Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

dominated by a handful of huge companies
and is likely to remain so.
The implication for PR professionals is that
the internet has changed little in terms of disseminating
a message to a mass audience. The
only effective way to get a message across to
non-specialist audiences in the tens of thousands
and above is the traditional print and
broadcast media. Even for specialist audiences
a trade or special interest publication and its
associated website is still likely to be the best
channel, though there are a few examples of
online magazines which are leaders in their
field: http://www.drudgereport.com/ for US
political exclusives and www.popbitch.com
for showbiz gossip in the United Kingdom.
Disseminating information via the internet
will never have the same impact as traditional
mass media relations.
Where the internet can have a marked
effect on corporate communication is in
utilizing its ability to communicate quickly
and cheaply with relatively small numbers of
people, i.e. in the low tens of thousands and
below. To return to the earlier example, a
developer who built houses in an area where
the rock is known to release large amounts of
radon could achieve a great deal by setting up
a website which provides the latest information
about whether the gas is harmful. A large
company is likely to have the resources to produce
a more comprehensive and regularly
updated site than small groups of campaigners.
Add to this an email blitz directed at
people who have expressed interest in buying
the properties and you have a cost-effective
campaign, though one that would need to be
complemented by coverage in the local media.
Brand and reputation
It is often said that new ICTs have made corporate
brand and reputation more vulnerable. 13
Rumours can fly at lightning speed via email
and receive unwarranted global credibility via
swiftly constructed websites. Mobile phones
have allowed protest groups to organize with
unprecedented efficiency. Pictures and video
can now be sent around the world in a way
that only the richest broadcasters could afford
ten years ago.
However, there is a tendency to accept
these assertions without question: ICTs are
usually a double-edged sword. It is easier and
cheaper to organize small campaign groups
but it is also easier and cheaper for corporate
bodies to monitor these groups and develop
their own relationship with stakeholders.
Well-funded corporations that prioritize stakeholder
relations should be in at least as strong
a position as any campaign group.
If the internet has given a new credence to
unsubstantiated rumour and implausible conspiracy
theories which previously only circulated
via word of mouth is this necessarily a
bad thing Is open public dissection of these
rumours better or worse for public bodies It
leads to many being disproved, like claims
that an airliner which crashed in the Atlantic
had been hit by a stray US missile. When these
rumours are examined by the mainstream
media it gives corporates the chance to put
their case in a reasonably fair fight, and when
the rumours exist only on message boards or
websites it is often easy to have them
removed. In the United Kingdom ISPs are so
afraid of being sued that most remove postings
as soon as there is a complaint, much to
the alarm of free speech campaigners.
However, the speed of current communications
does mean that crises can flare very
quickly. Perhaps the best strategy is to be
proactive, as Hayes has argued: ‘Organisations
that wait for issues to occur before managing
their communications with key stakeholders
often end up with a crisis on their hands.’ 14
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors