Public opinยญion is beyยญond right or wrong.
โItโs unfair!โ
In my role as a PR adviser, I hear those words often.
Many cliยญents argue that theyโre not askยญing for mirยญacles. They only want the attenยญtion their organยญisaยญtion rightยญfully deserves.
I wish it were that simple. But pubยญlic opinยญion isnโt fair.
Here goes:
Public Opinion and PR
โPublic opinยญion is a comยญpound of folly, weakยญness, preยญjuยญdice, wrong feelยญing, right feelยญing, obstinยญacy, and newsยญpaยญper paraยญgraphs.โ
โ Robert Peel
As a PR adviser, I encounter people who argue about fairยญness. However, when it comes to pubยญlic opinยญion, right or wrong is a secยญondยญary consideration.
How can this be?
Strictly speakยญing, right or wrong is determยญined in the court of law; PR is determยญined in the court of pubยญlic opinยญion. The courtยญhouse may hold the keys to our legยญal standยญings, but the court of pubยญlic senยญtiยญment rules supreme over our reputations.
And it could nevยญer be any different:
But if everyยญone, through the works of magic, got the pubยญlic opinยญion they think they deserve; there wouldnโt be enough menยญtal bandยญwidth to go around.
The Scarcity of Attention
โPublic opinยญion is a perยญmeatยญing influยญence, and it exacts obedยญiยญence to itself; it requires us to drink othยญer menโs thoughts, to speak othยญer menโs words, to folยญlow othยญer menโs habits.โ
โ Walter Bagehot
You could be doing PR for a lousy product or serยญvice, and the lousยญiยญness would be a sigยญniยญficยญant concern.
But you could also be doing PR for an excepยญtionยญal product or serยญvice but facing PR strategies greatยญer than yours.
Public opinยญion is an emoยญtionยญal ecoยญnomy drivยญen by the scarcity of attenยญtion. Beyond the conยญfines of right and wrong, the pubยญlicโs gaze exerts its power, elevยญatยญing or anniยญhilยญatยญing with unwaverยญing force.
Believing youโre morยญally or intelยญlecยญtuยญally superยญiยญor isnโt necesยญsarยญily a PR strength: a closed sysยญtems loop might obfusยญcate comยญpetยญitยญive develยญopยญment. Also, the pubยญlic might interยญpret overt disยญplays of rightยญeousยญness as entiยญtleยญment, narยญcissยญism, or megalomania.
The realm of pubยญlic opinยญion is a jungle with laws to match the context.
The genยญerยญal pubยญlic can be misยญtaken.
Consumers can make poor decisions.
Voters can elect the wrong politicians.
Right or wrong, the outยญcome is the outยญcome.
And the outยญcome is without mercy.
Perceptions Are Approximations
โIt is not at all clear how much the media influยญences pubยญlic opinยญion and how much pubยญlic opinยญion influยญences the media.โ
โ Bruce Jackson
Absolute truths are difยญfiยญcult startยญing points:
If you scratch the surยญface, youโll find that almost everything is conยญtestยญable. A glass could be half empty (refill needed!) or still half full (no refill, please!).
Whoโs perยญcepยญtion should reign?
Walter Lippmann: Public Opinion and Perception Management
No one bases their attiยญtudes and behaยญviours on realยญity; we base them on our perยญcepยญtions of realยญity.
Walter Lippmann (1889โโโ1974) proยญposed that our perยญcepยญtions of realยญity difยญfer from the actuยญal realยญity. The realยญity is too vast and too comยญplex for anyยญone to proยญcess. 1Lippmann, Walter. 1960. Public Opinion (1922). New York: Macmillan.
The research on perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment is focused on how organยญisaยญtions can creยญate a desired reputation:
โThe OPM [Organizational Perception Management] field focuses on the range of activยญitยญies that help organยญisaยญtions estabยญlish and/โor mainยญtain a desired repuยญtaยญtion (Staw et al., 1983). More speยญcificยญally, OPM research has primarยญily focused on two interยญreยญlated factors: (1) the timยญing and goals of perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment activยญitยญies and (2) speยญcifยญic perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment tacยญtics (Elsbach, 2006).โ
Source: Organization Development Journal 2Hargis, M. & Watt, John. (2010). Organizational perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment: A frameยญwork to overยญcome crisis events. Organization Development Journal. 28. 73โโโ87. โฆ Continue readยญing
Today, our perยญcepยญtions are heavยญily influยญenced by news media, influยญenยญcers, algorithms, and social graphs. Therefore, perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment is more critยญicยญal than ever.
โWe are all capยญtives of the picยญture in our headโโโour belief that the world we have experยญiยญenced is the world that really exists.โ
โ Walter Lippmann (1889โโโ1974)
Learn more: Walter Lippmann: Public Opinion and Perception Management
The absoยญlute seems to exist in the natยญurยญal world, obeyยญing the laws of physยญics, but the world of perยญcepยญtions is flutยญterยญing shadยญows, danยญcing in the light of the fire against the cave wall.
Public opinยญion is not about right or wrong. Itโs about who gets to decide how we see the world. And thatโs why pubยญlic relaยญtions is essenยญtial in buildยญing a society.
Thank you. Please supยญport my blog by sharยญing artยญicles with othยญer comยญmuยญnicยญaยญtions- and marยญketยญing proยญfesยญsionยญals. Please also conยญsider my PR serยญvices or speakยญing engageยญments.
PR Resource: Amplification Hypothesis
The Amplification Hypothesis
Itโs comยญmon to find that counยญterยญarยญguยญments strengthen existยญing beliefs instead of weakยญenยญing them.
The pheยญnomenยญon is known as the ampยญliยญficยญaยญtion hypoยญthesยญis, where disยญplayยญing cerยญtainty about an attiยญtude when talkยญing with anothยญer perยญson increases and hardens that attitude.
โAcross experยญiยญments, it is demonยญstrated that increasยญing attiยญtude cerยญtainty strengthens attiยญtudes (e.g., increases their resยญistยญance to perยญsuaยญsion) when attiยญtudes are uniยญvalent but weakยญens attiยญtudes (e.g., decreases their resยญistยญance to perยญsuaยญsion) when attiยญtudes are ambiยญvalยญent. These resยญults are conยญsistยญent with the ampยญliยญficยญaยญtion hypoยญthesยญis.โ
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the conยญsequences of attiยญtude cerยญtainty: The ampยญliยญficยญaยญtion hypoยญthesยญis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, โฆ Continue readยญing
How does the ampยญliยญficยญaยญtion hypoยญthesยญis work?
In a threatยญenยญing situยญation or emerยญgency, we resort to the primยญal (fastยญest) part of the brain and surยญvivยญal instincts (fight, flight and freeze). 4Surviving the Storm: Understanding the Nature of Attacks held at Animal Care Expo, 2011 in Orlando, FL.
Establishing comยญmon ground and exhibยญitยญing empathy demonยญstrates a genuยญine underยญstandยญing of their perยญspectยญive, fosยญterยญing trust and openยญness to your ideas. Conversely, a straยญtegic misยญmatch of attiยญtudes can serve as a powerยญful counยญterยญmeasยญure if your objectยญive is to deflect perยญsuasยญive attempts.
Persuade
To perยญsuade, align your attiยญtude with the tarยญget. Otherwise, you will only act to creยญate resistance.
Provoke
To put off a perยญsuader, misยญmatch their attiยญtudes. When they are logicยญal, be emoยญtionยญal, and vice versa.
Learn more: The Amplification Hypothesis: How To Counter Extreme Positions
Annotations
1 | Lippmann, Walter. 1960. Public Opinion (1922). New York: Macmillan. |
---|---|
2 | Hargis, M. & Watt, John. (2010). Organizational perยญcepยญtion manยญageยญment: A frameยญwork to overยญcome crisis events. Organization Development Journal. 28. 73โโโ87. https://โwwwโ.researchgโateโ.net/โpโuโbโlโiโcโaโtโiโoโnโ/โ2โ8โ8โ2โ9โ2โ5โ9โ6โ_โOโrโgโaโnโiโzโaโtโiโoโnโaโlโ_โpโeโrโcโeโpโtโiโoโnโ_โmโaโnโaโgโeโmโeโnโtโ_โAโ_โfโrโaโmโeโwโoโrโkโ_โtโoโ_โoโvโeโrโcโoโmโeโ_โcโrโiโsโiโsโ_โeโvโeโnts |
3 | Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the conยญsequences of attiยญtude cerยญtainty: The ampยญliยญficยญaยญtion hypoยญthesยญis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 810โโโ825. https://โdoiโ.org/โ1โ0โ.โ1โ0โ3โ7โ/โaโ0โ0โ1โ3โ192 |
4 | Surviving the Storm: Understanding the Nature of Attacks held at Animal Care Expo, 2011 in Orlando, FL. |
5 | Silfwer, J. (2017, June 13). Conversion TheoryโโโDisproportionate Minority Influence. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://โdocโtorโspinโ.net/โcโoโnโvโeโrโsโiโoโnโ-โtโhโeโoโry/ |
6 | Beck (1999): Homogenization, Dehumanization and Demonization. |
7 | Cognitive disยญsonยญance. (2023, November 20). In Wikipedia. https://โenโ.wikiโpeโdiaโ.org/โwโiโkโiโ/โCโoโgโnโiโtโiโvโeโ_โdโiโsโsโoโnโaโnce |