Looking up at the night sky, our ancestors gained an understanding of the stars, planets and constellations, naming many of them.
It was only much more recently that a scientific approach gave currency to the view that planet Earth was just another peripheral object – not the centre of the universe around which everything else revolves.
During the twentieth century – the age of industrialisation and mass media – marketing approaches put ‘me’ at the centre of the promotional universe. Branding, advertising and, yes, much of public relations were devoted to the promotion of ‘me first’.
This makes sense; it’s how capitalism works. It’s what clients want to hear from their agencies and employees. So what’s changed?
In the twenty-first century we’re no longer passive audiences reached by mass media. Following the financial crisis and with ever present concerns about environmental and economic sustainability, there’s a need for a new approach. A need for us to consider citizens above consumers, as Robert Phillips argues.
This presents an opportunity for public relations to emerge from its marginal role within the ‘marketing mix’ and to return to what it was always designed to do – to develop relationships with constituencies vital for the success of the organisation.
As Steve Earl and Stephen Waddington show in their new book, the best defence an organisation can build to protect itself from attack is to have a network of influential friends willing to volunteer their support in a time of crisis. Since this support cannot be bought and nor can it be negotiated in advance, it’s a risky strategy. But the greater risk is extinction.
The end purpose of public relations is legitimacy – the continued licence to operate. This licence is granted – and can be withdrawn – by politicians, employees, customers, activists (in short, by society). So the job of public relations is to gain understanding and support from groups beyond the organisation’s direct control (even employees have autonomy, and are often the organisation’s fiercest critics).
There are risks in putting ‘we’ first. It’s the problem politicians face in a democracy: they have to present policies with popular appeal, so promoting short-term interests over the long-term.
The danger of ‘we’ capitalism is that it’s no more successful but that it’s much less honest than ‘me’ capitalism.
The challenge for public relations is to emerge from marketing-led short-term measures and to find ways to measure how public relations contributes to long-term sustainable success.
To make a start, let’s recognise our place within the universe.
Image credit: Peter Hathaway (http://peterhathaway.co.uk/wordsculpt)
great item, I can go with that – the joy of moving to the LSJ from Business is that it has allowed us to explore ‘we’ more effectively and examine ethics and narrative rather than profit and loss
Excellent thoughts for today and tomorrow. Let’go with it. Happy new year.
Thanks for the reference. Yes #brandvandals likens it to a defence network, but broader point is that the ‘support network’ should be a positive community already engaged, rather than an emergency chord option. Rather than using it as a shield, transparent and honest engagement should offer a degree of (hard-earned) protection. But agreed on your risk points!
I do so enjoy your writing, Richard, and wish you would blog more frequently (here) in 2014. Is this the same post (in the making) you referenced on MY “piffle” post (on PR Conversations) or did it evolve from something or somewhere else? Happy New Year, and here’s to more WE PR in 2014!