Power inequality in PR: Activism and Brands in action

When we think of public relations, we think of a few different personas with the same characteristics, trendy, stress coping, persuasive in pitching clients, overly networking… And then there is that image of the mystery PR practitioner that nobody has ever seen, who is standing behind the CEO, whispering their secrets to the boss’ ear, and who can manage any PR crisis your company would ever face. Despite being professionals of pubic image, public relations practitioners tend to see their own image suffer from their very own job stigma. The image of public relations practitioners may have taken a toll when PR got divided.

The excellence theory considers that public relations is closer to management functions and contributes to strategic planning. The theory claims that PR utilizes the two-way symmetrical model of PR (Coombs & Holladay 2012). Activism creates a need for communicating as it raises issues, and the people leading activism are members of the public. They use power even though they have less of it than organizations. Activists can be seen as obstacles of the two-way symmetrical PR practice. This raises the question, is there a division in PR, from a practice of ethics and values, to a practice of capitalism and power? Activists in theory could now be considered as charities, governments, and NGOs public relations practitioners as they hold a big part of power, opposing big corporations and brands which have another share of the world power. Both use persuasion. Both rely on emotions and scientific evidences. Yet, both also build relationships, using that two-way symmetrical communication despite what theorists like Grunig may say (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Nowadays, public relations mix asymmetrical communications (based on persuasion, elitism, power and authority) and symmetrical communication (based on mutual understanding, equity, conflict-resolution). The excellence theory claims that “publics have more power than organizations, by becoming activists and using public relations to create power and to exercise influence over organizations” (Cooms & Holladay, 2012).

I believe that this theory interpretation of a power switch to the public seems highly inaccurate in regard to what the world looks like today. We live in a world where powerful brands massively create products that the population does not need and that are mostly dangerous to the environment as well as the human body. Although activists know and try to educate the general population about this, the public will still lead a life in which consumerism wins on a daily basis. Do publics have more power than organizations when brands like Zara, H&M, Primark, Nike and many other still convince publics to live by them? Do publics think freely for themselves when they know about endocrines disruptors and chemical disasters and still buy the brands causing them? This looks a lot more like corporate persuasion to me. WWF, Peta, Greenpeace, RNIB, RSPCA and other ‘lobbyists’ organizations may have won a louder voice, but the consumerism war is still happening, and so far corporations and brands are winning at it.

References

W.T. Coombs, S.J. Holladay. (2012). Public Relations Review 38. pp880–887.