CHAPTER 5

Understanding the Public Relations Process

Public relations has greatly benefited from advancements in communication and from the astuteness of audiences. Social media platforms, mobile texting, and multimedia messaging provide more options to interact with general publics, more specific audiences, and stakeholders more directly and persuasively than before when printed materials were used as prime tactics. But, before tactics can be released to the public, communicators— organizations and individuals—must have adequate knowledge of the groups they are attempting to reach and identify the exact purpose for their campaign.

The public relations process provides guidelines for linking theory with practice, thereby assisting professionals with creating the most efficient and effective messages. Introductory-level texts typically introduce the process as an acronym of four steps—RACE, ROPE, RPIE, and so on. Each process is anchored by research and evaluation, while the innermost components are comprised of creating goals, planning, communicating, and execution.

SWOT Analysis

Prior to conducting research, a situation requiring public relations attention such as an issue or opportunity is identified. When the situation is clearly defined and it is determined whether a proactive or reactive stance is most appropriate, the first step can commence. This is often done by employing a SWOT analysis. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. For example, a 2013 PRSA Silver Anvil Award-winning campaign noted that the Hispanic community was the largest growing ethnic minority group in the United States, therefore creating the need for more financial literacy and access to financial tools. This situation was an opportunity for financial institutions to establish a trusting relationship with a community of people and to have an effect on stimulating the economy.

Situations can also be crisis in nature (threat) and warrant immediate attention. The Prairie Island Indian Community in Minnesota was faced with a problem in 2002 when a nearby nuclear power plant sought to increase its storage capacity, thereby creating more risks to and endangering the health and safety of the tribe. In this case, the tribe needed to voice its concerns not only to the nuclear plant, but other change agents in the broader community, such as legislators and media outlets.

Research

Research is a crucial step in the process as it is where data is gathered, synthesized, and prepared to formulate the strategy and execution of the campaign (Stacks 2015; Michaelson and Stacks 2017). Identifying who or what to research is as important as how the research is conducted. Standard elements to research are message sources, various media channels, and recipients.

In situations where the target audience is a racially or ethically underrepresented group (UPREP), attention must be paid to the communicator’s history with the group. Hayes, Kumar, and Hendrix (2013) posit that the focus be placed on the credibility of the organization with the “special public” and justification of the program. In its survey of Latinos, Wells Fargo financial services company found that many were not proficient in personal finance, but desired to learn more in the area. Prior research conducted by others found that Latino immigrants were traditionally not inclined to hold accounts at financial institutions due to a general lack of trust, and that language barriers limited access to resources (National Council of La Raza 2002). These results informed Wells Fargo that the challenge it faced was not isolated to its brand, but to all banking institutions. Also, to have the most impact, messages needed to accommodate the Spanish-speaking audience.

As the campaign planner, the Prairie Island Indian Community was tasked with targeting publics and audiences with whom it had tense relationships. Because the tribe’s earlier objections to the site were ignored, the nuclear energy plant and its allies did not consider it as a formidable opponent. Potential tribe allies who also opposed the plant were seen as forwarding their own agenda and did not consider the tribe’s concerns as priority.

Both cases utilized mixed methodology research to gather data. The Prairie Island Indian Community used a triangular method by polling Minnesotans through an electronic service, conducting secondary research to analyze U.S. nuclear power plants and Minnesota’s political climate, and receiving qualitative feedback gathered at townhall meetings with tribal members.

Objectives

In addition to creating impact objectives of creating positive attitudes among the Hispanic community about Wells Fargo financial strategies and creating awareness about its services, there was a specific objective to disseminate materials in Spanish. Prairie Island’s primary objective was to be recognized as an essential and decision-making entity by nuclear stakeholders and governmental officials.

Programming

Traditional media outlets were used as channels of communication by both enterprises. More strategically, the Prairie Island tribe met with local editorial boards and offered opinions and statements for publication, while Wells Fargo pitched financial current events stories and features to national and regional Hispanic outlets. Third-party experts were used to advance positions and solidify stances as authorities in each campaign. Wells Fargo partnered with widely recognized and trusted organizations in the Hispanic community, and the Prairie Island Indian Community created memorandums of understanding with environmental groups and used lobbyists to appeal to lawmakers.

Evaluation

The Prairie Island Indian Community’s campaign realized its goal of being recognized as a principal voice in the nuclear plant decision-making process. Its stance was included on most stories published about the plant and nuclear energy in Minnesota and was included in a legislative bill that permitted additional waste storage until 2014. At the urging of lawmakers, the plant agreed to a $30 million-dollar settlement. Xcel Energy was required to pay the Prairie Island Tribal Council $1 million a year for up to 30 years, $450,000 per year for wastes in outdoor caskets on Prairie Island, and $100,000 per year for 10 years for health studies and emergency management costs (Meersman 2003).

Wells Fargo’s media relations, too, proved successful as the media pitches garnered 736 placements and 1.1 billion media impressions (an impression is the expected number of people who could see the messages). Its partnership with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce birthed the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, thereby generating more awareness and credibility among its special target public. Both cases effectively met their goals while generating more awareness for the brands.

These campaigns demonstrated how the four-step process was productive for organizations with defined targeted publics. The following case study explores communicating with a target public to effect change among a broader audience during a highly racially charged period in America.

Case Study

“Identifying the Elephant in the Room: Critical Communications Strategies in the Face of Racism” was uniquely a proactive campaign responding to societal crisis. The late spring, early summer of 2020 not only disrupted life in unprecedented ways, but was also a time when U.S. citizens became more polarized and vocal toward issues of DE and I.

Situation

In addition to a ravaging COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. citizens witnessed the state sanctioned killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, and learned of the murder of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed Black woman killed by law enforcement in her home. The incidents challenged race relations advancement and erased the notion of a postracial society. Prior to 2020, pundits and political commentators identified UREP groups as achieving social and economic strides unlike any other time in American history, noting Barak Obama’s election to the presidency as definitive evidence (Dawson and Bobo 2009). However, the 2016 election of Donald J. Trump resulted in the re-emergence of white supremacist ideology on traditional and digital outlets and further strengthened polarization among U.S. citizens (Abramowitz and McCoy 2019).

Controversial violent acts toward UREP individuals occurred prior to 2020 (e.g., the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012), but the stillness of quarantine and angst of a widespread health emergency raised public attention to the tragedies and prompted a variety of groups to end their silence. Protests and other demonstrations against civil unrest erupted around the country. Local organizations, as well as major corporations, published diversity statements condemning acts of racial inequality.

Instead of a frequently used one-way response, Pitch Publicity public relations agency owner Amy Summers and colleague Ledora Brown were compelled to move beyond crafting social media posts to tangibly enacting change. In response to the situation, they created a goal to “better prepare future journalism and communications professionals with confidence in confronting and taking action against racism through various communications channels that they will influence during the course of their careers” (Summers 2020, ¶ 14).

Summers and Brown swiftly worked with their own connections in effort to execute the campaign while the momentum of race relations issues increased on a global scale. By reaching out to their undergraduate alma maters, University of Florida and Howard University, respectively, they were able to connect with influential student groups. The objective was to create a campaign awareness slogan that could be used within student groups to advance discussions regarding DE and I in a time of social unrest and a medical pandemic.

Working with students was beneficial for two reasons:

Research and Campaign Objectives

The research phase as noted previously also revealed the importance of anonymity for these discussions, and that a secure virtual platform was necessary.

The campaign centered on both impact and output objectives:

Execution

The research and objective phase resulted in six, hour-long virtual seminars held during the fall 2020 semester. Each session addressed topics in the areas of sports, politics, entertainment, fashion/beauty, health care, and news media. Alumni and undergraduates from UF and Howard served as “student champions” and were present in each seminar. Through a panel-type platform created by digital marketing company Social MarQui, attendees were not seen on-camera and could anonymously interact with panelists though a chat function.

Evaluation

Seminar attendees, both students and alumni, were given evaluations after each session. Undergraduates were asked four questions: (1) “How relevant was the seminar series topic to their future or current career path?”; (2) “How valuable was the information learned during this event?”; (3) “How would you describe the caliber of the panelists and moderator?”; and (4) “Overall how would you rate the event?” Their responses were, respectively, measured on a five-point quantitative Likert-type scale ranging from extremely relevant to not relevant; extremely valuable to not valuable; professional to unprepared; and excellent to poor.

More than 500 attendees participated and the two-way, symmetrical communication in real time was key to gaining quality interaction. Students and alumni were given the opportunity to learn from each other and provide immediate feedback. The use of uniform branding of the “Elephant in the Room” logo and name was recognized and became familiar among student groups.

The campaign proved to be successful in not only meeting its awareness objectives, but it was also acknowledged by the industry, receiving the inaugural Best Diversity and Inclusion Campaign award from PRNews in 2021.

Concerns Regarding DE and I Research

In an ideal world, research would be evaluated based on a set of metrics that help us develop and test our knowledge about things. Most research seeks to answer questions of importance to the individual researchers and their fields of interest. In this regard, however, DE and I research questions have been relegated as less important than other “pressing” issues.

“Brown on Brown Stigma”

In academia, generally, tenured and tenure-track faculty are evaluated on their research and publication activity. The idiomatic expression “publish or perish” holds true to a faculty member’s longevity at an institution of higher education. There are typically universitywide and departmental resources available to aid this charge, but if the research questions asked are not seen as vital or relevant to the academy, it is not supported by those decision makers who determine the faculty member’s future.

The “Brown-On-Brown Taboo” describes research that examines underrepresented groups conducted by members of said groups (Reyes and Halcon 1988). This scholarship is often invalidated and perceived as inferior to more conventional research agendas. Reyes and Halcon’s (1988) study identified this stigma as covert racism experienced by a Mexican American scholar, but note that individuals belonging to any marginalized group can face this type of distressing critique.

The Chronicle of Higher Education published a story detailing a Black woman’s denial of tenure due to the perception of her work in Black literature as unscholarly (Blum 1988). In 2019, more than 100 Harvard faculty members demanded a review of the tenure evaluation process after an instance of the perceived devaluing of research in ethnic studies (Hartocollis 2021). More recently, renown activist, philosopher, and theologian Cornel West was denied tenure at Harvard “based on the substance of his work” (Krantz 2021), which is centered in his self-proclamation as a “champion for racial justice” (West 2009).

Derivatives of “brown-on-brown” discrimination appear not only in research, but also in service to the academy and in the public relations workplace. The limits and expectations of African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American (ALANA) professionals in academic and practical settings are discussed below.

UREP-on-UREP Research

Early scholars found the perceived devaluing of research on minority-related topics was legitimized by the perpetual white patriarchal structure of the academy (Blum 1988). A form of microaggressions, “microinvalidation” occurs when UREP faculty members are discouraged from researching topics examining traditionally underrepresented groups because it was not seen as rigorous as other topics. This results in the work not being accepted by top-tier journals and limiting opportunities for collaboration with colleagues (Blum 1988; Hendrix 2002; Tindall 2009).

Hendrix (2002) noted that administrators and tenured professors discouraged Black faculty from conducting research about experiences of the Black community, citing that the studies would not be objective, thereby creating results that are not valid. In her response to questions of bias in her research, she published a study refuting this criticism. Hendrix posits that methodological training excludes “unpopular and/ or sensitive” topics, thus leaving many scholars ill prepared and left to create approaches with no explicit guidelines. She further cements her stance that a “double standard” persists in “race related research conducted by scholars of color,” and much of the disdain is due to scholars use of qualitative methods (Hendrix 2020, 165). Blum (1988) found that many scholars of color worked in disciplines where performance evaluation is subjective. Topics in education, humanities, and social sciences often are studied using qualitative methodology and “are not as finite in the results as quantitatively driven STEM fields.”

The dismissal of “brown-on-brown” research yields scant acceptance into highly ranked journals. These journals are distinguished from others due to their low acceptance rates and high impact factors (how many times an article is quoted in other journals relevant to the field). The peer-review publication process involves researchers submitting their work to an academic journal where it is initially screened by the editor for adherence to publication guidelines and compliance with the journal’s scope. The manuscript is then forwarded to at least two topic experts who scrutinize the study and determine whether it is suitable for publication. The goal of academic publishing is to contribute to the body of knowledge in the form of a permanent record. Acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal is a sign of intellectual merit and inclusion in a community of thought leaders in the respective discipline. Brown-on-brown researchers have documented accounts of receiving journal feedback that questioned the validity, significance, and scrupulousness of their work (Hendrix 2002; Williams 2020). Coincidentally, journal reviewers may advise the work be submitted to a journal specializing in the topic, thereby signaling it does not appeal to a broader audience. Much of this criticism is due to the reviewers’ disinterest and lack of knowledge in the topic. Reviewers who edit manuscripts traditionally favor mainstream research and do not seek to place salience on ethnically/racially driven studies.

The preference to publish race/ethnicity-based studies is a factor in an academic’s lack of collaborative opportunities. Much like journal editors and reviewers, if colleagues have no desire to invest time and effort in studying the topic, there is no willingness to collaborate, and comradery must be forged in some other way. To combat this, partnerships are often forged outside of the department, with interdisciplinary work and through networking at national and international professional association meetings (Thomas and Hollenshead 2001).

Race-based articles have received more attention and acceptance in mainstream periodicals in the past two decades and have become a burgeoning area of scholarship. This, however, was the result of appeals through studies authored by public relations scholars. Pompper (2005) was one of the first to question how public relations research addressed race, ethnicity, and culture as variables. Her study found approximately 16 percent of articles published in two renown public relations academic journals between 1975 and 2003 contained those identifiers.

Since then, journals have published more diverse and race/ethnicity-based studies and have also featured the area as the focus for special issues (Munshi and Edwards 2011). For example, The Journal of Public Relations Research had a special issue of five studies dedicated to “Understanding ‘Race’ In/And Public Relations: Where Do We Start and Where Should We Go?” (Munshi and Edwards 2011, 349–367). In 2020, Public Relations Inquiry announced a special issue focused on the current state of public relations in Latin America, and The Journal of Applied Communication issued a call for papers for a special 2021 issue showcasing meaningful research that centers race in the context of communication, and there have been other editors who have set precedents through incorporating the salience of ethnicity and multiculturalism topics in their publications.

Challenges of DE and I-Related Academic Service

The invisible work of academia includes recruitment of prospective students and faculty, committee membership, the mentoring and advising of students and junior colleagues, and the promotion of departmental programs. These activities are described as “invisible” because there is often little compensation, in the form of public acknowledgment or payment, given for duties performed. The additional responsibilities contribute to what Pell (1996) calls a “leaky pipeline”—the interruption in the journey from earning a PhD to promotion to full professor. Because service receives the least weight in most tenure and promotion processes, marginalized faculty who engage in a “disproportionate” amount of service activities are left with less time for research, the most regarded criterion (Social Science Feminist Network Research Interest Group 2017, 242).

UREP faculty members participate on departmental and institution-wide committees addressing DE and I, which is unwittingly expected by their institution (Tindall 2009). Also known as “cultural taxation,” these appointments take significant time away from research and teaching obligations (Padilla 1994). While it is logical that institutions include members of the groups they intend to target in the planning stages of programming and communication, the committees place an undue burden on faculty. UREP faculty members are often expected to speak on behalf of an entire heterogenous group, and many are not given the resources to conduct the research needed to effectively reach the audience.

Racial/ethnic identity is only one dynamic of individual makeup. Socioeconomic status, geography, and psychographics are among other factors lend to one’s views and approaches to life. Formal representation on committees and task forces undoubtedly creates an obligation to act as informal opinion leaders for groups that homogenize race and ethnicity. Faculty members may not be equipped to speak on behalf of colleagues and can resent the onerous expectation. Brayboy (2003) describes this tokenizing of UREP faculty a “hidden service agenda.”

Despite the obstacles, UREP faculty members do not overwhelmingly object to diversity-related service and prefer it to general service duties (Baez 2000). The mentoring of students is personally and socially rewarding to both parties, and overall, service work is viewed as necessary to progressively change campus culture and policies that have historically marginalized underrepresented faculty.

Faculty members can limit involvement in service or use it to their advantage. Bey-Ling Sha’s work with the Parent Teacher Association also coupled as a research project (see Chapter 4). Creating and adhering to a strategic semester plan will also help curtail the stress of service work. A plan that details all activities and time allotment can keep faulty on track and focused on navigating the tenure process.

Institutions can also take more responsibility for UREP faculty participation in diversity-related service by providing tangible incentives such as professional development funds, graduate teaching and research assistants, and assign more importance on service for evaluations.

Diversity-Related Professional Work Responsibilities

Industry communication professionals, too, are held to the selective, yet empowering work of creating diversity initiatives and serving in ambassador roles. Organizations are taking heed to the global attention given to social justice and have established or strengthened their diversity and inclusion stances.

Early forms of corporate DE and I initiatives appeared after the Civil Rights Movement and resurged in the 1980s when affirmative action policy was at its peak. Now, as more CEOs understand the value of a diverse workforce, businesses are participating with corporate social advocacy activities that highlight DE and I, as opposed to compliance with governing bodies.

The commitment to embrace diversity often leads to intentional actions such as increased budget and workload, which many times leads to increased assignments for employees, UREP staffers in particular (Nance-Nash 2020). In addition to typical duties, like their academic counterparts, practitioners are asked to head committees and lead program planning. Companies who want to take a more pointed stand have created new positions solely responsible for DE and I-related initiatives. McGirt (2019) reported that 47 percent of S&P 500 companies have chief diversity officers (CDOs). Senior-level diversity executives are primarily responsible for diverse hiring, diversity and inclusion training, and fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace.

While the hiring of C-suite officers illustrates a commitment to diversity, statistics of a holistic corporate climate change are not so promising. CDOs reported that a major challenge to achieving company goals was tied to organizational culture and DE and I (McGirt 2019). They also report that it is difficult to meet these goals if all leaders are not on board or provide an incentive to employees to participate in DE and I activities.

One of the first CDOs in the public relations industry was hired in 2009 (Weissbrot 2020), and companies have slowly included more positions or shown much DE and I progress within the past decade (Marszalek 2020). Protest movements have added to the urgency for creating diverse, inclusive workplace environments and industry leaders are tasked with communicating the importance to employees (Bardhan and Gower 2020). Agency executives note that diversity has to be valorized and promoted throughout the organization, not solely regulated by one department.

This chapter revealed the challenges of and solutions to communicating to UREP publics and appreciation of diversity in the public relations workplace. Gaining understanding is a principle of effective communication, particularly persuasive communication. Public relations campaigns must advocate for the organization while accommodating the public. Where the academy was once resistant in including “brown-on-brown” scholarship, it has now been woven into academic expectations and has become a prominent topic. In the practice, C-suite professionals—CEOs, CFOs, CMOs, CIOs, and now CDOs—are well aware of the importance of DE and I in targeted external customer and internal employee relations campaigns.