Programme planning

Three important components of effective programme planning are discussed below, including research, setting programme goals and objectives, and identifying stakeholders.

Research

In the public relations campaign planning literature, research is described as an essential element influencing the success of programme implementation (Austin & Pinkleton, 2015; Bowen, 2003; Harrison, 2011; Kirby, 2009; Syed, Khadka, Khan, & Wall, 2008; Walker, 1994). Bowen et al. (2010) stressed that formative research helps practitioners to segment publics, tailor communication for specific publics, and build relationships with those interested in campaigns. Research was also identified earlier in section 2.2.8 as a main element in two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models of public relations.

Dozier and Repper (1992) divided public relations research into two types: environmental scanning and evaluation research. Information from environmental scanning research (termed front-end research by Stacks, 2002), used to explore problems and as a baseline for programme evaluation research, is usually gathered through focus groups, surveys, and interviews. Focus groups are ideally suited to environmental scanning and are useful “to pre-test attitude” (Harrison, 2011, p. 316) because they allow flexibility for open-ended discussion and are also inexpensive, quick, and easy to repeat. Further advantages of focus groups are supporting interaction between participants and allowing a large amount of data to be collected (DiStaso & Stacks, 2010). However, concerns include the moderator’s ability to lead and observe

26

the participants, and thesmall sample size and limited sampling strategies, which mean it is difficult to generalise to the wider public (DiStaso & Stacks, 2010). Questionnaire surveys and interviews are also recommended for environment scanning; however, survey researchers should select “the specifics public or a broad cross section of many publics” (Dozier & Repper, 1992, p. 187).

Grunig (2006) noted that, after his publication on the four models in 1984 (Grunig &

Hunt, 1984), research became important in programme planning not only because it is a crucial component in the two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models,

but because strategic management also became a focus of public relations and other kind of management.

In practice, there have been a number of studies about the actual nature and extent of research used by practitioners. Judd (1990) conducted surveys with PR practitioners in

the U.S. and found those practitioners who valued research highly were more likely to conduct research. The most popular techniques were in-depth interviews or focus

groups, formal clipping analysis, and formal public opinion surveys. In contrast, Dozier (1990) found informal research, such as face-to-face communication or phone conversation and the ‘mixed approach’ (such as clip file content analysis), was used most frequently by PR practitioners. Scientific research, such as surveys and focus groups, was used least frequently because of its complexity. However, Walker (1994) analysed 124 campaign documents in the collections of Australia’s Golden Target Award between 1991 and 1992 and interviewed 20 award-winning PR practitioners. She found surveying was the most favoured method, followed by interviews and discussions, and secondary analysis. Informal research was favoured because it was cheap and quick. Findings from Walker’s interviews highlighted two problems of using research for PR practitioners: first, practitioners did not recognise their practice as research, as they felt it was their routine job; second, while research was actually undertaken, the narrow scientific definition of research might not describe it. Later, DiStaso and Stacks (2010) also analysed the use of research by PR practitioners from 1999 to 2008 (through America’s 167 Silver Anvil Award winners). Their study found secondary research, which they defined as using existing resources, such as online databases for information or data related to a particular need or strategy, was used most frequently, followed by surveys, interviews, and focus groups. The study also showed

27

that after 2004, while there were fewer focus groups and surveys interviews and secondary research were dramatically increased.

It is noteworthy that most of the studies above, generally well-resourced exemplars, such as award-winning campaigns, relied largely on Grunig’s (2002) excellent model, which prioritised formative research. On the other hand, many studies also pointed out the difficulties of conducting programme research. While robust research is perceived as an important factor of successful public communication programmes, little of it is undertaken (Harrison, 2011; Macnamara, 2008; Walker, 1994). This applies both to the private sector and to government organisation. Hiebert and Devine (1985) conducted an in-depth survey of government information officers in the U.S. and found a low level of research and evaluation was conducted: “approximately 80% never or rarely conduct formal public opinion surveys and almost 76% never or rarely conduct formal readership surveys of their published material” (Hiebert & Devine, 1985, p. 49). Newspaper clipping and analysis were the most popular methods of research. Similarly, Yun’s (2006) survey of public diplomacy practices and management of 113 embassies in Washington D.C. found respondents reported they used “little” or only “some” degrees of research (p. 304).

In summary, the day-to-day planning research and activities of communication practitioners do not appear to reach the threshold for effective practice that is advised in the literature (Harrison, 2011; Macnamara, 2008; Walker, 1994). In this context, the Centre 12 case study provides an unusual insight into the long-term communication practice of a particular government institution.

Goals and objectives

While goals provide the directions and overall outcomes, objectives provide specific and measurable outcomes to meet the goals (Bowen et al., 2010; Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2006). Cutlip et al. (2006) suggested considering four elements in setting objectives: target publics, change outcomes (knowledge, opinion, and behaviour), measurement, and target date. Another perspective comes from Harrison (2011) who proposed an acronym ‘SMART’ (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic/Relevant, and Timed), which he said is widely used around the world for designing programmes’ objectives. One of the common pitfalls in setting public relations programme objectives is describing activities rather than outcomes (Bowen et al., 2010; Broom & Sha, 2013),

28

for instance, “To mail out 12 monthly issues of… or To inform people about…” (Broom & Sha, 2013, p. 272). To avoid this problem, practitioners need to ask themselves, “Is this an impact we need to achieve in a target public?” (Broom & Sha, 2013, p. 272). Bowen et al. argued that outcome objectives (or results objectives; Harrison 2011), are the most important because they reflect the changing behaviour of the programmes’ audiences.

Identification of publics and stakeholders

The terms ‘public’ and ‘stakeholder’ are often used synonymously (Grunig & Repper, 1992), although they are different concepts (Harrison, 2011). A public is defined as “a loosely structured system whose members detect the same problem or issue, interact either face to face or through mediated channels, and behave as though they were one body” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 114). Based on this definition, publics are those affected by a problem; however, their interaction to the problem depends on the level of interest. Table 2.1 below clarifies types of publics in public relation studies.

Table 2.1 Ways of classifying publics in public relations approach

Ways of classifying publics Authors and Studies

Latent publics, aware publics, and active publics

Grunig and Repper (1992)

All-issue publics, apathetic publics, single- issue publics, and hot-issue publics

Grunig and Repper (1992)

Active publics, aroused publics, aware publics, and inactive publics

Hallahan (2001)

Primary publics, intervening publics, and special publics

Center, Jackson, Smith, and Stansberry (2014)

Public relations programme planners should figure out a programme’s “target publics”. As Broom and Sha (2013) explained, “Effective reification of target publics requires an understanding of “publics” both as they arise in response to specific situations and as they identify with specific groups across situations” (p. 267).

29

Grunig and Repper cited Friedman’s (1984, p. 25) definition of stakeholders as, “the group or individuals with whom the organisation interacts or has interdependencies and any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, practices or goals of the organisations”. Based on this definition, stakeholders are part of the organisation. Broom and Sha (2013) suggested that public relations practitioners need to analyse stakeholders when designing programmes because different groups of stakeholders are related to organisations. Further, they noted “not all those identified as stakeholders in a situation necessarily become target publics for the program designed to address a particular problem” (Broom & Sha, 2013, p. 246).