers (reportage and commentary on politics) have on the ideologies of the public at large, one can't definitely say that they have no role to play. At the top of all this comes the business of running the media empire, and who the "Big Cheese" favours is obviously an important aspect in this game. There has been lots of commentary about the influence ownership (or also known as media bias) has on the journalistic standards. But the take-away is that industries (lobbies et al), politicians and the media make strange bed-fellows. In the interstitial spaces exist the PR machinery that has to ensure that the right kind of information goes out, the right things are written out, and the people working for the candidates, (or even elected leaders) are in the know. Alastair Campbell set the bar when he gave those at Number 10 pagers, and took no excuses for not being in the know! While such micro-management of everything doesn't always work, the role of PR in keeping all fronts of the government (and party elected) together can't be undermined. There are few roles where one is a gatekeeper of information, image manager, communicator for colleagues, and information manager all rolled into one. 

As the levels of engagement that politicians share with their electorates change, thanks to the profusion of social media, the roles that PR persons play are set to change. One can't help but wonder what the next soapbox will be!

Social marketing: the real deal?

Social marketing has been defined as: 

The application of commercial marketing technolo- gies to the analysis, planning, execution, and evalua- tion of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society.

While most marketing techniques focus on getting people to think, or feel about something in a certain way, cause marketing, or social marketing relies on changing behaviour from the grassroots, is aimed at achieving sustainable behaviour change. 


This distinction between behaviour change, and attitude change is crucial—especially as a PR practitioner. Most campaigns aim at making people aware, or persuading them to do something about a product, brand, etc. But social marketing or cause marketing, whose purpose is social good is distinct. Its success depends on people realising the problem, and taking active action (not mere awareness) to rectify it, and not on sales figures. Within the UK, five-a-day, Breast Aware and Know your limits (for alcohol)are among the many campaigns run by the government for public welfare.


The environmental movements that have been running have provided deep insight into the many dos and don'ts of cause marketing. Mr Sean Kidney—who made a presentation on social marketing—gave us the example of UK's "Switch it off" and "recycling" campaigns, which require people to do as directed. Although, they're noble in thought, he questioned their effectiveness towards really making a difference to the real issue—which is using non-renewable methods to produce electricity.


While we, as consumers, assume that our little contribution by way of flicking the switch, and recycling is helping the environment, he argues otherwise. Although many (of us) felt shocked that we weren't doing "our bit", his point is valid!  


"If change is necessary, at what step does it start? And, are we being naive in assuming that our contributions will really make a difference to the larger picture, as we have been led to believe through decades of governmental policies and messaging?"


But the end result isn't the only distinction between social marketing and other marketing methods. Social marketing, as reiterated by Mr Kidney, requires (of the many): 

• Defined outcomes (do you want the regulation to change or do you want people to stop littering the street?)
• Very defined audiences that may not necessarily be targeted by media, but could result in actual change  
• Defined changes you want people to make  

For those who seek to make a real difference to big issues, that treads past traditional methods of approaching a problem, social marketing is definitely the way to go! 

Is there such a thing as a Free Lunch?

The second episode from Dr. Aleks Krotoski's "Virtual Revolution" series, titled "Cost of free" works like an eye-opener for many who think that everything that's on the internet, and for free is done by people with an overabundance of milk of human kindness. But truth couldn't be further from it. Through the episode, one realises that the world wide web is in fact dominated by a few big names. The information that's circulated, which is seemingly limitless, is controlled by those who wield power—by offering things for free. This is not to say that these brands seem like conniving business houses that are exploiting our naivete. But it's important to be cognisant of the dangers of relying on things for free. 


Milton Friedman's book "There's no thing as a free lunch" offers insight into issues that we tend to gloss over in every day life, and the fact that governments can seldom offer anything for free. Taking a cue from these theories, it's plainly obvious that every single choice we make has a consequence—an idea that many economists have suggested. But, do we ever pause to weigh these consequences? I'd hazard a guess and say no. We don't because often aside from being ignorant about the implications of our choices, we're too preoccupied with the "instant gratification" that we have come to relish, thanks to the internet.

Dr. Krotoski's documentary is one such piece of work that joins the dots with regards to the internet and its apparent "freeness". It offers different perspectives to the idea of "free internet", and perhaps what it really means. From the documentary, we come to see that this invention that governs our life (the documentary does in fact conjure up a 1984-esque Orwellian image) is oddly handy, forever evolving to pander to our  fancies, and diligently works to make us more reliant on it.  


Though the documentary doesn't present such a dour, and dark picture entirely. It ends on a positive note, taking cues from the nature of the beast. The beast, in question being the internet, does have a way of trumping over those who can shout the loudest by virtue of their might. The downfall of the music industry brought about by Napster is one such example. One is tempted to believe that perhaps somewhere on the horizon there's another revolution underway that will once again overturn this new order that the internet has ushered in. 


At this point, it's important to understand the implications for PR practitioners. In most countries with fairly evolved PR industries, social media is touted as the next big thing after the invention of the printing press. In part because there's so much access to the audience, and in part because it can't  be controlled—which makes it a double-edged sword. But this Eutopian view of social media is  perhaps slightly naive. Especially, when we consider the role of PR practitioners in not just selling soap or soup, but for other applications such as political communications, governmental communications, etc. Can we really rely on a service that's relies on people's naivete and eagerness to engage to transmit our messages properly? The economics and models of operation that are used by internet platforms such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LastFM, etc. are dependent on people giving out information, which is then commoditised and sold to marketeers. And if our messages are discordant or different to the ones that are being paid for—or indeed even criticise those paid messages—will we still have a voice? This debate of voice gets even more complex when we introduce Moloney's concept of pluralist societies and PR's role in them. If we're the ones persuading people, and our messages are not the ones that are being paid for, will we still be able to do our jobs? 

Internet—the voice for a pluralist society?

Recently, we watched the "Virtual Revolution" documentary series presented by Aleks Krotoski and the impact of the internet on our lives. Although, we watched the "Cost of free", the first episode of the series "The Great Leveller" provides an interesting starting point. 


It's particularly relevant to the PR industry since it relies so heavily on the media, and the advent of Web 2.0 and its increasing enabling power to everyone around the world is of special interest. The inventor of the world wide web—Tim Berners-Lee—invented it simply because he thought it was a necessity. It stems from him, and the other creators of The Well to challenge the accepted forms of authority and hierarchy within society, where the ones with the loudest voices had power. The episode highlights these aspects of the birth of the world wide web. This debate of challenging authority is of importance to PR, much like Moloney argues: that in a pluralist society PR has an even greater role in making voices heard. However, as the episode progresses, one notices that the purpose with which it was invented is now perhaps lost. Krotoski points out that now the world wide web is in effect a market place dominated by a few voices that wield the most amount of power. Going by the number presented, it seems that the world has "one online book store in Amazon, one shopping store in eBay, one search engine in Google" and so on. In fact, there's another question, if these are the names that dominate the web, and these are the gatekeepers of the information that filters to us, then haven't we reverted to the traditional form of hierarchy? Perhaps it's a pessimistic outlook, and Web 2.0 has indeed given many people voices, unlike before. But we can't ignore the fact that even today, as more blogs and voices turn dead, the ones with the most amount of money (and therefore power: case in point Huffington Post as suggested by the documentary), do indeed wield an influence on what's read,  what's talked about and what forms the agenda. 


In this climate then, one can't help but question the role of Public Relations as a tool that can perhaps serve to realistic push through and past these voices, using the channels and tactics endowed by the world wide web.


 

A good day to bury bad news: spin doctors say

The term spin doctor, surprisingly, doesn't come from sport. Instead, it comes from the idea of spinning yarn, or tales as we understand the phrase to mean. Within the UK political landscape, this term has gained widespread usage. Popularised during Alastair Campbell's role as Director of Communication for Tony Blair, in one fell swoop it changed the perception of UK politics and politicians forever. It maligned the role of PR within politics to the extent that today anyone who dares to take on the role must wrestle with the alias of "spin doctoring" as Andrew Leighton notes in the Journal of Public Affairs. He says that by the end of New Labour's term, the role of spin, the role of spin doctors, and media interest in these two were firmly established in UK. 


However, there are some important issues we must address before we rush to wag a finger at these so-called "spin doctors". 


Cutlip suggests that the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents, based on mutual understanding and two-way communication. 


If we were to apply this corollary to real life, we would find ourselves in exactly the same process that Campbell established as Communications Director of Blair. He established a media monitoring room, was quick to the draw when it came to responding to media critique of the PM's policies/ideas, and more importantly, was willing to go on the record through his lobby meetings. So instead of saying that a senior official close to the PM, there's a real name. The fact that journalists can hide behind the clause of "protecting the identity of their sources" should be considered minutely for the kind of lies/misappropriations they get away with. 




During class, we watched News from Number 10 which offers an insight into the machinery at Number 10 during the Blair Years. Of course, some important questions emerged:

• who controls news agenda? 
• does media spin, or is it the communicator who's spinning? 

Campbell vehemently maintains that it's the newspapers/journalists who spin news. And to some extent, I'm tempted to agree. Here's why: what makes news? Something that's controversial, or needs explanation (this might seem like a generalisation, but do think about it. The 5 questions of a writing a news report emerge from then need to inform people about "an event"). We all know that journalists to hold their opinion, and views of the world very dearly, and are paid to present their perspective. So isn't it likely that a journalist can read too much between the lines, when there's little to read? After all, if one can hide behind unnamed sources, one can then theorise and speculate till the earth stopped rotating!   

Since the history of campaigning and politics, it's obvious that politicians have chosen two ways of winning over an electorate: by highlighting their own virtues and policies, or denigrating the opposing party. 

If presenting your best foot is spin, then how do you win over an electorate?

If you want to remain in power, and in favour of the electorate, is it then wrong to "present information in a positive light"? The role of public relations within a democracy then comes into question: do we only continue (by Cutlip's definition) maintain responsive relationships, or do we frame the flaws of our leaders (and perhaps employers) for the world to judge? With the case of spin, it was an import from America, where leaders are a product of marketing and polished images—and everyone knows that. However, the UK is a different story. 

Blair, being a product of such marketing and polish, was the ideal candidate to usher new ideas of engagement with constituencies using media, as the documentary shows. But, this folly of assuming that "tell it all, tell it fast, and tell it first" would endear them to the British publics was flawed. Campbell did want to be on top of "24/7 media environment", but it backfired on more than one ocassion. It gave rise to scandals such as the dodgy dossier, a good day to bury bad news and the infamous fax that Campbell dashed off to BBC, among others. But, it also gave Blair 8 years in power. The era of Campbell-Blair led to the Phillis report—proof that things were so wrong that someone needed to clear through the rubble and melee of mixed messages. Public trust, as the report says, was low: not just in the government but also in the media. 

It makes for an interesting read because in large parts it agrees with Campbell's approach of making the PM more accessible and doing away with the "culture of secrecy" (why this bias is something that we need to look at). But then it also makes some valid points about the failure of that model to inform different stakeholders to allow a health public consultation on important issues. Although Blair's politics was much criticised for the lack of clear information (and sometimes saying so many things that they themselves were confused), it did have its own merits. Of the many recommendations the report offers, this one stands out for me: 

As a whole, the government has not grasped the potential of modern communications as a service provided for citizens.This starts with identifying who needs to know what and how best to get that message or information to them, and then measures the resultant attitudes and views to feed back into the processes of policy development and service delivery. It involves listening as much as talking. Its focus is on the public, not the Minister or the party or the media.

Such a rationale, and clear approach can help rebuild the trust that people used to have in politics, politicians and their promises. But, it can't be instituted until these elected members then do what they say. 

Vidcast on transparency as a growing trend

As organisations around the world are put under a microscope by stakeholders more than ever before, the need for transparency is heightened. The video below highlights why we have reached this stage, in what ways can we help achieve this goal, and the potential risks it poses to the organisation. I hope you enjoy watching it. 







Disclaimer: This video contains audio and video inputs from different sources, and was produced as part of an assignment for a degree course. No copyright infringement is intended. The designation of the speaker is fictional.