Public Relations

Social Media & Public Relations. A 21st century love affair?

Social Media and Public Relations are without a doubt, inextricably linked in 2016. There are few international brands which do not possess some sort of social media presence. The more savvy of these, will have been using it with some skill for a few years now. But do these brands use social media for their Public Relations for their own benefit, or of simple necessity.

Social media allows a brand to communicate instantly with it’s audience without the need to go through newspapers or advertisements. Equally, it allows a customer to lodge a very public complaint and within seconds a representative on the receiving end may see it, and respond. The use of twitter has become commonplace when complaining about maybe a train delay, a flight cancellation or a product malfunction. Whilst these conversations will be public only for the opening salvos of the conversation, this public sphere forces the company to respond in some manner satisfactory to the accuser.

An interesting exchange above, note how the PR doesn’t open the compensation floodgates.

These efforts to answer public inquiries are the price a brand has to pay in order to gain instant access to its stakeholders and is something that is not optional. A company which uses social media to communicate to, but not with, stakeholders will find that complaints made may snowball and badly tarnish a businesses reputation.

Valentini highlights a keen observation in the development of Public Relations alongside social media. Valentini has observed that as brands have attempted to appear more transparent the opposite effect has instead spawned. Consumers have become increasingly skeptical of organisations whilst becoming steadily more concerned regarding the use of private information online. This will result in consumers seeing and understanding the hidden messages promoted by brands. In short, this instant access to brands has led consumers to become resistant to the thinly veiled efforts made by brands to accommodate consumers.

bcovrumciaadn5j

Conversely of course, Allagui points out that efforts on social media continue to generate massive attention. A common example is the 360i  Oreo’s ‘You can still dunk in the dark’ which managed to gain 5x more impressions than the amount of people who viewed the Superbowl itself. This is one of many campaign pieces which have garnered media attention and audience engagement with minimal effort.

Whilst PR and social media have become nearly inseparable, problems do seem to lie in whether or not the effort made actually makes any meaningful difference towards a company’s public relations. Yes impressions are made, but whether or not consumers have become resistant to the underlying goal of these messages is in dispute and this conundrum may continue to be such for some time.

Sharapova, clueless or clued up?

Maria Sharapova

In the news today it emerged that Tennis champion Maria Sharapova had been found guilty of taking a substance banned by the ITF (International Tennis Federation) during this years Australian Open. In the wake of massive doping scandals such as Lance Armstrong, the Russian doping scandal during the 2012 Olympics and more recent allegations against the Kenyan running team allegations for doping are taken much more seriously.

Maria Sharapova however is a different case entirely. Sharapova had been consuming meldonium since 2006 (two years after winning Wimbledon) for “health reasons” but it was only banned months ago. Sharapova claims she did not read the memorandum highlighting its outlawing and so was ignorant of this change. This mistake could cost her her career. Already Tag Heuer have cut all ties with the pro, Nike have immediately suspended their contract with her and she will be provisionally suspended from professional tennis on the 12th March.

One thing stands out as odd, Maria is doubtlessly surrounded by an army of coaches, aides and publicists. Yet none of them checked this new list of banned substances. Though I don’t overly doubt Sharapovas innocence, it is a stretch of the imagination to suppose that not one of her support team knew about this. The drug itself increases blood flow to muscle tissue effectively increasing exercise capacity. The Guardian reported that in 2015 17% of Russian athletes were using this medicine. The drug is primarily used to combat ischaemia but Sharapova was using it supposedly to combat a magnesium deficiency. My personal conclusion is that she did use it being fully aware of the advantage is provided her, what puzzles me is that if 17% of Russian athletes had to immediately cease using the substance how word could not have reached Sharapova of this change. It is likely we will never know for sure whether or not this whole debacle is truly down to ignorance.

I would however like to comment on her own announcement of this(monumental) slip-up. Doping has destroyed the careers of multiple athletes, usually it is given the image of something done seedily in the shadows. Sharapova has done all she can do at this point, damage limitation. By hosting a press conference and confessing her sins before the media can accuse her of all sorts of nefarious deeds she has taken the bull by the horns. She has done what she can to make the story favourable and give herself a chance at saving her career. In 4 years (the usual doping ban length) Sharapova will be almost 33 and could struggle to make an effective comeback. Sharapova is not Serena Williams (World number 1). Serena has beaten Maria 19 out of 21 times they have played. Whilst Maria clearly has a clever publicist, you can’t get blood out of a stone.