PR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Future of PR in local government

2010-11-26T19:28:00.000+02:00

PR in local government

In my blog texts I have discussed the role of PR in local government from different angles. The blogging process did not give me an answer to my initial question (if PR and local government are an impossible mix) but has helped me to realize the role that public relations play in local government today. It seems this role is becoming more and more important. This may be partly due to the general development of PR and communication as a more strictly and exactly defined field of research and practice. As consequence, it is now also being applied in local government in a more systematic manner.

The article on measurement of PR and communication in local government by Marita Vos (2009) is one evidence of this development. When scientific measurement instruments are being set up, it means that the field has been able to claim a certain position and importance. Measuring it enforces this development. The same development applies to the whole field of PR.

As PR is being normalized as a daily practice in local government, it also seems to become a trend. Every municipality, whether small or big, has to do it, sometimes without analyzing which forms of public relations suit them, the reasons why they do certain things and or without giving a second thought on how these practices actually serve them. In order to make the best use of public relations local authorities should think ‘out of the box’ while all the time recognizing the reasons and motivations for their actions. Since this is not the situation today, it should be set as a goal for the future.

Is Twitter the answer?

The use f new channels of communication to reach the citizens is an example of the aforementioned situation, the compulsive need to follow the trends (whether or not it is purposeful). Besides Facebook, some Finnish cities have now found Twitter (eg. Tampere and Lahti) and are using it as a channel of communication.

Recognising the good sides of these channels of communication, one can still ask if Twitter really is a way to make citizens more informed or does it only provide more information for those who are already engaged? Or is this the picture of the future communication in local government: extracts of information delivered as fast as possible? What happens to the bigger picture?

This is clearly an area where local government is still on the starting line. Local authorities have to learn how to use the new channels (such as social media) and how to use them correctly. The main thing to notice here is that no matter how many channels local government has in use and how much information it sends, it will never reach the citizens if the decision-making culture does not change to a more open one. The point being here that communication is a tool, not an end.

And the biggest challenge for the future is…

The way public relations and communication are handled in local government is certainly becoming more professional all the time. Municipalities put more resources, both money and personnel, into it. Furthermore, it is not anymore regarded as a separate field but something that is an integral part of all the public sector functions.

Still, it should be remembered that PR cannot be used to save unsuccessful strategies or poor citizen participation, it cannot polish reputations or solve problems within the organisation if the foundations are not in order. I claim that understanding this is the biggest challenge for the future of PR in local government.

Sources:
Vos, Marita (2009) Communication quality and added value: a measurement instrument for municipalities. Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 362-377.

How are things in Sweden?

2010-11-16T09:24:00.000+02:00

Somehow my posts seem to be a continuing story as one question leads to another. After having reflected on the role of Kuntaliitto on the PR and Communication practices of municipalities, I got interested in the functioning of its Swedish counterpart, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL in short). To find out how they work, I asked directly from SKL.

They told me that they do not give instructions to the municipalities although they do organise conferences, give lectures, give advice etc. For example they were just now organising a seminar on the Use of social media and legal questions related to it. It seems that many similar ways are in use as in Finland. Yet I got the impression from their answer that the local authorities act more independently in Sweden than here.

Here in Finland Kuntaliitto also follows quite closely the development of the PR sector in the municipalities and compiles statistics on all sorts of things (eg. budgets, PR and communication strategies, number of PR professionals...) In Sweden the SKL does not have statistics on how municipalities manage their PR and communication work (which makes it impossible for me to compare the resources and number of PR professionals for example, like I had wished to do). Had I wanted this information, I would have had to ask each municipality separately.

The Swedish system seems to give the local level much more freedom (of course I have to notice that there might be another actor giving these instructions, for example the state). I find this a very interesting cultural difference that would be interesting to study further. I don’t even try to make any assumptions on the reasons for it here – I have neither enough information nor space. But it would be interesting to know if there are significant differences in the PR and communication functions of the Swedish municipalities and their Finnish counterparts.

How do theories get transformed into a common practice?

2010-11-15T21:21:00.001+02:00

After my post on Grunig’s theory (which seems to be applied into practice in local government although I doubt its success, following Roper) I was left to wonder how do theories turn into practices in the municipalities. I am pretty sure many of them do not know about Mr Grunig and his works (at least if PR is not professionally organized) - yet they all seem to act in a similar way. It seems to me that most of the municipalities in Finland have adopted these theories and realize them in their PR practices - perhaps not always recognizing the theoretical backgrounds of their actions. In other words, the theories have turned into a common policy in PR and communication in local government.

In Finland the Association for Local and Regional Authorities (Suomen Kuntaliitto) has quite a strong position as for the steering of the development of local affairs. This also seems to apply in PR and communication. In other words it is one of the channels (and probably one of the most important ones) for transferring theories into practice. It is done by using this kind of tools:

instructions (eg. general instructions for communication practices, crisis situation instructions,
studies and research, evaluation
guides (eg. internet as a channel of information - verkkoviestintäohje)
training
learning from best practices

(see Kuntaliitto; PR and Communication)

I find the spreading of ideas and the creation of common policies very interesting - and not always so unproblematic as it may seem. If the actors are not aware of the grounds and roots for their actions and do not recognize the routes that ideas and theories travel to them:

- how can they really accommodate these to the local circumstances?
- how can they assess their own operations and actions in a consistent and critical way?

Roper vs. Grunig

2010-11-09T08:35:00.000+02:00

(A word of warning for those who are afraid of theories – this post is all about them.)

Having asked several questions in my blog on the nature and role of PR and communication in local government, I felt the need to look more closely at theories to try to understand how practices can be traced back to theories. Local government also seems to be adopting practices recommended to them without questioning their reasonability or sense.

Probably one of the most well known theories in public relations is the theory of Excellence by James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig and David M. Dozier. The Excellence theory is an attempt to develop a general theory of public relations by bringing both complementary and competing theories together. (Grunig et al 2006, 22.)

According to Grunig et al (2006, 55) relationships that organisations develop and maintain with publics are in a central position in the theory. It emphasizes the importance of two-way symmetrical communication between the organisation and its stakeholder, meaning that organisations should listen to the interests and concerns of their key stakeholders and be responsive (Roper 2005, 69).

This theory has, without a doubt, affected public relations practices in local government. Perhaps even to an extent where the two-way symmetrical communication has became the leading principle in PR.

Critical voices to the theory also exist. Questioning the ethics of the process Juliet Roper (2005) claims that the two-way symmetrical communication is process of compromise that deflects criticism and maintains existing power relations, in other words creates hegemony. This is contradictory to the idea of open, collaborative negotiation. Roper’s point is that concessions are made to external stakeholders only “just enough” to quiet public criticism.

Roper’s critique can also be applied to local governments. Often the messages from the citizens, presented in different kinds of forums or citizen jurys etc seem to disappear on their way to the government. Citizens are not included as real participants in the discussion. It gives reason to ask if Grunig’s model works in reality or are we just seeing excellence in places where things are superficial.

Sources:

Grunig et al (2006) The Excellence theory. In Botan and Hazleton (eds.) Public Relations Theory II. Mahwah, N.J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roper, J. (2005) Symmetrical Communication: Excellent Public Relations or a Strategy for Hegemony? Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (1), 69-85.

Can local government be (made) interesting?

2010-11-08T09:42:00.004+02:00

Looking at the answers of my small opinion poll in the side bar (ok, you can question the reliability of a poll with only a few participants) it seems like newspapers are as important a channel of information as the internet in local issues. Nobody went to citizen forums or followed city council meetings at the city hall. This does not really surprise me.

What I find more interesting, is that there were also two persons who ticked the box ’Who cares’. They are not alone - local government is not a ’sexy’ topic and for example local elections do not interest people. I find this curious considering the importance of the tasks of the local level. Local government takes care of schools, health care, day care, libraries, roads, parks etc. In addition it is usually the regions biggest employer. That should interest us, shouldn’t it?

Whereas reasons for this disinterest can be found in different things, I am here to think about PR and communication. Are they doing something drastically wrong in the PR departments in the cities?

Steps towards the right direction have certainly been taken. The importance of communication has been acknowledged in most cities and PR professionals are included in the management processes of the city. Municipalities have also adopted the idea of a two-way (symmetrical) communication. This has meant a more active approach towards citizens and is concretely visible in the forms of communication. More attention is also payed to details, for example communicating in an understandable language and avoiding bureaucratic, complex texts. Municipalities are also exploring new communication channels, such as the social media (and not always succeeding, look Jaakko’s blog on cities in the Facebook).

Yet we are facing this problem. If this is a question of PR and communication problems, what should be done differently?

Image or reputation?

2010-11-06T09:10:00.000+02:00

I just could not leave the topic of reputation that I talked about in my last post. I was left wondering the difference between image (imago) and reputation (maine). They seem to be somehow connected and yet have different features. They are also used as synonyms in cities’ marketing strategies as well as the everyday discussions.

Topi Antti Äikäs (2004, 29) defines the difference like this:

Image is an instrument, not the result. The result of

a successful image-building is reputation.

This sentence describes, in my view, quite well what has gone wrong with city marketing. Image has become number one and treated as the result. (In defense of cities and their PR efforts, the difference between the two is now starting to be understood at least in bigger cities.) The city’s PR and communication strategy is of course in focal point here – it has to be built to support themes that have content. In order to do this, it is essential that PR and communication is not an isolated sector in the city management but an integral part of daily life.

The dilemma between image and reputation also applies to other organizations than municipalities. As (future) PR professionals, are we the builders of image or reputation?

Source: Äikäs, Topi Antti (2004) Imagoa etsimässä. Kaupunki- ja aluemarkkinonnin haasteista mielikuvien mahdollisuuksiin. Acta nro 168. Oulu.

The royal Lahti

2010-11-02T10:09:00.001+02:00

The Swedish royalties Victoria and Daniel arrived in Finland on Sunday and the Finnish media seems to be full of stories of how they love our country, how they have enjoyed the visit and how they think everything they have seen is so interesting. (It would be interesting to do a comparison of Swedish newspapers.)

As part of their stay the royalties also visited the city of Lahti. This is a city that in the 1980's wanted to build an image as 'the business city' in Finland. The slogan became a joke rather than anything else, especially after Lahti, with other Finnish cities, plunged into recession and deep unemployment in the 1990's. The slogan and the reality did not match.

Victoria and Daniel in Lahti, research centre Energon.

Kuva: ESS/Mirja Hussain

Now Lahti is building a new image and wants to be 'the Green City'. Vickan was therefore dragged to visit a research centre of renewable energy. What Lahti hopes, of course, is that the media also prints a few stories about Energon besides Victoria. Maybe also some of the glamour and the gold dust of the royalties will cling to the greyish city of Lahti and brighten the image of the whole city.

Cities today are in fierce competition with each other worldwide. They try to create images that attract people and business and try to get their message through, get people talking - a difficult task and some help from a princess would not hurt. Cities also strive to have a good reputation which is more than an image. It is more concrete. According to professor Pekka Aula, a city can only gain a good reputation through real actions - building a fashionable image is not enough. (Kunnallistieteen päivät 13.10.2010) In other words without a relevant content, slogans are useless and images empty.

It remains to be seen if Lahti really becames the 'Green City' - if the slogan becomes reality. But at least Lahti can boast of being the city that Victoria visited in 2010 - a royal city perhaps?

The communication grid

2010-10-28T09:31:00.000+03:00

At best theories and models help explaing the world and its phenomena - such as PR in the public sector. Betteke van Ruler's communication grid is one way of explaining the strategies of PR practice. It is actually a fourfold table that helps understanding the strategies and probably more a model that a theory. Here's the grid (in a little bit simplified form):

CONTROLLED ONE WAY

Information Persuasion

Consensus-building Dialogue

TWO WAY

(van Ruler 2004, 139)

The public sector (inc. local government) today is clearly seeking to emphasis the two way model and wants to place itself in the dialogue box where information is just not provided by the authorities but is being handled in dialogue with the stakeholders (here the citizens). All kinds of citizens forums are organised (see for example in Jyväskylä) and discussion areas are created in the cities' internet site. Citizens are invited to discuss with decision-makers.

Sometimes I feel a bit sick and tired of this fuss about citizen participation. Do we as citizens always care? Do we have the time? As van Ruler notes, the two way communication model needs an aware as well as committed public because without, we are back in the information box.

As citizens, are we the active discussants, eager to interact with the authorities? Or would we just rather let our representatives (the councillors) do their job? Whose job is it to try to activate people - the PR's? Is that not too big of a task for PR?

Source:
van Ruler, Betteke. 2004. The communication grid: an introduction of a model of four communication strategies. Public Relations Review 30. 123-143.

Welcome to Kihniö! (www.kihnio.fi)

2010-10-27T07:19:00.000+03:00

I thought of writing something completely different today, but got inspired after having read Reetta's blog about negative publicity because it looks like local government has certainly had its share of this kind. A quick look at the recent news on the municipality of Jyväskylä in Keskisuomalainen (the local newspaper) gave me this result: the mayor and the the board for culture disagree on whether public libraries should be closed down in some of the suburbs to save money. Not commenting here on the huge role that public libraries have had on this country and its development - a completely different discussion - I just have to say that this is not the first time local government is in headlines with such negative stories. And this is the situation all over Finland.

We Finns are in a new situation. We have been used to municipalities providing us basic services with a decent quality and have been happy (almost at least) to pay our taxes to finance them. This does not seem to be the case anymore. If you go to the health centre to get your teeth fixed, you will have to wait for the appointment with the dentist for several months. Schools lack books and equipment. Old people in the institutions only go outside once a week if the personnel has time. These are municipal services that we have taken for granted but that are now 'underfinanced'. What we see as citizens is bad service and crowded waiting rooms. Is there anything left of our faith in the welfare society and local government as its provider? Could this faith be restored by good communication?

Cuts and savings are political decisions. The task of PR is to give the citizens means to understand and challenge these decisions. This means also bad things have to be told, rather in an early phase of decision-making process. Unfortunately the Finnish culture seems to be in favour for not opening the decision-making for discussion until it is too late and the decisions are already too far prepared.

The worrying thing here is that not all the municipalities see PR and communication as a core function. The problem is perhaps not always in the efficiency and expertise of PR officials than the attitude that our decision-making culture has. According to a survey realised by the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, only 60% of municipalities (n=111) had a strategy or even instructions for PR (when every municipality should have them). Too often (perhaps especially in smaller municipalities) PR and communication are simply neglected and regarded as something that belongs to the business life. Why should Kyyjärvi or Kihniö have a PR strategy? The usual answer is to advertise it as a place to live or to spend your vacations in, admiring the scenery. But to systematically open decision-making?

This probably also has roots in PR history. PR in local governments took its first steps in the 1950's but but it was much more 'suhdetoimintaa', PR in a more traditional meaning, sending messages that would create a favourable attitude towards the municipality and the local decision-makers. The content of the messages was manipulative. It took some time and foreign examples to grow the interest in communication. In the 1970's saw a certain change in attitude towards PR yet it was only in 1980 that the first instructions of PR and communication for local authorities were published. The emphasis was gradually shifted into citizens and their rights to get knowledge and more recently, be involved in decision-making more directly. (Laukkarinen 2007, 6-9.)

Big steps have been taken already and yet there is much to do. Taking look at the history just makes me think - are local governments now in the verge of something new in their PR and communication? What kind of changes are happening right now? Is PR in local government all about image marketing - taking steps backwards?

Sources:
Laukkarinen, Antti (2007) Kuntaviestintä muuttuvassa kentässä. Yhteisöviestinnän lisensiaatintutkimus. Viestintätieteiden laitos. Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Poimintoja viestintätutkimuksen tuloksista. Find the survey here.

PR in local government?

2010-10-20T23:18:00.000+03:00

In this blog I will reflect on questions related with PR in local government. The blog is created as part of the Development of Public Relations processes and history -course at the University of Jyväskylä. As the theme of the course is on history and theory of PR and the scope of the course is worlwide, this will also be a carrying approach in my blog.

PR and local government are not always an easy mix, so it seems. The first seems to be stuck with a reputation of being advertising, selling ideas to reluctant receives and the second carries a fame of bureaucracy and difficult and complicated processes on on hand with out forgetting one main task of Finnish municipalities which is providing citizens a place where they can have a say on matters that concern their daily life (=democracy). How are these to be combined (and why should they)? Do municipalities succeed in this? What is the situation in other countries (here it might be interesting to look at other Scandinavian countries because their systems remind ours)? How did PR enter the world of local government? What kind of theories are used and have affected local government PR? What is and has been the role of PR professionals? What is the relationship between democracy and PR (this is my special interest with a background in political science!)? What is the future of PR in local government?

This blog is an attempt to analyse these questions as well as others that may seem interesting in this framework.

And please do hint me with interesting articles (scientific or other) on PR in local government and tell me about your experiences in Finland or elsewhere. What is your view of PR in local government? Is it existing, does it function and how has it touched your lives (or ha sit)?