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.
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?
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.
- 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.
