Social Media and the chance for a real 'two-way communication'

The introduction of online media has changed communication fundamentally. People today go themselves in websites looking for specific information they need, so internet can be characterized  as a medium where information is being ‘pulled’. By contrast, traditional media are ‘pushing’ information to their audience, who will receive it independently whether they want it, need it or not. According to the traditional way, information between an organisation and its publics travels in one direction, but now social media have brought a revolution in the information flow between companies and their stakeholders. In traditional media the agenda is set by the organisations and the media themselves; however now with social media the online audiences have the ability and power to create their own content and influence the organisation towards change. Companies are also benefited by this process because through this conversation with the audience, they gain information and data about what their customers prefer, need or desire and accordingly they can customize their services or products.

Content providers on behalf of the organisations nowadays need to carry on in a more competitive marketplace. They need to be more creative, improve the quality of the message and not care just about the quantity anymore. In order for an organisation to survive opposite an audience that constantly challenges the received messages and has the power to scrutinize them, it is necessary to be authentic and transparent. Only through open conversation one can be part of the online community. If practitioners use social media in the same way they use traditional media then they will lose the opportunity of developing a two-way communication with their stakeholders and benefit the organisation by bringing in useful information for the decision making.  Although the term ‘two-way communication’ could be interpreted differently- either as conversation, as interaction or even persuasion by others-as Grunig and Hunt (1984) argue when this communication is symmetrical, then it is all about mutual adjustment and behaviour change. It relates to exchanging culture rather than just giving away information.

However when using social media there is some loss of control, since comments and conversation are open to everybody. Consequently the organisation is vulnerable to potential bigger scrutiny. This loss of control, if not handled properly, will simply lead to shifting power from the organisation to various stakeholders; so in this case we won’t be able to talk about a real two-way (symmetrical) communication anymore but for changing of dynamics.

Social Media: "The Real Cost"

Has anyone ever thought that, if Facebook was really for free, then how come that in 2008 his inventor, Mark Zuckerberg, was declared the world’s youngest billionaire?

“The Cost of Free” , the BBC documentary presented by Alex Krotoski, reveals that online life in reality is a big trade. The title of the documentary might be oxymoronic, but it is was not chosen randomly. There is the perception that when we go online to look for something on the familiar to everybody ‘search engine machine’ of Google or when we are using Facebook, we are not paying anything. Though what happens in reality is that each time we use the online ‘free’ services, there is something that we are giving away and this is nothing else but personal information. Our personal identity is formed by our online habits and is translated to something that the market is familiar with.

Every user owns a special code which tracks and exposes his interests and desires. This helps companies identify their audiences and the channels that they use inside the cyber space, which helps them come back with more targeted advertisements and influential content. The illusion that online services are free of charge has increased the public’s attachment to these networks; however that curiosity is converted to profit making for these online service providers, since even more companies choose to advertise their products through this online space.

Even if the majority of people becomes aware of that, is it going to stop using online services? I guess not! I think we will continue to reveal our personal preferences with our own consent. Besides, one might think, that this is a fair exchange, isn’t it? These networks allow you to have access in all that useful information fast and just by clicking on your computer, so I guess it seems quite reasonable that there should be something out there for them  as well. What we should wonder though is what could the long-term implications of giving away all these data be and for what purpose they could be used in the future. We should start thinking about where the borderline between our personal rights as users and the profit making are and who is the one that is going to set these boundaries.

Source of Image: Google

If you are interested in watching the BBC documentary 'The Cost of Free', you can find it in youtube. Just follow this link for the first part and go on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAfnfcergc

‘Behold’ Social Marketing

Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman were the first to refer to the term and develop the concept of ‘social marketing’ in 1971. Social marketing is considered the application of commercial marketing techniques and principles to non-commercial transactions. It is used to serve social causes and to provoke social change, which consequently most of the times leads to legislation changes as well.  

The 5 ‘Ps’ used in commercial marketing practices, now apply also in social marketing; however as mentioned by Tench R. and Yeomans L. (2006) in their book Exploring Public Relations they are interpreted in a different way, as shown below:

·      Price represents intangible or tangible ‘sacrifices’ on behalf of the target group in order to gain some other benefits by this programme.

·      Product is an idea that represents what the programme aims to change.

·      Promotion represents the ways that will persuade the target audience to change behaviour.

·      Place interprets the channels used to reach the target audience.

·      Positioning is the already established perception of the target audience over the idea that the programme aims to promote.

The way that the marketing mix applies in social marketing seems to coincide with the steps followed in a communications campaign emphasizing in behaviour change, such as research and analysis of the problem/issue, audience segmentation, strategy development, implementation and programme evaluation.

Whether an organisation will use public relations or social marketing to deliver a public communications campaign, I guess it depends on the social issues that needs to be dealt with each time and on the organisation itself, its resources and the experience and education of its staff. The use of social marketing to deliver a communications campaign consequently influences the role of Public Relations within organisations, since marketers seem to expand in a field that once was dominated by public relations practitioners. 

Important Note:
The article of Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman was published in the Journal of Marketing, (volume 35, pp. 3-12) in 1971 under the tiltle “Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change”.

Has Power in Politics changed hands?

The penetration of the PR practitioners in political world was a result of the implementation of marketing techniques in politics. In democracies saturated by the media and in societies dominated by the image, communication consultants became necessary for the career evolution of politicians. Although professional marketing in politics is not something new, this is not completely approved by everyone. Many people nowadays seem to believe that PR in politics-often called as ‘spin’-has transferred  power from politicians to their communication experts. But how much does this perception reflects reality?

This week I attended a debate organised by Trevor Morris, our visiting professor of Public Relations in the University of Westminster. The motion discussed in the debate was that ‘PR and spin have undermined trust in politics’. The attendees were challenged to decide, whether political PR has caused distrust in politics or if it is just the PR critics’ fault, who unfairly target the messengers. Some interesting opinions were heard by the participants of the debate for and against this motion and I must admit that although before the debate I was somehow prejudged that ‘spin’ was to blame for the public’s distrust in politics, at the end I was feeling quite confused. Several thoughts crossed my mind while I was listening to the speakers from both sides. So far, it seemed I had more proofs that spin indeed had harmed politics, but this perception was challenged in my mind.

Were the communication experts responsible for the political actions? Clearly, the messengers of each government are not the ones to make the political decisions, like financial cuts or going to war. Political communicators are responsible of how these messages, that the government needs to communicate, will be delivered to the public. We cannot blame communication consultants for trying to build their news agenda in such a way so that they are being proactive instead of reactive. After all, that is their job; what they were hired for.

 



Source of the image: Google



On the other hand, it is true that some practitioners involved in political PR, use manipulative techniques in order to prevent criticism for those they represent or to persuade people in favour of political actions. However, these  techniques are being consciously supported by politicians themselves. Aren’t they aware of what their spin-doctors suggest? Of course they are; as it is also those who promised people to govern fairly and not their communication consultants. Yet politicians themselves use spin as well in their public speeches. I cannot simply accept that they are just puppets or preys in the hands of spin-doctors.

In some countries it also happens that journalists and corporate or state media allow news stories that are favourable to the government, while avoid serious criticisms against it. This proves that spin exists in every profession and this distrust in politics is the result of a chain reaction from a series of factors. Spin appears in many aspects of our everyday lives; many individuals choose to give their own perspective of things, using sometimes unfair techniques to convince their interlocutor in favour or against an opinion. It seems that it is up to each individual’s morality how he will act in his personal and professional relations. The point is how acceptable this behaviour will be by various stakeholders. Transparency in politics needs to come first from the top, meaning the politicians and the public needs to challenge the information that receives from each side and not simply digest whatever is served to them.