The Public Relations (PR) industry is responsible for creating and maintaining r

elationships between clients and customers. Through areas such as brand manageme
nt, advertising, media relations and crisis management, PR practitioners seek to
foster interest, trust and belief in a product or company.
PR practitioners are aware of how best to carry this out when dealing within the
ir own nations and cultures, however, when dealing with a foreign audience it is
critical that cross cultural differences are recognised.
By way of illustrating the impact cross cultural awareness can have on the succe
ss or failure of a PR campaign a brief example can be cited:
Pepsodent tried to sell its toothpaste in Southeast Asia by emphasizing that it
"whitens your teeth." They found out that the local natives chew betel nuts to b
lacken their teeth because they found it attractive. Had the PR company behind t
his campaign analysed the cross cultural issues related to Pepsodent's product,
the failure of this PR campaign could have been avoided.
Cross cultural differences can make or break a PR campaign. It is therefore cruc
ial that PR practitioners dealing with PR campaigns that incorporate a cross cul
tural element analyse likely cross cultural differences. A few key areas shall b
e highlighted in order to help PR practitioners begin to consider how culture ma
y affect future projects.
Language and Culture
In order for a PR campaign to be successful abroad, an appreciation of the targe
t language and its cultural nuances is necessary. The PR and advertising industr
ies are littered with examples of poor translations and a lack of cross cultural
understanding leading to PR failure. For example, when Ford launched the 'Pinto
' in Brazil they were puzzled as to why sales were dead. Fortunately they found
out that Brazilians did not want to be seen driving a car meaning 'small male ge
nitals' and promptly changed the name.
Translation of documents, slogans and literature must be checked and double chec
ked for meanings and cross cultural nuances. This should not only take place bet
ween languages but also within languages. Even in English there are cross cultur
al differences in meanings. For example, the airline UAL headlined an article ab
out Paul Hogan, star of Crocodile Dundee, with, "Paul Hogan Camps it up" which u
nfortunately in the UK and Australia is slang for "flaunting homosexuality".
The Spoken Word
Areas where the spoken word is used in PR, such as press conferences or intervie
ws, should be prepared for within a cross cultural framework. In short, speaking
styles and the content used differs across cultures.
British and American communication styles are described as 'explicit', meaning m
essages are conveyed solely through words. Correlating background information is
deemed necessary and divulged, ambiguity is avoided and spoken words have liter
al meaning. In many other cultures, communication is 'implicit'. The message lis
teners are likely to interpret is based on factors such as who is speaking, the
context and non-verbal cues. Spoken words do not fully convey the whole story as
listeners are expected to read between the lines.
With relation to content, speakers must be aware of the cross cultural differenc
es in humour, metaphors, aphorisms and anecdotes. In addition, references to top
ics such as politics and/or religion can be a very sensitive issue in other cult
ures.
When the spoken word is used the cross cultural distinctions of the target cultu
re must be incorporated in order to help the speaker appeal to and identify with
the audience.
The Written Word
Press releases, features and copywriting all require a certain amount of cross c
ultural sensitivity when being applied abroad. Journalistic traditions, writing
styles, news worthiness, delivery systems and whether a 'free press' exists are
all areas that will affect how the written word is tailored.
In addition, the most important point, from a cross cultural perspective, is how
to write in a way that engages the readers in that society or culture. Some cul
tures may prefer colourful and inspirational writing, others factual and objecti
ve. Some may be motivated by language that incorporates a religious or moral ton
e, others by a money-orientated or materialistic one.
When writing, the first step should always be to look at and integrate the cross
cultural particulars of the target audience.
Communication Channels
PR practitioners employ many different communication channels when trying to cir
culate information relating to their campaign. The main channels of communicatio
n in the UK or America are the radio, the press, TV, internet and public spaces.
However, these channels may not always be applicable abroad.
In many countries the radio, TV or newspapers may not be the primary source of i
nformation. Literacy rates may be poor and/or radios may be expensive. In Africa
, only 1.4% of the population have access to the internet. Even where such chann
els of communication do exist, such as TV, some methods used by PR practitioners
, namely guerrilla marketing, would be interpreted differently in foreign countr
ies. For example, interrupting live TV may be laughed at in the UK but in other
countries it would be seen as irresponsible and rebellious.
The usual channels of communication in some countries would simply have no effec
t in terms of PR. In such countries, local alternatives need to be sought such a
s religious leaders, tribal chiefs, school teachers or NGO's. Information coming
from such figures will not only reach the audience but be perceived as more cre
dible than if it were from foreigners.
PR Materials
The use of publicity materials in PR campaigns such as logos, slogans, pictures,
colours and designs must all be cross culturally examined. Pictures of seemingl
y innocuous things in one culture could mean something different in another. For
example, a company advertised eyeglasses in Thailand by featuring a variety of
cute animals wearing glasses. The ad failed as animals are considered to be a lo
w form of life in Thailand and no self respecting Thai would wear anything worn
by animals. Similarly, logos or symbols are culturally sensitive. A soft drink w
as introduced into Arab countries with an attractive label that had a six-pointe
d star on it. The Arabs interpreted this as pro-Israeli and refused to buy it.
Conclusion
The above cited areas are but a few of those that require decent cross cultural
assessment by PR practitioners if they wish their international and cross cultur
al campaigns to succeed. The aim of implementing a cross cultural analysis in PR
is to build campaigns that target the audience as best as possible, meaning app
ealing to their world view while avoiding offense
3. Communication Channels:
Special events:
Highly visible actions designed as public relations tactics for participants and
observers.
These types of tactics are helpful when an organizations actions need to speak l
ouder than words. Special events can help build relationships with many differen
t publics.
These events are also designed to attract news media audiences.
Pseudoevents:
An activity created solely to attract the attention of the news media.
Real event or publicity stunt?
However, PR practitioners do not have a final say of what is news and what is no
t. That is up to the media.
Controlled media:
Communication channels where practitioners have direct control over the message,
as well as where and how often it is distributed.
Examples include various forms of advertising, employee newsletters, speeches, b
rochures, and web sites
Controlled media:
Communication channels where practitioners have direct control over the message,
as well as where and how often it is distributed.
Examples include various forms of advertising, employee newsletters, speeches, b
rochures, and web sites

Relationship between PR and Communication

The public relations industry and the media have always enjoyed a curious relati
onship. Those in the public relations industry will tell you that the media can t
do its job without PR flacks. Media folk, meanwhile, will suggest that public re
lations departments are little more than mouthpieces for people who would still
speak to the media if the public relations industry never existed. And both view
points are correct to a point.
As technology has expanded our access to both the media and the public relations
industry, we ve seen a shift in how the two beasts interact in the wild. The rise
of 24-hour cable news and radio stations, the internet (and all that s come in it
s wake), and a consumer more in tune with the news cycle has created a new world
order. Unfortunately, as we progress, the lines are still blurry between what c
onstitutes promotion and what constitutes unbiased news reporting.
More evidence of this blurring emerged recently when Armstrong Williams, billed
as a conservative commentator, reportedly accepted $240,000 from the U.S. Depart
ment of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on his syndicat
ed television show. Public relations firm Ketchum, a unit of Omnicom Group, brok
ered the deal. The incident raised a number of questions, including whether it s a
ppropriate for the government to use tax dollars to promote policy in the media,
whether Williams should have disclosed the relationship to his audience, and wh
ether Ketchum crossed the line.
The backlash towards Williams indicated that people were not happy about the gov
ernment shelling out almost a quarter-of-a-million dollars to promote policy. De
mocrats and Republicans expressed unhappiness about the deal, and the White Hous
e suggested that it s none too pleased, either. More importantly, the public backl
ash towards the Williams-Ketchum deal revealed that the general public has a fea
r of a certain insidious form of public relations. If the government and our pol
iticians are constantly spinning us, can we believe them? And if public relation
s firms act as the government s lackey, can we trust them?
Williams, for his part, was quick to admit that he acted improperly in not discl
osing the paid relationship. His willingness to apologize was tempered by a curi
ous admission of naivete as to how public relations, the media, and Washington a
ll work. After all, this was a man who wrote a syndicated newspaper column and w
as often called on by the media to offer a conservative view of issues and event
s. Williams apology fell on deaf ears, and his childlike admission of naivete sho
uld have been taken with a rather large grain of salt. As a columnist and pundit
with strong ties to one political party, Williams was a shill for years, no dif
ferent than any of the people who have hosted or appeared on the now-defunct CNN
show Crossfire.
As for Ketchum, this is not the first time the firm has been accused of acting i
nappropriately. It also recently surfaced that the company had been distributing
video news reports to media outlets at the behest of the Bush Administration. T
hese video news reports were aimed to appear as if they were real news reports,
and Ketchum went so far as to use a former reporter in the clips. Television sta
tions around the country aired reports that consumers thought were news but were
nothing more than propaganda.
The Public Relations Society of America, often quiet in times of turmoil, spoke
up against the Williams-Ketchum alliance. As public relations professionals, we a
re disheartened by this type of tactic, Judith T. Phair, former president and chi
ef executive officer of PRSOA, said in a statement.
Any paid endorsement that is not fully disclosed as such and is presented as obje
ctive news coverage [is a violation of the group's code of ethics,] which requir
es that public relations professionals engage in open, honest communications and
fully disclose sponsors or financial interests involved in any paid communicati
ons activities.
In an ironic twist, public relations firms initially found themselves on the def
ensive in the wake of the Armstrong-Ketchum revelation. Quickly taking an offens
ive tact, however, the public relations industry fought back, not willing to be
painted with a black-eye by one firm s questionable actions.
[The fact Mr. Williams was paid to disseminate positive assessments of the law] d
estroys a lot of the credibility a lot of good people have built [in the PR indu
stry], Al Golin, chairman of GolinHarris, told The New York Times.
You have to be smart enough to say no to a client, Golin said. [Or say that somethi
ng] is a stupid idea, even if it comes from the client. You may keep the client
happy by saying yes all the time, but it s very short-sighted. Golin s remarks should
hit home for PR people, most of whom struggle to keep clients happy, as many cl
ients mistake advertising for public relations and have little understanding of
what public relations really constitutes. Keep Golin s comments handy the next tim
e a client has a request or idea that is, for lack of a better term, blatantly s
tupid.
With the media s credibility low, the credibility of the public relations industry
is not far behind. Those of us on the inside understand the delicate balance of
the public relations/media relationship, but the vast majority of the populatio
n sees public relations and the media operating in tandem, not independently. Fi
rms like Ketchum and quasi-journalists like Armstrong Williams do nothing but he
lp support the latter view.
Sooner or later, both the media and the public relations industry will have to a
nswer for their sins. The digital printing press will see to that, even if someo
ne in the mainstream media is unwilling to do so.