A Global Audience

More than four out of ten people (three thousand million; US 3 billion) across the world have access to the Internet – a 50 per cent increase in users since 2010 (Internet Live Stats 2015). Over three-quarters of these live in 20 countries with around 90 per cent of the populations of the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and Japan having an Internet connection (ibid.).

On the one hand, these statistics illustrate the global reach and immediate access of online communication. On the other, they indicate a digital divide for some countries and demographic groups, emphasising that there continues to be a need to reach those who are not digitally equipped.

According to the Internet Society (2015: 4), ‘mobile access to the Internet will be instrumental in bringing the next billion people online’, given that mobile phone services reach 90 per cent of the global population. However, constraints such as device costs, network infrastructure and access to free WiFi or low cost data plans remain. Improving online access in lower-income countries (LIC) is generally viewed as a marketing opportunity (GSM Association 2015), although it has the potential to offer societal benefits, such as through e-health programmes (Lewis et al. 2012).

One controversial initiative is zero-rating, one form of which enables users in some LIC to access low-data-usage versions of services such as Wikipedia, Facebook and Google through partnerships with mobile phone operators. At debate is the principle of net neutrality whereby access to the Internet should be free and open to all, to encourage innovation and social interaction between people. Both concepts fall under the issue of Internet governance (OECD 2015).

Where mobile access is available, apps and mobile responsive websites minimise the need for any technical expertise and improve the online user experience. This is important for communities that have historically been excluded from online access.

The UK Office of National Statistics (2015) reports age continues to be a barrier, although 71 per cent of those aged 65 to 74, and a third of over-75-year-olds used the Internet in the first quarter of 2014 (compared to 99 per cent of 16–34-year-olds, 95 per cent of 35–54-year-olds and 87 per cent of 55–64-year-olds).

As well as an age imbalance, Norris (2001) highlights a digital divide adversely affects rural communities, and those with lower educational attainment and/or lower incomes. Other possible factors affecting digital engagement include gender, disability and ethnicity (Himma and Tavani 2008), with Pew Research (2015) additionally noting that globally, a lack of English language ability has a significant impact on Internet usage.

Assistive technology (Wendt and Lloyd 2011), which supports people with disabilities, is increasingly low cost and easy to obtain, often integrated into a wide range of devices and appliances, or available as applications and accessible software. Domingo (2012: 584) notes that ‘over a billion people including children (or about 15 per cent of the world’s population) are estimated to be living with disability’ and argues the Internet of Things (IoT) ‘creates enabling environments by offering people with disabilities assistance in building access, transportation, information and communication’ that ‘can foster the participation and inclusion of disabled individuals in social, economic, political and cultural life’ (ibid.: 594).

Such technological developments are, therefore, relevant for implementing public relations strategies that engage with various sections of society. They also offer the opportunity for opening up more occupations, including public relations, to people with a range of disabilities.

Despite the benefits offered by increased access to existing and new technologies, there are several issues of concern, largely relating to tensions between preserving an open and non-discriminatory Internet and questions around regulation, security and privacy. Political and legislative controls are being implemented, and challenged, on all sides of the freedom versus responsibility debate.

Kang and Cuff (2005: 113) warn pervasive computing raises questions about how responsive technologies can affect ‘an individual’s own experience of subjectivity’. They argue that the shared experiences ‘necessary to lubricate difficult conversations about passionate disagreements’ (ibid.: 142) within a public sphere (where ‘private people come together as a public’; Habermas 1989 cited by L’Etang 2008: 107), may be replaced by ‘privatized augmentations of reality’ (ibid.: 143) causing division into ‘multiple, fragmented publics even as we share the same space’. They contend that public sharing of private experience is necessary to ensure communication of collective understanding: ‘By aggregating our individual choices and presenting a summary, we could produce collaborative filters that provide valuable self-knowledge to the collective as well as specific recommendations to individual members of that collective’ (ibid.: 145).

Rheingold (2002: xii) anticipated such co-operative ‘smart mobs’ arguing people ‘will gain new forms of social power’ by connecting through ‘mobile communications and pervasive computing technologies’ (ibid.: xiii). This can be seen, for example, in online debate through social media, as well as the rise of crowd-sourcing (Howe 2006), e-petitions, online activism and social networking rating systems. The hopes of Kang and Cuff (2005: 146) of ‘embedded responsibility’ are challenged as the rate at which new technologies are being introduced outpaces discussions of their impact on ethical, social and legal norms.

In this chapter, the focus is primarily on ICT (information and communication technologies), which Zuppo (2012: 19) explains refers to ‘technologies that facilitate the transfer of information and various types of electronically mediated communication’, including:

• digital readiness (skills and competencies)
• equipment (devices/tools)
• infrastructure (networks and systems)
• services and applications.

Emphasis is given to these four aspects to consider how emerging technologies can be used effectively within public relations. Toscano (2012: 31) argues ‘technologies are products of the societies from which they come’, and hence this chapter also offers critical insight into the rhetoric of technology (Koerber 2000) in public relations and wider contemporary culture.

A Perspective of Rhizomatic Middleness

Thompson (2015) proposes a theory of middleness for public relations arguing that it is neither everywhere, nor in the centre of society and business. Rather, its mediating nature places public relations in the middle, in the role identified by Yaxley (2012b) of commenda (a medieval occupation managing trade between merchants) acting as an agent between two parties.

A middleness perspective also applies when considering the impact of technologies – we are neither at the beginning nor the end of any evolution or revolution of public relations.

There is a tension in middleness that may be experienced by practitioners who are faced with adding new technologies to their existing competencies. Although Prensky (2001) distinguishes digital natives from digital immigrants (the former being the generation that has grown up immersed in a digital age), younger PR practitioners are still faced with adopting the latest developments, and applying these to a professional rather than a personal context.

The term ‘digital natural’ conceived by Åkerström and Young (2013) describes ‘individuals who are comfortable in an online environment, equipped through experience and exposure to both its cultural norms and the technological competencies required to operate effectively’. This concept avoids Prensky’s binary division and acknowledges how ‘nearly everyone has some digital competence’, ‘using an array of online tools in our daily lives, even if few of us are completely comfortable in this new environment’.

Åkerström and Young (2014: 16) contend digital naturals are comfortable communicating with people:

This communicative behaviour may be described as rhizomatic, a metaphor used by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) reflecting a complex network, or assemblage, of nomadic connections. As such, using technology effectively is a dynamic process of ‘becoming’ (ibid.: 256), not necessarily heading in a specific direction or with a known outcome, but a continuous process of assimilating new ideas into existing knowledge.

Technological development contributes towards ‘challenges presented by an increasingly fragmented, rapidly changing and complex world’ (Ihlen 2011: 466). The Internet itself is in a state of flux with arguments that it is a place with a primarily public goal of ‘fostering conversation and connection between people’ (Levine 2009: 25) countered by observations of ‘commercialization of cyberspace’ (Curran and Seaton 2003: 235) as a consequence of which, the Internet is ‘pulled by opposed forces in different directions’. From a rhizomatic perspective, the Internet enables competing forces to coexist as diverse people and organisations construct their own pathways to meet heterogeneity of needs, which may involve travelling across either commercial or non-commercial terrain, or both.

Likewise, public relations exists between the ‘aggressive, competitive, hyperbolic, selling mind-set’ of marketing and a ‘more conciliatory, peacemaking approach’ (Hutton 2010: 510). Rather than debating the duality of these positions, or other bipolar divisions, we can view public relations as a ‘locus of transactions’ (Edwards and Hodges 2011a: 4) whereby public relations practitioners act as cultural intermediaries generating ‘meaning within a particular socio-cultural framework’. In this case, public relations is operating within the changing communication environment embedded within an electronic system comprising ICT, including the Internet as a ‘participative web’ (Wessels 2010: 2).

A perspective of rhizomatic middleness acknowledges the strengths inherent in public relations lie in the ability of practitioners to adapt existing competencies (skills, knowledge and behaviours) to communicate and build relationships effectively within a complex network of interconnected, heterogeneous, individuals and communities using a multiplicity of new, and emerging, technologies.

Utilisation of Technology in Public Relations

Insight into adoption of technology by public relations practitioners can be gained by taking a reflective look backward, a wide look around, a deep look inside current practice and a long look ahead.

Watson (2015a: 1) argues adoption of ICT developments within public relations was originally slow as practitioners failed ‘to appreciate the benefits of technical advances in communication and held doggedly to print-based models of mediated communication’. His analysis considers attitudes of members of the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) evident in its publications, conferences and discursive Gold Papers between 1977 and 1996, although the first ICT relevant document wasn’t published until 1981.

The emergence of an ‘Information Age’ reflecting a ‘Communication Revolution’ was noted in the titles of articles that evidenced ‘growing awareness of the changes offered by new telecommunications technologies but considerable doubt initially as to their value for effective public relations’ (ibid.: 2). Technological trends were felt most likely to affect tactical aspects of public relations, while it was asserted that practitioners fulfilling a professional role as a counsellor would have little to fear. A similar argument today can be seen in Ford’s (2015) prediction that intelligent machines will impact jobs that involve routine tasks, which could include elements of tactical public relations work.

Watson’s research finds evidence of a range of emotions from pessimism to optimism regarding new technology throughout the 1980s. Many of the same narratives can be found today. It was believed ICT would offer increased opportunity to understand and engage people, who would be able to have their voices heard. Breakenridge (2012: viii) echoes this earlier prediction:

An early concern was information overload, and resultant confusion from aggressive ‘overcommunication’ (Watson 2015a: 5), which was included at the Tenth Public Relations World Congress in 1985 as one of eight ‘megatrends’ presented as ‘an early warning system’ (Denig and van der Meiden 1985: ix). In 2013, Riggulsford continues the theme in his list of problems resulting from ‘new media’:

Another on-going narrative is seen in Senac’s (1985: 261) observation of facing ‘the permanent need to adapt constantly’. His statement: ‘Either we change with the times or we belong to history. To change with the times we must learn its technological advances’ portends Phillips’ (2015: 18) cry that: ‘Revolution is on its way. Our communications world is now social – of and between the people – and democratic, because it gives voice to all. Joined together, this provides a unique opportunity for communications to be transformative.’

Watson identifies a lack of appreciation of the need to develop skills in using new technology in practice or public relations education even into the 1990s. Isolated pioneers provided practical advice regarding ICT and PR, primarily around more efficient media relations activity. Widespread adoption or investment in word-processing, electronic mail or other computer systems within public relations did not occur until the late 1980s.

Grunig and Hunt’s seminal text (1984) has little discussion of technology, mentioning only video, slide shows and twin projectors. In 1986, Jefkins argued the ‘greatest developments’ were occurring in audio-visual technology, referring to teletext, cable and satellite television. He also reported on the use of airships to offer live broadcast of events such as the 1985 Live Aid concert in London. Haywood (1991) makes reference to closed circuit television (CCTV), video and oddly, the epidiascope (a projector developed in the early twentieth century and largely obsolete by the 1980s). Watson (2015a: 9) observes discussion throughout the 1990s of the relevance of satellite television in IPRA records as ‘mass communication technology’.

Haywood (1991: 293) also notes the word processor is useful for indexing public relations techniques, and ‘new desk-top publishing systems’, ‘help produce attractive, economic overhead transparencies’. By 2000, Harrison includes electronic mail (email) and intranet in a list of internal communications visual/written techniques, noting that ‘advances in technology have fostered an increase in impersonal spoken communication’ (2000: 128) through CCTV, video and teleconferencing. She also discusses how ‘affordable desk-top publishing systems’ (ibid: 39) have led to overload and ‘no hope of effective communication’. Surprisingly, her only reference to websites is an instruction to see that of the Institute of Public Relations.

It wasn’t until 1996 that mention of the Internet occurred in the IPRA archives, when websites were presented as useful for ‘dissemination of material to the media and for correspondence’ as an ‘integrated marketing communications tool’ (Watson 2015a: 8). Again negative views were found in concerns regarding ‘the potential for “anonymous and malicious material” being posted on the Internet’ (ibid.). However, Cutlip et al. (2000: 285) note: ‘The Internet represents the most ubiquitous leading edge of what is a major communication revolution. The digital world has changed communication within organizations and between organizations and their various publics.’ They then refer to three impacts of ‘new media technology’:

1. the possibility of two-way communication through intranets and internets;
2. rapid and on-going change meaning public relations would not find it ‘likely nor efficient … to develop and maintain websites or attempt to control or screen communication’ (ibid.: 286);
3. more data and information being distributed than ever before creating millions of unprotected web pages and new forms of ‘junk mail’ (ibid.: 287).

Cohen-Almagor (2011: 54) reports ‘the mid-1990s were the years when the Internet established itself as the focal point for communication, information and business’, noting major telecommunications companies, including British Telecom (BT) announced Internet services in 1995. By mid 1998 there were 1.3 million websites, a number that doubled every few months (ibid.).

This period signalled the rise of technology PR (Watson and Noble 2014: 5), bringing ‘new types of expertise and communication methods’ and ‘the beginning of the biggest transformation of public relations practices and strategies since the end of World War 2’.

Kitchen (1997a: 22) refers to the ‘hi-tech PR sector’ being ‘dominated by a small clique of 12 specialist consultancies’ that were focused on promoting ‘US software companies’ (ibid.: 23), although there were at least 25 technology trade media titles.

In the first edition of this book, published in 2001, an expert approach was taken in a chapter ‘IT sector public relations’ by Jo Chipchase, who ‘specialised in internet coverage’ (2001: vii). She noted ‘the top 150 technology sector PR agencies’ generated a fifth of the industry’s fee income in 1998 (ibid.: 218). The book’s second edition, included a chapter: ‘Using the internet effectively in public relations’ (co-authored by Chipchase and Theaker 2004), which reflected the decimation of the specialist IT sector following the ‘dot.com bubble burst’ in 2001 (ibid.: 256) and recognition that ‘the need to use online media effectively is now integral to every sector of PR’. In 2008, the third edition’s chapter by Theaker carried the same title as used in this fifth edition and argued ‘it is now important that every PR practitioner should be competent with new technology’ (2008a: 352). Yaxley (2012a) opted for ‘Digital public relations – revolution or evolution?’ in the fourth edition, seeking to address claims that ‘the internet changes everything’ (Phillips and Young 2009: 3). The title for this chapter was chosen to reflect how technological developments, as already discussed, warrant a refocus away from digital as a distinct aspect of practice.

Theaker (2008b) looked beyond websites, to search engines, virtual press offices, email, virtual forums, blogging, podcasts, RSS, internet television and wikis. She did not consider social networking although various channels had emerged in the early years of the new millennium enabling people to ‘socialize, exchange information and ideas’ (ibid.: 56) – as well as engage in more nefarious purposes (e.g. terrorism and child pornography).

In the 2012 edition reference to technology could be found in most, if not all chapters. Intranets, websites, the Internet, podcasts, blogs, digital media, instant messaging, RSS, search engines and search engine optimisation (SEO), social media, social networking and YouTube, were all featured in the book’s index, with a significant number of referenced sources being websites and blog posts.

Looking backwards in the technical discourse, we can see a pattern (illustrated in Figure 19.1) informed by Watson’s proposal of three types of practitioner based on attitudes towards technological change.

Mickey (2008: 58) challenges this progressive rhetoric arguing ‘some need for a critical voice protesting the latest technology’ and noting how warnings had accompanied growth of the newspaper industry in the nineteenth century and subsequently with broadcast technologies (‘movies, radio, TV and cable’). He contends the introduction of communication technology benefits ‘those parties who have most to gain financially from that technology’ (ibid.: 61) and expresses concern about how those controlling technology are able to shape modern culture, using public relations techniques.

Figure 19.1 Pattern of assimilation of new technology into PR practice over time

Taking a feminist perspective, Koerber (2000: 64) asserts ‘technology has come to be seen as an exclusively masculine domain’ and linked to male gender identity. She suggests a need to examine technologies as ‘potential discursive agents’ (ibid.: 66), as well as the ‘complex and always dynamic relations between humans and technologies’ (ibid.: 67). This echoes debate about automation of communications, and could offer a boundary-spanning role for public relations at the person–machine interface.

Taking a wide look around and a deep look inside current practice, a continuing pattern of assimilation (Figure 19.1) is evident with early adopters of social media and other emergent technologies forming specialist agencies, and cautious sense-makers gradually integrating developments into wider practice. However, changing work patterns have also seen the rise of self-employed, independent innovators as champions of new technology. At the same time, some organisations have established dedicated social media positions within their in-house communications departments, or formed specialist or cross-functional teams.

The rapid pace of change in the social media landscape, coupled with other technological developments, means that it is not just PR or communications agencies or functions that have employed new technology in their operations. Hinchcliffe and Kim (2012) argue organisations are transforming into social businesses, by employing social technologies to collaborate and engage with communities of stakeholders, inside and outside their traditional boundaries. Consequently, several disciplines may legitimately claim a stake in new technology, and new specialist agencies and in-house functions have emerged to offer technologically driven solutions and services to organisations. These may be tactical, as is the case with those that focus on generating multi-media content or managing social media accounts or operate at a more strategic level.

Figure 19.2 suggests independent innovators influence adoption of new technology, and may be recruited for their expertise by organisations or consultancies. Scott Monty is one example, having developed a reputation initially at social media strategy firm, Crayon, before working for six years as global digital and multimedia communications manager at Ford Motor Company, then moving to award-winning agency, Shift Communications and currently working as an independent senior advisor on digital transformation and change.

Figure 19.2 Extension of employment of new technology around PR practice

Cross-functional blending is apparent in several ways. For example, relevant expertise would need to be brought together to develop enterprise social networks (ESNs, e.g. Yammer), intranets and other internally focused internal communication and employee engagement technologies.

Undoubtedly, continuous development of new technologies necessitates, and potentially supports, cohesive communication with all stakeholders and publics. Rather than seeking to control ownership of an organisation’s social business communications, it is useful for public relations practitioners to focus on areas where their expertise is most relevant.

For example, Hutton (2010) considers the relationship between marketing, advertising, marketing communications and public relations in terms of areas of responsibility and overlap. This shows PR specifically encompassing ‘investor relations, community relations, employee communication, public affairs/government relations, media relations, crisis communications, corporate identity, executive communications, charitable donations, and the like’ (ibid.: 514). Falling between marketing and public relations are corporate advertising, sponsorship and aspects of media relations, crisis communications and corporate identity (notably relating to products or service delivery).

It may be helpful for the two functions to work together in developing social business strategies for these areas of overlap, as well as ensuring a coherent approach for those areas that fall outside of joint responsibility. Establishing communities of practice (as discussed later in this chapter) could be one effective way of improving collaboration.

Looking ahead, as considered earlier, the rhizomatic nature of technological development means it is difficult to predict what will come next and its impact on public relations practice. Adopting a collaborative approach, building (online) relationships with independent innovators and determining a position, probably somewhere in the middle of early adoption and cautious sense-making may be a sensible strategy. Importantly, public relations practitioners need to examine their organisation’s rhetoric of technology, the potential discursive aspects of automated technology and the boundary-spanning role at the interface between humans and new technology.

Using New Technology Effectively to Achieve Desired Public Relations Results

Identifying new technology, determining whether and when to adopt this, and deciding how it can be used effectively, has been a topic of debate for many decades.

Slater (2002) argues the development of the telephone and the typewriter transformed journalism at the turn of the last century, much as they did work in organisations (particularly for women, Yaxley 2012b). In the case of the typewriter, it was speed and legibility that quickly demonstrated the effectiveness of the shift from pen and ink. Adoption of the telephone depended on development of an infrastructure, and overcoming journalist resistance (Slater 2002). Its effectiveness was more complicated to determine, as reporters ‘believed the only good interview was a face-to-face-interview’ (ibid.: 354).

This tension between using technology to be more efficient or economical (in terms of time or resource expenditure) versus delivering desired results, is at the heart of determining effectiveness. Pickton and Broderick (2005: 357) distinguish between:

• economy (doing things within a specified budget)
• efficiency (doing things right)
• effectiveness (doing the right things).

However, when something is new, it can be difficult to know if it offers improved return on investment, how best to utilise it, and if it is the right thing to do. Innovators and early adopters are more prepared to take risks, and often spend time and money to be ahead of the mainstream. Watson’s (2015a) cautious sense-makers and ignorers by contrast are more fearful and risk averse.

Venkatesh and Goyal (2010) argue the technology acceptance model (TAM) suggests adoption depends on attitudes towards expected usefulness and ease of use. However, expectation-disconfirmation theory (EDT) highlights that dissatisfaction may result from actual experiences of using technologies, particularly when these do not live up to anticipated benefits. This highlights the importance of realistic expectations (often communicated through marketing or corporate communications), experience, training and self-efficacy (as discussed in the next section).

Although ‘new technologies are frequently touted as liberating’, Koerber (2000: 68) notes the potential for unforeseen consequences as technologies are ‘incorporated into existing institutions and practices’. One example is how visualisation technologies have altered debates around abortion and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy by enabling clearer foetal scans. Similarly, issues around pornography, stalking and cyber-bullying raise questions around anticipated equality within the online public sphere created by social media technologies.

Often new technologies can be expensive, difficult to access, complex to learn, and their value in improving existing operations may not be clear. These factors can act as barriers to particular sectors of society, as discussed in the introduction to this chapter.

The involvement of innovators and early adopters may help to improve technologies, and create benefits and uses that may not have been originally imagined.

The GoPro camera was created as a wearable underwater camera in 2002. By 2009, WiFi developments enabled the release of the first digital GoPro camera and innovative mounts (including ones that can be fitted to pets), which combined with multimedia online channels, such as YouTube, have opened up uses beyond the initial extreme sports field. Their use by cyclists, motorists, police officers and citizen journalists is particularly relevant to public relations practice, notably in relation to crisis communication.

Rogers’ Adoption of Innovation theory (1962) suggests that most people need to see evidence of the effectiveness of new ideas, a reduction in required cost or time expenditure, or improvement in ease of use, before they recognise the advantages.

They may also need help in envisioning how technology can be applied in new situations. For example, the mass-market launch of various virtual reality (VR) headsets has an obvious relevance for gaming, but Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (2014) claims it also offers ‘a new communication platform’ with potential to stretch into experiences such as education, sport and medical consultation.

Yaxley (2012a) noted that numerous resources and training courses were available to help PR practitioners wishing to develop online strategies or campaigns, with the CIPR having established a social media panel to lead ‘thinking and practice’. Such initiatives serve to underline a belief that ‘professionals need to understand the strengths and limitations of the media so that, when appropriate they can use it’ (Kent 2010: 654). At the time, there had been little examination of the risks and investment required in using social media, and a lack of research into whether claims for its effectiveness were over-optimistic.

Since then, wider public and organisational adoption of social media has occurred. Some of the factors influencing this are:

• greater familiarity with using social media;
• assimilation of social media by cautious sense-makers;
• more digital natives coming into the workplace and more digital immigrants becoming comfortable as digital naturals;
• increasing number of examples of usage of social media including highprofile crisis situations;
• low cost of adopting new technologies in terms of time or budget expenditure;
• ability to monitor, evaluate and report on social media outputs.

New technologies continue to emerge that may act against the above factors, particularly if they suggest a need for further learning or perception of threats to existing practices.

ICT offers the potential for individuals and organisations to connect on many levels:

• Communication may be automated, and involve little human input.
• Direct person-to-person communication within organizations and with stakeholders or publics are facilitated.
• The mediator role of existing, and new, gatekeepers and influencers is both reinforced and challenged.
• Technology enables mass distribution and personalised communications at the same time on a global, 24:7 basis.
• All of the above apply in complex and dynamic networks of communication.

Automated systems may be seen as delivering cost and time benefits – particularly by organisations facing increasing pressures to cut budgets. These may also be easy to learn or outsource, and deliver accessible metrics – big data – that help to demonstrate effectiveness. Similarly, technology that enables mass distribution of communication may appear to be an effective solution to reach more and more people, simultaneously across the world. This may result in the redundancy of some public relations tasks or roles. More positively, technology may free up practitioners to devote time and budget to facilitating and engaging publics directly and through gatekeepers and influencers.

Whether or not the use of technology is effective in ensuring communications achieve desired public relations results – rather than being a way of demonstrating greater efficiency or more economical operations – still needs to be addressed.

It is also important to remember that new technology does not necessarily eliminate the need to use more traditional means of communication, such as face-to-face meetings. Indeed, an integrated approach may be the most effective where the rhizomatic nature of communications is able to take advantage of increasing media convergence to spread across various channels, reach new audiences and contribute effectively, efficiently and economically to achieving desired results.

When considering a traditional newspaper, its print circulation is only one measure, alongside its web and mobile readers, those who follow and engage through its social media presence, email subscribers, its archive facilities and the extended reach as stories are picked up and communicated through other online, and offline, means – which include word of mouth and peer-to-peer sharing. A traditional newspaper brand may also create different online resources for a story, including photographs, imagery, infographics and video – providing a full multi-media output.

Technological developments that feed news and other multi-media output into social media sites enable users to further augment the reach of communication, while adding their own opinions and comments – both positive and negative.

While underpinning the difficulty in determining the effectiveness of using new technology to achieve public relations results, this discussion does not mean it is impossible or inadvisable to set out objectives and strategic plans.

Indeed, it is important to be clear about the goals and purpose of using any new technology. Such usage may be operational (such as the investment in physical technologies, apps or other software), or instrumental (that is, communication channels, techniques and tactics used to achieve public relations objectives).

At the strategic level, the public relations function needs to agree its role and the resources (internal headcount and financial budget, including for any external support) available to deliver required results. Technology will be considered as part of the overall departmental strategy, and within the tactics required to deliver this. Considering the effective deployment of new technology is no different to determining the effectiveness of other public relations resources or activities.

Within the strategic approach to communications using social and digital media, determining the right choice of activities involves a planned approach as detailed in Figure 19.3.

The research stage involves understanding the current position – and can be aided by use of technology to obtain relevant data and intelligence regarding the organisation, relevant stakeholders/publics and the issue and/or opportunity for which the plan is being developed.

Figure 19.3 PR planning approach

Objectives may be informed by use of technology where baseline data and benchmark (competitor or normative, i.e. ideal) key performance targets (KPIs) are available, as well as monitoring and evaluating achievement. Setting SMART objectives enables clarity in establishing a level of performance – and a direction of change (increase, maintain, decrease) that is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and relevant, targeted and with a stated timeframe.

Watson and Noble (2014: 66) present a five-stage ‘unified model’, where impact, effect and result reflect a ‘family of outcomes’ (ibid.: 65):

1. Input – planning and preparation
2. Output – messages and targets
3. Impact – awareness and information
4. Effect – attitude and motivation
5. Result – behaviour and action.

Watson and Likely (2013: 157) detail ‘a four-stage value link approach’ to measurement of communications activity comprising input–output–outcome–outflow, where the latter term is preferred to return on investment (ROI). It relates to the contribution made towards organisational strategic targets (such as sales or employee retention) or intangible assets (such as impact on relationships or reputation).

A planned approach to setting objectives requires consideration of what organisations want to achieve from their use of technology, including digital and social media communications. This should be more than merely establishing a presence (i.e. setting up a Twitter, Facebook or similar account) and detail SMART objectives and monitoring and evaluation approaches.

Objectives should also consider what key publics and influencers want from any engagement with organisations through digital and social media communications. This enables a rounded approach to be developed rather than focusing on information distribution or persuasion. Setting relationship-building objectives may benefit customer, employee and media relations in measurable ways, some of which may be opportunistic and responsive rather than planned.

An empathetic listening approach enables the organisation to seek both to understand the perspective of others, and to be understood through appropriate, responsive engagement. Considering the needs of others, would encompass ensuring:

• ease of access to information and organisational representatives;
• support in assisting decision making;
• provision of content that is relevant and of interest;
• responsiveness to enquiries and complaints;
• problem identification and resolution;
• spontaneity in acting on opportunities and addressing issues.

Technology is also helpful in determining which publics and influencers are key for any planned activity. Using the free, open source NodeXL template for Microsoft Excel, Smith et al. (2014) identified six groupings of participants in Twitter conversations (Figure 19.4), depending on what was being discussed and by whom. Political topics tended to result in two divided online communities with polarised views and behaviours. Each community relates to a distinctly different set of prominent discussion leaders.

Determining the narrative and communications strategy and methods of communication/activities to be employed offers a huge choice of ICT approaches and tools. Figure 19.5 illustrates some of the options to be considered.

In considering what is effective from a vast array of options that could be employed, it is vital to be selective and not use everything just because it is possible. Constraints such as time and resources will obviously affect what is feasible to include in a

Figure 19.4 Twitter conversational groups

Figure 19.5 Options to consider in determining narrative and communications

planned campaign or on-going communications strategy. However, ensuring measures are in place to determine what is working and what is not, at any point in time, is equally important in influencing the approach taken.

There are also dozens of tools available to support monitoring and evaluation, and these should be considered within the PRISM (Public Relations Information System Management) approach discussed in Chapter 8. A number of options are free, and can be used to create a dashboard of useful metrics. Many technologies can be integrated to offer automation so that, for example, connecting event management, email distribution and social media communications can help identify the effectiveness of flow from increased awareness, to attitude, to behaviour.

Offering recommendations to populate Figure 19.5 reveals the limitations of the medium of printed books. It would be fairly safe to mention established media, platforms, systems and tools, but with a focus on emerging and new technology, it is likely that many of the popular and useful web APIs (application programming interface) that offer opportunities to increase the effectiveness of implementing public relations strategies that achieve desired results, would be updated, out-dated or have disappeared. Naturally, given the pace of change, new technologies will also have been developed and be attractive to those seeking innovations.

The final section sets out to look ahead at how public relations practitioners can remain tech savvy and be digitally literate in the face of perpetual change.

Developing Personal Competencies + Technological Readiness

Ensuring that new and emerging ICT can be deployed as ‘part of a strategic, multi-participant, multi-media approach’ (Phillips and Young 2009: 180) to public relations requires a flexible attitude and a willingness to engage in continuous development of personal competencies.

In 2001, Springston noted half of PR practitioners had no training in using email. By 2008, Eyrich et al. found this was a ubiquitous skill, although practitioners were ‘slower to integrate more technologically complicated tools that cater to a niche audience (e.g. text messaging, social networks, virtual worlds)’ (2008: 413). In 2015, Cision UK reported that over two-thirds (69 per cent) of public relations practitioners say they access social media daily, with 17 per cent of those aged 18–27, and 10 per cent of 28–45 year olds, spending at least four hours a day using social media. The vast majority (83 per cent) claimed to have a good-to-expert knowledge of social media, with 61 per cent saying they would not be able to carry out their work without it.

PR practitioners will reflect varying levels of comfort as ‘digital naturals’ (Åkerström and Young 2013). Kitchen and Panopoulos (2010) argue adoption of new technology should be seen as a continuous, long-term process; although, they suggest organisations may prefer to employ ‘young well-informed, technologically sophisticated professionals’ (ibid.: 226) rather than develop the skills of more experienced PR practitioners. Holmes (2007) observes, the PR industry needs to find candidates who ‘possess rare and perhaps even contradictory qualities’ such as the good judgement that comes with age and experience alongside knowledge of new media opportunities. However, Diga and Kelleher (2009) found no difference in use of social media between those performing public relations manager and technician roles. Grunig and Grunig (2010) dismiss employing a young person simply because they are technically adept to undertake social media; they also argue against a specialist social media function.

Returning to the concept of rhizomatic middleness, it is clear that all public relations practitioners are faced with adding new technologies to their existing competencies. They are encouraged to adopt social learning theory and kaizen (the practice of continuous improvement) in maintaining their technological readiness.

An updated Technology Readiness Index (TRI) conceived by Parasuraman and Colby (2015: 59) provides a method of determining willingness to ‘embrace and use cutting-edge technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at work’. Widely tested since the original TRI 1.0 was published in 2000, the latest version responds to the impact of new technological developments, including growth in mobile and social media connectivity. TRI 2.0 offers a useful construct at a time of ‘technology-triggered transformation’ (ibid.: 60) and nascent ‘potentially groundbreaking innovations’.

Figure 19.6 presents 16 items within four dimensions of technological readiness. The first two dimensions, optimism and innovativeness, reflect motivating factors that correlate positively with technological readiness. The other two, discomfort and insecurity, reflect inhibiting factors that signify a lack of technological readiness.

The validity and reliability of the TRI 2.0 Index has been assessed by linkage to ownership of new technology and incidence of recent online activity. Consequently, five types of people have been identified:

1. Explorers (high motivation, low inhibition)
2. Pioneers (high motivation, high inhibition)
3. Sceptics (low motivation, low inhibition)
4. Paranoids (moderate motivation, high inhibition)
5. Laggards (low motivation, high inhibition).

The model is proposed for use in analysing stakeholders’ level of interest and involvement with technology, as well as for assessment of suitability for employment in specific roles. Although it has not been evaluated for public relations practitioners, it may be a useful consideration, along with Watson’s (2015a) typology of ignorers, cautious sense-makers and early adopters, and the independent innovators detailed in Figure 19.2.

Figure 19.6 Items correlating with technological readiness

PR practitioners with a high level of innovativeness will demonstrate self-efficacy in gaining competency in emerging technologies that reflect a disruption of current practice. When technologies are adopted into wider practice as illustrated in Figure 19.1, development opportunities, such as training courses and qualifications may be available to improve the skills and knowledge. As technology becomes ubiquitous, a standard level of competency is the expected norm, making it harder for laggards and ignorers to catch up.

There are two key areas where PR practitioners need to develop personal strategies in relation to new technologies:

1. willingness to identify and adopt emerging technologies for professional PR purposes as innovators, early adopters or early majority practitioners;
2. inclusion of technological competencies within career plans.

Specialist technical roles may offer career opportunities as independent innovators, or recruitment as a pioneer with organisations. Such positions if primarily tactical may reflect the traditional craft perspective of PR, which could present a barrier to moving into management roles. Internet self-efficacy (‘the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome’, Bandura 1977: 79) is identified by Gangadharbatla (2008) as a key factor in influencing adoption of social networking, alongside a need to belong and collective self-esteem.

Social learning, which relies upon human interaction to develop knowledge, can be found through engagement in communities of practice (Wenger and Snyder 2000), within social networking sites (particularly LinkedIn) as well as through online learning developments such as MOOCs (massive open online courses). These environments enable practitioners to share experiences and engage in debate about technologies. Without the initial confidence or skill to join such communities, practitioners may not be in a position to benefit from this peer-group learning.

Noor Al-Deen and Hendricks (2011: 133) clarify ‘social media provides the opportunity to interact with and contribute to the knowledge being created and disseminated’. One benefit is learning within the environment being studied, which could be beneficial to younger practitioners familiar with technologies, but not how they can be used within a professional context. Participation online is public and mistakes can gain a high profile. Bridgen (2013) also observes the blurring of PR practitioners’ professional and personal identities online as an issue.

It can be difficult to determine the validity of informal processes of learning, where it is important to reflect on the veracity of information gained, and evaluate experiences by keeping a training diary to monitor skills and knowledge development. As well as self-efficacy and peer-group support, practitioners can draw on a range of published resources, or use experts to help improve understanding and familiarity with new technologies. These learning strategies tend to be more appropriate for those who are early-to-late majority adopters of new technology with innovators preferring to experiment and learn by doing.

In adopting a social learning theory approach, a participative immersion in understanding and utilising technology with the support of a wider community of practitioners may offer benefits to all types of digital naturals. A shared experience also supports kaizen, (the practice of continuous improvement) where those who are more comfortable and have higher self-efficacy and innovativeness, gain from demonstrating the value of new ideas and emerging technologies to cautious sense-makers.

Conclusion

Before new technology can be used effectively in public relations, the tendency noted for high levels of discomfort and insecurity within senior practitioners in particular, needs to be overcome. It may be wise to reflect a cautious sense-making approach, while encouraging independent innovators and early adopters. Cross-functional blending and collaborative employment of technological solutions suggests that if effectiveness is not demonstrated both through personal competence and public relations strategies that achieve desired results, the occupation may find it is squeezed out of its advantageous position of rhizomatic middleness.