Is the Pope cooriented?

In public relations, it is important to be on the same wave-length as your publics. There have been several events recently that suggest that many organizations do not understand how important coorientation (see Cutlip, Center & Broom, 2006, pp. 211-217) is for successful issues management.

The Pope’s PR blunder is one account of the Vatican’s recent PR missteps. In an unusual move, Pope Benedict XVI explained remarks made in a speech that characterized Mohammed as evil. The explanation came after reports of the comment fueled protests by Muslims around the world. This event comes amidst concerns about the effectiveness of the person’s vetting the Pope’s speeches and now the hiring of a new Vatican communications director. Some commentators characterized the explanation as an apology and others did not. Referring to what you now know about public opinion formation, what can we learn from the Vatican’s experience? What does this event suggest about the Pope’s coorientation with his publics?

In another episode, Methodist Hospital in Indiana decided to take an approach of full disclosure when infants died of an overdose. “Hospitals, like other industries, increasingly are adopting a new attitude: Apologies and restitution aren't just a smart way to save their reputations, they're ethically necessary to help heal families' emotional trauma when deadly errors occur (¶5). Which of the theories do you think would best explain this approach of full disclosure? Are the problems with this approach?

Finally, are you eating spinach yet? Following the recent E. coli scare with bagged spinach, the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association will launch a new advertising campaign putting the leafy green vegetable front and center. An article in Advertising Age not only outlines this campaign set to roll when the FDA lifts its restrictions, but also raises the ethical question about other firms seeking to capitalize on the E. coli bacteria problem. What is your opinion of the Fit Fruit & Vegetable Wash folks? Is there any theory to help us understand whether this advertising campaign will work or not?

The importance of knowing why

I receive many weekly updates and listserv messages about current events in public relations. Two of the most common entries are news about people who are being recruited from one organization to another, and which companies are being hired by different clients. In light of the readings this week, what occurs to me is that these high-profile people and firms must really understand the psychology and communication processes underlying effective public relations management.

Let’s begin with a simple example where some agencies are now re-focusing on providing creative solutions for their clients rather than deliverables – ads, events, and so forth. In the Washington Post was “Advertising's New Idea: Don't Push the Product; Pull the Consumer Instead”. The concept is not new but the application is very innovative, changing the consulting agency’s relationship with clients. Naked Communications “has nothing invested in any particular solution and nothing to gain by telling its clients to spend more rather than less, its pitch is that it can offer the least-biased, most-cost-effective solutions. The message resonates with companies dissatisfied by the payoff from traditional advertising” (¶5). These non-traditional agencies represent a new audience that requires a new way of looking at communication and communication processes in order to effectively solve a client’s problem or meet an opportunity. Obviously, advertising is focused on persuasion, so it’s a little different.

How will these agencies impact the traditional public relations agency - or will they?

Do you think there are any of the theories or approaches in this week’s readings that are more important to consider from this perspective? What other questions did you have from the readings that we should discuss as a group?