MEASURING RELATIONSHIPS

Transcription

1 CIPR PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIPLOMA MEASURING RELATIONSHIPS APPLICATION OF THE PR RELATIONSHIP MEASUREMENT SCALE TO THE UNITE AGAINST HATE CAMPAIGN Eva Grosman January 2011

2 CONTENTS {GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS} {TABLE OF FIGURES} iii iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. INTRODUCTION Background 2 Aims and Objectives 2 Key challenges 2 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Stakeholders and Publics 3 Relationship Management in Public Communication Campaigns 4 PR Relationships Measurement Scale 5 III. METHODOLOGY Research Overview 6 Research Strategy 6 Survey Design 6 Defining the sample 7 Data Collection 8 Validity and Reliability 8 IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Responses Overview 9 Relationship Components 9 Management vs. Publics 10 Results Analysis 11 V. CONCLUSION Evaluation Model for Public Communication Campaigns 12 Recommendations 14 REFERENCES 15 APPENDIX 1 16 APPENDIX 2 19 ii

3 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS CRC DOJ icoco NI OFMDFM PSNI PR UAH Community Relations Council The Department of Justice The Institute of Community Cohesion Northern Ireland The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister The Police Service of Northern Ireland Public Relations Unite against Hate iii

4 TABLE OF FIGURES FIG 1. Unite against Hate Relationship Linkages. Adopted from Grunig and Hunt (1984). FIG 2. Unite against Hate Questionnaire Respondents. FIG 3. Averaged scores by stakeholder and relationship component. FIG 4. Relationships Indicators by Stakeholders. FIG 5. Relationships Indicators by Management vs Publics. FIG 6. Evaluation Model for Public Communication Campaigns. iv

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Extensive research, published by the Institute for Public Relations indicates that effective organisations achieve their objectives because they develop meaningful relationships with their constituencies. Others highlight, that the fundamental goal of public relations is to manage communication in order to build good relationships and mutual understanding between organisation and its most important audiences (Gordon 1997 cited Edwards 2009). Yet most public relations evaluation concentrates on measuring the outputs and outcomes of public relations programmes, not on measuring relationships. The overall aim of this paper is to develop the Relationship Evaluation Model for the Public Communication Campaigns, based on the PR Relationship Measurement Scale developed by Dr. Linda Hon and Dr. James Grunig and published in Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations (1999). By reviewing the literature around stakeholders and publics, relationship management and PR Relationship Measurement Scale and by testing application of the PR Relationship Measuring Scale to the Unite against Hate campaign (case study), this paper arrives at the three stage Relationship Evaluation Model, including: Stakeholders Mapping Application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale Relationship Indicators and Gap Analysis Application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale as the evaluation tool for the public communication campaigns can help public relations practitioners not only to measure relationship perceptions between publics and organisation, but also to measure gaps in the way different publics perceive those relationships and to develop strategies for maintaining (or repairing) long-term relationships. 1

6 I. INTRODUCTION Background The Unite against Hate campaign was motivated and brought into existence as a result of the increased number of hate crime incidents in Northern Ireland and some negative headlines screened across the world during the summer The campaign launched in September 2009, highlights all six forms of hate crime and challenges everyone in Northern Ireland to unite to stop it. The Unite against Hate campaign was initiated by five partners including: the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, Equality Commission, Community Relations Council, Northern Ireland Office Community Safety Unit (now Department of Justice) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Since its launch the Unite against Hate campaign has aimed to raise awareness of hate crime among the general public, draw attention to its negative impact on society, and to promote the benefits of a diverse population to Northern Ireland. The campaign has gathered unprecedented momentum with a high level of public awareness and media coverage. Excellent working relationships have been established with stakeholders and the basis for further working partnerships have been created. Institute for Community Cohesion (icoco) has been appointed to carry out comprehensive research into the campaign evaluation methods and to develop an evaluation framework for Unite against Hate. The framework provided basis for measurement of short term outputs and outcomes, however failed to measure long term effects on relationships between campaign and its publics. Aims and Objectives The overall aim of this research is to develop an evaluation model for Unite against Hate campaign with a specific focus on relationships measurement. This will be achieved by: reviewing the literature around stakeholders and publics, relationship management, and PR Relationship Measurement Scale testing perceptions of relationships and identifying gaps in the way the strategic publics perceive those relationships by using PR Relationship Measuring Scale identifying how the PR Relationship Measuring Scale can be used to create an evaluation tool for Unite against Hate and other public communication campaigns. Key challenges and boundaries Unite against Hate could be defined as a social marketing or the public communication campaign as it attempts to motivate behavioural changes and exert influence on target audiences for the benefit of the wider society. Yeomans (2009) states that PR or social marketing orientation will depend on a range of factors, while McKie and Toledano (2008) position interchanges between public relations and social marketing as the strongest and most desirable partnership and argue that both should work together. However, due to the limited timeframe and resources the single public relation orientation will be applied to this study. 2

7 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Stakeholders and Publics The fundamental goal of public relations is to manage communication in order to build good relationships and mutual understanding between organisation and its most important audiences (Gordon 1997 cited Edwards 2009). In order to identify the most important audiences one must clarify the difference between a stakeholder and a public. Both terms are frequently used interchangeably however Rawlins (2006) argues they shouldn t be, as he distinguishes that stakeholders are identified according to their relationship to organisation, while publics are often identified according to their relationship with the message. Freeman (1984 cited Rawlins 2006) defines stakeholders as any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organisation s objective, while Grunig and Hunt (1984) describe publics as stakeholders that face a problem or have an issue with the organisation. Grunig and Rapper (1992 cited in Edwards 2009) offered the basic segmentation of the publics, by differentiating between publics who seek information and respond to the organisational initiatives (active) and those who do not proactively want to engage with the organisation (passive). Based on Grunig s situational theory of publics (1983), active and passive publics can be divided further into groups according to the types of issues that may generate a reaction (all-issue publics, apathetic publics, single-issue publics and hot-issue publics). Grunig and Hunt (1984) also presented a model based on problem recognition rather than engagement with the issue, classifying publics into latent, aware and active publics. Broad understanding of the diversity and scope of stakeholders is a critical starting point for strategic management and all planned communications. By bringing together and reviewing research in stakeholder theory and stakeholder management Rawlins (2006) developed a model to prioritise stakeholders through a four-step process by indentifying all potential stakeholders according to their relationship to the organisation; prioritising stakeholders by attributes; prioritising stakeholders by relationship to the situation and prioritising the publics according to the communications strategy. Rawlins (2006) comprehensive process may not be applicable to the public communication campaigns as it focuses particularly on the stakeholders groups that become active publics. Public communication campaigns are the embodiment of active publics (Wolstenholme 2009) and can be summed up as purposive attempts to inform, persuade, or motivate behaviour changes in a relatively well-defined and large audience (Rice and Atkin 1989 cited Yeomans 2009). Public communication campaigns therefore focus on influencing latent and aware publics via multiple channels. One would suggest that linkage model developed by Grunig and Hunt (1984) and based on work by Esman (1972 cited Gregory 2009) provides best, but not exclusive stakeholder mapping method for the public communication campaigns. 3

8 The linkage model identifies stakeholders according to their relationship with an organisation and recognises four categories: enabling linkages, normative linkages, diffused linkages and functional linkages (input and output). Enabling linkages represent those who have power and resources for the organisation to exist, normative linkages include associations and groups with which the organisation has a common interest, diffused linkages are those who have no formal relationship with the organisation, but may take interest in it and finally the functional linkages are those who are essential to the function of the organisation (input functional linkages) and that are recipients of the products or services (output functional linkages). Within the public communication campaign setting, several channels and several senders need to be considered to reach a heterogeneous publics (Yeomans 2009). Organisation would, therefore be likely to utilise its relationships with different stakeholders to communicate and influence segments of the general public who needs to be mobilised and segment of the population whose behaviour needs to change (output functional linkages). There are many ways in which stakeholders and publics may be segmented and the method will depend very much on the needs of the organisation. Relationship Management in Public Communication Campaigns Choo (2009) states that stakeholders are contained, or at least relationships with them are managed, in order to prevent them developing into the publics. One would disagree with this statement as the precise aim of the public communication campaigns is to engage all stakeholders and to convert them into active publics. Choo (2009) argues further that both Johnson and Scholes (2002) stakeholder power/interest mapping matrix and Grunig and Hunt s (1984) situational theory of publics are segmentation tools in the execution of strategy to manage and contain the impact of publics on the organisation. Ledingham (2003) offers, however a different theory: Effectively managing organisational-public relationships around common interest and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting organisations and publics. Public relations as a relationship management approach defined by Ledingham (2003) is very much applicable to the public communication campaigns, as it implies that strategic and tactics should always be considered in terms of their effect on the relationships, rather then benefits they provide for the organisation itself. It holds that interests of the organisation and publics are balanced by the organisation-publics relationships management administered by the public relations function. Communication is central to the relationship management as it is to the public communication campaigns. In the summary of the most useful findings from relationship management theory, Broom et al. (2000 cited Edwards 2009) presents three principles for the public relations as relationship management: relationships are characterised by interdependence; relationships represent exchanges or transfers or information, energy or resources; relationships have antecedents (histories) and consequences (effects or results). 4

9 PR Relationships Measurement Scale To measure the outcomes of relationships with key publics and to identify potential gaps between the way different publics perceive those relationships, Hon and Grunig (1999) developed PR Relationship Measurement Scale, which was published by the Institute for Public Relations in the Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Based on extensive research and review of literature in interpersonal communication and psychology Hon and Grunig (1999) found that the outcomes of long-term relationships between organisation and its key publics can be best measured by focusing on very precise indicators. The six relationship outcome indicators identified by Hon and Grunig (1999, p.3) include: control mutuality, which is the degree to which organizations and publics agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another; trust, which is one party s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party; there are three dimensions to trust: integrity, dependability and competence; satisfaction, the extent to which each party feels favourably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced; commitment, the extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote; exchange relationship, where one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future; communal relationship, where both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other, even when they get nothing in return. They developed a model, which suggests administering a survey that includes a series of agree/disagree statements developed to measure the six relationship outcomes. A complete list of items for relationship scales, which have been tested and found to be valid measures of relationship outcomes, has been included in the Appendix II on page 19. Respondents were asked to use a 9-point scale to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. The final scores were calculated by averaging grades of all the items measuring each relationship outcome. By measuring the perceived quality of relationships, researchers were able to provide quantifiable evidence of the perceptions that publics have of their relationship with organisations and to measure the relational forces that usually explain why organisations have good or bad reputation. Hon and Grunig (1999) also suggested adapting statements in the survey to measure management perceptions of the relationships and to identify gaps in the way management and publics perceive those relationships, in order to develop strategies for maintaining or repairing relationships. Other measuring models include Huang s (2001 cited Edwards 2009) cross-cultural scale for measuring public perceptions of organisations based on five dimensions of relationships, including control mutuality, trust, relational satisfaction and relational commitment, favour and face. 5

10 III. METHODOLOGY Research Overview The overall objective of the primary research is to apply the PR Relationship Measuring Scale developed by Hon and Grunig (1999) to the Unite against Hate to test perceptions of relationships and to identify gaps in the way Unite against Hate and publics perceive those relationships. This research relates to a single Unite against Hate case study. It aims, however to test the existing model and to identify how it can be used to create an evaluation tool for other public communication campaigns. Research Strategy As a part of the Unite against Hate case study, the survey strategy has been applied to this research to analyse quantifiable evidence of the relationships perceptions. While some claim that the survey strategy is usually associated with the deductive approach (Saunders et al, 2007), it is argued that this research is approached mainly inductively, as it involves the development of a theory/model as a result of the observation of empirical data, even though it includes some deductive aspects (theory/model testing). Survey Design The survey design has been based on guidelines and relationship measurement scales documented in Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations by Hon and Grunig (1999). Six main sections have been included in the survey to measure the perceived quality of relationships. The final section has been added to provide respondents with opportunity for further comments/feedback. Main sections include a series of agree/disagree statements with a nine-point scale to indicate the extent to which respondents agreed or disagreed with each statement (1 strongly disagree to 9 strongly agree). Statements in each section focused on a very precise elements identified by Hon and Grunig (1999), including control mutuality, trust (with three dimensions: integrity, dependability and competence), satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship and communal relationship. In order to increase probability of the survey completion by respondents and also to ensure a good level of reliability, between 4 and 6 statements have been used per section to measure perceptions for each relationships indicator. The original items for relationship scales (Hon and Grunig 1999) included some reversed questions. No reversed questions were used in this study due to the limited time and resources available to the researcher. Finally, two versions of the questionnaire with the wording of the statements slightly modified have been developed. One version has been administered to the publics and one to the campaign management team to measure not only perceptions of relationships, but also to identify potential gaps in the way management and publics perceive those relationships. 6

11 Both versions of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. Defining the sample The first stage of defining sample included Unite against Hate stakeholders mapping. The literature review has identified a theoretical and academic framework for mapping stakeholders (see chapter II). Linkage model developed by Grunig and Hunt (1984) has been applied to identify and group Unite against Hate stakeholders (FIGURE 1) according to their relationship to the Unite against Hate. In the second stage of defining sample for this study, 12 respondents from each group (60 in total) have been selected. ENABLING LINKAGES Campaign partners: OFMDFM Department of Justice Community Relation Council Police Service NI Equality Commission FUNCTIONAL LINKAGES (INPUT) Management Admin and Finance Ambassadors PR Support Suppliers NORMATIVE LINKAGES Representatives of 6 minorities affected by hate crime Sporting, cultural and community organisations Other associations DIFFUSED LINKAGES Media Political parties Other Government Dept Councils Business Organisations NGO s FUNCTIONAL LINKAGES (OUTPUT) Segments of the general public to be mobilised Segment of the population whose behaviour needs to change FIGURE 1. Unite against Hate Relationship Linkages. Adopted from Grunig and Hunt (1984). 7

12 Data Collection A self-administered online questionnaire approach has been selected to collect data for this survey as per original Maryland study (Hon and Grunig 1999). The anonymous questionnaire has been published on Survey Monkey ( Respondents were contacted by with an individual invitation to participate in the survey. Each included hyperlink to the online questionnaire. This was followed by a second (one week later) to thank early respondents and to renew invitation to non-respondents to take part. Five hyperlinks have been generated, each for different segments with an appropriate version of the questionnaire. Version 1 of the questionnaire has been administered to the Unite against Hate stakeholders with normative, diffused and output functional linkages, while version 2 to those with enabling and input functional linkages. Validity and Reliability The content validity of the questionnaire refers to the extent to which the measurement statements in the questionnaire provide adequate coverage of the investigative questions (Saunders et al, 2007). Dr Walter K. Lindenmann, Chair of the IPR Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation stated that testing of PR Relationship Measurement scales (used to design questionnaire for this study) showed them to be good measures of perceptions of relationships, strong enough to be used in evaluating relationships (Hon and Grunig 1999). Saunders et al (2007) describes reliability as the extent to which data collection techniques will yield consistent findings. Following Hon and Grunig (1999) recommendation, at least four different statements have been used per section to measure each relationships indicator to ensure a good level of reliability of the Unite against Hate survey. To further reduce threads to reliability respondents have been reassured of the anonymity and all questionnaires have been distributed at the same time. 8

13 IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Responses Overview Out of 60 people approached (12 from each stakeholder group), 49 responded by starting the questionnaire and 46 completed the entire survey. The two most successful respondent groups included Unite against Hate stakeholders with functional (input and output) linkages, followed by those with normative and diffused linkages. Stakeholders with enabling linkages to the campaign provided the lowest number of responses. The figure below (FIGURE 2) demonstrates the breakdown of respondents and their relationship to the organisation. ENABLING FUNCTIONAL (INPUT) NORMATIVE DIFFUSED FUNCTIONAL (OUTPUT) RESPONDENTS CONTACTED QUESTIONNAIRES RESPONSES VALID QUESTIONNAIRES SUCCESS RATE VALID 66% 83% 75% 75% 83% 76% FIGURE 2. Unite against Hate Questionnaire Respondents. Relationship Components 9-point scales in each section, consisting of 4-6 statements and designed to measure specific component of relationships, including control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship and communal relationship have been averaged. The scores in the figure below (FIGURE 3) represent these averages and provide quantifiable evidence of the perception that different stakeholders groups have of their relationship with the Unite against Hate according to six relationships components. TOTAL TRUST ENABLING FUNCTIONAL (INPUT) FUNCTIONAL (OUTPUT) NORMATIVE DIFFUSED UAH AVERAGE CONTROL MUTUALITY COMMITMENT SATISFACTION COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIP EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIP FIGURE 3. Averaged scores by stakeholder and relationship component. 9

14 The first five (control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, communal relationship) indicators average scores are at the higher end of the scale with the average score of 7.6, while the exchange relationship indicator average score was just 3.6. The chart below (FIGURE 4) provides visual comparison of the six indicators for each stakeholder group INDICATORS BY STAKEHOLDERS (LINKAGE MODEL) ENABLING LINKAGES FUNCTIONAL INPUT LINKAGES FUNCTIONAL OUTPUT LINKAGES NORMATIVE LINKAGES DIFFUSED LINKAGES FIGURE 4. Relationships Indicators by Stakeholders. Management vs. Publics In addition the scores of the Unite against Hate stakeholders with normative, diffused and output functional linkages (defined here as publics) were averaged and compared to average scores of those with enabling and input functional linkages (defined here as management). The figure below (FIGURE 5) illustrates this comparison INDICATORS BY MANAGEMENT vs PUBLICS MANAGEMENT PUBLICS FIGURE 5. Relationships Indicators by Management vs. Publics. 10

15 Results Analysis The quantifiable evidence of the perception that stakeholder groups have of their relationship with Unite against Hate, indicated that the organisation is perceived as one with an exceptionally good reputation. Commitment was scored at the high and equal level (8) by all stakeholders, which indicates there is a common belief that the relationship with the Unite against Hate is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. The campaign cause has a great level of public support and there is a strong commitment to address hate crime and prejudice issues in Northern Ireland by all stakeholders. Control mutuality and satisfaction were the second highest scored indicators (7.6). Interaction between Unite against Hate and its stakeholders is perceived as a positive one, where all parties felt they had some degree of control over the other. Trust and communal relationship indicators were both scored at slightly lower level (7.4). It indicated, however, that there was still a good level of confidence in the Unite against Hate and willingness to share information and resources between parties. All stakeholders were prepared to provide benefits to the Unite against Hate because of the concern for the welfare of the wider community and common objectives. Exchange relationship indicator score was low (3.6) as most of the stakeholder groups believed that Unite against Hate as a public communication campaign cares about wider society and provides services for publics who have nothing to exchange for them. One would assume that publics would perceive the Unite against Hate campaign as an initiative designed to serve others without expectation to benefit. Stakeholders with enabling linkages to the campaign felt particularly strong about the public role of the campaign by scoring the lowest grade (2) for this indicator. Furthermore, no major gaps in relationships perceptions were identified between publics (those with normative, diffused and functional output linkages) and management (those with enabling and functional input linkages). While management tend to be more conservative in its scores in relation to trust, control mutuality, satisfaction and exchange relationship, publics felt slightly weaker about the communal relationship perception. Exchange and communal relationship define relationships that PR programmes attempt to achieve. Exchange is the essence of the marketing theory, while communal relationship is at the core of public relations. Among all stakeholders, those with functional output linkages to the Unite against Hate, who are the campaign s core target audience, provided the highest score for the exchange (5) and the lowest for the communal (6) relationship indicators. This clearly shows that, while the Unite against Hate campaign is highly regarded by all its stakeholders, it needs to consider ways of strengthening communal relationships with its key publics, especially segments of the population whose behaviour needs to change. The slightly higher score for exchange indicator and lower for the communal relationship one by those with the functional output linkages do not need to be perceived as a negative outcome. Hon and Grunig (1999, p.21) state: The psychologists, Clark and Mills, who developed the concept of communal relationships have pointed out that most relationships begin as exchange relationships and then develop into communal relationships as they mature. 11

16 V. CONCLUSION This research aimed to test application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale to Unite against Hate, in order to explore ways of adopting it as the evaluation tool for other public communication campaigns. While the relationship outcomes indicators have been tested only within one case study, researchers strongly believe this model is highly applicable within the public communication campaign setting. Researchers believe that the long-term success of the public communication campaigns depends on the quality of the relationships with all strategic publics. In order to influence segments of the general public to be mobilised and segments of the population whose behaviour needs to change, ongoing development and maintenance of stable relationships with multiple publics is needed. Application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale as the evaluation tool for the public communication campaigns can help public relations practitioners not only to measure relationship perceptions between publics and organisation, but also to measure gaps in the way different publics perceive those relationships and to develop strategies for maintaining (or repairing) long-term relationships. Evaluation Model for Public Communication Campaigns Researchers believe that the evaluation model for the public communication campaign should include 3 stages: Stakeholders Mapping Application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale Relationship Indicators and Gap Analysis The figure below (FIGURE 6) illustrates the proposed evaluation process. Stakeholders mapping to enable better segmentation Linkage model recommended, but any model could be applied STAKEHOLDERS MAPPING APPLICATION OF THE PR RELATIONSHIP MEASUREMENT SCALE Questionnaire adopted according to the mapping model Scanning of strategic publics Indicators analysis to measure perceptions of relationships Gap analysis to suggest strategies for maintaining or repairing relationships RELATIONSHIPS INDICATORS AND GAP ANALYSIS FIGURE 6. Evaluation Model for Public Communication Campaigns. 12

17 Stakeholders Mapping The first stage of the proposed evaluation process includes in-depth stakeholders mapping. The aim of this stage is to identify strategic publics and to provide basis for a defining sample for the evaluation survey. Researches here recommend application of the linkage model (Grunig and Hunt 1984), however any other models could be applied. One could choose to measure general public perceptions of relationship with an organisation, group respondents into active and passive publics or determine management perceptions of the relationships as well as perceptions of publics. Successful public communication campaigns result in good relations with multiple publics, so it is extremely important that researchers examine perceptions of relationships of the wide and representative sample according to the needs of the organisation and its stage of the organisational lifecycle. For example in the early stages of the public communication campaign one may choose to measure perception of the quality of relationship with the respondents with enabling and normative linkages to the organisation. Researchers believe that the model used for the evaluation of public communication campaigns, should be preferably identified in the planning stages. Application of the PR Relationship Measurement Scale The second stage of the proposed evaluation process consists of evidence gathering. The questionnaire items would have to be adopted in accordance to the mapping model used, so it could be applied to measure the perceptions of the relationships of different stakeholder groups/publics. At least four statements should be used per outcome indicator, including control mutuality, satisfaction, commitment, communal relationship, exchange relationship and six for trust (two items per component of trust indicator: integrity, competence and dependability). Those statements can be administered formally or informally, in a form of survey to gather quantifiable evidence or focus group interviews for qualitative research to best fit the evaluation requirements of a specific organisation. Questionnaires used for the purpose of the Unite against Hate study are published in Appendix 1. Full list of items for relationship scales from the Guidelines for measuring Relationships in Public Relations (Hon and Grunig 1999) can be found in Appendix 2. Relationship Indicators and Gap Analysis The final stage of the proposed evaluation model is the relationship indicators and gap analysis. Participants in the original Maryland research (Hon and Grunig 1999) and the Unite against Hate study responded on a 9-point scale to indicate the extent to which they agreed/disagreed with statements measuring six indicators. All items in each scale were averaged. Researchers recommend using the same, tested scale for future studies. 13

18 The average scores for six indicators provide quantifiable evidence of perceptions that publics have of their relationship with the organisation. To identify any gaps in the relationship perceptions scores of different stakeholder groups must be compared. The gap analysis can provided basis for development of strategies for maintaining or repairing relationships. Recommendations This paper could not further explore the link between two of the relationships outcome indicators: exchange and communal relationships. Those two indicators define relationships that PR programmes, such as public communication campaigns attempt to achieve. Exchange is the essence of the marketing theory, while communal relationship is at the core of public relations. McKie and Toledano (2008) argue that public relations and social marketing create the strongest and most desirable partnership and claim that both should work together. Further research is required to explore relationship between public relations and social marketing and investigate methods for measuring quality of relationships for campaigns, which integrate elements of PR and social marketing. Another area of relevant research should look at the review of effective strategies for maintaining (or repairing) long-term relationships. 14

19 REFERENCES Chia, J. (2004) Is trust a necessary component of relationship management? Journal of Communication Management, 9(3), Choo, G. Audiences, stakeholders, public. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp Edwards, L. (2009) Public relations theories: an overview. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp Falconi, T. M. (2010) Global Stakeholder Relationship Governance. Gainesville: Institute for Public Relations. Gregory, A. (2009) Management and organisation of public relations. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp Hastings, G. (2008) Social Marketing: Why should the devil have all the best tunes? Oxford: Elsevier. Hon, L.C. and Grunig, J.E. (1999) Guidelines for measuring Relations in Public Relations. Gainesville: Institute for Public Relations. Ihlen, Ø. (2008) Mapping the environment for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(2), Institute of Community Cohesion (2010) An evaluation framework for the Unite against Hate campaign. Coventry: icoco. Ledingham, J.A. (2003) Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), MacFadyen, L., Stead, M. and Hastings, G. (1999) A Synopsis of Social Marketing. Institute for Social Marketing. McKie, D. and Toledano, M. (2008) Dangerous liaison or perfect match? Public relations and social marketing. Public Relations Review, 34(4), Rawlins, B.L. (2006) Prioritising Stakeholders for Public Relations. Gainesville: Institute for Public Relations. Sanders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research methods for business students. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Szondi, G. and Theilmann, R. Public relations research and evaluation. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp Wolstenholme, S. Campaigning organisations and pressure groups. In Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp Yeomans, L. Public sector communication and social marketing. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (eds). Exploring Public Relations. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall pp

20 APPENDIX 1 ON-LINE QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS VERSION 1 Matrix of choices (only one answer per row) Please respond to statements below using scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). UAH = Unite against Hate. SECTION 1 (TRUST: INTEGRITY/ DEPENDABILITY /COMPETENCE) 1. UAH treats people fairly and justly. 2. Sound principles seem to guide UAH's behaviour. 3. I'm willing to let UAH make decisions for people like myself. 4. UAH can be relied on to keep its promises. 5. UAH has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 6. I'm very confident about UAH's skills. SECTION 2 (CONTROL MUTUALITY) 1. UAH really listens to what people like myself have to say. 2. UAH and people like myself are attentive to what each other say. 3. UAH believes the opinions of people like myself are legitimate. 4. I believe people like myself have influence on the UAH decision-making. SECTION 3 (COMMITMENT) 1. I value my relationship with UAH. 2. I feel that UAH is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with people like myself. 3. I feel sense of loyalty to UAH. 4. I would rather work together with UAH than not. SECTION 4 (SATISFACTION) 1. I feel people like myself are important to UAH. 2. Both UAH and people like myself benefit from the relationship. 3. Most people like myself are happy in their interactions with UAH. 4. I'm pleased with relationship this organisation has established with people like myself. SECTION 5 (EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS) 1. Whenever UAH gives or offers something to people like myself, it generally expects something in return. 2. UAH takes care of people who are likely to reward the organisation. 3. UAH will compromise with people when it knows that it will gain something. 4. UAH expects something in return even from people who have had a long-term relationship with the organisation. 16

21 SECTION 6 (COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS) 1. I consider UAH to be a particularly helpful organisation. 2. UAH helps people like me without expecting anything in return. 3. UAH is concerned about the welfare of wider society. 4. I believe that UAH succeeds by developing mutual beneficial relationships. FINAL SECTION Please provide any other comments/suggestions. Thank you for completing this survey. Should you require any information about the Unite against Hate campaign or would like to provide additional feedback please contact projectmanager@uniteagainsthate.org.uk ON-LINE QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS VERSION 2 Matrix of choices (only one answer per row) Please respond to statements below using scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). 'UAH' = Unite against Hate. 'Publics' = stakeholders: any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of UAH objectives. SECTION 1 (TRUST: INTEGRITY/ DEPENDABILITY /COMPETENCE) 1. Publics believe UAH treats them fairly and justly. 2. Publics believe sound principles seem to guide UAH's behaviour. 3. Publics are willing to let UAH make decisions for them. 4. Publics can rely on UAH to keep its promises. 5. Publics believe UAH has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 6. Publics are confident about UAH's skills. SECTION 2 (CONTROL MUTUALITY) 1. Publics believe UAH really listens to what they have to say. 2. Publics believe UAH and publics are attentive to what each other say. 3. Publics believe UAH treats their opinions as legitimate. 4. Publics believe they have influence on the UAH decision-making. SECTION 3 (COMMITMENT) 1. Publics value their relationship with UAH. 2. Publics feel that UAH is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with them. 3. Publics feel sense of loyalty to UAH. 4. Publics would rather work together with UAH than not. SECTION 4 (SATISFACTION) 1. Publics feel people they are important to UAH. 2. Publics believe both UAH and people like them benefit from the relationship. 3. Publics are happy with their interactions with UAH. 4. Publics are pleased with relationship UAH has established with people like them. 17

22 SECTION 5 (EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS) 1. Publics believe whenever UAH gives or offers something to them, it generally expects something in return. 2. Publics believe UAH takes care of people who are likely to reward the organisation. 3. Publics believe UAH will compromise with people when it knows that it will gain something. 4. Publics believe UAH expects something in return even from people with whom they have had a long-term relationship. SECTION 6 (COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS) 1. Publics consider UAH to be a particularly helpful organisation. 2. Publics believe UAH helps people without expecting anything in return. 3. Publics believe UAH is concerned about the welfare of wider society. 4. Publics believe that UAH succeeds by developing mutual relationships. FINAL SECTION Please provide any other comments/suggestions. Thank you for completing this survey. Should you require any information about the Unite against Hate campaign or would like to provide additional feedback please contact projectmanager@uniteagainsthate.org.uk 18

23 APPENDIX 2 ITEMS FOR RELATIONSHIP SCALES Guidelines for measuring Relationships in Public Relations (Hon and Grunig 1999, p.28) (Boldface indicates shortest scales, boldface and italic indicates short scale with one additional item) Trust (Dimensions Integrity, competence, dependability) 1. This organization treats people like me fairly and justly. (Integrity) 2. Whenever this organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about people like me. (Integrity; original dimension: faith). 3. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises. (Dependability) 4. I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. (Dependability) 5. I feel very confident about this organization s skills. (Competence) 6. This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. (Competence) 7. Sound principles seem to guide this organization s behaviour. (Integrity) 8. This organization does not mislead people like me. (Integrity) 9. I am very willing to let this organization make decisions for people like me. (Dependability) 10. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. (Dependability) (Reversed) 11. This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. (Competence) Control Mutuality 1. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say. 2. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate. 3. In dealing with people like me, this organization has a tendency to throw its weight around. (Reversed) 4. This organization really listens to what people like me have to say. 5. The management of this organization gives people like me enough say in the decision-making process. 6. When I have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation. 7. This organization won t cooperate with people like me. (Reversed) 8. I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this organization. Commitment 1. I feel that this organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to people like me. 2. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me. 3. There is a long-lasting bond between this organization and people like me. 4. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. 5. I would rather work together with this organization than not. 6. I have no desire to have a relationship with this organization. (Reversed) 7. I feel a sense of loyalty to this organization. 8. I could not care less about this organization. (Reversed) 19

24 Satisfaction 1. I am happy with this organization. 2. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship. 3. Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization. 4. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this organization has established with people like me. 5. Most people enjoy dealing with this organization 6. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me. (Reversed) 7. I feel people like me are important to this organization. 8. In general, I believe that nothing of value has been accomplished between this organization and people like me. (Reversed) Communal Relationships 1. This organization does not especially enjoy giving others aid. (Reversed) 2. This organization is very concerned about the welfare of people like me. 3. I feel that this organization takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. (Reversed) 4. I think that this organization succeeds by stepping on other people. (Reversed) 5. This organization helps people like me without expecting anything in return. 6. I don t consider this to be a particularly helpful organization. (Reversed) 7. I feel that this organization tries to get the upper hand. (Reversed) Exchange Relationships 1. Whenever this organization gives or offers something to people like me, it generally expects something in return. 2. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this organization for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favour. 3. This organization will compromise with people like me when it knows that it will gain something. 4. This organization takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization. 20