The Spin Cycle..And When It Al Goes Wrong.

Public relations is a fast- evolving profession and the lack of theory provokes many critiques. The role of public relations is a mystery for many and it is often misunderstood or confused with other professions. A lot of companies today have or will have to create a public relations department to deal with the publics and the competitors. In this assignment, we will first explain the concept of �spin’ and its connection with public relations, then we will debate on the different theoretical frameworks and particularly on the rhetorical approach of public relations. We will also talk about the corporate social responsibility which was the tendency a few years ago and which is now essential for the recognition of a company. At last, we will enunciate the advantages and the disadvantages of the new technologies such as social media and blogging.

�Spin’ is a concept which has developed 15 years ago according to Amanda Lampe. It is about promoting an organisation or its products and dealings to the publics. This concept is considered by many as unethical because manipulation and misinformation are used. The �spin doctors’ show only the �good’ sides of the organisation or corporation that has hired them and hide the rest from the publics.

Public relations and вЂ?spin’ are often confused because they are closely connected to each other. Those two terms are very recent and still evolving and that is the reason why those two professions are not well considered by the publics. The first connection is that public relations practitioners and вЂ?spin doctors’ work for an organisation or corporation and their role is to apply, in the society, the decisions taken with the senior management. They also have their specific target market for each organisation or product. In 1986, Grunig and Hunt described public relations as the “management of communication between an organisation and its publics.” (Johnston and Zawawi 2004, 6) but вЂ?spin’ can also fit in that description.

However, those similarities do not mean that public relations and �spin’ are the same thing. The main difference is that �real’ public relations practitioners must be ethic whereas �spin doctors’ can be unethical. They are both communicators but they don’t have the same power on the media. �Spin doctors’ control as much as possible the image of their organisation in the media whereas public relations practitioners do not control anything. This is because they often use non-paid form of communication. But even if they do not control their media coverage, public relations practitioners like to get feedback and the rhetorical theory can be a solution to that.

The rhetorical approach of public relations is considered by many as the ideal theoretical framework because the ideas are shared and the power is balanced. In this idea, public relations practitioners show a position and if their idea has persuaded the public, it stays otherwise it falls. Heath’s rhetorical theory is linked with Grunig’s �two way symmetric model’ because the same importance is given to the organisation and the publics.

I do not agree with Lampe and Bruem because public relations are based on relationships between and organisation and its publics. I think the social exchange theory is the most adequate view of public relations. The public relation gives a product or service that the publics need or want and in return, the publics give the goodwill to the organisation. However, there is not one best view of public relations and I think that the situational theory developed by James Grunig and Todd Hunt can be good as well. We are all influenced by our environment and by our beliefs and with a little bit of research, public relations practitioners can develop a specific strategy for a specific public. Then they will be sure that they will have a feedback, a reaction from the public.

According to what Mersham and Skinner said in 2001, �general systems theory was particularly welcomed in the field of organisational communication, and has remained the dominant viewpoint in this field.’ (Ferreira 2005, 184). I think that today rhetoric is the most appropriate theoretical framework for contemporary public relations because the society has evolved and new technologies and tools have appeared. It is very easy today with the Internet for people to exchange their point of view and as they do not always know who they are talking to, there is no supremacy, the power is balanced. Also, as Skerlep explained in 2001, �The advantage of the rhetorical theory approach to public relations is that it allows people to take radically new perspectives on situations.’ (Johnston and Zawawi 2004, 57). I think that today, people are more aware of the practices used by the communication field practitioners and as a result they are more vigilant and their beliefs of what is �true’ change more often. Another result is their demands also change and influence the Corporate social responsibility of the company.

“Corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large.” (Harrison 2006, 538).

Within the last decade, CSR has become a common concept in the business world. And many companies are dedicating a special budget for its CSR projects. According to CSRwire, the reason is that the investors, employees and consumers put pressure on the company to take into consideration the social and environmental criteria when the business decisions are taken.

The reason why the companies address the NGOs when they are planning their CSR projects is that the non-profit organisations have expertise; they participate to international congress and are a source of information on the minorities and other excluded population. But today, the contrary exists, the NGOs contact the companies because �they see companies as important partners because of their expertise in project management, access to the latest technology, financial reserves and international networks.’ (Raad 2001, 91). Another reason is that the NGOs are well seen from the publics and an association between a company and a non-profit organisation can give a good image and show the transparency of the company to the population.

As CSR has become a usual concept in the business world, NGOs are vey solicited