We are learning in IMC 618 ? PR Concepts & Strategy how public relations is assuming a central role in all sectors of business and government today because of its primary concern with developing mutually beneficial relationships between such entities and their publics. These relationships, built on a foundation of trust, ethics, and other important values, are the crucial foundation on which successful organizations and societies at large are built and thrive.

This rise in the stature of public relations has largely been roused by the corporate scandals and other negative events in the United States during the early part of this century which have damaged the relationships and underlying trust between organizations and their stakeholders.

Some organizations have indeed learned from the failings of others, embracing public relations and with it the notion that building strong relationships with publics should be of supreme importance and a top priority. Others, while largely on the right path, have failed to remain consistent in their behavior and risk heading straight for PR calamity. Examples are given below that illustrate both scenarios.

A company?s unwavering commitment to stand by its products and services is one of the best ways in which to build relationships and trust with its publics. One of Company A?s customers has a camera that malfunctioned, and rather than throwing it away, she sent it back to the company for repair. The company promptly fixed it free of charge and followed up with her within a month to inquire how the product was working and to determine her level of satisfaction. She was elated when she received her camera back, as good as new, and with absolutely no charges incurred for the services performed. She will doubtlessly be a loyal customer of this brand for many years to come and generate a fair amount of free and positive word-of-mouth PR along the way.

To sum it up:

Building strong relationships = satisfied publics = positive PR

When a company?s actions deviate from its mission, this can damage the relationships it has with key publics and result in negative publicity. One company, well-known for its dedication to social and philanthropic good deeds, has shown some inconsistency in its otherwise meritorious behavior at one of its stores. To give voice to this illustration, an email is cited below written and sent to Company B by a frequent and loyal customer who experienced the contradiction first hand.

---

To Whom It May Concern:

On [this day] I visited [Company B] located at [this address]. I visit this location 5 days a week between 1:00 – 2:30pm. This [company] recently began to sell a phenomenal [food item] which I now purchase every time I visit. Two days ago when I requested the [item] at about 2:30pm I was told by one of your employees that “it’s a morning [item] and they?get tossed out once the PM shift comes in.” As a loyal customer of 10 years, I am appalled with this revelation.

One of the main reasons I support [Company B] is because it’s suppose [sic] to be an environmentally conscientious company. The knowledge that you dispose of food simply because you are switching shifts is completely and utterly contradictory to the idea that you support the environment. Waste is NOT an environmental characteristic! When I inquired why the food was not being donated, I was informed that others [sic] locations do donate food but this location doesn’t because “they don’t have any one that [sic] wants it.” This is unacceptable. Why is this location not working with a local food bank? With the number of homeless people and shelters in South Florida, how can anyone possibly believe that the food you dispose of is not wanted? This is a social issue as much as it is a green issue. As an environmentalist, I am disgusted with the fact that food is thrown away.

Rest assured that you have severely damaged my perception of what your company really stands for and I will be re-evaluating whether I want to continue being a [Company B] consumer.

Sincerely,

—
[Customer]
Earth Day Every Day

“You must be [the] change you wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi [sic]

---

The company?s response to this email thanked the customer for their interest in the company, affirmed its strong commitment to social and environmental sustainability, stated that ?[Company B] donates all past-date [food items] to local homeless shelters, and [that] many of [their] partners (employees) volunteer at their local facilities.? The respondent further noted: ?I have shared your comments with the manager and district manager for their consideration.?

Although the reply affirmed the company?s commitment to environmental and social sustainability, and detailed the steps it takes toward this effort, the actions witnessed in some of its stores strongly contradict its assertions and efforts. Is it enough merely to share the customer?s comments with the manager and district manager ?for their consideration?? Should the company do more to prevent a potential PR crisis, and if so what additional actions might it take? After all, information such as this could easily be virally transmitted online or leaked to the press and damage the reputation of an otherwise responsible company.

To sum it up:

Contradictory actions = unsatisfied publics = negative PR

What measures might organizations take to achieve excellence in building strong relationships with their publics? How can organizations best prevent potential negative repercussions stemming from actions that contradict their overall image?