I .

V; In: .-
anflhwhi
5.,

. flu. t...
. .
5Q... L.”

15., ‘
4‘ ‘, , .

My ‘ 9
p razfifi

5..

i!- s 5... .
, xv .3
. itvitct.

.flr‘k—I§
5’
t .5!)
”a... ...
.-
asshqmmvfiw
«gnaw
, I»... . u .
LVfIZI’

{1... :2
:SIW::!WHIR .tflfi”...=flnlt I II
§
0%”...
v.

1‘21!!-
2. W
Hi i
romp.»
. 1:
1

dang“.-.

..
19 1-41.“
6.1.! “MW 1

, 5:59 33 I

q .

$3. 3. L... . 1:

£1 nr 1
‘0“ up. u
...

2.:

5.51.... ..
.5333...‘
{xi-2'13.)

V l. 3...»?!
Rh. 3

I:
fin. $4“...
:in. ‘
i=3).

a...
32.29216! .
1-‘Il‘t 16 .t j
‘51-'71! " ‘1‘. ‘ h
33, s 11.3.. 4n».
.zfiiiirgnrlv
niv’nllrlv‘l:

E73,}... a
rats. £5.11
.32..

 

 

$2.9.

. .3320].

v2.3. . . .:v.
..

k... 2 . ...V .
clio ..I.:x. ., a... .I. ;
u 5:. .. niLL: . .

 

 

 

1’ '3 i 3 LIBRARY
Michigan State
U liversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BLOG CONTENT:
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS
AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

presented by

TIMOTHY S. PENNING

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Media and Information Studies

 

 

Mfl d/MA’

 

Major Professor’s Signature

L/ /9{/ M

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KzlProyAchresICIRC/Dateoue.indd

 

FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BLOG CONTENT:
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

by

Timothy S. Penning

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Media and Information Studies

2010

ABSTRACT

FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BLOG CONTENT:
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

By

Timothy S. Penning

Normative theory has asserted that public relations is essentially about the
formation and maintenance of relationships between an organimtion and its publics.
Ethically, the profession has been positively associated with a contribution to informed
decision making in democratic society. Additional research has been mostly descriptive
with regard to how characteristics of public relations practitioners and the settings of
organizations where they work, as well as the different models of public relations
practice, are in keeping with the normative and ethical ideals for the profession. Critical
theory, meanwhile, has presented public relations negatively for its potential to
manipulate or deceive. Much of this research has looked at the effects public relations has
on the public.

This dissertation is an attempt to move research about public relations from
descriptive to predictive. Specifically, it is an attempt to associate independent variables
related to public relations practitioners, the internal and external settings of the
organizations where they work, and the primary model of public relations they practice
with public relations content as dependent variables. A contribution of this study is the

typology of public relations content as being relational or promotional.

Combined methods included an online survey (to identify independent variables)
of public relations professionals solicited through social media platforms and a content
analysis of their organizational Web logs (blogs). Blogs were selected as the content of
focus because the nature of blogs allows for a range of tone and format for more variance
in terms of relational vs. promotional content

The sample was small, largely due to the relatively slow adoption of blogs for
organizational use by public relations practitioners. This made it difficult to achieve
statistical significance in analyses of regression. However, an examination of mean
differences produced some interesting results. Specifically, more relational content
appears to be associated with PR practitioners having more years of experience and years
with a current employer, acting in a managerial capacity, not needing approval of content,
perceiving a high public demand for information, and the two-way asymmetrical model
of public relations. These findings were consistent with the hypotheses in the study.
Other variables were not found to affect content in a meaningful way, which may be
explained by the small sample, but is also consistent with other research that shows
public relations professionals have positive attitudes about blogs and social media but are

as yet slow to use them for public communication and relationship building.

Copyright by
TIMOTHY s. PENNING
2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION ....................................................................... I
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Justification ............................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 7
An Ethical/ Democratic Framework ........................................................................ 7
Variables Affecting Public Relations Content ...................................................... I 1
PR Practitioner Education ......................................................................... l 1
PR Practitioner Experience ....................................................................... 12
PR Practitioner Role Enactment ............................................................... 13
PR Position in Organizational Structure ................................................... 13
Encroachment ........................................................................................... l 4
Dominant Coalition ................................................................................... 15
PR Models ................................................................................................. 17
Regulation ................................................................................................. 18
Environmental Uncertainty ....................................................................... l 9
Information Demand ................................................................................. l9
Competitive Forces ................................................................................... 19
Types of PR Content ............................................................................................. 20
Blogs as PR Content of Interest ........................................................................... 23
The Internet and PR ................................................................................. 23
Social Media, Blogs, and PR Content ....................................................... 30
A Focus on Blogs as PR Content .............................................................. 38
CHAPTER 3
HYPOTHESES ................................................................................................................. 40
Individual PR Practitioners ................................................................................... 40
Practitioner Education ............................................................................... 40
Practitioner Experience ............................................................................. 41
Role Enactmcnt ......................................................................................... 42
Organizational Factors .......................................................................................... 42
Encroachment ........................................................................................... 42
Organizational Structure ........................................................................... 43
Dominant Coalition ................................................................................... 44
External Environment ........................................................................................... 44
Government Regulation ............................................................................ 44
Information Demand ................................................................................. 45
Competition ............................................................................................... 45

Environmental Uncertainty ....................................................................... 46

Public Relations Models ....................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 48
Sampling of PR Practitioners to Survey ............................................................... 48
Sampling of Blogs for Content Analysis ............................................................. 52
Operationalization of Variables ........................................................................... 53
Analysis ................................................................................................................. 59
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 61
Description of Data ............................................................................................... 6]
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 61
Description of Blog Content ..................................................................... 63
Analysis ................................................................................................................. 65
Factors Associated With PR Practitioners ................................................ 66
Factors Associated With the Organizational Structure ............................. 68
Factors Associated With the External Environment ................................. 70
Factors Associated With Models of PR .................................................... 70
A Review of Other Variables of Interest .................................................. 72
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 76
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 76
Contributions of This Study .................................................................................. 77
Future Research .................................................................................................... 8O
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 84
Appendix A: Survey Appeal and Questionnaire ................................................... 84
Appendix B: Content Analysis Protocol and Code Sheet ..................................... 89
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 93

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics: PR Practitioners ............................................................. 62
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics: Organizational Characteristics ....................................... 63
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics: Blog Content ................................................................... 64
Table 4: Summary of Regressions ................................................................................... 67
Table 5: % Relationship Content Means Comparison

of Key Individual Variables ................................................................................. 68
Table 6: % Relationship Content Means Comparison

of Key Organizational Variables .......................................................................... 69
Table 7: % Relationship Content Means Comparison

of Public Relations Models .................................................................................... 71
Table 8: Regression Summary of Comments/Links ......................................................... 72

Table 9: % Relationship Content Means Comparison
of Additional Variables ......................................................................................... 74

vii

Chapter I: Introduction And Justification For The Study

Introduction

Generally speaking, views of the public relations profession are mixed. From a
critical perspective, public relations is often equated with “propaganda.” In this view,
often cultivated by the news and entertainment media, public relations is given a
pejorative connotation that implies deliberate and deceitful manipulation of the truth and,
in turn, of public opinion (Callison, 2004; Ewan, 1996; Jo, 2003; Miller, 1999; Shaw &
White, 2004; Sparks, 1993; Spicer, 1993; Stacks et al., 1999; Stauber & Rampton, 1995;
C. White & Lambert, 2006). Meanwhile, normative scholars and many public relations
practitioners have advocated that public relations benefits democratic society by helping
to enable informed decision making by individuals and groups (Boynton, 2006; Cheney
& Dionisopolous, 1989; Coombs & Holladay, 2007; Cutlip et al., 2000; Fitzpatrick,
l996b, 2006; J. E. Grunig, 2001, 1992a; J. E. Grunig & Grunig, 1992; J. E. Grunig et al.,
2006; Hutton, 1999; Kruckeberg, 2000; PRSA, 2009). It is interesting to note that both
the critical and normative views of public relations have a conceptual basis in democratic
theory—particularly the notions of free expression, public debate and deliberation, and
civil discourse.

There is anecdotal evidence for both the criticism and praise of the profession as
reported in mainstream media and PR trade publications such as PR Week and Public
Relations Tactics. There are cases in which public relations professionals and the
information they disseminate has deceived the public, whether that was the intent or not.

Examples of this could range from unclear or inaccurate product information to framing a

crisis in a positive or blame—free way. There are also cases where the work of public
relations professionals has indeed added to a more complete understanding of an
organization, a point of view, or a public issue by volunteering information more
complete than what is in the news media or otherwise attainable by the public.

But the truth about public relations is not absolute in either direction. It is not a
complete assessment to refer to information as “just public relations,” implying that
public relations information is never accurate or that the practitioners of public relations
are always intending to deceive (Coombs & Holladay, 2007). Public relations is also
advocacy. However, it would be naive to suggest that the public relations profession is
entirely pure in the intentions of its practitioners or the effect of its content.

What becomes interesting then is to more closely examine public relations as one
form of media information in the crowded democratic public sphere and to focus on the
conditions under which public relations has a deleterious effect or positive contribution to
society. While scholars have done this in the past, the focus has mostly been on the
effects of public relations information—as mass media content—on the public. But a
study of the antecedent influences on public relations materials as media content has been
mostly overlooked.

By comparison, there have been many studies of the influences on journalism
content (Bagdikian, 1973-1974; Beam, 2003; Berkowitz, 1997; Curran, 2005; Gans,
2003; Kovaeh & Rosenstiel, 2001; Singer, 2001; Tuchman, 1991). These studies include
a range in focus from social aspects of the newsroom to individual journalist
perspectives, forms and causes of media bias, and the economic factors that cause

market-driven news content. Such studies are important given the role of journalism in

democracy. But public relations has a role as well, not just in providing information
subsidy to journalists, but increasingly providing information directly to the public via
direct mail, advertising, online and in-person communication. Nevertheless, there has not
been as much similar focus on the factors that explain the differences in the content of
public relations from one organization to the next.

There have been a variety of studies addressing variables affecting public
relations at the individual, organizational, and institutional level (Berger, 2005;
Berkowitz & Hristodoulakis, 1999; Bowen, 2009; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Dozier
& Broom, 2006; J. E. Grunig et al., 2006; Hutton, 1999; Kelleher, 2001; Moss et al.,
2000; Plowman, 1998; van Ruler & de Lange, 2003). But the focus of these studies has
been on the causes affecting the power of public relations practitioners, the firnction that
public relations plays in an organization or the model of public relations that is practiced.
While some attention has been paid to categorizing the resulting types of public relations
content (discussed in detail in the literature review), little if any research has identified
which variables are associated with specific types of content. Doing so will help enable a
consideration of public relations beyond whether the profession as a whole is “good” or
“bad” for democracy—in terms of enabling the public to make informed decisions--to
look at the varied influences that cause public relations content to be either good or bad to
greater or lesser degrees.

This dissertation proposes and tests a set of hypotheses addressing how factors
related to individual public relations practitioners and their organization’s characteristics
affect the degree to which public relations communication disseminated to the public is

self-interested (promotional) as opposed to dialogic (relational). Essentially, promotional

content is more often one-way, seeking only to benefit the organization. Relational
communication is closer to the normative ideals for the profession and is characterized as
two-way, listening to and responding to the needs of publics as well as seeking to achieve

the needs only of the organization.

Justification for The Study

The various concepts in previous studies related to public relations practice at the
individual and organizational level have been treated as dependent variables. The
variables associated with individual PR practitioners include their education in public
relations, amount of experience, and the specific role or power they have in the
organization where they work. Organizational variables include the structure, such as
whether the PR fimction reports to the CEO and whether PR people are part of the key
decision making group in an organization. External variables are also important and
include government regulation as well as perceived public demand for information and
whether the environment is competitive and/or uncertain; These variables are firrther
explained in Chapter 3. A contribution of this study will be to treat those concepts as
independent variables and focus on their relationship to the specific output or
textual/verbal content of public relations work. A promotional/relational continuum of
public relations content is another contribution of this dissertation. An empirical
consideration of the influences or causes of these types of public relations content would
help clarify the understanding of the term “public relations” and the practice of the

profession. In addition, the social and ethical perception and development of the public

relations profession could be enhanced if the preferred normative form of public relations
content—Le. relational content--can be correlated with specific antecedents.

This exploratory dissertation will draw together various factors from previous
research—including factors associated with individual practitioners, the place of the
public relations function in an organization, and the form or model of PR an organization
practices——and extend that previous research by associating it with the continuum of
public relations content that results from these various factors. Because factors associated
with a corporation or organization are included, PR practitioners who are in-house or on
the “client side” will be the focus with practitioners working for an agency and outside an
organization excluded from this study.

The specific content to be analyzed for this study will be organizations’ official
Web logs, or blogs. This focus is appropriate not only because blogs are a new
phenomenon in need of more research on their content, but because blogs have the
potential to be more conversational than other forms of PR content (e.g. news releases,
annual reports etc.) and therefore more likely to vary from one organization to the other.
The relative newness of blogs and the rate of adoption to them as a new medium may be
a factor in varying content. However, the individual and organizational variables outlined
in this study should be the primary causes of the tone of the content in blogs.

Ultimately, testing hypotheses about factors affecting public relations content
could be a step toward building a public relations theory about what causes public
relations content to be closer to the ideal of relational communications. Such a step will
also move the field from normative to more explanatory scholarship. Results of the study

should be of particular interest to public relations scholars and practitioners, but

hypotheses that explain or predict the causes of specifically categorized types of public
relations content could also be instructive to others in the fields of communication and

media studies.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
An Ethical/Democratic Framework

Ideally, public relations practitioners and the content they disseminate to the
public should be honest, open and beneficial to members of society. This ideal is
articulated in one of the more common academic definitions of public relations as “the
management function that identifies, establishes, maintains mutually beneficial
relationships between an organization and all of the publics on whom its success or
failure depends” (Cutlip et al., 2000). While there are other attempts to formally
characterize the profession, Coombs and Holladay point out that the idea of “mutually
beneficial relationships” has come to dominate current definitions of public relations
(Coombs & Holladay, 2007).

Similarly, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the largest
international organization of public relations practitioners, locates the societal role of
public relations in its Code of Ethics. Specifically, PRSA underscores its commitment to
the public interest in advancing the goal of “informed decision making in a democratic
society.” The code principle of “free flow of information” states that “protecting and
advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the
public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.”
This provision implies that PR practitioners have an obligation to ensure that all parties
have access to information, and not only select individuals. Similarly, the provision on
“disclosure of information” states that all information be shared openly, without holding
select facts from the public because the PRSA believes that “open communication fosters

informed decision making in a democratic society” (PRSA, 2009). The definition and

ethical perspective of public relations stress that having positive relationships with the
public and enabling them to make well-informed decisions should be the primary
objectives of public relations practitioners.

Viewing public relations content in the context of democracy stems from notions
of the public sphere popularized by Habermas (Habermas, 1962). He characterized a
political or fully developed public sphere as one in which public issues and the common
good can be openly debated. Originally journalism, i.e. the news media, was seen as the
primary institution that enabled the dialogue in the public sphere. But Habermas
criticized the media for moving from a neutral and civic role to an instrument of party
politics and then to a commercial interest. He claimed the public sphere became co—opted
as a forum for advertising and that public relations campaigns had private vs public
interests in mind:

“private ads are always directed to other private people insofar as they are

consumers; the addressee of public relations is public opinion, or private citizens

as the public and not directly as the consumer” (p. 182).

This observation by Habermas in 1962 is an indication that public relations plays
a role in the democratic public sphere. As recently as 2006 Habermas extended this idea
and noted that there are five actors in the public sphere in addition to journalists and
politicians: lobbyists and advocates for causes, experts, moral entrepreneurs, and
intellectuals (Habermas, 2006). Habermas also concedes that the power structures—and
the subjects for public discussion—include economic and social issues as well as politics.

Other scholars concur with Habermas that public relations plays a role in the

public sphere and that dialogue can be about more than politics. Negt and Kluge (Negt &

Kluge, 1988) reviewed various interpretations of the public sphere and concluded that
advertising and publicity campaigns of business change the characteristics of the public
sphere by targeting individuals in a private sense. They call this a “pseudo public sphere”
of more organized and polished communications that overlays the classic public sphere.
Kellner (Kellner, 2000) proposes that new media have enabled multiple public spheres to
proliferate and include a range from Intemet-bascd to face-to-face communications. He
asserts that rather than fragment people and the public sphere, new media will do more to
enable the original ideal of the public sphere as a forum for informed discourse.
Fitzpatrick uses the notion of a “marketplace of ideas” to include commercial subjects
into the informed discourse in the public sphere (Fitzpatrick, 2006). She asserts that
public relations professionals have an ethical duty to consider whether their work
contributes to or interferes with the free market process.

The idea that businesses as well as political entities need to be open and provide
information that citizens/consumers need to make adequate and informed decisions is
known as “corporate social responsibility” (Carroll, 1999). Corporate social
responsibility or CSR is another way of saying corporate public relations professionals
should go beyond private gain to participate in the public sphere with the public interest
in mind. Shoemaker and Reese (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996), in a review of influences on
mass media content, extend the idea that public relations may play a larger role in the
public sphere today than the long-heralded news institutions, largely because of the
nature of journalistic routines. Specifically, they cite the prevalence of news “beats” that
reinforce ideas of what should get covered and discussed as problematic for exposure of

new ideas and organizations. As a result, they stress that public relations efforts may be

the only way for certain groups to get coverage or to participate in public discourse.
Similarly, in a study of the rise of public relations in Britain, Davis (Davis, 2003) notes
that public relations helps resource-rich sources control the news, but at the same time
helps resource-poor sources gain media access. He concludes that since the 19905 public
relations by alternative interest groups “began to break into established elite discourse
networks to use the media to bring public policy debates more into the public sphere” (p.
41).

In spite of formal definitions and ethical guidelines, there is certainly no
consensus that public relations contributes to democracy by fostering relationships and
public dialogue. Public relations professionals also must attend to the needs and interests
of the organizations where they work, be they a business, a nonprofit, or government
entity. Those organizational “voices” of advocacy could be part of the social dialogue for
self-interested reasons or for social benefit. But there is a disconnect between idealistic
notions and critical assessments of the profession. Much of the criticism dwells on
anecdotes and case studies and then indicts the entire profession as something that
inhibits dialogue and relationships. As Coombs and Holladay point out, “synecdoche is
used as argument” (Coombs & Holladay, 2007). On the other hand, public relations
educators point out that the definition of public relations provided by academics should
be seen as aspirational or normative, not an actual representation of the field in all cases
(C. White & Lambert, 2006). The question then moves from whether public relations is
good or bad to an examination of the factors that cause public relations professionals and

their work to move closer to or further from the democratic ideals for the profession.

10

Variables Affecting Public Relations Content

Previous research has identified a variety of variables that affect PR practitioners
and their practice. Some are at the individual level, or relating to public relations
practitioners. Other variables are at the organizational level. Still others are forces from
outside the organization. While not all previous studies related these variables
specifically to content or public relations output, such an association is implied.
Deliberately measuring the association of these variables to PR content is the focus of
this study.

PR practitioner education.

Not all people practicing public relations have had the same amount or type of
education in public relations. The education of a public relations practitioner has several
dimensions, including self-study, workshops and seminars at professional associations,
and professional accreditation (APR) (Plowman, 1998). Recently, a college degree with a
public relations major has been emphasized as a fundamental education for public
relations professionals. A commission of public relations educators and practitioners
determined that to distinguish a quality public relations education an undergraduate
program should include “ethics and transparency, new technology, integration of
communication messages and tools, interdisciplinary problem-solving, diversity, global
perspectives and research and results measurement” ("The 2006 report of the commission
on public relations education", 2006). Not all public relations practitioners have a formal
degree in the field, are members of a professional PR association, or have accreditation in
public relations. It would be interesting to explore whether an educational background

makes a difference in the nature of the content public relations professionals disseminate.

ll

PR practitioner experience.

Professional experience has traditionally been understood as the number of years
a practitioner has worked in public relations (O'Neil, 2003). However, it is also possible
to consider the quality or type of experience, in terms of specific PR tasks performed or
the types of strategic vs. merely tactical expertise gained (Toth et al., 1998). The ethics of
a practitioner is another dimension of experience. Research has shown that practitioners
with more than five years of experience identified a set of ethical values consistent with
those proscribed by the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics—
advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and faimess—and that
trustworthiness and respect were additional PR ethical values expressed (Boynton, 2006).
PR practitioners with higher levels of professionalism (measured on a 20-item scale that
included appreciation for the PRSA Code of Ethics and years of experience in PR as well
as in current role) were found to have higher levels of CSR than practitioners with lower
levels of professionalism (Kim & Reber, 2009). The PRSA Code of Ethics also lists six
“provisions” or principles to guide practitioners’ practice: free flow of information,
disclosure of information, avoid conflict of interest, safeguarding confidences, fair
competition, and enhance the profession. Others point out that the ethical nature of public
relations communication should be dialogic (Pearson, 1989). A practitioner’s ethics has
also been related to their role as a social policy-maker in an organization (Kruckebcrg,
2000). While practitioners’ experience and ethics varies, such differences have not yet

been associated with differing forms of PR content.

12

PR practitioner role enactment.

Role enactment refers to the way a PR practitioner actually performs his or her
job. The public relations literature consistently describes two primary public relations
roles: manager and technician (J. E. Grunig & Grunig, 1992). The roles were determined
by surveys of practitioners and subsequent factor analysis to arrive at these definitions: a
manager primarily makes decisions and works with the management of an organization; a
technician primarily writes and produces communication tactics (Dozier, 1992).
Practitioners often perform tasks associated with both roles, but perceive their role as
predominantly one or the other. In other words, manager and technician roles are
different but not mutually exclusive (Dozier & Broom, 1995). The enacted role may not
necessarily be consistent with the practitioner’s perceived role, given other organizational
factors (Moss & Green, 2001; Toth et al., 1998). Role enactment can also be understood
through enactment theory, which posits that people enact the scenes they know and
expect to be rewarding (Heath, 1994).

PR position in organizational structure.

This concept can be understood as the location of a public relations department
within an organization’s hierarchical structure or flow chart (van Ruler & de Lange,
2003). This has also been conceptualized as the reporting relationship, or at what level in
an organization is the person to whom the most senior PR practitioner is responsible or
reports (O'Neil, 2003). A high position of the PR function would be one in which the
senior PR practitioner reports directly to the CEO, whereas a low position would be one
in which the senior PR practitioner reports to a vice president or manager of another

department, such as marketing. Structure is often visible in the manner of who gives

13

whom direction of work tasks (Heath, 1994). Another consideration of PR in
organizational structure is the size of the PR department. Kim and Reber found PR
practitioners’ professionalism was higher as their department size was larger (Kim &
Reber, 2009). Larger departments are typically higher in the structure than smaller
departments.

Theoretically, if the PR position is lower in an organizational structure, the public
relations staff may be merely a conduit reflecting the messages of others higher in the
structure. Meanwhile, if the PR position is higher on an organization structure it is more
likely that the public relations practitioner is instrumental in creating—not just passing
along—organizational messages. The difference in structure could lead to a meaningful
difference in public relations content.

Encroachment.

Encroachment is a process in which a different organizational function usurps
responsibilities of public relations. Lauzen, afler a study of the concept, specified that
encroachment on public relations occurs when professionals with expertise in such fields
as marketing, law, human resources, or engineering occupy the senior public relations
position in an organization (Lauzen, 1992). Other functional areas taking specific tasks
such as investor relations or government relations from the public relations department
could also be considered encroachment (Hutton, 1999). Still another way to understand
the concept of encroachment is when public relations practitioners have their work
reviewed by other professionals in the organization, such as lawyers (Fitzpatrick, l996a).
Encroachment could have an obvious effect on public relations content. If persons with

backgrounds in other fields control an organization’s public communication, it is

14

reasonable to expect it to vary from that which would otherwise be produced by public
relations professionals. For example, as the literature points out, someone in marketing
would likely be primarily interested in sales as opposed to relationship building whereas
someone in law has an instinct to say as little as possible to protect an organization.

Dominant coalition.

A dominant coalition is the group(s) within an organization structure that holds
the authority to make the decisions, and thus determine organizational values. More
specifically, the concept has been defined as “the group of managers who hold the most
power in an organization” (J. White & Dozier, 1992). Berger emphasizes that the power
of the dominant coalition comes from a variety of sources, including authority, coercion,
charisma, expertise, information, reward, and sanctions (Berger, 2005). Dominant
coalitions rely on informal interaction to define their membership, which can shift rapidly
(L. A. Grunig, 1992b).

The literature emphasizes that public relations professionals should gain
membership in the dominant coalition in order to advise on and influence an
organization’s reputation and credibility (Dozier & Grunig, 1992). In a series of
interviews, focus groups and open-ended surveys with communication professionals,
Bowen (Bowen, 2009) found that there are five routes for communication practitioners to
gain membership in the dominant coalition. Each of these routes is related to other
variables outlined in this dissertation. Facing a serious crisis was described most often as
the route by which public relations practitioners gained the attention and reliance of the
CEO and other management. This relates to the variable of environmental uncertainty

mentioned below. Bowen notes that a crisis often provided a PR professional with

15

temporary access to the dominant coalition, but not long-term access. An ethical dilemma
was found to be a second route, although it is dependent on an organization’s culture and
consideration of ethics in the first place, as well as the ability of a practitioner to consider
issues and counsel from an ethical perspective. For this reason, this route is related to
practitioner education and accreditation, mentioned previously. A third route to the
dominant coalition was credibility gained over time. Bowen points out that credibility is
two-fold: both for the profession of public relations itself and for the practitioner. In the
case of the practitioner, credibility was gained over time with a history of correct
analysis. Therefore, this route relates to the variable of experience in public relations and
experience with an organization. When an organization is the focus of news media
coverage, either through its own efforts or an industry-related subject of interest, it
proved to be another route for the public relations practitioner to gain access to the
dominant coalition. Here again, however, the access was short term and not a sustained
membership in the coalition after the media issue and coverage subsided. This route
relates to the variable of information demand that will be described below. A fifth and.
final route to the dominant coalition is leadership, which Bowen characterizes as a
practitioner having authority and responsibility in the organization. Naturally, having a
leadership position is a route to the dominant coalition for a PR professional. This route is
related to the variables organization structure, particularly reporting directly to the CEO,
as well as encroachment.

The way that members of the dominant coalition view the role of public relations
in the organization has been described as the dominant coalition’s schema (J. E. Grunig

& Grunig, 1992) or worldview (J. E. Grunig & White, 1992) about the purpose of public

16

relations in an organization, and it affects strategic management. It is a natural extension
to expect that an organization’s attitude about public relations will be reflected in its
public relations content. Thus the presence of the top PR person in an organization’s
dominant coalition becomes an important variable influencing the nature of its public
communication content.

PR models.

A public relations model refers to the way in which public relations is practiced
by an organization. The typology of PR models developed by Grunig and Hunt (J. E.
Grunig & Hunt, l984)——press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetric, two-
way symmetric--has been the basis of most of the subsequent research on public relations
models. These models may be seen as the historical evolution of public relations, but
organizations today may also practice more than one model depending on various internal
and external factors (J. E. Grunig & Grunig, I992) (Plowman, 1998). The four models
are defined here:

0 Press Agentry—PR practice model that is one-way and uses persuasion and
manipulation to influence audience to behave as the organization desires. Similar
to propaganda.

0 Public information—PR practice model characterized by one-way communication
techniques to distribute organizational information in a truthful and accurate way.

0 Two-way Asymmetrical—PR practice model that is two-way and characterized by
communication that is dominated and initiated by the organization. In this model,

research is used “to identify messages most likely to motivate or persuade

publics” (J. E. Grunig & Grunig, 1992).

I7

o Two-way symmetrical—PR practice model that is two-way and is characterized
by equal participation and opportunity for an external public to initiate
communication. Research is used “to facilitate understanding and
communication” (J. E. Grunig & Grunig, 1992), p. 289).

As defined, it is easy to see a potential relationship between a model of PR
practice and resulting public relations content. Organizations rarely practice one model
exclusively, but the two-way symmetrical model is considered the most ideal. Models
have also been reconsidered as dimensions of public relations behaviors: mediated,
interpersonal, two-way, ethical, social, and symmetrical (J. E. Grunig, 2001; Rhee, 2002).
Sha (Sha, 2004) added a seventh dimension called conservation, meaning organizational
unwillingness to change. Her more recent study found that using symmetrical
communication is more effective in encouraging stakeholders to identify with an
organization than is a conservation behavior (Sha, 2009).Thus, the degree to which an
organization practices two-way symmetrical PR is the variable of interest.

Regulation.

Certain types of organizations are regulated by government agencies and as such
are under a mandate to communicate certain information or in a certain way. For
example, public companies have rigid reporting requirements under Sarbanes-Oxley
legislation and other SEC filings requirements. Other companies, such as pharmaceutical
or food manufacturers, whether public or private, may operate in an industry that is
subject to government regulation (Moss et al., 2000). Such a regulatory burden has an
obvious effect on public relations content, causing practitioners to exercise cauion in

public communication, and must be considered a variable of interest.

18

Environmental uncertainty.

Environmental uncertainty refers to an organization operating in an unstable
context, or one in which situations can change without warning. It has been found to have
minimal effect on organizational decision making when managers conduct environmental
scanning (Okura et al., 2009), a common communications planning process. However, a
lack of clarity or confidence about a situation may have an effect on the nature of public
relations content disseminated in such an environment.

Information demand.

This variable can be understood as organizational managers’ perception of an
intense public expectation for particular information or form of communication. This
concept is derived from the two-way symmetric model of public relations mentioned
above. If that model of PR is concerned with facilitation of communication, then
managers will be sensitive to perceived demand from any of their publics. This demand
may be construed as negative (e. g. activists) or positive (e. g. customers seeking new
product information). A major driver of this information demand is corporate social
responsibility, or CSR. One recent study noted the increasing importance of CSR and
notions of corporate citizenship and sustainable development among various publics,
including consumers, investors, employees, community, journalists and others (Capriotti
& Moreno, 2007). Public relations managers who sense information demand will likely
be influenced with regard to the nature of the content they produce in response.

Competitive forces.

Davis argues that public relations is used to gain a competitive advantage over

rivals (Davis, 2000). This indicates that the presence of competing organizations is a

19

factor in public relations content. Other research has considered a rapidly changing or
competitive industry context to be a factor in improving the perceived value of public
relations (Moss et al., 2000). While some might argue that the trend toward Customer
Managed Relationships, in which customers have more control of interactions with
organizations, would lead organizations to provide more content and be transparent as a
competitive advantage (Law et al., 2003). However, another study showed that managers
have a concern for leaking proprietary information to competitors (Serini, 1993). But the
amount of information shared publicly is not at issue in this study as much as the tone of
the content being more promotional or relational. It follows that higher and lower levels
of perceived competitive environment would be a factor in determining the tone of an
organization’s public relations content.

Types of Public Relations Content.

Discussions of public relations content often begin with intentionality. Most agree
that persuasion is implicit, if not always explicit, in public relations content (Pfau & Wan,
2006). However, the intentions behind public relations don’t completely describe the
form of its resulting message content.

Kelleher (Kelleher, 2001) noted the specific type of public relations role
determined a preference for written or oral communication differed for managers and
technicians. However, he focused on communication among coworkers and clients, not
with external publics. Also, he called for firture research to go beyond media choices to
look at specific content of resulting communications.

Several studies have looked at particular communication tactics or strategies,

which comes closer to content. A study of annual reports, a common example of a public

20

relations tactic, considered not only the intended purpose and relevant audience of annual
reports, but the nature of the language used in them (Simlowitz & Pearson, 1989). This
content-specific consideration of annual reports resulted in a three-part typology of
annual report content: traditional, characterized by language with determined and
predictable effects; enlightened, in which the language mirrors reality; and interpretive, in
which language constructs reality.

Another typology of public relations content emerged from a study of public
relations strategies: informative, facilitative, persuasive, and cooperative/problem-solving
(Werder, 2005). While this typology is associated with public relations strategies, the
proposed Operationalization of them involved consideration of the resulting message
content and are instructive in forming a content typology in their place.

Proposed models or philosophies about public relations practice are also
instructive when considering PR content. The earliest set of such models characterized
public relations in four ways: press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical,
and two-way symmetrical (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). These models of public relations
were seen as a linear and historical evolution of the field, but they also are different forms
of practice organizations adopt today. Originally conceived of as discrete, the four
models have subsequently been described as falling on a continuum contingent on how
much public relations activities are intended to serve the organization’s or publics’
interest (Cancel et al., 1997).

Hutton expanded on this when he proposed “managing strategic relationships” as
a definition of public relations along with three dimensions—interest, initiative, image—

to explain the different orientations of public relations: to what extent the public relations

21

 

function is focused on its own versus public interest; the extent that public relations takes
initiative as opposed to being reactive; and to what extent the organization’s public
relations is focused on image as opposed to reality (Hutton, 1999).

Another study looked at the communication process and distinguished between
personal and interpersonal communications as a new paradigm for studying public
relations. A proposed continuum depicts “pure personal communication” as closed and
intended to dominate, whereas the other end of the continuum features “pure
interpersonal communication,” which is open, dynamic, and intended to find mutual
definitions of meaning (Toth, 2000).

A model (Broom et al., 1997) viewing public relations as organization-public
relationships (OPRS) considered antecedents, status, and consequences of relationships
with publics. Relevant to this study, the status of organization-public relationships was
evaluated by patterns of communication engagement, which relates to content. Thus, the
public relations models and dimensions of practice could more accurately be seen as
antecedent to specific forms of content. This dissertation therefore proposes a new
typology of public relations content:

0 Promotional—a form of PR content concerned with advancing the interests of the
organization. This relates to the concepts of self-interest, image, asymmetry and
interpretive in the dimensions of PR and content types described above.

0 Relational—a form of PR content concerned with mutual relationship building
between an organization and multiple publics. This form of content is the most
ideal and is associated with the facilitative and cooperative strategies, the

symmetrical model, and the interpersonal communication process in the literature.

22

The forms of PR content in this typology are not mutually exclusive.
Organizations may produce differing amounts of each type of content over time, although
one form will likely predominate over time. Promotional content may be considered more
typical “typical” given the public perception of public relations. Relational content
represents the ideal and preferred form of public relations content according to literature
mentioned above. The question is what causes organizations to communicate more
relational or promotional content. The best context to notice the difference is in

organizational Web logs, or blogs.

Blogs as Public Relations Content of Interest

The World Wide Web had a significant effect on the practice of public relations
before Web logs (blogs) emerged as a communication tool. To understand the role of
blogs in public relations, it is important to consider the Internet generally before
discussing blogs in particular.

The Internet and public relations.

Only a decade ago most PR practitioners had a limited view of the potential of
Web sites for public relations work. PR professionals interviewed suggested that a Web
site represented an organization’s competitiveness and enhanced its image, and gave an
added sense of professionalism to practitioners (Hill & White, 2000). In the same study,
it was evident that Web site maintenance was a “second tier” task handled bytechnicians,
not PR managers. More recently, however, a broader range of applications of the Internet
to PR purposes has been recognized. In an analysis of Internet trends transforming public

relations, Christ (Christ, 2005) points out that technology enables PR professionals to

23

engage stakeholders with more customized messages, involving multi-media
components, and to and reach them more efficiently with the technologies of Really
Simple Syndication (RSS), which publics can use to subscribe to an organization’s online
information and receive automatic updates, and search engine optimization (SEO), which
involves writing materials with popular key words so that an organization’s online
content appears in the results pages when members of the public use online search
engines. He adds that “consumer-generated media” on an organization’s own or third-
party Web sites can be an asset and a challenge for public relations efforts, given that the
consumer content could either support or challenge an organization’s own messages.
The literature shows that both corporations and nonprofit organizations began
using the Internet for public relations purposes in the late 19905. At that time, the focus
was on Web sites. Scholarship was critical of public relations practitioners’ use of Web
sites as not being fully interactive and focusing on only select publics for primarily
organizational goals. A 1998 analysis of Fortune 500 company Web sites (Esrock &
Leichty, 1998) showed that large corporations used the Web to enhance their image as
socially responsible companies and to advance their own policy positions. Few
corporations used their Web pages to monitor public opinion. Therefore, corporations
tended to use the Web to disseminate information and promote their own interests and
didn’t employ the interactive features of the technology to facilitate two-way
communication. A similar study at the time (Esrock & Leichty, 1999) found that
corporations used the Web to address the media, customers, and the financial community
but stopped short of using the technology to reach other publics. A year later the same

researchers (Esrock & Leichty, 2000) found the focus on media/customers/investors to be

24

the most common among corporate Web sites, but that internal (e.g. dealers, employees)
were also addressed by some companies. That study also found that product and company
information as well as press releases were the most common types of information found
on corporate Web sites. Information that was less self-serving, such as about social
issues, charity, and community service, was included but much less often. A general
survey of PR practitioners in 2003 (Porter & Sallot, 2003) showed that practitioners, and
in particular managers, are using Web technology more often for research and evaluation
and issues management. Use of the Web for two-way communication and participation in
online communities by practitioners was moderate to low. More recently corporations
have been making greater efforts to build relationships with publics. A study of the top
100 Fortune 500 company Web sites (Park & Reber, 2008) showed that the media,
customers, and investors are still the primary publics, but employees and other publics
were addressed. Also, companies seemed to have a better understanding of the interactive
capability of Web sites but not all employ those dialogic features to promote relationships
with publics. Corporations were found to promote relationships by providing information
useful to each public and allowing publics to express their thoughts via email response, or
completing a “dialogic loop.” But the study concluded that corporations can do better to
encourage repeat visitors to engage publics in dialogue and build relationships.

Studies of the use of the Internet by nonprofit organizations have also shown a
slow adaptation of relationship-building features. A study of 100 environmental
organizations concluded that such nonprofit Web sites had the technical and design
aspects needed for online dialogic relationship building, but they were not engaging their

publics in two-way communication (Taylor et al., 2001). The study also determined that

25

these nonprofits were more focused on member publics than the media or other publics.
Similarly, a study of the 100 largest nonprofit organizations found that they were using
their Web sites mostly to present traditional public relations materials (e. g. press releases
and annual reports) online, but were not successful in using the Web sites for interactive
communication with publics to build relationships (Kang & Norton, 2004). A more recent
content analysis study of the Chronicle of Philanthropy ’s “Philanthropy 400” list of
nonprofit organizations showed that the top nonprofits had more information about
themselves and included copies of annual reports, mission statements, and organizational
goals on their Web sites, whereas lower ranked nonprofits had an approach similar to
sales and used e-commerce technology and terminology to facilitate online donations.
However, even the top nonprofits struggled to create relationships with publics. Many
collected email addresses and offered feedback forms, but few offered discussion forums,
live chat or other efforts of relationship building on their Web sites (Waters, 2007).

The criteria that public relations communication online should seek to build
relationships is consistent with public relations literature about relationships generally.
Long before the Internet was a common communication tool, Ferguson (Ferguson, 1984)
called for relationships to be the theoretical focus of public relations. Ledingham argued
for relationship management as the essence and general theory of public relations
(Ledingham, 2003). Public attitudes about a relationship with an organization and the use
of dialogue to build those relationships has been found to increase public support for
organizations (Bruning et al., 2008). Bruning et. a1. add that measuring mutual benefit for
an organization and its publics should be the focus of public relations evaluation. They

also argue that OPRs must be personalized and that practitioners should avoid a one-size-

26

fits-all approach to relationship building. Kent and Taylor (Kent & Taylor, 2002)
proposed five tenets of an organization’s dialogic orientation include: mutuality, an
acknowledgement that an organization and its publics are tied to each other; propinquity,
characterized by the organization consulting publics and the publics providing input;
empathy, an atmosphere of support and trust; risk, the organization’s willingness to
interact with publics on their own terms; and commitment, seen as the organization’s
genuine effort at conversation with and understanding of its publics. Similarly, Hon and
Grunig (Hon & Grunig, 1999) derived six measures of organization-public relationships:
control mutuality (the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to
influence the other, with a preference for stable and equal control); trust (the belief that
an organization is fair and dependable); satisfaction (positive expectations about the
relationship are reinforced); commitment (each party feels the relationship is worth
continuing); exchange relationship (one party gives benefits to the other only because
they have received benefits or are expected to); communal relationship (both parties
provide benefits to the other out of general concern for the others’ well being). Ki and
Hon (Eyun-Jung Ki & Hon, 2009) adapted these measures of two-way communication
into measures of an organization’s relationship cultivation strategies: access (the degree
of effort that an organization puts into providing communication channels or media
outlets that assist its strategic publics in reaching it); positivity (the degree to which
members of publics benefit from the organization’s efforts to make the relationship more
enjoyable); openness/disclosure (an organization’s efforts to provide information about
the nature of the organization and what it is doing); sharing of tasks (an organization’s

efforts to share in working on projects or solving problems of mutual interest between the

27

organization and its publics); networking (an organization’s efforts to build networks or
coalitions with the same groups that their publics do); assurances (any efforts by an
organization to assure its strategic publics that they and their concerns are attended to)
(p7-9).

Connecting the relationship literature in public relations to an online context has
been the specific focus of additional studies. Ki and Hon (E-J. Ki & Hon, 2006) found
that openness and access were the most common relationship cultivation strategies
among Fortune 500 companies on their Web sites. Interactivity, or the extent to which
users can participate and the organization responds, was found to have a significant effect
on an organization’s relationship building with its publics, whereas multimedia elements
such as video and photos did not (Jo & Kim, 2003). The design of a Web site was also
found to be important, inasmuch as the more dialogically oriented an organization
appears in its Web site design, the more likely an organization is to respond to public
information seeking (Kent at al., 2003). The same study found that relationship-building
design features were more likely to be found on the Web sites of membership
organizations than activist organizations. Such design features included clearly
identifying and welcoming specific publics and providing feedback options. Conserving
visitors was-shown to be dependent on having important information on first page, a short
load time, and revealing the date that information was last updated. Taylor et. al. assert
that building lasting relationships requires seeing publics as more than customers or a
means to an end. In a review of two-way Web communication tools, Bailey (Bailey,
2009) described wikis, discussion forums, question and answer forums, and blogs that

allow user comments as having the most equitable power distribution. Unmoderated

28'

content is even more equitable. User feedback forums, static frequently asked question
(FAQ) pages, and “contact us” forms are seen as the least equitable.

Dialogue and conversational voice have been stressed as the most important and
effective means of relationship building online. An oft-cited article by Kent and Taylor
(Kent & Taylor, 1998) provides five theory-based principles for creating dialogic
relationships with publics on the Internet. The principles include: having a dialogic loop,
or allowing publics to query organizations and the organization responds to specific
queries; usefulness of information, or content of value to all publics based on their
interests and concerns and not just the organization’s; generating return visits, by the use
of regularly updated content; intuitive and easy interface, or clear design without
distracting “bells and whistles”; conservation of visitors, or keeping them engaged with
various pages on the organization’s own site and not offering too many links to external
sites. Kelleher (Kelleher, 2007) points out that two-way communication is not necessarily
dialogic: “dialogic communication requires real people to get (and stay) involved in the
conversation” (p. 49). Citing media richness theory, Kelleher points out that equivocal
communication typical of relationship building calls for richer media. He therefore
advocates that PR professionals who want to build relationships online should use “peer
to peer” online media—characterized as two-way, symmetrical, facilitative, dialogic, and
having the perspective that ‘markets are conversations’—as opposed to what he called
“server side” communication tools—onc-way, asymmetrical, creator-type/denotativc,
monologic, and with the attitude that “markets are targets” (p. 54). The notion that
“markets are conversations” was the theme of the popular book “Cluetrain Manifesto,”

first published in 2000 and updated recently (Levine et al., 2009). Kelleher (Kelleher,

29

2009) correlated conversational voice online with the relational outcome measures of
trust, satisfaction, commitment and control mutuality. He notes that an organization
sounds more conversational online when multiple voices are allowed to communicate on
behalf of the organization. In another work, he refers to this as “distributed public
relations: the intentional practice of sharing public relations responsibilities among a
broad cross-section of an organization’s members or employees, particularly in an online
context” (Kelleher, 2007) (p. 98). For this reason he characterizes conversational human
voice as “an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by
an organization’s publics based on interactions between individuals in an organization
and individuals in publics” (Kelleher, 2009) (p. 177). Such a voice is typical in an aspect
of the Internet that has come to be known as “social media.”

Social media, blogs and public relations content.

“Social media” has been difficult to define. It has been characterized as online
content that involves more participation by the public and includes user-generated
content (Tredinnick, 2006). Breakenridge characterizes social media as an evolution of
the Internet “from thousands of separate Web sites into thousands of communities”
(Breakenridge, 2008) (p14). She adds more plainly that it is anything that uses the
Internet to facilitate conversations between people, consistent with the two-way approach
favored in public relations. Speaking more broadly, Li and Bemoff view social media as
part of a larger trend they call the “groundswell,” “in which people use technology to get
what they need from each other instead of from companies” (Li & Bemoff, 2008)(p. x).
Similarly, social media has been described as a societal change in how people

communicate: “the democratization of content and the understanding of the role people

30

play in the process of not only reading and disseminating information, but also how they
share and create content for others to participate. It is the shift from a broadcast
mechanism to a many-to-many model, rooted in a conversational format between authors
and people” (Solis, 2007).

Most commonly, social media is associated with specific forms of media or
technological tools that enable user-participation and user-generated content.
Breakenridge (2008) says social media encompasses all the media in which people
collaborate. Other authors specify that these tools include Web logs (blogs); wikis, sites
that allow posting and editing by anyone, not just the host; podcasting, audio and video;
Second Life, virtual communities in which users have ‘avatars’ to represent themselves;
social bookmarking sites, places where uses save online content and can see what others
have saved and judge the most popular content, such. as Delicious.com or
Stumbledupon.com; message boards; social networking sites, such as F acebook or
MySpace; Twitter, a microblogging site in which posts are 140 characters or less; and
other tools people use to disseminate and share information (Gillin, 2007; Jaffe, 2007; Li
& Bemoff, 2008; Russell, 2007; Scoble & Israel, 2006; Solis, 2007).

Of the social media tools, blogs are the oldest and increasingly in use by
corporations, nonprofits and political candidates and agencies. Blogs have been defined
as personal Web sites with content consisting of “posts” including both facts and opinion'
and displayed in reverse chronological order (Holtz & Demopoulos, 2006; Scoble &
Israel, 2006). There were nearly 122 million blogs in existence as of October 24, 2009
(BlogPulse, 2009). One consumer survey reported that 25% of American consumers read

blogs at least once a month (Bemoff & Li, 2008). Corporate blogs are relatively new.

31

They have been traced to 2004, when Sun and Microsoft were reported to be the first to
allow blogging under the company name (Breakenridge, 2008). The use of corporate
blogs has been growing as well. A survey of 297 communication professionals with
heavy usage of social media showed that 78% used blogs while online video and social
networks were the next most popular forms of social media used, at 56% and 49%
respectively (SNCR, 2008). Technorati, a Web site that tracks blogs and conducts annual
reports on the “blogosphere,” reported in 2009 that the majority of corporate bloggers
(people who write blogs on behalf of a corporation) spend 1-5 hours per week blogging
and update the blog between once a day and once a week (Technorati, 2009). Another
2009 study showed that public relations and communications professionals are spending
more time at work with blogs and other social media: 11% spend 26-50% of their time
with blogs and social media, 30% spend “-25% of their time with blogs and social
media (Wright & Hinson, 2009). There is some evidence that Twitter is becoming more
popular than blogs. A study of Fortune 100 companies found 54% use Twitter, 32% have
a blog, and 29% actively use a Facebook fan page (Burson-Marsteller, 2009). Twitter is
limited to only 140 characters per “tweet”, and many organizations use both Twitter and
blogs, or use Twitter to draw attention to a blog post. Some use Twitter instead of blogs
because it is less labor intensive. A study of the Fortune 500 companies showed that 81
of the 500 (16%) have blogs, a slow adaptation compared to charities (5 7%), higher
education (41%) and the Inc. 500 (39%) (Barnes & Mattson, 2009). However, while the
adoption of blogs is slower among the Fortune 500, the authors point out that many more

are blogging now than in previous studies. Also, the higher ranked companies tend to

32

blog more than the lowest ranked: 38% of the top 100 compared with 10% of the bottom
100. It is anticipated that corporate or organizational blogs will continue to increase.
There are various types of blogs. A wide-ranging assortment of blogs have been
identified, including individual citizen blogs, news organization blogs, advertising, CEO
commentary, employee blogs, customer-service, business/professional issue commentary,
internal information sharing, knowledge management applications, marketing, and
organizational promotion (Dearstyne, 2005) (p 41 ). Others have tried to refine the varied
list of blog types into categories. Kent (Kent, 2008) refers to traditional blogs, or personal
opinion blogs of individuals, and news blogs, which include posts from news sources and
readers comment on the posts. Another categorization is personal blogs, containing a
person’s personal convictions, topic or industry blogs, focused on trends and information
about a particular subject area or industry, publication-based blogs, which are an outlet of
traditional news media, and corporate blogs, which include insights and commentary
from a single company (Smudde, 2005). Several authors note that company blogs could
be a single “voice” of the company in one blog, or it could contain posts from many
employees in a “blog roll” or aggregation of posts on one site. Additionally, an executive
blog is a corporate blog written by a CEO or another member of a company’s senior
management (Gillin, 2007; Scoble & Israel, 2006). Others prefer the term organizational
blogs because it represents blogs from many types of organizations, not just corporations.
Organizational blogs have been defined by their characteristic, namely a combination of
personal reflection and professional communication, as well as meeting three criteria: 1)
maintained by people who post in an official or semi-official capacity at an organization,

2) endorsed explicitly or implicitly by that organization, and 3) posted by a person

33

perceived by publics to be clearly affiliated with that organization (Kelleher, 2008).
Trammel (Trammel, 2006) has pointed out that political or campaign blogs have emerged
in recent years as another specific type of blog.

The literature shows that public relations professionals are using blogs in
corporate, nonprofit, and political settings. Gillin points out that PR people have flocked
to social media because it plays to their strengths as relationship managers (Gillin, 2007).
But PR professionals are not using blogs in the same way, to the same degree, or for the
same purpose consistently. Attitudes about blogs as a useful tool for their work are
generally positive among PR professionals. In one study of PR professionals, the majority
agreed or strongly agreed that that blogs and social media have changed the way their
organization communicates, enhanced the practice of public relations, and offer a low-
cost way to develop relationships (Wright & Hinson, 2009). Similarly, another study
revealed that PR professionals see the enhancement of relationships with key audiences
as the most important measure of the effectiveness of blogs and social media (SNCR,
2008). However, while attitudes PR professionals express towards blogs and social media
are consistent, their actual practice with the new technology is more varied and not
always consonant with attitudes. Porter et. al. (2007) found that PR professionals who
write a blog feel they have more expertise and prestige power than practitioners who do
not blog. They also identified a natural evolution of blog use by PR professionals: routine
informational purposes, followed by more strategic and professional, albeit passive,
orientation to blogs, and culminating in use of blogs to engage publics in two-way
communication (Porter et al., 2007). Another recent study identified a disconnect

between PR professionals and publics recognizing the relational benefits of social media

34

and actually using them. Surprisingly, professionals who had blogs and social media
introduced as part of their regular work environment were less likely to use the relational
features and accommodate public desire for information than were professionals in a low-
tech environment (Kelleher, 2008). Another study revealed that PR professionals will
state that they embrace the Internet as a tool for two-way communication, but in practice
most are still only reading blogs as opposed to creating them (Sweetscr et al., 2008). The
mean response of practitioners was between “never” and “infrequently” when asked if
they used blogs for 2-way communication, to express ideas or opinions, communicate
with others, or maintain blogs for a client or their organization. In the same study,
journalists indicated they favor interactive uses more than PR professionals. Kent
concludes in a critical essay of blogging and public relations that while there is agreement
about the professional potential for blogs their use as a professional tool in public
relations is currently limited (Kent, 2008).

Part of the reason that PR professionals do not use blogs more often or more
effectively may be attributed to the newness of the technology and a lack of
understanding about how to employ blogs and other social media to meet organizational
goals. For this reason, much has been written about the recommended or ideal nature of
blogs compared to other more traditional public relations communication tools. The
literature stresses that since public relations should be about building relationships, blogs
should be used for that purpose. To do so, blog content should strive to build relational
trust and adapt a human or conversational voice in a form of communication that is

considered dialogic.

35

Four variables that influence relational trust in blog-mediated public relations
have been identified (Yang & Lim, 2009). Saliencc of narrative stmcture is critical to
communicate transparency and integrity to blog readers, lest they suspect a blog is an
attempt at manipulation. Yang and Lim explain four dimensions of narrative structure in
blogs: an informal and personal tone, messages framed as stories and not as
pronouncements or official statements, organized as other narratives are over time in
reverse-chronological order, and finally seeking salient audiences, which involves putting
oneself in a reader’s place and anticipate how they would interpret and respond. A second
variable influencing relational trust is the dialogic self of the blogger, which is developed
in an ongoing process of bloggers’ interactions with others. Yang and Lim point out that
the dialogic self is best cultivated through two-way symmetrical communication (J. E.
Grunig & Grunig, 1992), which is characterized by balanced comment and response and
seeking mutual understanding as opposed to persuasion and coercion. Blogger credibility
is a third variable affecting relational trust. Yang and Lim consider blogger credibility
similar to the concept of source credibility. With blogs, however, credibility can be
determined over time by observing with whom they primarily communicate and why they
blog. The key factors of blogger credibility are the perceived expertise and
trustworthiness of the source as experienced over time by readers. All three of these
variables affect a fourth influence on relational trust in blog communications:
interactivity. Yang and Lim point out that interactivity should not be seen as a technical
capability, but as a psychological factor. They therefore define it as “the likelihood of
engagement in interaction, the perceived ease of interaction, and the degree or rapport

that is activated” (p. 347). They also point out that blogs can be more or less conducive to

36

interaction by having frequent updates, alerts about new content (i.e. RSS feeds), and
original content as opposed to links to news or other blogs.

Experimentation has shown that individuals perceive organizational blogs to have
conversational human voice more than traditional Web pages (Kelleher & Miller, 2006).
Kelleher and Miller list five characteristics of blog that enable them to have such a voice:
I) frequent updating of content, 2) posts arranged in reverse chronological order, 3) posts
with material in a personal journal style, 4) the ability of readers to add comments, 5) the
inclusion of hyperlinks. In addition to these basic characteristics, Kelleher and Miller
stress that bloggers can achieve a human voice if they demonstrate being open to dialog,
welcome conversational communication, and provide prompt feedback. A tone of the
writing can also be a factor, such as a demonstrated sense of humor, admitting mistakes,
treating others as human, and providing links to competitors as opposed to always
promoting oneself. Blogs are also distinct from traditional Web sites and therefore more
dialogic or conversational because of their ease of interface and conservation of visitors
(Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007). Extraversion and self-disclosure traits have been found to
translate well to blogs to support relationships (Stefanone & Jang, 2007). He suggests
that computer-mediated communication (CMC), at least in the form of blogs, rather than
promoting isolation, can enhance existing relationships. Jaffe (Jaffe, 2007) advises that
good conversation on a blog should be natural, honest, open, balanced, organic, and viral.

Achieving conversational voice on an organizational blog is likely not immediate.
Kelleher found that those members of the public with the greatest exposure to a blog
were more likely to perceive an organization as communicating with conversational voice

(Kelleher, 2009). For this reason he supports distributed public relations, with multiple

37

voices from an organization in a blog so publics encounter many individuals in an
organization over time, i.e. more exposure, and thus will be more likely to perceive the
organization as conversational, which in turn strengthens the relationship. This notion is
supported by others who assert that a corporate voice is the public expression of authentic
identity (Levine et al., 2009).

The literature also supports the fact that there is a distinction between
conversational and promotional content on organizational blogs. The consensus of advice
(Gillin, 2007) is that blogs should strive for the former, conversational, with the goal of
relationship building being primary over traditional and self-interested goals of
advocating a position or achieving sales. Gillin emphasizes that blogs should not be
hijacked by marketers as a vehicle for commerce. Alluding to encroachment, he advises
that blogs should be the work of public relations professionals who should focus on
relationship building. Others confirm that social media—including blogs-~is different
than marketing in that there is a loss of controlled messages and organizations must join
and participate in the ongoing public conversation as opposed to trying to manage it (Li
& Bemoff, 2008). Scoble and Israel (Scoble & Israel, 2006) frame it concisely, noting
that there are two schools of public relations evident in the blogosphere: “command and
control” and “listen and participate”. (p. 100)

A focus on blogs as public relations content.

Those two schools of public relations relate directly to the two forms of public
relations content to be the focus of this study. A “command and control” mindset would
lead to promotional content, focused on an organization’s self-interest. A posture of

listening and participating would more likely lead to public relations content that is

38

relational, or intent on building and maintaining mutual relationships. While the literature
reviewed covers many aspects of social media, blogs, the proscribed use of them by
public relations professionals, and the varied adaptation of public relations professionals
to the Internet and blogs, there is a gap in the literature in showing what causes public
relations people to use blogs for relationship building as opposed to another form of
promotion. That will be the contribution of this dissertation.

While the results of this study may not be generalizable to public relations tactics
or content beyond blogs, the focus is not entirely on blog content. Rather, this study seeks
to associate variables that determine whether public relations content is relational versus
promotional. Blogs are used as the content to analyze because of their unique
characteristics—conversational voice, dialogic, interactive—that allows for more
variation in content from one organization to the next. That in turn will lead to more
meaningful results in associating the variables at the practitioner and organizational level

with specific types of content.

39

Chapter 3: Hypotheses

Drawing from the literature, this study proposes a set of hypotheses to test. The
hypotheses treat the degree of relational vs. promotional content as the dependent
variable and all other variables as independent. The hypotheses are organized according
to the variables as explained in the literature review. “PR practitioner” in each hypothesis
relates to the survey respondent. “PR content” refers to organizational blog content in
particular since that will be the source material for content analysis as representative of
organizational content overall. The hypotheses are organized in four sets, relating to
individual PR practitioners, factors related to the organization where the practitioner

works, the external environment, and the types of PR models practiced.

Individual PR Practitioners
Education.

H I a: Public relations practitioners with a college degree in public relations will be
associated with higher relational PR content than public relations practitioners
without a degree in public relations.

H] b: Public relations practitioners who are accredited in public relations (APR) will be
associated with higher relational PR content than practitioners who are not
accredited.

The individuals who practice public relations represent a wide variety of
backgrounds. It is not a requirement to have a degree or accreditation in public relations
to practice. Therefore, practitioners without a formal education or accreditation in the

field are left to “define” public relations based on personal impressions or assumptions.

40

Public relations majors or programs of study in colleges and universities, by comparison,
present public relations from the aspirational perspective and normative theories
mentioned earlier that public relations is essentially about relationship building. Those
who are accredited had to pass an APR exam that stresses the relational view of public
relations. It used to be a requirement of PRSA that a practitioner had to achieve five years
of experience prior to taking the exam, but that requirement was removed. Therefore,
experience and having APR are not necessarily correlated. It follows that those with a
college education and/or accreditation in public relations would be more likely to perform
their jobs in a way that leads to content that is relational in nature.
Experience.
H2a: The more years of experience a practitioner has in public relations, the more the
content they produce for their organization will be relational.
H2b: The more years a PR practitioner has worked with their current organization, the
more the content they produce for their organization will be relational.

As a practitioner works in the field of public relations, it is likely they will
develop more skills and also deepen their knowledge of the profession, whether they had
an education in the field previously or not. Professionals talk to peer professionals and
attend professional conferences, raising the potential that the longer they are in the field
the more likely they are to understand the relational perspective of the field.

As for years with the same organization, H2b relates to the idea of leadership and
power mentioned previously. More years with an organization may increase a

practitioner’s authority and autonomy, thus meaning they have greater control over the

41

final word on public relations content. If this is the case, it is plausible that organizational
PR content would be more relational than promotional.

Role enactment.

H3a: The more a PR practitioner enacts a manager role, the more the organization 's PR
content will be relational.

H3 b: The more a PR practitioner enacts a technician role, the more the organization '3
PR content will be promotional.

Role enactment is not categorical. PR practitioners enact management roles to
varying degrees, working in a “manager” role at times and “technician” role on other
occasions. The more often a PR professional enacts a manager role, the more likely he or
she will make strategic and philosophical decisions about PR content in terms of what
and how to express messages to publics. PR technicians, by comparison, would have
responsibility and authority for writing and designing communication tactics, with less
control over actually what to say on behalf of the organization. The work of a technician
is more likely to be vetted and altered by someone else in the organization. If content is
controlled by a person with a public relations mindset, it is more likely to be consistent
with the PR ideal of relationships, whereas a technician taking orders from someone
without a PR perspective may be influenced to produce content more promotional in
nature.

Organizational Factors

Encroachment.

H4 .' The less encroachment there is on the PR function in an organization, the more that

organization will exhibit PR content that is relational in nature.

42

This hypothesis is related to the ones above in that a public relations
professional’s ability to control content should allow them to be consistent with the
relational ideal of the profession. Other functions in an organization, e. g. marketing, are
more prone, given the purpose of their function, to push content that is one-sided and
promotional in nature. While marketing professionals also seek relationships with
consumers as part of the marketing process, the nature of relationships is more
“exchange” than “communal” (Huang, 2001) and for the ultimate purpose of generating
sales as opposed to the relationships being the end goal. This would likely lead to content
that may be relational to a degree, but less so than that controlled by a public relations
practitioner.

Organizational structure.

H5a: Organizations that have autonomous public relations departments will exhibit
content that is more relational than organizations that do not have an
autonomous public relations department.

H5 b: Organizations in which the senior public relations professional reports directly to
the CEO will exhibit more relational content than organizations where the top
public relations person reports to an intermediary between themselves and the
CE 0.

As mentioned in the literature, power in organizations can be evident in the
arrangement and autonomy of departments as well as the hierarchical authority or lines of
reporting. These two hypotheses therefore posit that more power vested in either a PR
department or the senior individual practitioner would make relational content more

possible.

43

Dominant coalition.

H6: The more an organization includes the PR practitioner in the dominant coalition, the
more that organization '5 content will be relational.

As stated in the literature, the dominant coalition is the group of people who
possess the decision-making power in an organization. Again, dominant coalitions——-and
the public relations practitioners’ access to and membership in them—are not static. So
the presence of a public relations practitioner in the dominant coalition is a continuous
variable. While management decisions affect various aspects of an organization, the
content an organization makes public is certainly one visible result of the dominant
coalition. Also, as asserted in the literature, the dominant coalition’s “schema” about the
proper role of public relations and how it should be practiced could directly impact the
nature of content the organization makes public. If a public relations person is part of that
coalition and contributing to its deliberations from a relationship-oriented perspective, it
is more likely that the decisions regarding content will stress a relational orientation.
External Environment

Government regulation.

H 7 .' The less a PR practitioner perceives there to be government regulation of an
organization, the more the organization '5 PR content will be relational.
Government regulation tends to inhibit open communication for fear of violating

a rule and facing a fine or other penalty. Public companies are regulated by the SEC and

face strict guidelines on when and how to communicate anything that may be material or

affect the price of a stock. Other companies that are part of a particular industry may face

regulations that specifically restrain content from being fully open. For example, food

44

and drug companies have restraints on what they can say about their products from the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, a perception that there is minimal

government regulation could cause a PR practitioner to feel unrestrained and thus more

conversational and relational in public communication.
Information demand.

H8: The more a PR practitioner perceives there to be demand for information from
external publics, the more the organization ’s PR content will be relational.
Information demand could come from the news media or any of a number of

external publics. The sense that any external force is demanding information from an

organization would tend to elevate the role and importance of the public relations person
in the organization, thus giving them more control over what is communicated. Also, the
perceived demand for information could pressure the PR practitioner not only to respond
to the demand, but to do so in a way that is more specific to the particular information
needs of publics. In other words, communication content will be more symmetrical, not
only repetition of organizational messages that are self interested. Content is more likely
to be an attempt at mutual understanding and adjustment, which is a way of
characterizing relational content.

Competition.
H9: The more a PR practitioner perceives that the organization exists in a competitive

environment, the more the organization ’s PR content will be promotional.

45

Environmental uncertainty.

H10: The more a PR practitioner perceives that there are uncertain factors related to the
environment in which the organization exists, the more the organization 's PR
content will be promotional.

A sense of an environment that is competitive or uncertain would likely trigger
instincts of competitiveness and caution, respectively, in a public relations practitioner
and his/her co-workers. Either way, the posture of competition or caution would manifest
itself in PR content that is more promotional as evidence of an organization trying to gain
a competitive edge and/or achieve more clarity or certainty regarding market share, donor
loyalty and other factors associated with the organization’s environment. While it could
be argued that relationship building leads to a competitive edge, these hypotheses assert
that more often competition and uncertainty create urgency and diminish the sense of
freedom to be more conversational and relational in public communication.

Public Relations Models

H I I a: The more an organization adopts a press agentrjy model of public relations, the
more its PR content will be promotional.

H 1 lb: The more an organization adopts a public information/publicity model of public
relations, the more its PR content will be promotional.

Hl 1c: The more an organization adopts a two-way asymmetrical model of public
relations, the more its PR content will be promotional.

H1 1d: The more an organization adopts a two-way symmetrical model of public

relations, the more its PR content will be relational.

46

This set of hypotheses may seem obvious or tautological. However, the models of
PR practice have not been tested or associated empirically with a form of content output.
Two-way symmetrical communication has been equated in the literature as the most ideal
or excellent form of public relations practice. It is characterized by striving for mutual
understanding of an organization’s benefits and genuine concern for mutual well being,
or mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. The
literature also makes clear that two-way symmetrical communication is consonant with
the conversational, dialogic form of communication advocated to take advantage of
online communication media to build relationships. Again, the models of communication
are not mutually exclusive; organizations may engage in different PR models at different
times. But the organizations that strive most often for two—way symmetrical
communication would be most likely to naturally express themselves publicly with
relational communication. The other models, because of their relatively higher concern
for organizational interests than public interest, would be more inclined to public

communication that is promotional.

47

Chapter 4: Method

All of the independent variables—related to PR practitioners and organizational
factors—were measured with an online SurveyMonkey.com survey of PR practitioners,
screening for in-house PR professionals in organizations that have an organizational blog
(see appeal email and survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The dependent variables—
types of PR content (promotional or relational)—wcre measured by content analysis of
the practitioners’ organizational blog content, based on the URL (web address) provided
by the practitioners in the survey. (See protocol and code sheet in Appendix B).
Sampling of Public Relations Practitioners to Survey

Social media has proven to be a popular forum in which individuals from many

professions “gather.” One such social medium, Linkedln (www.linkedin.com) is more

 

associated with professional networking than social interaction. Within this site are
several groups for public relations professionals. These groups include “Network of PR
Professionals,” “Public Relations and Communications Professionals,” and a group for
members of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). In addition, Facebook
(www.facebook.com) has a group called the “Official Facebook Public Relations Group.”
The membership in these groups as of November 2009 was 8,031, 17,822, 4,524, 12,700
respectively, for a total sampling frame of 43,077. This is an estimate; numbers in these
groups keep growing. Also, some professionals may be members of more than one group;
in those cases, the online survey will only accept one respondent from a given IP address
so no one will take the survey more than once. Since these individuals are public relations

professionals and have joined PR-specific groups with the intention of learning about and

48

discussing public relations, they were considered to be more likely to respond to a request
to take a survey. The researcher is a member of all four of these groups.

Respondents were solicited via “discussions” posted to the Linkedln and
F acebook group forums mentioned above. Discussions and other group updates are
visible to all members when they log in to their account, or they can select to be notified
of updates periodically via email. Different individuals check their accounts with
different frequency (daily, weekly, or over longer periods of time). For this reason, the
solicitation protocol included frequent appeals to take the survey, including different days
of the week and times of day. Participation was encouraged with an idealistic incentive:
the ability to enhance the public relations profession by contributing to an understanding
of the influences on PR content.

The “peer professional” appeal and the salience of the survey topic did not
generate response as anticipated. One week of daily appeals yielded 34 responses. This
low response was likely due to several factors. For one, as indicated previously, the
appeal message is not “static,” i.e. it does not stay in one place, such as an email inbox, to
ensure respondents even see the appeal. Instead, they appear in a “stream” with the most
recent discussions in these LinkedIn and F acebook forums at the top. Thus, if potential
respondents were not checking within a brief period they might not have seen the appeal
at all. This problem was compounded recently as these groups have become more active,
with anywhere from 10-75 “updates” a day. Secondly, the appeal screened for
practitioners who are in-house and working at an organization that had an organizational
blog. It is possible that many potential respondents who saw the appeal did not respond

because they either worked for a public relations agency, i.e. were not in-house

49

practitioners, or if they were in-house they worked at an organization that did not have an
organizational blog.

Given these limitations, the protocol was expanded to reach out via Twitter
(www.twitter.com) which has become an increasingly popular social medium for many
people, including public relations professionals (Burson-Marsteller, 2009; SNCR, 2008;
Waters et al., 2009). Specifically, the researcher sent “direct messages” (a one-to-one
message on Twitter) to three individuals on Twitter who tweet regularly about PR issues
and each have more than 10,000 “followers” on Twitter, many of whom are PR
professionals. These included Mark Ragan, CEO of Ragan Communications
(twitter.com/MarkRaganCEO), Steve F amsworth, a social media consultant from Silicon
Valley (twitter.com/Steveology), and Todd Defren, principal at Shift Communications in
Boston/San Francisco (twitter.com/TDefren). In addition, the researcher tweeted an
appeal with a link to the study, which was re-tweeted by others in his network. Over a
period of two more weeks of appeals via Twitter (as well as continued appeals in
LinkedIn and Facebook) the number of responses rose to 88, still a smaller response than
desired or expected.

An additional effort to boost response involved asking the presidents of the four
Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) chapters in the Midwestern state where the
researcher resides if they would email the survey appeal to their members. The proximity
was expected to enhance the likely response. Two of the chapter presidents agreed to
email the appeal to their members, a total of 240 individuals. This resulted in 31

additional responses for a total of l 19.

50

A final attempt to increase response was to use a regional business publication’s
list of “Top 100 Companies” in a 12-county region in the same Midwestern state. The
“companies” were businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government organizations and
were “top” based on the number of employees in the area. Some were locally based,
some were national or international organizations with a facility in the area. Thus, the list
provided a good cross section of organizations. The researcher checked the Web sites for
each organization (provided in the list) to check for the presence of or link to an
organizational blog. From the list of 100 companies, 13 had blogs. Appeals were sent to
the public relations person at each of these 13 organizations, yielding an additional seven
responses.

Thus, the total number of responses to the survey was 126. However, a large
number of respondents did not indicate an address for “their organization’s primary blog”
or they noted they did not have one. Additionally, the final data set was checked to ensure
that there was only one respondent from any given organization. In two cases where two
PR practitioners from the same organization had responded, the second instance was
removed from the data set. As a result the final number of responses useful to this study
was 53.

In addition to the reasons noted above for the low response, another major
explanation for a small sample is the fact that many organizations do not have
organizational blogs. Since this study was begun, several studies have been published
indicating that the adoption of organizational blogs has been slow for both corporations
and nonprofit organizations. A recent study of the Fortune 500 and Interbrand Top 100

companies showed that only 59 had corporate blogs in 2008, up only slightly from 31 in

51

2006 (Cho & Huh, 2010). Meanwhile, a survey of 409 nonprofit public relations
practitioners revealed that only 48% “used” blogs—which could mean reading and
commenting on other blogs and not necessarily writing a blog as a PR tool for the
nonprofit organization where they work. These same nonprofit public relations
professionals were more likely to use social networks (54%) and video sharing (48%)
than blogs (Curtis etal., 2010). Adoption of other forms of social media more rapidly
than blogs is evident among corporations as well. A review of social media by Burson-
Marsteller (2010) shows that while 65% of the Fortune “Global 100 Companies” have
started Twitter accounts, 54% have F acebook “Fan Pages”, and 50% have YouTube
channels, only 33% have corporate blogs. The same phenomenon is the case with the
local sample mentioned previously in this study of Top 100 Companies in a 12-county
region of a Midwestern state. While 13 companies on that list have blogs, 21 have links
to a Facebook page and 18 to a Twitter account.

It is impossible to determine a response rate since the actual number of
practitioners solicited who are in-house and have organizational blogs is not known. But
given the slow adoption of organizational blogs mentioned above, and the fact that
previous studies have not attempted to combine a survey of practitioners with content
analysis of their blogs, it can be argued that a sample of 53 is appropriate for this study

and it provides a benchmark for future research.

Sampling of Blogs for Content Analysis

Survey respondents were asked to provide the address (URL) for their

organization’s “primary” blog. As mentioned in the literature, some organizations have

52

more than one blog or person blogging, but often these are aggregated into a “blog roll”
on a single site. The study unit was the primary organizational blog because this study’s
focus is on the nature of the organization ’s voice in its public content.

Blog content is organized in reverse chronological order and provides an
accessible source for content analysis. The timeframe of the study was one quarter (three
months). Since the analysis was done in early 2010, blog posts from the last quarter of
2009 (October-December) were be analyzed. For each organization, the last post from
each month (the first one appearing) was downloaded and printed for content analysis. In
cases where the frequency of posts was too low to have one from each month of the
fourth quarter, the three last posts of that year were used. Each organization or “case” had

three posts for analysis.

Operationalization of Variables

Measures for the independent variables related to PR practitioner and
organizational factors come from survey questions from previous research, with some
adapted or newly constructed for this study. Public relations practitioners’ education was
measured by asking categorical questions about whether or not a practitioner has a
college degree in public relations and whether or not a PR practitioner has APR
accreditation (Plowman, 1998) (See all questions in the survey in Appendix A).
Additionally, the survey asked if the respondent was active in the professional
organization PRSA, since many practitioners may have neither accreditation nor a degree
in PR but have learned about the field from the professional association. A practitioner’s

experience has traditionally been measured as a demographic variable of years of

53

experience in public relations (O'Neil, 2003). Additionally, this survey asked for the
number of years of experience in PR at the current employer since that may also have a
bearing on the PR role they enact in the organization. Another question sought whether
the respondent was the top PR person in the organization, mid-level or entry-level, since
that could have a bearing on the organization’s resulting blog content as well.

The remaining questions (other questions relating to type of organization,
organizational structure, and the organizational blog) used a seven-point Likert-type scale
with responses ranging from 1: “never” to 7 = “always,” providing interval level
measurement of these variables. The most common scale in the literature for measuring
public relations practitioners’ actual role on the manager/technician typology was
developed by Dozier and Broom (1995). Questions are specific to a practitioner’s actual
behavior as a manager (e. g. “I operate as a catalyst in management’s decision making”)
or technician (e. g. “I produce brochures, pamphlets and other publications”) and not just
their job title or perceived role. Questions for this study are adopted from the scale used
by Dozier and Broom to address the primary activities of respondents that relate to
management decision-making and strategy versus production of communication tactics.

As for organizational factors, encroachment is seen as interference from other
organizational functions or a lack of autonomy (Serini, 1993). Thus, Fitzpatrick (1996)
looked specifically at the frequency that public relations decisions and activities needed
approval from lawyers. This study did not specify a particular eneroacher but asked about
the frequency with which the PR practitioners’ written work is vetted or approved by

anyone outside the PR department or function.

54

O’Neil (2003) operationalized structure by asking respondents if “all of your
organization’s public relations practitioners or communicators are located in one
department or location or multiple departments and locations?” (p. 162). This study
modified the question slightly to ask yes-no categorical questions about whether the
public relations professional(s) in an organization are in a separate department. A second
yes-no categorical question to address reporting relationship asked specifically if the
organization’s top PR professional (or outside counsel) reports directly to the CEO,
which is an indication of a favored place in organizational structure.

In a similar way, O’Neil (1993) made the concept of dominant coalition more
understandable by using the term “inner circle” and asking in a survey if practitioners
were a part of it. But since theoretically dominant coalitions are fluctuating over time and
by situation (L. A. Grunig, 1992b), this could be considered a continuous variable by
using the Likert-type never-always scale asking practitioners how often they participate
in management decision making or meetings.

External factors were also measured with a series of never-always questions
regarding the organizations’ public communications. For example, questions addressed
whether public communication is done to comply with regulations (government
regulation), as a response to public demand (information demand), as a reaction to
competitor’s actions and communication (competitive forces), or is influenced by
unpredictability in the industry/economy (environmental uncertainty).

Since public relations models are ways that an organization practices public
relations, PR models were measured by asking practitioners about their organization’s

philosophy or intentions for public relations communications work. There are four

55

questions in the scale developed by Berkowitz and Hristodoulakis (1999) that were
adapted to measure a preference for each of the four PR models in the Grunig typology of
public relations practice. Berkowitz & Hristodoulakis were testing which model
practitioners desired; this study tested the actual model practiced most often (models are
not mutually exclusive; an organization can practice all four models of PR at different
times depending on situations). So, never-always questions addressed whether public
relations materials are intended to put the organization in the best possible light in the
mass media (press agentry) or to provide objective information to publics using various
tactics (public information). As for the two-way models, respondents were be asked if the
organization listens to public feedback in order to better reach organizational objectives
(asymmetrical) or to respond to public ideas and concerns (symmetrical). There were four
distinct questions, one for each model, to correspond to the hypotheses about each of the
models.

While previous questions were directly associated with the hypotheses, additional
questions were asked to explore if other variables may exist that affect the nature of blog
content. Respondents were asked if they have final say over blog content (vs. a superior
approving it), and if the blog represents one voice of the organization or the voices of
several individuals within the organization.

In addition to these questions, the actual content of organizational blogs was
analyzed directly—in order to not rely only on self-reports of respondents in the survey.
As stated previously, an organization’s public relations content is not entirely

promotional or relational—an organization could have degrees of both in different blog

56

posts or within a single post. The question was in what proportion do organizations use
these forms of PR content.

Coders—two experienced communication professionals with master’s degrees
who serve as adjunct instructors, in addition to the researcher—determined if each
sentence in downloaded blog posts was “relational” or “promotional.” The number of
total sentences in a post, as well as the number that are relational or promotional, were
coded and counted. After coding was complete, the researcher calculated the percentage
of relational as well as promotional sentences for each case. The percentage of content
that is relational is the dependent variable in hypotheses that mention relational content;
similarly, the percentage of promotional content is the dependent variable when testing
hypotheses that predict promotional content.

PR content that is promotional was identified by the presence of non-neutral
language, appeals to values and emotions, and calls for action that are in the
organization’s interest (Werder, 2005), or whether the content addresses an “image
versus substance” (Hutton, 1999), or whether the language “constructs reality and
expresses subjective experience” (Simlowitz & Pearson, 1989). Since relational PR
content is concerned with mutual relationship building between an organization and
multiple publics, measures will be associated with how Werder (2005) operationalized
her “facilitative” and “cooperative problem solving” public relations strategies. In other
words, content analysis will code for the presence of ‘we’ inclusive language and
messages addressing recipient publics’ original concerns. Another measure comes from
Toth’s (2000) “individual influence model” in the way she describes pure interpersonal

influence as having open and dynamic communications that seeks to find mutual

57

definitions and understanding. Also, from the numerous sources on public relations
online and in blogs in particular, content that has the characteristic of an announcement
or proclamation was considered promotional, whereas content that is conversational and
dialogic was considered relational.

A test of inter-coder reliability for the content analysis was conducted using
Krippendorft’s alpha testing for agreement on the total number of sentences per case
(three posts per case), the number of relational sentences, and the number of promotional
sentences. Not less than 50 cases or 10 percent of the sample is considered appropriate
for reliability tests (Lombard et al., 2008). Since the study yielded 53 cases, 10 (19%)
were used for the inter-coder reliability test.

The total number of sentences for each case (three posts combined) ranged from
16 to 173. Krippendorff’ 3 alpha for total sentences was .9987, for number of promotional
sentences was .9320, and for number of relational sentences was .9648. All values are
above the .8 generally regarded as minimal needed for reliability (Krippendorff, 2004).

Data were checked for assumptions of regression. Because of the small sample,
regressions were run in four sets to keep the ratio of cases to independent variables above
5:1 (see analysis section below). Data was checked for accuracy of entry and for missing
data and found to be correct and complete (with the exception of cases removed when no
blog was indicated, as mentioned previously). One outlier for the variable “percent
relational content” was converted from .81 to .72 to be within the range and to achieve
acceptable skewness and kurtosis statistic for acceptable normality on that variable.
Normality of all other variables was checked by viewing the skewness and kurtosis

statistics. All variables were within +1.5 and -1.5 for skewness and kurtosis except for

58

“years with employer” (skewness 2.271; kurtosis 4.661) and “perceived competition”
(skewness -1.936; kurtosis 5.747). Years with employer may be effected by an outlier of
23 with a mean of 4.3 1. The mean for perceived competition was 6, meaning most
respondents perceive their organization to be close to “always” in a competitive
environment. Linearity and homoscedasticity were checked by examining bivariate
scatterplots. While the assumption of homoscedasticity was satisfied, relationships
between independent and dependent variables were not strongly linear. There was some
indication of a linear relationship, but the small sample explains why clear oval clusters
were not visible in the scatterplots. Finally, data were checked for multicolinearity by
checking tolerance statistics. All variables had tolerance statistics above .6 except for
“years of experience” (.435) and “years with current employer” (.557). However, none of

the independent variables correlated with each other at higher than .6.

Analysis

The percent relational or percent promotional organizational blog content for each
organization was used as the dependent variable for each hypothesis in the study,
depending on whether the hypothesis in question mentions relational or promotional
content. All other variables were independent as indicated in each hypothesis and were
analyzed using multiple regression. Because the resulting sample was small, independent
sample t-tests were also conducted to compare mean differences of the percentage of
relational content for independent variables.

Practitioner education and accreditation as well as active PRSA membership were

coded with dummy variables to convert them from nominal to interval for regressions

59

(see questions 1-3 in survey). Similarly, the hypotheses about organizational structure--in
terms of an autonomous PR department and a reporting relationship from PR to the CEO
(HSa and H5b)--were coded with dummy variables (see questions 10 and 11).
Assumptions of regression require a ratio of cases to independent variables of no
less than 5: 1. With only 53 cases and 18 independent variables, four regression models
were run using the six independent variables (a ratio of 9: 1) associated with individual
practitioners (Hl-H3) and four variables (a ratio of 13:1) each associated with
organizational structure (H4-H6), environmental factors (H7-H 10) and public relations

models (H1 1a-Hl 1d).

60

Chapter 5: Results

Description of Data

Although the sample of 53 was small, there was considerable variety among the
individuals who responded to the survey and to the nature of their blogs that was
examined. The data can be described in terms of descriptive statistics as well as some
qualitative observations about the blogs.

Descriptive statistics.

There was a broad variety of respondents in terms of their individual
characteristics (summarized in Table 1). Respondents were 60% female and 40% male.
There were 32 businesses represented (60%), 20 nonprofit organizations (38%), and one
governmental organization (2%). Respondents also varied with regard to their position
within their respective organizations. There were 20% who identified themselves as
“entry-level,” 40% who were “mid-level” and 40% “top-level.” Years of experience in
public relations ranged from 1—40 with a mean of 10. Years with current employer ranged
from 1-23 with a mean of 5. There was also a variety in terms of the amount of time
respondents enacted the “manager” and “technician” roles, with means of 5.3 and 4.8
respectively.

There were 1 l (21%) who had a degree in public relations, while 42 (79%) did
not. Of the 42 who did not have a degree in public relations, 23% had a degree in
journalism, 19% in communications, 4% in marketing or business, and 4% in political
science. The remaining 28% indicated “other” degrees, which included Art (2), Education

( 1), English (8), General Studies (4), lntemational Relations (1), Philosophy (2),

61

Psychology/ Sociology (4), Science ( l), and Pre-law (1). Ten of the respondents (19%)
were accredited in public relations (APR) and 43 (81%) were not. The majority (55%)

were active in the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) while 45% were not.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: PR Practitioners

 

 

N M sd
PR DegreeI 53 1.21 .409
APR' 53 1.19 .395
PRSA] 53 1.55 .503
Position2 52 2.21 .750
Org. Type3 53 1.42 .535
Gender4 53 1.40 .494
Years experience 53 12 10
Years w/ employer 53 4 5
Technician5 53 5.3 1.6
Manager5 53 4.8 1.6

 

Notes:
I Coded 1: no, 2 =yes
2 Coded I = entry level, 2 = mid-level, 3 = top
3 Coded 1 = business 2 = nonprofit, 3 = government
4 Coded I = female, 2 = male
5 Coded 1 = never, 7 = always

Some observations may be made with regard to the organizations represented by
respondents in the study (see Table 2). As far as organizational structure, respondents
were not likely (M=2.8) to need approval from another department for their blog content,
which is consistent with the fact that they often (M=5.4) had access to the “inner circle”
where they work. A majority (72%) indicated they report directly to the CEO of their
organization, even though most (56%) did not have an autonomous PR department.

As far as perceptions about the environment in which their organizations exist,

competition was nearly “always” a condition for most respondents (M=6). There was a

62

greater variety of perceptions with regard to government regulation, uncertainty, and
public demand for information.

The models of public relations practiced by organizations seem to fluctuate as
well. The mean response was near 5 for press agentry, public information, two-way

asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics: Organizational Characteristics

 

 

N M sd
Org. Structure
Approval 53 2.8 1 .7
AutonomyI 52 1.40 .495
Report to (2130' 53 1.72 .455
Inner Circle 53 5.4 1.5
Environment
Gov. Regulation 53 4.2 2
Info Demand 53 5.3 1.6
Competition 53 6 .
Uncertainty 53 5 l .3
PR Models
Press Agentry 53 5.1 1.4
Public Information 53 4.9 1.6
Asymmetrical 53 4.9 1.5
Symmetrical 53 5 1 .4

 

Notes: All variables coded on a scale of 1 = “never” to 7 = “always” unless noted.
I 1 = no, 2 = yes

Description of blog content.
Blogs were chosen as the content to examine in this study because of the

likelihood that it would vary more than other types of public relations content. That

63

proved to be true of the 53 organizational blogs in the sample. They can be described
both quantitatively (see Table 3) and qualitatively.

As for the variables of interest to the hypotheses in the study, there was a wide
range. The total number of blog sentences for each case—which was a sum of the three
posts included for each case—ranged from 16-173, with a mean of 57.9. The percentages
of relational content ranged from 0-.72 (one outlier of .81 was moved to within that
range), for a mean of .283. Meanwhile, promotional content ranged from 0-9 with a

mean of .354.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics: Blog Content

 

 

N M sd
Total sentences 53 57.9 32.1
% relational 53 .283 .217
% promotional 53 .354 .239

 

The blogs in the sample can also be described qualitatively. In terms of
authorship, there was an even mix of blogs with and without bylines, i.e. no indication of
who the author was. It was obvious in several cases that someone other than the PR
person wrote the blog, for example a doctor writing a hospital’s blog or the CEO writing
the corporate blog. They may or may not have been writing with counsel from the public
relations person. Based on responses in the survey, 72% said their blogs were authored by
more than one person and had multiple “voices.”

Interactivity of the blogs also varied greatly in terms of comments and hyperlinks.
These were not variables associated with the hypotheses in the study but were considered

as part of the coding protocol to determine if blog content was “relational” or

64

“promotional.” The majority of the blogs (83%) allowed and invited comments from
readers. Only 17% of the cases examined had negative comments present. This could
mean either the negative comments were moderated and deleted, or there were few
negative comments in the sample of posts selected for this study. In 21% of the cases
there was evidence that the organization responded to comments left on the blog from
readers. The number of links in the set of three blog posts studied for each organization
ranged from 0-27, with a mean of 6.2 and 22 percent of the organizations having no links
in their blog. Links were just as often to external content (i.e. other web sites) as to
related content on the blog or the host organization’s primary web site.

Finally, the nature of the blogs’ content varied considerably. Some organizations
clearly used the blog as a platform to post news releases or what appeared to be brochure
copy. Others were written in the style of an essay or a persuasive opinion-editorial or
position paper. The voice of the blog varied from objective, third-person to the more
personal first-person. Some were entirely focused on sharing information about the
organization itself. Others focused beyond themselves to discuss issues in their industry
(e. g. computing technology, law) or to conduct interviews or “Q&A” format articles with
people who did not work for the organization but were experts or otherwise interesting

relative to the organization’s business or cause.

Analysis
Once again, assumptions of regression require a ratio of no less than five cases for
each independent variable. For this reason, four regression models were conducted. None

of the regressions were statistically significant, although with a small, non-probability

65

sample it would be difficult to find a statistically significant relationship. Therefore,
regressions are examined with this limitation in mind and consideration was given to
results of R2 values higher than .10 as well as the highest part correlations in each
equation. Additionally, means were compared to identify potential support for
hypotheses. Such analysis is appropriate given that this study is exploratory in nature
with regard to the topic of relational/promotional content, and it is the first study to go
beyond descriptive summaries of blog or public relations content in an attempt to
associate causes of content differences. The four regression models are summarized in
Table 4, with R2 values higher than .10 in bold (adjusted R2 are also shown because of
the small sample). The low and negative adjusted R2 values indicate the models are not
predictive. They may improve with more data, but for the purposes of this study only the
most interesting part correlations and means are presented and discussed in each of the
following sections.

Factors associated with individual public relations practitioners.

The first set of hypotheses (1-4) predicted that there would be higher relational
content of blogs at organizations where the PR practitioner had a degree in public
relations, had earned the APR accreditation, had more years in public relations and with
their current employer, and was more likely to enact a manager role. The regression to
test this hypothesis was not statistically significant, so hypotheses 1-4 are not supported.

However, R2 values were above .10 for the regression on both % promotional and
% relational content. The variable years of experience in public relations was the most
interesting in the regression on percent promotional content. It contributed most of the

variance explained, with a part correlation of .106. Since the original Pearson correlation

66

(1(51) = -.257, p < .05) was negative, this indicates that more years of practitioner

experience in PR is associated with less promotional content.

Table 4
Summary of Regressions
(R2 higher than .10 in bold)

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Equation Rz (Adjusted)

PR Practitioner]

% promotional F (6,46) = 1.249, p > .05 .140 (.028)

% relational F (6,46) = .932, p > .05 .108 (-.008)
Organizational structure"

% promotional F(4,47) = .218, p > .05 .018 (-.065)

% relational F (4,47) = .319, p > .05 .026 (-.056)
Perceived environment}

% promotional F (4,48) = .673, p > .05 .053 (-.026)

% relational F (4,48) = .693, p > .05 .055 (—.024)
PR Model"

% promotional F (4,47) = 1.663, p > .05 .124 (.049)

% relational F(4,47) = .833, p > .05 .066 (-.013)
Notes:

I Independent variables: PR degree, APR, years experience in PR, years experience with

employer, manager role, technician role

2 Independent variables: approval of content, autonomous PR department, reports to

CEO, part of inner circle

3 Independent variables: government regulation, demand for information, competition,

uncertainty

4 Independent variables: press agentry, public information, asymmetric, symmetric
Meanwhile, the variable years of experience with employer was the most

interesting in the regression on percent relational content. It had a significant positive

Pearson correlation (r(51) = .286, p < .05) and the highest part correlation (.038) of the

variables in the model. While weak, it gives some support that more years with an

employer is associated with more relational content.

67

Table 5
% Relational Content Mean Comparison of Key Individual Variables

 

 

N M sd

Degree in PR

No 42 .2676 .2036

Yes 1 l .3400 .2661
APR

No 43 .2733 .2135

Yes 10 .3230 .2400
Manager role

2 (near never) 4 .1675 .0613

7 (always) 15 .2967 .2356

 

Independent samples t-tests to compare mean % relational content on the
independent variables associated with individual practitioners were not statistically
significant. However, an examination of the means shows that respondents with a degree
in public relations had a slightly higher mean percentage of relational content (34%) than
those without (26%). The same was true for accreditation. The mean percent relational
content for those with APR was 32% compared with 27% for those without. Those who
indicated they “always” enact a manager role had nearly twice the percent relational
content mean (30%) than those who said “never” (17%) (answer category “2” was used

6619’

since only I answered ). While not statistically significant, these mean comparisons

(summarized in Table 5) are consistent with Hypotheses 1-3.

Factors associated with the organizational structure.

As Table 4 shows, the regressions involving variables associated with

organizational factors were not statistically significant. None of the variables were

68

correlated significantly with percentage of relational content and Hypotheses 4-6 can not
be supported.

However, an indication that approval of content is “never” required had nearly
twice the mean percentage relational content (27%) as those who indicated they “always”
must have their content approved (14%). Additionally, while position (entry—level, mid-
lcvel, top) was asked to get a description of the sample and was not a variable in the
regression, it is interesting to note that those who identified themselves as the “top” PR
person in the organization had a considerably higher mean percentage relational content
(27%) than practitioners who identified themselves as entry-level (15%). These mean
comparisons are summarized in Table 6.

This gives some indication that not needing approval (i.e. lack of encroachment
on the PR function) and being the top PR person in the organization are associated with
more relational content, which are consistent with Hypothesis H4. However, it is also
instructive that having an autonomous PR department, a direct reporting relationship to
the CEO and being part of the organization’s “inner circle” or dominant coalition seemed
to have no affect on the nature of content in the blogs in this sample. This may change

with a larger sample.

Table 6
"/o Relational Content Mean Comparison of Key Organizational Variables

 

 

N M sd
Need Approval
Never (1) 16 .2738 .2394
Always (7) 2 .1450 .0495
Position
Entry-level 10 .1530 .1391
Top 21 .2695 .2093

 

69

Factors associated with the external environment.

Government regulation, public demand for information, perceived competitive
environment, and perceived environmental uncertainty were the variables related to an
organization’s external environment. As Table 4 shows, neither of the regressions with
these variables was statistically significant, meaning Hypotheses 7-10 can not be
supported.

Mean comparisons of percentage relational content were not significant on any of
the variables. However, the mean relational content for those who said they “always”
perceive public demand for information (35%, N=16, SD = .2147) was nearly three times
that of those who said they “never” perceive public demand for information (13%, N=3,
SD = .1479). While this does not lend statistical support, it is consistent with Hypothesis
8.

Factors associated with models of public relations practice.

The two regression models using the PR model independent variables were not
statistically significant. But, as noted in Table 4, the regression on percentage
promotional content had an R2 of .124, p =. 174. The variable with highest part correlation
(.07) was asymmetrical. The negative Pearson correlation (r(50) = -.147, p > .05)
indicates that a practitioner identifying with a two-way asymmetrical model of public
relations is associated with less promotional content. While the regression with percent
relational content had a lower R2 (.066), the majority can be explained by the
asymmetrical variable (part correlation .057). Taken together, these give some indication

that H] 1c has merit.

70

Table 7
% Relational Content Mean Comparisons of PR Models

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N M sd

Press Agent

Never (3) 4 .4550 .2000

Always 11 .2982 .231 1
Public Info

Never (2) 5 .4140 .2838

Always 9 .2422 .2484
Asymmetrical

Never (2) 3 .0967 .0650

Always 9 .3300 .2515
Symmetrical

Never (3) 6 .2917 .2029

Always 7 .2671 .1843

 

Mean comparisons are also consistent with H] la-Hl 1c. The mean differences
indicate that practitioners identifying that their organizations “always” practice the press
agentry model or public information model of public relations is associated with less
relational content. On the other hand, the practitioners who indicate their organization
“always” practices the asymmetrical model have a much higher percentage of relational
content than those who are indicate they “never” practice asymmetrical public relations.
These mean differences are summarized in Table 7 (note that the most extreme category
close to “never” was used to have an N greater than 2 for mean comparison). It is also
interesting to note that there is no perceived difference in mean relational content with
regard to the symmetrical model of public relations. In fact there is a higher mean %
relational content for never, which goes against the assertion of Hypotheses 11d. Again,

more distinction could be evident with a larger sample.

71

 

A review of other variables of interest.

Since regressions associated with the hypotheses did not achieve statistical
significance, other variables in the data were examined as well. Variables about
comments and links in the blogs were entered into a regression equation to see if there
was anything instructive in the result. While not statistically significant, the regressions
were close to significant (see Table 8). The most important variable in both regressions
was comments allowed. The part correlation with percent promotional content was .109.
The negative original correlation means that the likelihood that comments are allowed
(coded 1= no, 2 = yes) is associated with less promotional content. Similarly, a positive
correlation (part correlation .097) with percent relational content indicates that allowing
comments is associated with more relational content. Again, while these variables were

not addressed in the hypotheses, this finding is instructive for firture studies.

 

 

Table 8
Regression Summary for Comments/Links
Comments/Links Ermation R2 (Adjusted)
% promotional F (4,48) = 2.298, p = .072 .161 (.091)
% relational F(4,48) = 2.188, p = .084 .154 (.084)

 

Independent variables: comments allowed, negative comments, response to comments,

number of links

Additional variables from the data set associated with PR practitioners—that were
not part of the hypotheses--were also examined in a regression. The variables
membership in the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), position (entry-level,
mid-level, or top), organization type (business, nonprofit or government), and gender
were entered into regressions on both %promotional and %re1ational content. Neither of

these regressions or associated part correlations proved meaningful. The regression

72

equation on %promotional content was F (4,47) = .592, p > .05, with an R2 of .048 and an
adjusted R2 of -.033. The equation with %relational content was F (4,47) = .325, p > .05,
with an R2 of .027 and an adjusted R2 of -.056.

To look more specifically at factors associated with control of blog content,
respondents were also asked if they had “final say” on the blog content and whether their
organizational blog had one or many “voices” or authors. Entering these variables into a
regression on %promotional content yielded the equation F (2,50) = 1.092, p > .05, with
an R2 of .042 and an adjusted R2 of .004. The equation with the same variables in an
equation with %relationa1 content was F(2,50) = .592, p > .05, with an R2 of .056 and an
adjusted R2 of -.037.

While these regressions did not produce meaningful results, examination of %
relational means was again undertaken to see if results were potentially instructive for
future research. The entry-, mid-, or top-level position variable was shown in Table 6 and
indicates that a PR practitioner holding a top level position is associated with more
relational content. Mean relational content for other variables, listed in Table 9, show that
membership in PRSA, being a nonprofit organization vs. a business, and a PR
practitioner having “final say” on blog content are all potentially associated with more
relational content. Membership in PRSA is related to Hypotheses la (PR degree) and 1b
(APR), because membership in PRSA would indicate education and professional
development in PR which would stress the relational aspect of the profession. Position is
related to the hypotheses associated with experience in the profession and with an
employer, as well as the factors associated with autonomy and encroachment.

Organization is also interesting and a potential for fithher research—particularly whether

73

 

nonprofits see it more possible to build relationships in a non-business setting or whether
they feel relationships are more important strategically because donors to nonprofits are

motivated by relationships more than customers of a business.

 

 

Table 9
% Relational Content Mean Comparisons of Additional Variables
N M St!
PRSA
no 24 .2633 .1819
yes 29 .2986 .2447
Org Type
Business 32 .2750 .2234
Nonprofit 20 .3080 .2082
Gender
Female 32 .2853 .2249
Male 21 .2786 .2103
Final Say
Never (3) 2 .1450 .0353
Always 28 .2879 .21 14
Voices
I 15 .2787 .2379
,Many 38 .2842 .21 19

 

Finally, while there appeared to be no great mean relational content difference for
gender or the number of voices on a blog, these results are also interesting given the
exploratory nature of this study. The fact that female practitioners did not exhibit
appreciably more relationship-oriented content than male practitioners might be worth
exploring further in the context of gender roles in public relations. It would seem that
gender is less of a factor than other characteristics of the practitioner and the
organizational setting. Similarly, it is interesting that a blog having one voice or many
authors affects the percentage of relational content less than whether a PR practitioner

has final say over what is communicated and how. This would be an argument that well-

74

 

educated PR practitioners with organizational authority do make a difference when it

comes to ensuring that an organization’s public communication is relational in nature.

75

Chapter 6: Discussion
This dissertation has been an attempt to identify what causes public relations
content, specifically in blogs, to be either relational or promotional in nature. Potential
causes explored were related to individual public relations practitioners, the internal
structure and external environments of the organizations in which they work, and the
particular models of PR they practice with regularity. The study had limitations that
prevent solid conclusions and generalizing results, but findings are useful for preliminary

consideration and guiding future research.

Limitations of the Study

This study is limited by the small sample size, 53. This in turn makes it difficult to
reach statistical significance in analyses of variance conducted to test hypotheses.

Also, observations of blogs revealed that it is not always the PR person who
writes the blog for a given organization. A survey question did reveal that half of
respondents said they or the top PR person always had “final say” on what is published
on their organization’s blog, and most others responded in categories close to “always.”
But interpretation of content analysis of blogs is limited if some organizations publish
blogs authored by and without the counsel of the PR practitioner, or if the practitioner
does not alter what is written by bloggers. In other words, in such cases, independent
variables about the practitioner and their perception of the organizational structure,
environment and PR models would be irrelevant.

In spite of these limitations, the study does offer new concepts and preliminary

findings to further research in this area.

76

 

 

Contributions of the Study

A primary contribution of this study is a new typology of public relations content
as “relational” or “promotional.” As reviewed in Chapter 2, the normative literature about
public relations consistently stresses that the essence of public relations is in building and
maintaining relationships with an organization’s publics. While previous research has
focused on strategies to achieve and methods to measure relationships, few if any have

addressed the content output of public relations practitioners in terms of relationship

 

orientation as opposed to simply promotional appeals. This study is a step in that
direction.

The method to study this typology with quantitative content analysis of blog
content is another contribution of this study. Earlier research in the public relations
discipline has addressed blog content, but it is usually normative assertions about what
the ideal blog content should be or descriptive of the presence of certain obvious features
in blogs, such as links and comments. This study went deeper into the sentence level
analysis of blog content to assess relationship or promotional orientation of messages.
The coding protocol may be useful for similar future studies, since this studiy’s inter-
coder reliability was high using Krippendorff’s alpha.

This study also went beyond content analysis of blogs for descriptive purposes.

 

By combining survey and content analysis methods, an effort was made to associate
causes of relational or promotional content. These causes were broadly considered,
coming from the literature and including factors associated with individual public

relations practitioners, organizational structure, the external environment, and the models

 

77

of public relations practice. In other words, this study has been a first effort to move from
descriptive to predictive research about public relations content, using blogs as the focus.
While not statistically significant or generalizable, the findings are interesting and
instructive given the exploratory nature of this research. These key findings that are
consistent with the hypotheses can be summarized as follows:
0 A PR professional having more years of experience in PR is associated with less
promotional content;
0 A PR professional having more years with a specific employer (organization) is
associated with more relational content;
0 A PR professional having membership in PRSA may contribute to a
organizational blog content being more relational in nature;
0 A PR professional who enacts a manager role is associated with more relational
content;
0 Being a top-level (vs entry-level) PR practitioner is associated with more
relational content;
0 Not needing approval from a department outside PR is associated with more
relational content, as is a PR professional having “final say” on blog content;
0 The PR person’s perception of consistently high public demand for information is
associated with more relational content;
0 Consistent use of the “press agentry” and “public information” PR models is
associated with less relational content;
0 The “two-way asymmetrical” model of public relations is associated with more

relational content.

78

"7'er

0 Non-profit organizations seem to have more relational blog content than
businesses.

While the key findings summarized above are consistent with the assertions in the
hypotheses, it should be noted that this study also uncovered some preliminary
indications that contradict expectations. For example, having a degree in public relations
or being accredited in PR (APR) appeared to make only a slight difference in relational
content. Also, the organizational factors including having an autonomous PR department,
a direct reporting relationship to the CEO, and being part of the dominant coalition made
little difference in the nature of blog content. Perhaps most surprising, a preference for
symmetrical communication seemed to have no effect on increased percentage of
relational content.

Some of these non-significant or contradictory indications may be due to the
limitation of a small sample. Replication of this study with a larger sample may lend
support to hypotheses. However, the lack of support for the hypotheses in this study is
also consistent with earlier research that suggests public relations professionals professed
attitude about social media, including blogs, is not consistent with their actual use of it.
Recall that Porter et. al. identified a natural evolution of blog use by PR professionals:
routine informational purposes; followed by more strategic and professional, albeit
passive, orientation to blogs; and culminating in use of blogs to engage publics in two-
way communication (Porter et al., 2007). This explains the low response in this study and
also the possibility that some new to blogging are using their organizational blog for
“routine information” and have not yet evolved to relationship management. The

contradictory results in this study may be explained by Kelleher’s (2008) finding that

79

 

 

professionals who had blogs and social media introduced as part of their regular work
environment were less likely to use the relational features and accommodate public desire
for information than were professionals in a low—tech environment. It is also consistent
with a study that found the mean response of PR practitioners was between “never” and
“infrequently” when asked if they used blogs for 2-way communication, to express ideas
or opinions, communicate with others, or maintain blogs for a client or their organization
(Sweetscr et al., 2008).

In summary, some of the preliminary findings above indicate that certain

1

variables associated with PR practitioners and the role and form of public relations in
organizations may have a causal effect on the nature of blog content. But at the same
time, it appears that not much has changed since 2008, when Kent concluded in a critical
essay of blogging and public relations that while there is agreement about the
professional potential for blogs their use as a professional tool in public relations is

currently limited (Kent, 2008).

Future Research

This study can be instructive to future research with regard to sampling, method,
and the content of interest.

First, with regard to sampling, this study may have been premature in the sense
that not many organizations or PR practitioners are using organizational blogs, or using
them to their full potential. Future research may benefit from further growth in the
adoption of organizational blogs and increased sophistication in their use as a relationship

management tool by public relations professionals. Additionally, soliciting from a

80

defined list, such as PRSA members, would produce a probability sample. At such a time
that this study could be replicated with a larger, probability sample, tests of significance
would be more appropriate and possibly successful, which would lead to results that
could be generalized.

Another possibility for future research would be to refine the coding protocol or
simplify coding. Examples might be quantifying the number of links from blogs to the
organization’s own content or to external resources, as an indication of relational or
promotional content. Similarly, content analysis could take a larger number of posts for
each case and focus on the positive or negative nature of comments and the presence and
nature of responses from the organization. Since these variables had an interesting mean
difference in this study, more complete analysis of them could yield interesting results.
Altemately, a future study could look at all website content, not just blogs, and code for
the presence of two-way online communication mechanisms, such as links from a home
page to a blog, Twitter, F aeebook, YouTube channel, or other media platform.

Content other than blogs is another possibility for the study. As recent studies
have noted, social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are being adopted for
organizational use at a faster rate than blogs (Burson-Marsteller, 2010; Cho & Huh, 2010;
Curtis et al., 2010). A content analysis of this content with an adapted protocol for the
different platforms might draw a larger sample and yield more significant results. For
example, an analysis of “tweets” being relational or promotional could consider the
actual content, links to an organizations’ own or other content, and the number of
mentions of specific others (@replies). An analysis of the nature of content on

organizations’ Facebook fan pages is another opportunity, with coding taking into

81

account the nature of content on status updates, as well as replies, comments, links, and
multi-media.

Another possibility is re-characterizing “models” of PR from the four originally
identified by Grunig to a more simple consideration of one-way or two—way content. It
may be difficult for practitioners to distinguish in a survey question between
asymmetrical and symmetrical communication as operationalized. Meanwhile, in the
Internet era, asking of their organization uses the Internet in its various forms to make
information available (one-way) or to have conversations with publics (two-way) could
be more meaningful for research on public relations and online content.

It is also possible that a qualitative method, such as interviews with a small
sample of PR people who write organizational blogs, could be useful to gain more
insights into the relationships between the independent variables identified for this study
and the nature of public relations content. In such a study, additional questions could be
asked about the purpose behind specific blog posts to understand the strategy and the
relational/promotional orientation of practitioners. Interviews could also illuminate the
realities of organizational and environmental restraints on public relations professionals
who desire to write in a relational way but are prevented from doing so by organizational
factors. Another advantage of the qualitative approach might be the identification of
additional variables not addressed in this study.

Whether identified through qualitative research or other means, adding additional
variables to the regression equations appears necessary. Low R2 values in the regressions
in this study indicates that important theoretical concepts and variables have been left out

of the model. For example, personal writing style of the PR practitioner or other blogger

82

 

could be a factor. Additionally, comfort with technology and understanding social media
conventions, i.e. dialogic and conversational styles, could vary greatly among
practitioners. There may also be other variables related to the organizational setting. For
example, the size of an organization may affect its communication style, with smaller
organizations being more inclined to conversational communication and larger ones more
prone to formal tone. The nature of the organization in terms of its focus, i.e. whether a
product or service company, could be a variable affecting its public content. Similarly,
organizational scope, in terms of local or national, may be a factor.

At the same time, firture research could also look for association among the
various independent variables in this study. For example, it would be interesting to
examine whether or not having a degree in public relations and other variables associated
with PR practitioners have any relationship to being included in the dominant coalition or
other organizational variables. In time, these associations could move toward a model
connecting practitioner characteristics to organizational variables, to one-way or two-way
form of public relations practiced and ultimately to relational or promotional content.

Other researchers may have additional ideas of their own that are stimulated by
the method and results of this investigation. Any future inquiry would be a useful step to
continue the purpose of this study—to move from descriptive to predictive research about

public relations content.

83

 

Appendix A
Survey Appeal and Questions

[Appeal]

As a fellow Linkedln/Facebook (name of specific group) member and PR practitioner, 1
am seeking your participation in a brief survey that is part of my doctoral dissertation at
Michigan State University. 1 am conducting research that has to do with public relations
and blog content.

In particular, I am seeking client side or in-house PR professionals (not from a public
relations agency) who have been with an organization for at least one year. I am also
seeking organizations that have a public Web log (blog) which will be reviewed as part of
the study. If you and your organization fit that description, please continue.

Very simply, I am asking you to take a brief survey that will take just 10-15 minutes of
your time. Here is a link to the survey: http://www.#######

[Twitter Appeal limited to 140 characters]

I need in-house PR professionals who work for an organization with a blog to take a
survey as part of my dissertation research: http://www.#######

 

84

 

 

[Survey]
[Introduction]
Thank you for taking my survey!

There are no risks for participating in this research study. You will be asked to share the
primary blog address of your organization for the purposes of analyzing publicly
available content. However, your name will not be known and the name of your
organization will never be shared in the study’s published results. A benefit of
participating is the opportunity to contribute to knowledge about public relations and
blogs. A summary of the results of this study will be shared via this social media group of
PR professionals.

Your participation is also entirely voluntary. If you do not wish to continue to take the
survey at any time for any reason, you will be able to simply close the browser. You will
be allowed to back up, skip questions, or quit at any time if you wish.

If you have any questions about this study, you may contact me at pennin55@msu.edu
and ask about the “PR Content Study.”

 

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint
about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State
University’s Human Research Protection Program at 5173552180, Fax 5174324503, or
email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
The study identification number is IRB ##-###.

Thank you for your participation!

Sincerely,

Timothy Penning, APR

By clicking on the button below you voluntarily agree to participate in this survey.

[Next page]

85

 

 

[Education]
1. Do you have a college degree in public relations?
[1 No D Yes

2. Are you accredited in public relations (APR)?
11 No D Yes

3. Are you an active participant in the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)?
[J No D Yes

[Experience]
4. How many years of experience in public relations do you have?

5. How many years have you been working in public relations with your current
employer?

6. Your PR position in the organization is:
El Entry-level 1] Mid-level U Top PR person in organization

[Role Enactment]

7. I make the communications strategy and policy decisions for the organization.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
D C] [:1 D D D 1:]

8. My job is primarily to write, edit and produce the communications tactics for the
organization.

1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
[:1 Cl [3 L] C] Fl D
[Encroachment]

9. My work and/or decisions must be approved by someone outside the public relations
department (other than the CEO or president).
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
[:1 [1 1:] El [1 1:1 1.]

[Structure]
10. As the organization’s top PR staff person (or consultant), 1 report directly to the CEO
or president.
[1 No 1:] Yes

1 l. The organization has PR staff in a separate, autonomous department.
1] No D Yes

86

 

 

[Dominant Coalition]
12. I am part of the organization’s “inner circle” when key decisions are discussed and

made.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
Ll 1:1 [1 1.1 1 ‘1 L1 D

[Government Regulation]

13. Our public communication is affected by government regulations.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
[3 1:1 1:1 1.] 1:1 11 D

[Information demand]

14. Our publics demand information from our organization.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
[1 C] D L] 11 11 F1

[Competitive forces]

15. Our organization faces a competitive environment.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
U 1:] [3 17 11 1-1 1 1

[Environmental uncertainty]

16. Our organization exists in an unpredictable or uncertain setting.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
D 1:] [‘1 1. 1 El [l U

[Press agentry model]
17. Our public relations materials are created primarily to put the organization in the best
possible light in the news media.
1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
1] I] D [J [‘1 U fl

[Public information model]
18. Our public relations materials are created primarily to disseminate objective
information about the organization to our publics via the news media or other tactics.
I (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
13 1] [.1 [J fl U U

[Two-way asymmetrical model]
19. Our organization listens to public feedback primarily to help ensure that our
organizational objectives will be met.

1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
C1 1:] 1:1 [1 1 1 [.1 L1

87

[Two-way symmetrical model]
20. Our organization listens to public feedback primarily in order to respond to public
concerns or ideas.

1 (never) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (always)
1:! 1‘1 1:] 1] D U D
[Blog/Content]

21. Please share the address (url) of your organization’s primary blog site:

 

This will be used for analysis of public information only; the name of your organization
will remain confidential.

22. Do you have final say on what is written in your organization’s primary blog?
[3 No D Yes

23. Does your organizational blog have one author/institutional voice or represent many
authors/voices?
[1 One author/voice [3 Many authors/voices
[Additional demographics]
24. For which type of organization do you work?

1] Business 1] Nonprofit El Government agency or office

25. Please feel free to add any comments:

Thank you for your participation!

88

Appendix B
Content Analysis Protocol and Code Sheet

Introduction

This is a study of the influences on public relations content, or the public
communication of businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government offices or
agencies. Public relations practitioners have taken a 20-question survey and provided
their organization’s blog site address. For this portion of the study, their blog content will
be analyzed and coded. Subsequently, analysis will show if the factors indicated in the
survey are associated consistently with the types of content organizations communicate.

For each respondent in the study, one post from each month during the past year
was downloaded and printed for analysis. Thus there are 12 blog posts for each
organization (case) in the study. (While many blogs have comments, these will not be
analyzed since the study is concerned with the content of the organization, not its
publics).

There are two types of content to be coded in this study: “promotional” or
“relational.” The study is concerned with the primary emphasis in each sentence of
content. These are further explained below.

Variable Definitions

Promotional content—this type of content is that which an organization uses to advance
its own interests. It is characterized by use of subjective opinion and positive adjectives
and will typically focus on:

- Products/services
Need for donations
A single point of view (the organization’s) on a cause or issue of concern
A call to action in organization’s interest
Image or boastful claims
Tone is like that of a “formal statement” from the point of view of the
organization (little indication that the content is responding to or acknowledging)
public interest or point of view)

Relational content—this type of content is that which attempts to stress relationships
and dialogue with publics. It is characterized by the use of inclusive language, and a
demonstrated interest in or response to communication from the public and will typically
include the following words and themes:

- You/your
Mention of publics’ concerns and interests
Specific publics mentioned by name (i.e. consumers, donors, community etc)
Reference to or invitation to offer feedback
Expressed desire for common understanding and mutual goals
Indication that organization is responding to inquiry or comment from public
Tone is “informal conversation” and dialogic in nature

89

 

Procedure

Each coder will receive a set of blog posts printed out from various organizations. Each
set will include 3 posts, one from each month from the previous quarter. Coders will also
receive a set of blank code sheets—«one for each organization. Coders should enter
information on the code sheet under each heading as outlined here:

Case #--A number will be written on each set of web site copy printouts. Enter that
number on the code sheet.

Org name—enter the name of the organization indicated on the home page.

Number of Promotional Sentences— Highlight each sentence in each post that is
primarily promotional (according to the definitions above) in YELLOW. Do so for each
post. Count the total number of promotional sentences for each post and enter the number
on the code sheet.

Number of Relational Sentences— Highlight each sentence that is primarily relational
(according to the definitions above) in GREEN. Do so for each blog post. Count the total
number of relational sentences and enter the number on the code sheet.

(Note—if a sentence does not seem to be promotional or relational, do not highlight it. If
there is a compound sentence with one phrase/clause relational and another
promotional, count them as separate sentences. Blog post headlines should be counted as
one sentence).

Total Sentences—Enter the total number of sentences on a page in the far right column
on the code sheet. This should include all sentences, whether highlighted green, yellow,
or neither.

Totals—Add the total numbers obligatory/promotional/relational and total sentences and
enter the numbers at the bottom of each column on the code sheet.

°/o rel and % pro—leave these blank. The principal investigator will calculate these
figures later.

Do NOT code the comments. Only blog posts. However, this study is also interested in
noting the presence of the following:

Comments allowed?—Note whether there are comments from readers and/or if there is a
comment link or box providing the opportunity.

0 = no
1 = yes
Negative comments?——lf there are comments, are any of them negative in tone?
0 = no
1 = yes

90

Response to comments?—If there are comments, does the organization or an individual
representing it respond to any comments?

0 = no

1 = yes

91

Case #

Organization Name

PR Content Study Code Sheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Post Number of Number Total Comment Negative Response
# Promotional of Sentences Allowed Comment
Sentences Relational in Blog
Sentences Post
1
2
3
Totals:
%pro %rel

92

 

 

References

The 2006 report of the Commission on Public Relations Education. (2006). Retrieved
April 6, 2007, from http://www.commprcdorg/report/

Bagdikian, B. (1973-1974). Shaping media content: Professional personnel and
organizational structure. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 3 7(4), 569-579.

Bailey, T. A. (2009). A model for teaching public relations students: A continuum of
power distribution between organizations and publics in two-way web site
communication tools. Teaching Public Relations, 75.

Barnes, N. G., & Mattson, E. (2009). The fortune 500 and blogging: Slow and steady and
farther along than expected. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from
http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/studicsrescarch/fortuneSOO/cfm

Beam, R. A. (2003). Content differences between daily newspapers with strong and weak
market orientations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 368-
390.

Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections
on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public
Relations Research, I 7(1), 5-28.

Berkowitz, D. (1997). Social meanings ofnews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Berkowitz, D., & Hristodoulakis, I. (1999). Practitioner roles, public relations education,
and professional socialization: An exploratory study. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 11(1), 91-103.

Bemoff, J ., & Li, C. (2008). Harnessing the power of the oh-so-social web. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 40(3), 36-42.

BlogPulse. (2009). Blogpulse stats. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from
www.blogpulsc.com

Bowen, S. A. (2009). What communication professionals tell us regarding dominant

coalition access and gaining membership. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 3 7(4), 418-443.

Boynton, L. A. (2006). What we value: A delphi study to identify key values that guide
ethical decision-making in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32, 325-330.

Breakenridge, D. (2008). PR 2.0: New media, new tools, new audiences. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: FT Press.

93

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-98.

Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization-
public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational
outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34, 25-31.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Organization and key public relationships:
Testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business-to-business
context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds), Public relations as
relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of
public relations (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burson-Marsteller. (2009). Social media use by fortune 500 companies. Retrieved
August 4, 2009, from www.slidesharc.com

 

Burson-Marsteller. (2010). The global social media check-up. Retrieved February 24,
2010, from www.burson-marsteller.com/innovations-and-insights

Callison, C. (2004). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Perceptions of public relations
practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, I 6(4), 371-3 89.

Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A
contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 9, 31-63.

Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The
importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites.
Public Relations Review, 33, 84-91.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.

Cheney, G., & Dionisopolous, G. N. (1989). Public relations? No, relations with publics:
A rhetorical-organizational approach to contemporary corporate communications.
In C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 135-157).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cho, 8., & Huh, J. (2010). Content analysis of corporate blogs as a relationship
managment tool. Corporate Communications Interational Journal, 15(1), 30-48.

Christ, P. (2005). Internet technologies and trends transforming public relations. Journal
of Website Promotion, 1(4), 3-14.

Coombs, T. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It's not just pr: Public relations in society.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

94

Curran, J. (2005). What democracy requires of the media. In G. Overholser & K. H.
Jamieson (Eds), The press. New York: Oxford University Press.

Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelski, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., et al.
(2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations.
Public Relations Review, 36, 90-92.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. M., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davis, A. (2000). Public relations, business news and the reproduction of corporate elite
power. Journalism, 1(3), 282-304.

Davis, A. (2003). Public relations and news sources. In S. Cottle (Ed.), News, public
relations, and power (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dearstyne, B. W. (2005). Blogs: The new information revolution? Information
Management Journal, 39(5), 38-44.

Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations
practitioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 327-355). HIllsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations
practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3-26.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (2006). The centrality of practitioner roles to public
relations theory. In C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds), Public relations theory 11
(pp. 137-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dozier, D. M., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). The organization of the public relations function.
In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 395-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-
presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-312.

Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (1999). Corporate world wide web pages: Serving the news
media and other publics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(3),
456-467.

Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (2000). Organizations of corporate web pages: Publics and
functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327-344.

Ewan, S. (1996). PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.

95

Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Inter-organizational
relationships, Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism.
Gainesville, FL.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (l996a). Public relations and the law: A survey of practitioners. Public
Relations Review, 22(1), 1-8.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (1996b). The role of public relations in the institutionalization of ethics.
Public Relations Review, 22, 249-258.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2006). Baselines for ethical advocacy in the "marketplace of ideas". In
K. R. Fitzpatrick & C. Bronstein (Eds), Ethics in public relations: Responsible
advocacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gans, H., J. (2003). Democracy and the news. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gillin, P. (2007). The new influencers: A marketer's guide to the new social media.
Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In
R. L. Heath (Ed), Handbook of public relations (pp. 1 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992a). Excellence in public relations and communication
management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In
J. E. Gruni g (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 285—325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. H.
Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds), Public relations theory ii (pp. 21-62). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.

Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and
practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A. (1992b). Power in the public relations department. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.),
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 483-501).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere (T. Burger,
Trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

96

Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still
enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical
research. Communication Theory, 16, 41 1-426.

Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal
contacts to external aflairs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hill, L. N., & White, C. (2000). Public relations practitioners' perception of the world
wide web as a communications tool. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 31-51.

Holtz, S., & Demopoulos, T. (2006). Blogging for business: Everything you need to know
and why you should care. Chicago, IL: Kaplan.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from www.instituteforpr.org

 

Huang, Y.-H. (2001). Opra: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1),
61-90.

Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public
Relations Review, 25(2), l99-113.

Jaffe, J. (2007). Join the conversation: How to engage marketing-weary consumers with
the power of community, dialogue, and partnership. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Jo, S. (2003). The portrayal of public relations in the news media. Mass Communication
and Society, 6(4), 397-41 1.

Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), l99-223.

Kang, S., & Norton, H. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the world wide web: Are
they sufficiently fiJlfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(279-
284)

Kelleher, T. (2001). Public relations roles and media choice. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 13(4), 303-320.

Kelleher, T. (2007). Public relations online: Lasting concepts for changing media.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelleher, T. (2008). Organizational contingencies, organizational blogs, and public

relations practitioner stance toward publics. Public Relations Review, 34, 300-
302.

97

Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public
relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of
Communication, 59, 172-188.

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice:
Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(2).

Kellner, D. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical intervention.
In L. E. Hahn (Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 259-287). Chicago: Open
Court.

Kent, M. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations
Review, 34, 32-40.

Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide
web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-.

Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public
Relations Review, 28, 21-37.

Kent, M., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between web site design and
organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29, 63-
77.

Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2006). Relationship maintenance strategies on fortune 500
company web sites. Journal of Communication Management, 10, 27-43.

Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 1-24.

Kim, S.-Y., & Reber, B. (2009). How public relations professionalism influences
corporate social responsibility: A survey of practitioners. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 157-174.

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople
should know and the public should expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kruckeberg, D. (2000). The public relations practitioner role in practicing strategic
ethics. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(3), 35--.

Lauzen, M. M. (1992). Public relations roles, intra-organizational power, and
encroachment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(2), 61-80.

98

Law, M., Lau, T., & Wong, Y. H. (2003). From customer relationship management to
customer-managed relationship: Unraveling the paradox with a co-creative
perspective. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21(1), 51-60.

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of
public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198.

Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2009). The cluetrain manifesto
(10th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Li, C., & Bemoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social
technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J ., & Bracken, C. C. (2008, October 3). Practical resources
for assessing and reporting intereoder reliability in content analysis research
projects. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from
http://astro.temple.cdu/~lombard/reliability/#How%20should%20content%20anal
ysis%20researchers%20properlv%20assess%20and%20rcport°/0201ntercodcr%20r

eliability

Miller, K. S. (1999). Public relations in film and fiction: 1930-1995. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 11(1), 3-28.

.Moss, D., & Green, R. (2001). Reexamining the manager's role in public relations: What
management and public relations research teaches us. Journal of Communication
.Management, 6(2), 118-132.

Moss, D., Wamaby, G., & Newman, A. J. (2000). Public relations practitioner role
enactment at the senior management level within u.K. Companies. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 12(4), 277-307.

Negt, O., & Kluge, A. (1988). The public sphere and experience: Selections. October,
46(Autumn), 60-82.

O'Neil, J. (2003). An investigation of the sources of influence of corporate public
relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 29, 159-169.

Okura, M., Dozier, D. M., Sha, B.-L., & Hofstetter, C. R. (2009). Use of scanning
research in decision-making: An examination of the environmental imperative
and power-control perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 51-

70.

Park, H., & Reber, B. (2008). Relationship-building and the use of web sites: How
fortune 500 corporations use their web sites to build relationships. Public
Relations Review, 34, 409-41 1.

99

Pearson, R. ( 1989). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice
and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds), Public relations
theory (pp. 111-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pfau, M., & Wan, H.-H. (2006). Persuasion: An intrinsic function of public relations. In
C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds), Public relations theory ii (pp. 101 -l36).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal ofPublic
Relations Research, 10(4), 237-261.

Porter, L., & Sallot, L. M. (2003). The intemet and public relations: Investigating
practitioners' roles and world wide web use. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 603-622.

Porter, L., Trammel, K. D., Chung, D. S., & Kim, E. (2007). Blog power: Examining the
effects of practitioner blog use on power in public relations. Public Relations
Review, 33, 92-95.

PRSA. (2009). Code of ethics. Public Relations Society of America Retrieved
September 8, 2009, from www.prsa.org

 

Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the excellence theory
in south korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 159-184.

Russell, K. M. (2007). Using weblogs in public relations education. Teaching Public
Relations, 73, 1-5.

Scoble, R., & Israel, S. (2006). Naked conversations: How blogs are changing the way
businesses talk with customers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship
building. Public Relations Review, 33, 227—229.

Serini, S. A. (1993). Influences on the power of public relations professionals in
organizations: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(1), 1—25.

Sha, B.-L. (2004). Noether's theorem: The science of symmetry and the law of
conservation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 391-416.

Sha, B.-L. (2009). Exploring the connection between organizational identity and public
relations behaviors: How symmetry trumps conservation in engendering
organizational identification. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), 295-
317.

Shaw, T., & White, C. (2004). Public relations and journalism educators' perceptions of
media relations. Public Relations Review, 30, 493-502.

100

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence
on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Simlowitz, M., & Pearson, R. (1989). Traditional, enlightened, and interpretive
perspectives on corporate annual reporting. In C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton
(Eds), Public relations theory (pp. 83-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Singer, J. B. (2001). The metro wide web: Changes in newspapers' gatekeeping role
online. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 65-80.

Smudde, P. M. (2005). Blogging, ethics and public relations: A proactive and dialogic
approach. Public Relations Quarterly(F all), 34-38.

SNCR. (2008). New media, new influencers and implications for public relations: A
research study by the society for new communication research. Retrieved July
30, 2009, from www.instituteforgr.org

Solis, B. (2007). The definition of social media. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2007/06/29/thc-definition-of-social-mcdia

Sparks, S. D. (1993). Public relations: Is it dangerous to use the term? Public Relations
Quarterly, 38(3), 27-28.

Spicer, C. H. (1993). Images of public relations in print media. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 5, 47-61.

Stacks, D. W., Botan, C., & Turk, J. V. (1999). Perceptions of public relations education.
Public Relations Review, 25(1), 9-28.

Stauber, J., & Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic sludge is good for you! Lies, damn lies, and the
public relations industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Stefanone, M. A., & Jang, C.-Y. (2007). Writing for friends and family: The
interpersonal nature of blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1).

Sweetser, K. D., Porter, L., Chung, D. S., & Kim, B. (2008). Credibility and the use of
blogs among professionals in the communication industry. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 169-185.

Taylor, M., Kent, M., & White, W. (2001). How activist organizations are using the
intemet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27, 263-284.

Technorati. (2009). State of the blogosphere 2009. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from
http://technorati.com/bloggingfleature/state-of-the-blogosphere-2009/

101

Toth, E. L. (2000). From personal influence to interpersonal influence: A model for
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to he study and
practice of public relations (pp. 205-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Toth, E. L., Serini, S. A., Wright, D. K., & Emig, A. G. (1998). Trends in public relations
roles: 1990-1995. Public Relations Review, 24(2), 145-164.

Trammel, K. D. (2006). Blog offensive: An exploratory analysis of attacks published on
campaign blog posts from a political public relations perspective. Public
Relations Review, 32, 402-406.

Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and business: A pointer to the intranets of the future.
Business Information Review, 23(4), 228-234.

Tuchman, G. (1991). Qualitative methods in the study of news. In K. B. Jensen & N. W.
Jankowski (Eds), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass
communications research (pp. 79-92). London: Routledge.

van Ruler, B., & de Lange, R. (2003). Barriers to communication management in the
executive suite. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 145-158.

Waters, R. D. (2007). Nonprofit organizations' use of the intemet: A content analysis of
communication trends on the intemet sites of the philanthropy 400. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 18(1), 59-76.

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through
social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using facebook. Public
Relations Review, 35, 102-106.

Werder, K. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the influence on perceived attributes of
publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 1 7(3), 217-266.

White, C., & Lambert, C. A. (2006, August). Constructing a cultural definition of public
relations: A textual analysis of the new york times. Paper presented at the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Commmunication: Public
Relations Division, San Francisco.

White, J ., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Public relations and management decision making. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. (2009). An analysis of the increasing impact of social and
other new media on public relations practice. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from
www.instituteforpr.org

102

Yang, S.-U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (bmpr) on
relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), 341-359.

103

   

Mlclmlllllllllll111111111111111111111111155
3 1293 03063 5969