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.

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.