Improving Digital Practice in PR: Attitude

Guest Post By: Ken Payne, Western Kentucky University

Researcher Merton Fiur argued vigorously that practitioners must shorten their technology learning curves in order to keep from being isolated from the mainstream of management decision-making. The year was 1986. He was talking about practitioners' use of spreadsheets and databases.

In hindsight, Merton's assertions seem almost comical. But imagine the PR industry today if we collectively held tight to the position that such emerging technologies held little promise for increases in productivity, profits, or media placements. After all, spreadsheets and databases have little to do with symmetrical communication and relationship building -- right?

Attitude is defined for my study as an individual's overall reaction, or evaluation, to using Web 2.0 technologies. This reaction can be affective (blogging is fun), cognitive (wikis are useful), or behavioral (RUN!). Researchers have, in the past, found the attitude construct to be significant in some models of technology acceptance, and non-significant in others.

For my research, attitude toward using Web 2.0 technologies demonstrated the highest influence in practitioners' intent to use Web 2.0 technologies. It seems public relation practitioners are indeed motivated by the affective components of new technology. However, while more than 71% of practitioners surveyed believed they possessed the knowledge necessary to use Web 2.0 technologies, less than 48% of respondents agreed that using Web 2.0 technologies is "fun."

As in performance expectancy, training programs might focus on the content and creativity of Web 2.0 use -- not the specific coding, management systems, and server technologies required to launch a Web 2.0 program. Perhaps include links to popular and creative blogs, wikis and Facebook pages in the daily office update -- not just client, competitor, and technical stuff. And, when combined with a social influence component, programs that reward creative use of Web 2.0 technologies in client proposals might prove successful in increasing practitioners' intent to use these emerging technologies.

A recent study examining the effects of practitioner blog use on power in public relations found that, even though practitioners clearly see the importance of blogs, less than 10% of respondents reported writing/maintaining a blog, and, of those, only 23% were blogging as a part of their job. Likewise in this study, nearly 72% of respondents felt they had the necessary resources to use blogs. However, as reported in previous research, actual use of blogs -- defined as editing or contributing content -- remained distressfully low (less than 15%). In fact, nearly 86% of respondents felt that it would be easy for them to become proficient in using blogs -- a puzzling response given that so many respondents had never actually participated in blog activity (edit/contribute content).

Peter Debreceny, retired VP-Corporate Relations for Allstate Insurance and an authority on new technology and public relations, believes "Web 2.0 is not just adding to the communication mix. It requires a completely new way of thinking." It seems reasonable that intervention strategies designed to increase practitioners' intent to use Web 2.0 technologies will require this new way of thinking as well. What we do know is that training programs and demonstrations tied to increases in productivity, usage programs tied to increases in compensation -- mixed with a healthy dose of fun, creativity, and management leadership -- might give the industry the required new media nudge necessary to move forward.

Ken Payne is an associate professor in the public relations sequence of Western Kentucky University's School of Journalism and Broadcasting. He teaches courses on public relations fundamentals, strategy, planning, and campaigns and has worked with the development of the School’s new media curriculum and iMedia Certificate in Multimedia Journalism. Ken's research efforts focus on the use of strategic communication to influence behavior. He has previously worked for Mountain Sports Interactive, Vail Resorts, and the United States Army. He can be contacted at ken.payne@wku.edu.

Comments

[Scott Ellington]

I'd like to introduce the heretical notion that technological innovation and attitude MAY have long been engaged in an adversarial relationship. Each gain in telecommunications capability involves a concomitant sacrifice of presence in the flesh such that a Crackberry addict stoops to check her mechanism at the only crucial moment in her son's junior varsity badminton tournament, opting out of all future discussions of that moment in years to come.

The advantages potentiated by new technology are manifold, probably inevitable and rabidly touted, BUT the cardinal disadvantage of attenuated personal presence (attitude) is seldom pitced by passionate advocates of The Next Big Thing, who have nothing to gain from espousing balance... except the respect and admiration of the potential buyer, for looking past the prospect of personal wealth and fame to a rounded contemplation of cultural consequences.

[Sam Ford]

I definitely agree, Scott, that unbridled technological enthusiasm is often as misguided as techno-reactionary tendencies. I've had a BlackBerry myself for awhile, and the push e-mail has the advantage of not driving you to check your email all the time anymore, but likewise the realization people have that you can access your email instantly and thus, from some sectors, the expectation that a lack of immediate response means you must be ignoring their message.

In the past couple of years, I've found that people start to give you the "why didn't you respond?" e-mail quicker than ever, sometimes within a day. That would be understandable, when it's a co-worker and they know that you're on-the-clock. But it's a little stranger when it comes from a contact you don't know very well, who nevertheless has the assumption you are setting by your computer at all times...

But I'm interested in how much of a binary the physical world and the digital world are as well. Ignoring the physical world for the digital happens quite often these days (as opposed to good old-fashioned spacing out in the old days, or merely skipping the ball game altogether). Teachers can report plenty of classroom problems with having people checking e-mail, etc., instead of paying attention in class. Henry Jenkins says he considers it an honor to have a class full of laptops open, even if people are multitasking and looking at other things during class, but that's a double-edged sword. I once gave a presentation at MIT that involved no visuals, just me speaking, and I could tell that people had a hard time concentrating in an environment where they couldn't be looking at multiple screens, etc.

I'm a little skeptical about this idea that media CAUSES people to have shorter attention spans, but I do think that long lectures, boring business meetings, and so on teach us an important skill that needs to still be taught somewhere: focusing your attention on something that isn't your primary interest at the moment. Sitting in business meetings that go on way too long, or classes on topics of almost no interest to you, can teach one to focus in ways that can be helpful for work and for social interaction in general.

[Scott Ellington]

Sam,

Microsoft, once upon a time, asked, "Where do You want to go today?". It's a superb question that licensed, validated and venerated the act spacing out because the answer to the question Required the respondent to daydream about extensive personal capabilities that have always been unavailable.

It's a question Microsoft's more recent promotional campaigns no longer ask, but I beleive that somewhere in the evolving weave of realword&virtual capablilities that the key to the future of Web 2.0 is to be found.

"I want to be the mother of the greatest shortstop who ever played the game, and my access to mobile computing, coupled with my drive suggest a number of strategies that crystalize with the crack of the bat of my son's line drive." The customer's personal presence, preferences and personal priorities are not yet the focus of technology, but everybody's learning that proprietary platforms/interfaces/procedures and incapacities in systems impede customer access to the Very fine art of spacing out (realizing daydreams).

[Sam Ford]

Microsoft's move away from that quote is interesting in and of itself, Scott. The key to the question they posed isn't the open-endedness of it but rather the personalization. They ask a very broad question, that doesn't have any boundaries. The boundaries are then applied by the audience member, who starts to qualify down what this prompt must be asking. Is it a physical destination? Is it the first day of the rest of their lives? Is it personal? Is it professional?

So it should be with technology. Can companies provide blueprints about how to use technology? Absolutely. Visitors to sites, customers of brands, and viewers of television shows occasionally like some indication of ways they might think about something. But ultimately, the meaning lies with them.

[Scott Ellington]

Ultimately, a truly great product (like a great photograph) will speak for itself, without the need of an explainer/salesman to tenderize the customer, and the process of transforming the unimagined/unspoken aspirations of customers into products that sell themselves is exactly the process in which you're engaged. It's science fiction.

The first round's on me.

[Sam Ford]

That's certainly the process brands SHOULD be on. Brands should be interested first and foremost the customer's experience. The problem is, when customers become numbers on a page instead of a group of autonomous individuals, the chance for dialogue is minimal, and the realization that the meaning lies with the customer is forgotten. Companies should hone their message and have respect for the person they're communicating with, yes; but so many overprescribe what a product means or does, or else have no use for, or avenues to facilitate, feedback.