The changing dynamics of relationship management in contemporary public relations practice.

Dr Joy Chia Senior Lecturer University of South Australia School of Communication Magill Campus, SA, 5072 Tel: 61 08 83024322 [email protected]

Abstract Managing relationships between clients and public relations practitioners and between public relations practitioners and journalists is becoming increasingly complex. This papers focus is on the impact of new media on relational exchanges, specifically email communication and how it is affecting relationships. Reference is also made to the way relationship management is affected by work demands, deadlines and work pressure. These demands contribute to relational complexity making relationships challenging and sometimes strained. It is argued that some aspects of relationships can be managed but total relationship management with clients or journalists is becoming very difficult. Clients and journalists engage in many relationships online and offline so that diverse relational exchanges take place each day with many parties and individuals. This paper points to two Australian qualitative studies; the primary relationship management study examines the relationships of 16 public relations consultants and 16 of their clients, and a 2006 pilot study of 8 public relations practitioners and 8 journalists explores these practitioners communication to the public and how their relationships are affected by constant pressure in their daily work environments. This paper suggests that in order to conduct effective relationships public relations practitioners must constantly adapt to clients and journalists changing needs. Even so, relationships are now multilayered, multifaceted making relationship management challenging and demanding. This paper contends that public relations relational theory needs to reflect the volatile nature of relational exchanges in contemporary public relations practice thereby advancing relational theory in line with this complexity.

Introduction Recent public relations relationship management research points to some scholars (Jahansoozi, 2006; Philips, 2006; Hung, 2005) recognising relational complexity. These scholars point to the need to conduct further qualitative research to understand the dynamics of effective relational exchanges in public relations practice. As Jahansoozi (2006, p.91) puts it current research has ignored qualitative approaches, creating a major gap, and therefore future research should initially focus on qualitative approaches before further replication of the multiple dimension organization public scales is done in other sectors and cultural contexts. This was the premise for the authors (Chia, 2005) relationship management study that developed relational parameters for best practice. Chias study to be reported later in this paper was developed after a review of relationship management research (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000, 1998; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Taylor, 2004; Grunig & Hon, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000). These public relations scholars were guided by the early research of Ferguson (1984) as cited by Broom, Casey and Richey (2000):

Ferguson (1984) pointed to the need for the definition and measurement of relationships between organizations and their publics. Her suggested approaches, however, mix characteristics of relationships with perceptions of the parties in relationships as well as constructs based on the reports of those in relationships (p.5) The understanding of relationships and what they are and how they might be managed has been developing since Fergusons early work. There is increasing emphasis on the relational context of public relations practice as scholars (Taylor, 2004; Kent, Taylor & White, 2002, 2003; Kent, 2001; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, 2000a, 2000b and Grunig & Hon, 1999) point to the emergence of a relational perspective and emphasise that public relations is a profession where maintaining and building quality relationships is important to effective practice. Yet, even though scholars are increasingly pointing to relationships as key indicators of successful public relations (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p.24), more in-depth understanding about relational exchanges and fluctuations needs to be developed, especially as it applies to online relationship management. The author (Chia, 2006) found that many relational studies have been concerned about measurement and defining relationship characteristics before an understanding of relationship management was established. Even though Grunig and Huang (2000) contend that the concept of relationships is implicit in the term public relations and both scholars and practitioners regularly use the term in explaining public relations (p.25) these scholars have given little attention to the impact of new media on relationships and the demands of work environments on relationship maintenance and development. Managing relationships online Interpersonal and organisational relationships are very complex (Duck, 1984; 1986; Duck & Glimour, 1981; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988 and DuBrin, 2000) as they are affected by peoples emotions, personality factors, political factors and time pressure so that a relationship might stagnate because there was no time to deal with relational differences. Relationships change with organisations, with changing circumstances and with changes in personnel in partnerships. Communication between, and among relational partners, is complex as new media demands are changing the way that teams, clients and organisational team members and managers respond to each other (Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997). Disciplines such as psychology and organisational management provide substantial guidance to public relations relational scholarship pointing to the multiple relational interactions, interpretations and understandings (Duck & Gilmour, 1981; Carr, 1991; Hinde, 1981; Giovagnoli, Carter-Miller, 2000; Devito, 1997, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988) that take place in interpersonal and organisational relationships. As so much communication now takes place online,

Giovagnoli, Carter-Miller (2000, p. 21) suggest that relationship development can be enhanced through new media, by email, for example, being a valuable supplement to regular communication exchanges where information can be updated and relational partners share experiences. Other scholars such as Clampitt (2005, p. 107) point to the need to build relationships on rich channels or channels that provide the most appropriate means of communication. Managing relationships by leaders and managers or between employees is intense where many communication exchanges are taking place, some online to supplement other communication, but where all communication takes places in constantly changing environments. Inter-organisational and interpersonal relationships similarly evolve, or decline with everyday conflict integral to this process. In the same way that online interpersonal relationships are on the increase (Devito, 2008, p.233) organisational relationships are often managed through online communication. These online relationships take place where: The American worker is exposed to more messages in one year than a person living in 1900 was in his or her entire life. The average employee now receives more than 50 eemails daily. And in one day the average manager sends and receives more than 100 documents (Devito, 2008, p.11). Australian public relations practitioners face a similar communication overload as increased communication online is putting strain on relationships and how they are managed (Dougall and Fox, 2001; Chia, 2003, 2004). This paper argues that there is a need to understand relationship management within the context of work demands, especially online demands that make it impossible to respond to a clients or journalists needs thereby creating relational imbalance and misunderstanding. Instead of symmetry in relationships, with relational characteristics of satisfaction, commitment and trust (Grunig &d Hon, 1999; Grunig, J & Huang, 2000) proposed by these scholars, relationships are constantly changing. Relational exchanges may nurture relationships, cause their decline or change their characteristics as they take place in chat rooms, through email, websites, text messages and other new media, as well as face-to-face exchanges. As Hallahan (2004) contends: Public relations practitioners today find themselves in a brave, new Internet world. People develop expectations about organisations and assess an organizations performance based upon subtle cues found within the online environment. These fragile relationships can be damaged when expectations are not met or when organizations behave badly online (p.256).

The challenges and fragile nature of managing public relations through new media have been recognised by some scholars (Hendrix, 2004; Esrock & Leichty, 2000, 1998; Kent, 2001, 2001a, 2001b; Hallahan, 2000; Heath, 1998; Bobbitt, 1995). Other scholars (Phillips, 2001; Marken, 2000, 2002, 2003; Sterne, 2000) have expressed their concern about poorly managed websites and poorly managed email destroying relationships. Online convenience can also be its demise; emails convenience can also be its danger: Misunderstanding-or worse-can arise if one doesnt think before posting a message (Guth & Marsh, 2003, p.273) and this is even more so because email messages often are sent without the care that goes into crafting a printed message (Newsom, Turk & Kruckerberg, 2004, p. 55). The online complexity also means that in sending email you are interacting with a proactive blend of people and programs (Adams and Clark, 2001, p.7) and there are many layers of communication between teams and amongst teams in an organisation and between organisations or between clients. This requires constant adaptation to online program needs of many different people. Although some scholars (Coombs, 2000, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Leichty, 1997; Ulmer, 2001; Thomlison, 2000) acknowledge relational volatility and the fact that relationships may not progress and grow, rather they can fail; these scholars give little acknowledgment to the impact of new media and the multi-faceted communication exchanges that have a bearing on relational progress or failure. This paper reports on public relations practitioners and their clients attempts to manage their relationships online and in the second study, a work in progress, the delicate nature of practitionerjournalists relationships emerges. Australian Studies This paper addresses one component of a qualitative study aimed firstly to ascertain whether the new relational focus in public relations practice was evident and in what form. A second aim was to develop an understanding of the management of relationships within new and traditional media and a third to ascertain the place, or the importance of relationship attributes in the practitioner-client relationships. This paper focuses on the second aim of the study with particular reference to the way that email management adds value to a relationship or devalues the public relations consultant-client relationship. Website management and its contribution to relationship have previously been addressed by the author (Chia, 2003, 2004). This paper also points to a recent study where the aim was to ascertain what is reported or withheld when public relations practitioners and journalists communicate to the public. Public relations practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists were demanding. The second study is a work in progress and adds to the qualitative enquiry and understanding of relationships even though its focus was not on relationship management.

Study1: The sample of 16 consultants was randomly selected from the Registered Consultants of the Public Relations Institute of Australia and these consultants gave permission for 16 of their clients to be interviewed. Semi-structured client interviews were integral to the validity of the research findings as the only way to test the validity of the practitioners (semistructured interviews were firstly conducted with the consultants) understanding of relationship management was by comparing consultants responses with those of a sample of their clients. A qualitative approach allowed the researcher to probe the subjective meanings of the people being studied (Frankfort-Nachmias, & Nachmias, D, 1992, p.272) and their subjective views of relationships. The interpretivist approach allowed the researcher to review and constantly reflect on the emerging themes and patterns throughout the process of the research so that the sense making of the lived experiences being explored, of a diverse group of practitioners and their clients in the government, non-profit and private sector, provided insight and knowledge of these experiences and what they mean. This process of induction or inductive reasoning (Mutchnick & Berg, 1996) means that the researcher starts with a set of findings or results from a study and attempts to generate a theoretical explanation from the results (p.9). Study 2: Semi structured interviews were conducted with eight practitioners (five public relations and four journalists) and two focus groups were conducted with three public relations practitioners and three journalists to explore how these professionals decided what information could be made public and why they might withhold information. These practitioners were randomly selected from the database of graduates of the University of South Australia; their experience ranged from one to eight years in public relations or journalism practice. Findings The research questions in the relationship management study of consultants and their clients were designed to ascertain how email and website management, was or was not impacting consultant-client relationships, and ascertain the place of face-to-face communication and how overall relationships were managed. There was a significant difference between the responses of the 16 consultants and 16 clients. The findings about website management, as mentioned earlier, have previously been reported, but it is important to point out that 14 out of 16 clients were skilled in Web management but only two public relations consultants were similarly skilled; consultants were still coming to terms with the importance of the Web as a relationship management tool and most were using the Web only for promotional purposes.

Public Relations Consultant Reponses When the 16 public relations consultants were asked about email management and face-to-face communication and how their relationships were managed, consultants whose responses clearly indicated that they preferred meeting with their clients, offered the following reasons for their preference: Nine consultants reported that online client management alone was unproductive; meeting face-toface was one of many ways consultants managed client accounts. When face-to-face meetings were arranged with clients, consultants had a greater opportunity, than through email communication, to understand and respond to clients needs. These nine consultants reported that face-to-face communication achieved much more than email communication when interpretation and clarification were required as each party judged the others response more accurately. Therefore, when delicate matters needed to be addressed, face-to-face communication was more productive, even though email was more convenient. Six consultants reported that meeting face-to-face was critical when setting up relationships as it was important to begin the relationship with a personal focus. Six consultants reported that online communication was at times too confronting and they said that public relations consultants needed to be less reliant on email communication for business management. Most consultants reported that they needed occasional face-to-face meetings when critical decisions were made in project or campaign management. Most consultants reported that if they only communicated online they lost clients, but this also depended on the client as some were too busy to meet face-to-face. Most consultants preferred most clients to be located conveniently and in close proximity to the consultancy so that they had greater opportunity to meet face-to-face and visit client organisations formally and informally. In practice, their client reports indicated that convenience of location did not change consultants apparent preference for email. Four consultants reported that email and telephone communication improved communication and understanding with their clients. Four consultants reported that email was inefficient; two of their client relationships were breaking down.

Despite the comments about face-to-face communication it was the least used method of communication by nine consultants. Further analysis of their responses provides some insight into this contradiction:

Although nine consultants preferred to manage client accounts in their region with clients

whom they said they could meet on a regular or needs basis, they simultaneously said that clients were busy so they emailed clients anyway.

Even when discussing face-to-face communication, comments about email dominated as

email remained the primary medium of communication. Four of the 16 consultants reported that they had begun to recognise that the same attention to content and detail they gave to all other written documents and face-to-face meetings should also be given to email communication management. These consultants emphasised that appropriate and well managed online and offline communication assisted consultants and clients to develop their understanding of each other and each others business, and was paramount to the consultancies success. Two of the consultant-client relationships were moving through a difficult phase and declining; reasons for the decline were described by their clients as poor online skill and lack of personal intervention at critical points of the relationship. Client Responses

Eleven clients reported that email was a secondary tool of communication. Nine clients reported that consultants needed to realise the potential of each medium of

communication and do so with the client for the benefit of both parties.

Nine clients indicated their public relations consultants used email poorly as they lacked

skill in managing and monitoring online messages, often overlooking key edited changes and additions to documents. Clients therefore suggested that these consultants needed to intersperse emails with telephone calls and not attempt too much online as it resulted in misinterpretation and confusion, thereby wasting time in final edits of brochures and newsletters and causing relationship strain.

Nine clients pointed to the early stages of the relationship when they needed more offline

communication as email is an unproductive communication medium when relationships commence. They reported that face-to face communication happened less often but it was more productive. These clients said that email was impersonal and too easily misinterpreted and should only become important in developed relationships, and even then email required good management.

The major concern of all clients was that consultants not overuse email as a tool of

convenience despite the fact that email was the main form of communication for day-to-day business.

All clients reported that as clients represented industries from the non-profit, government

and private sector, email could not be managed in the same way in each of these sectors. Therefore, consultants needed to liaise with each client in order to address specific online and offline needs of these varied sectors.

The core problem for consultants, according to eleven of the sixteen clients, was that they

were insufficiently skilled in managing their clients online needs so that all of the above points raised required increased online skills to be able to achieve clients expected outcomes.

Four clients reported that email communication needed management around the

circumstances of the client, the type and stage of a contract and according to what was the most appropriate at each stage of a contract. Study responses indicated that clients and their public relations consultants had different perceptions and expectations about email but their responses about the place of traditional forms of communication in relationship management were similar. Most consultants and their clients said that face-to-face communication and telephone communication were very important to the development of understanding between relational partners. Most consultants and clients pointed to a different understanding between the ways each partner perceived that they were communicating through email and building relationships. Eleven clients indicated that they preferred face-to-face communication for the following reasons:

Public relations consultants needed to be more skilled online so that until these skills were

developed communication was better managed through face-to-face meetings.

Clients said that consultants over-sell and do not deliver well online. (This point is similar

to the first, but a more serious matter as data from this research indicates that consultants claim to be better online communicators than they are in practice and their overselling of their supposed skills weakens the relationship.)

Face-to-face communication develops relationships and builds trust in a relationship

because of the personal exchange.

Similar to consultants, clients wanted a meeting point when partners could get to know

each other personally before launching into online communication exchanges.

Similar to consultants, clients said that face-to-face meetings were important for

interpretation and checking that consultants understood what was expected in program and campaign planning.

Similar to consultants, clients said that email was sometimes confronting and that face-to-

face exchanges were less so.

Clients emphasised the need to intersperse face-to-face meetings with online

communication. Overall responses Two thirds of the respondents (consultants and clients) reported that the demands of their work and the need to meet deadlines and manage constant changes in contract demands made it difficult to manage all aspects of their consultant-client relationships well. Two thirds of the respondents reported that it was most important that each partner spell out online and offline expectations so that each party knows what to expect; even then constantly adjusting to new demands was critical to the success of the business-personal exchange and relationship within this exchange. 14 out of 16 clients reported that their business and personal relationships could be improved through skilled, online management. Study 2: A work in progress In the pilot study, the second Australian study reported in this paper, questions about public relations practitioners and journalists roles pointed to the workplace demands on these practitioners; most were becoming reliant on email and they found it difficult to arrange faceto-face meetings with journalists. The sample group included six in-house practitioners and two consultants, six journalists worked in the city and two in regional areas, and all but one, in print, radio and television newsrooms. Journalists reported that they were constantly under pressure to deliver a good story. The key findings of this study were:

All public relations practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists were

primarily conducted through email communication; it was the most convenient.

All public relations practitioners reported that relationships with young journalists were

strained as these journalists were too eager to make their mark on the profession; they were under pressure to find a good news story. They reported that these journalists seemed to be more concerned about their promotional prospects than about professional relationships.

Six public relations practitioners reported that they were careful about what was and was

not communicated to journalists and they preferred to work only with those with whom they had established long term relationships. These practitioners gave many examples where the

10

eagerness of journalists to report stories, and do so inaccurately, resulted in relationship strain and difficulty.

All practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists, especially young

graduates, were poor; these graduates did not take enough time to research their material as they seemed to be constantly under work pressure, and managing deadlines.

All journalists reported that relationships with public relations practitioners affected their

reporting; where a relationship with a public relations practitioner had been established they worked harder to checkout information, but in most cases relationships were not well established.

All journalists indicated that they sometimes felt compromised as adverse reports about

sensitive situations could compromise their relationships with the source of the reports; public relations practitioners were included in these relationships.

All journalists reported that they were often under pressure from senior staff to report

stories, especially when they were reporting about sensitive situations that were considered to be newsworthy; they were more concerned about internal relationships than their relationships with public relations practitioners

All journalists reported that they preferred face-to-face or telephone contact with public

relations practitioners, but they often did not have the time to follow-up on matters as they intended. Work pressure meant that these young journalists developed few relationships with public relations practitioners. Discussion The primary finding in the Australian studies reported in this paper was that face-to-face communication was valued but email as a less valued form of communication, was the main medium of exchange. However, busy schedules of public relations practitioners, clients and journalists and the convenience of email is proving to be its demise especially as the studies have shown that email is often poorly managed. According to Brand (2000, p.187) in Australian public relations practice there are many stories in the industry of launch plans and company business plans being sent accidentally to the wrong client-or worse, the news media thereby causing many relationship problems and misunderstandings. Misunderstandings were evident in two thirds of the client-consultant relationships and in some of the public relations practitioner-journalist relationships where email communication was managed inappropriately. Seitel (2007, p. 386) refers to 61% of public relations communication to and from journalists being by email and he refers to email as the dominator (p.382). Seitel recognises that emails crowd and overload receivers making it difficult to work through the clutter of information. Emails are important to communication between relational parties as they provide real-time information but public

11

relations practitioners are spending 15-19 hours each week online ( Cutlip, Center, Broom, 2006, p.253) so they need to be skilled in managing email and understand its impact on relationships. This also means that many short term relationships develop online rather than long term relationships as there are so many more exchanges with different online audiences that have not been evident in traditional forms of communication. This was evident in both Australian studies. Each email needs to be managed effectively to realise the potential of many online relationships. The studies reported in this paper indicate that this is not happening due to poor online skill, work demands and reliance on email to manage too many aspects of business relationships. The relevance of current relational scholarship (Huck, Mucke, 2006, Hall, 2006), the importance of face-to-face, personal components of relationships and building community relationships for good business is recognised. The relevance of long-term strategically planned relationships (Li Ni, 2006) is important and necessary to understand relational expectations and management of them. However, this paper suggests that as relationships in contemporary public relations practice are likely to include substantial online management and thereby change relational dynamics, that the convenience of online media will either become the tool for strategic relational management or the demise that some scholars have suggested (Adams & Clark, 2001). Even then, being strategic presents some difficulty as public relations practitioners, clients and journalists are communicating in an overload situation where complexity is the norm and flexibility to manage such complexity, the challenge. The public relations profession is still coming to terms with online opportunity (Samsup Jo & Jung, 2005, DTI, IPR, 2003; Richardson. 2002: Wright, 2001; Hachigian & Hallahan, 2003) requiring online skill to manage strategically. Email is an efficient tool when used appropriately but the studies reported in this paper show that increased email communication placed demands on consultant-client, journalists relationships making it difficult to effectively manage all aspects of relational exchanges. There is also a word of caution from Bates (2002): Thus, for public relations the explosion of non-traditional outlets means greater opportunities for publicity and promotion. It also means complications. Whereas in the past practitioners only had to concentrate on a few wellestablished venues, they now have to consider hundreds, if not thousands. They have to be more sophisticated in knowing when and how to use technology more efficiently and effectively in order to avoid problems such as overcommunicating (going to too many people with too many messages) and adding unnecessary time and expense to the process. (p.329) The results of the relationship management study show that clients dissatisfaction with the majority of consultants poor online skills was undermining their relationships. This finding

12

confirms other scholars (Esrock & Leichty, 2000, 1998; Kent, 2001, 2001a, 2001b; Hallahan, 2000; Heath, 1998; Thomsen, 1996, 1997) observations as these scholars also point to the challenges of new media and the need for public relations practitioners to manage new technology effectively so as to be efficient. Public relations practitioner-client and practitioner-journalists relationships reported in this paper indicated that face-to-face meetings were necessary to manage aspects of the relationships but as these occurred infrequently, relationships were weakened and some broke down altogether. The clients in these unsuccessful relationships were frustrated by the persistence to manage their differences and disappointments online. Phillips (2001, p.151) highlights that the truth is that email is impersonal and provides little insight into the needs, aspirations and social background or interests of the person on the other end (p.151). Therefore, if relational partners persist in emailing as the main medium of communication especially when there are relational difficulties, they are subverting relational development and understanding. Additionally, the demands and pressures of the work environment seemed to make the relationships more strained for clients and journalists in the reports in this paper, as there is little time to check out those aspects of relational exchanges that need clarification, or might have been misinterpreted. These findings echo those of scholars of psychology, management and marketing (Schlesinger, Eccles, & Gabarro, 1983; Giovagnoli, Carter-Miller, 2000; Carr, 1991; Blois, 1997; Devito, 1997, 2008; 2000; Dawson, 2000; Kitchen & Pelsmaker, 2004) that point to relationships constantly changing as organisations communicate to different, diverse audiences. The results of these studies point to the need to rethink relationship management and what it encompasses in contemporary public relations practice. Relational theory needs to reflect that multifaceted relationships make understanding of all parties points of view very difficult. This paper argues that the view of Ledingham & Bruning (2000, p.66) is therefore simplistic when these scholars assert that organizations that practise relationship management within a model of two-way symmetry both generate and receive benefits since two-way symmetry is rarely achieved, nor is it necessary in every case. Consultants, clients and journalists that practise relationship management have to manage constant emails and online exchanges and use a variety of media to communicate with varied online partners. This paper posits that a flexible approach to managing relationships is required where sometimes two-way symmetrical communication may be achievable but at other times relationship differences might not be managed as other organisational demands take precedence, emails constantly arrive demanding responses that cannot always be addressed and other parties become involved in managing other aspects of a relationship. Much of Grunigs (2001) focus on symmetrical communication as ideal and excellent, and Ledinghams (2001, 2003) and Ledingham and Brunings (1998, 2000) relational dimensions begins to look less plausible in the online world where time is of essence and

13

attempting to build trust or dialogue under such conditions is very difficult. If relational theory exponents put forward arguments for relationship dimensions, and focus on subjective and interpersonal aspects of relationships (Taylor, 2004; Ledingham et al., 2000), then their theories must take into account the array of online audiences, the myriad online exchanges and the diversity of responses, many of which are instantaneous. In this context the limited applicability of current relational thinking becomes obvious. Overall findings of the studies reported in this paper, however, support those of Kent, Taylor & White (2003) that public relations practitioners have been slow to manage new media both technically and as a medium that could benefit clients and other organisations. Conclusion The studies reported in this paper indicated that relationships need to be managed through the use of both new and traditional media. The author suggested that this can be achieved through relationship management parameters (Chia, 2006) where clear expectations about agreed outcomes and the benefits of email (and other appropriate media) are set out for all parties in a relationship. Even then, email communication is so prevalent that public relations practitioners need to anticipate that online misunderstandings are part of normal relationships and they need to be managed. The pressure on journalists will continue as many now access organisations websites to garner information quickly, a point followed up in detail in the authors earlier paper (Chia, 2004). In the relationship study, fourteen out of sixteen clients expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the predictable way that consultants continued to use all communication including email. In the second study the eight young journalists were absorbed in day-to-day demands but they were uncomfortable about aspects of their public relations practitioner relationships. It seems that the changing dynamics and convenience of the emails has made it easy for journalists to communicate but it has also weakened their relationships with public relations practitioners who reported that they preferred to work with experienced journalists with whom they had developed regular dialogue and understanding. This paper argues that because outcomes of poor online management can be detrimental there is an urgent need for practitioners to address online skills and manage email as integral to relationship maintenance and development. In Australian public relations it is remarkable how many practitioners fail to recognise the unique characteristics of email that require specialised uses (Brand & Roald, 2004, p.242) and it seems that journalists are facing similar problems (Chia, 2004) as they increasingly use email as a tool of exchange not as part of managing a public relations relationship.

14

It was evident in the relationship management study that clients were more skilled in all areas of online communication, with only one client having poor online skills and even that client was in the process of upgrading skills. By comparison, their consultants were so involved with day-today business management that they had very little training in new media and they seemed to do little else except in their words service clients as part of the day-to-day business exchange. As long as this service culture continues, consultant-client relationship development will be limited in all areas whether communication is through email, telephone or meetings in a clients office. In the second study journalists referred to the public relations practitioners as a source rather than a relational partner indicating that these relationships are primarily business exchanges for business benefit only. In the relationship management study clients reported that email communication should not be a stand alone means of communicating as a follow up telephone call was often more effective. Consultants concurred that the mobile telephone was becoming more important to day-to-day management of projects and that it was one of the ways to respond to and manage clients requests and, therefore, maintain a more convivial relationship. Public relations consultants and journalists were aware that they were not communicating as well as they could, but they were still coming to terms with how they could effectively manage so many online exchanges. This study proposes that consultants email management is in urgent need of recognition as a dynamic tool that requires skilled, strategically managed communication between consultants and clients and journalists with a view to capitalise on the benefits of email. These benefits will only be possible if email parameters are delineated from the initial briefing sessions and partners online expectations have been spelt out and understood. In this way, the manner in which email is used, the times when other forms of communication are preferred, along with clients preferences, can be acknowledged and respected. This will require two-way, multi-way communication that has the potential to build relationships although it seems that the demands of online immediacy and the savvy, educated publics that some scholars Seitel, 2006, Chipchase & Theaker, 2004) contend have changed public relations practice, might also make relationships transitory and less able to be managed. Scholars, Eyun-Jung Ki & Jae-Hwa Shin (2006) have pointed to the need to conduct further research to understand the dynamic nature of relationships. More research is required to understand online relationship management with many different media. The reports in this paper

15

point to public relations relationship management as managing constant communication exchange where relational goals regularly change as relational parties sometimes lead, at other times advise and then move out of a relationship allowing others to manage different client and organisational needs and differences. In this context the public relations practitioner becomes the facilitator and manager of the most beneficial, effective and appropriate communication fostering many relational exchanges, many short term, many online, and making these relationships meaningful for all parties. Relational theory needs to reflect the changing relational context where many parties make up successful relationships and where much of the communication takes place online. In this environment flexibility and adaptability are critical to the most effective relational exchanges but, it is also argued that online communication management will continue to challenge the effectives of relationship management as the flurry of online activity is increasing in all areas of public relations management. Perhaps public relations practitioners will be relational touch point managers of the future. References Adams, T & Clark, N (2001), The Internet, Effective Online Communication, Harcourt College Publishers, USA. Bates, D (2002), Public relations, in Straubhaar, J & LaRose, R (2000), Media Now, Communications Media in the Information Age, 2nd edition, Wadsworth, USA, pp. 312345 Blois, K (1997), Are business-to-business relationships inherently unstable? Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 13, pp. 367-382. Bobbitt, R (1995), An Internet primer for public relations, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 40, No 3, pp. 27-32. Brand, J & Roald, S (2004), Information and communication technologies, in Johnston, J & Zawawi, C, Public Relations, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, Allen and Unwin, NSW, Australia, pp. 232-256. Broom, G, Casey, S & Ritchey, J (2000), Concept and theory of organisation-public relationships, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management, A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

16

Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (1999), Relationships between organizations and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale, Public Relations Review, Vol 25, No 2, pp. 157-170. Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (2000a), Organization and key public relationships, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 159-173. Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (2000b), Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration and interaction, Public Relations Review, Vol 26, No1, pp. 85-96. Bruning, S (2002), Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes, Public Relations Review, Vol 28, pp. 39-48. Bruning, S & Galloway, T (2003), Expanding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role of that structural and personal commitment play in organizationpublic relationships, Public Relations Review, Vol 29, pp. 309-319. Bruning, S & Langenhop, A & Green, K (2004), Examining city-resident relationships: Linking community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations, Public Relations Review, Vol 30, No 1, pp. 335-346. Carr, J (1991), Communicating and relating, 3rd edition, USA, WC. Brown Publishers. Chia, J (2003), Managing clients online and through traditional media, 2nd International Conference on Multimedia and ICTs in Education, Advances in Technology-Based Education, Toward a Knowledge-Based Society, Published in conference proceedings, Badajoz, Spain, 3-6, December, Vol 2, pp. 914-918, ISBN-84-96212-09-2. Chia, J (2004), Websites challenges and relationship management, Australian Journalism Review, Vol 26, No. 2, pp. 87-98. Chia, J (2005), Relationship management: developing relationship management parameters critical to the effective management of relationships between public relations consultants and their clients, Thesis (PhD SoSc (Communic.InformatStud), University of South Australia.

17

Chia, J (2006) Measuring the immeasurable, PRism online journal, Vol. 4 (2). http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/evaluation.html, for PRism Special Edition on Measurement and Evaluation Chipchase, J & Theaker, A (2004), Using the Internet effectively in public relations, in Theaker, A, The Public Relations Handbook, 2nd edition, Routledge, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, pp. 256-281. Clampitt, P (2005), Communicating for managerial effectiveness,. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE Publications. Coombs, W (1998), The Internet as a potential equalizer: New leverage for confronting social irresponsibility, Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No 3, pp. 209-303. Coombs, W (2000), Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 73-93. Coombs, W (2001), Interpersonal communication and public relations, in Heath, R (2001), Handbook of Public Relations, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, USA, pp. 105-114. Coombs, W & Holladay, S (2001), An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 13, No 4, pp. 321-340. Cutlip, S, Center, A & Broom, G (2007), Effective Public Relations, 9h edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Daniels,T, Spiker, B & Papa, M (1997), Perspectives on Organisational Communication, Boston, McGraw Hill. Dawson, R (2000), Developing Knowledge-based Client Relationships, the future of professional services, USA, Butterworth-Heinemann. Devito, J (1997), Human Communication, the Basic Course, 7th edition, USA, Longman, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. Devito, J (2008), Interpersonal Messages. Communication and Relationship Skills, Pearson, Allyn & Bacon, U.S.A. Dougall, E & Fox, A (2001), New Communication Technologies and Public Relations, Report to the Public Relations Institute of Australia, The findings of a national survey undertaken in December 2000, University of Southern Queensland, Australia.

18

DuBrin, A, (2000), Applying Psychology, Individual and Organizational Effectiveness, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. Duck, S & Glimour, R (1981), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships, London, Academic Press Inc. Duck, S (1984), Personal Relationships 5: Repairing Personal Relationships, London, Academic Press Inc. Duck, S (1986), Human Relationships: An Introduction of Social Psychology, Beverly Hills, SAGE. DTI, IPR, Unlocking the Potential of Public Relations: Developing Good Practice (2003), A report jointly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Institute of Public Relations, United Kingdom, European Centre for Business Excellence, pp. 1-78, Accessed 19 March 2004, from www.ipr.org.uk/unlockpr/index.asp. Esrock, S, Leichty, G (1998), Social responsibility and corporate Web-pages: Self presentations or agenda setting? (Special issue: Technology and the Corporate Citizen), Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No3, pp. 305-319. Esrock, S & Leichty, G (2000), Organization of corporate Web pages: Publics and functions, Public Relations Review, Vol 26, No 3, pp. 327-344 Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias, D (1992), Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 4th edition, UK, St Martins Press Inc. Giovagnoli, M & Carter-Miller, J (2000), Networlding. Building Relationships and Opportunities for Success, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Company. Grunig, J (2002), Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics, University of Maryland, Accessed 13/6/2004, from www.instituteforpr.com. Grunig, J (2001), Two-way symmetrical public relations, past, present and future, in Heath, R, Handbook of Public Relations, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, USA, pp. 11-30. Grunig, J & Grunig, L (1998), The relationship between public relations and marketing in excellent organization: evidence from the IABC study, Journal of Marketing Communications, No. 4, pp. 141-162. Grunig, J & Hon, L (1999), Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations, The Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation, University of Florida, Accessed 13/6/2004, from www.instituteforpr.com.

19

Grunig, J & Huang, Yi-Hui (2000), From organisational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 23-53. Gustafson, L & Thomsen, S (1996), Merging the teaching of public relations and advertising onto the information superhighway, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 41, No 1, pp. 3842. Guth, D & Marsh, C (2003), Public Relations, A Values-Driven Approach, Allyn and Bacon, 2nd edition, Pearson Education, Inc,Boston, USA. Hachigian, D & Hallahan, K (2003), Perceptions of public relations web sites by computer industry journalists, Public Relation Review, Vol 29, pp. 43-62. Hallahan, K (2004), Protecting an organizations digital public relations assets, Public Relation Review, Vol 30, pp. 255-268. Hall, M (2006), Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring Relationship-Building Results, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 18 , 1, pp1-21. Heath, R (1998), New communication technologies: An issues management point of view, Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No 3, pp. 273-288. Hendrix, J (2004), Public Relations Cases, 6th edition, USA, Thompson Wadsworth. Hersey,P, & Blanchard, K (1988), Management of organizational behaviour. Utilizing Human Resources, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A. Hill, L & White, C (2000), Public relations practitioners perception of the World Wide Web as a communication tool, Public Relations Review, Vol 26, p. 31-51. Hinde, R (1981), The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships, in S Duck & R Gilmour (Eds), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships, London, Academic Press Inc. Hon, L & Brunner, B (2001), Measuring public relationships among students and administrators at the University of Florida, Journal of Communication Management, Vol 6, No 3, pp. 227-238. Horton, J (2001), Online Public Relations: A Handbook for Practitioners, Quorum books, Westport CT, USA.

20

Huang, Yi-Hui (2001a), Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 13, No 4, pp. 265-301. Huang, Yi-Hui (2001b), OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 13, No 1, pp. 61-90. Huck, S & Mucke, D (2006), Relationship Management in Strategic Public Relations; How PR executives build and manage relationships, paper presented for the EUPRERA Annual Conference, University Lake District, United Kingdom, September 6-9, Strategic Communication in a Multi-Cultural context. Hung, Chun-ju, Flora (2005), Exploring Types of Organization Public Relationships and Their Implications for Relationship Management in Public Relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 17, No.4, pp. 393-425. Jahansoozi, J (2006), Relationships, Transparency, and Evaluation: The Implications for Public Relations, in LEtang & Piezcka (editors) Public Relations. Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Lawrence, Elrbaum, Assoc,Mahwah, New Jersey Kent, M (2001), Teaching mediated public relations, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, pp. 5971. Kent, M (2001a), Managerial rhetoric as the metaphor for the World Wide Web, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol 18, No3, pp. 359-375. Kent, M (2001b), Essential tips for searching the Web, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 46, No 1, pp. 26-31. Kent, M &Taylor, M & White, J (2003), The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders, Public Relations Review, Vol 29, pp. 6377. Kent, M, Taylor, M & White, J (2002), Toward a dialogic theory of public relations, Public Relations Review, Vol 28, pp. 21 Kitchen, P & Pelsmacker, P (2004), Integrated Marketing Communications: A Primer, Routledge, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. Ki, Eyun-Jung & Jae-Hwa, Shin ( 2006), Status of organization public relationship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985-2004,Public Relations Review, Vol 32, pp. 194-195.

21

Lan, Ni (2006), Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations impact through it connection with organizational strategies, Public Relations Review, Vol 232, pp. 276-281. Ledingham, J (2001), Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, No 3, pp. 285-295. Ledingham, J (2003), Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 15, No 2, pp. 181-198. Ledingham, J & Bruning, S (1998), Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship, Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No1, pp. 5565. Ledingham, J & Bruning, S (2000), A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management, in J Ledingham & S Bruning (Eds) Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 55-69. Leichty, G (1997), The limits of collaboration, Public Relations Review, Vol 23, No 1, pp. 4755. Marken, A (2000), CRMTake a hint from the Internet, redefine customers, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 45, No 3, pp. 40-41. Marken, A (2002), The challenges of international relations in an Internet world, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 47, No 3, pp. 28-29. Marken, A (2003), Following fundamentals builds journalists relationships, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 48, No 1, pp. 27-31. Mutchnick, R & Berg, B (1996) Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Practices and Applications, USA, Allyn & Bacon. Newsom, D, Turk, J & Kruckerberg, D (2004), This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, 8th edition, Belmont, CA, Thomson Wadsworth, USA. Phillips, D (2001), Online Public Relations, Kogan Page, London, UK. Phillips, D (2006), Towards Relationship Management, Journal of Communication Management, Vol 10, No.2, pp 211-226.

22

Richardson, V (2002), Using new media, in Tymson, C, Lazar, P & Lazar, R The New Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual, 21st century edition, Tymson Communications, Chatswood, Australia, pp. 460-480. Samsup, Jo & Jaemin, Jung ( 2005) A cross- cultural study of the world wide web and public relations, Corporate Communications, Vol, 10, No 1, pp- 24-40. Schlesinger, L, Eccles, R & Gabarro, J (1983), Managing Behaviour in Organizations: Texts, Cases, Readings, Japan, McGraw-Hill. Seitel, F (2007), The Practice of Public Relations, 10th, edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, USA. Sterne, J (2000), Customer Service on the Internet, Building Relationships, Increasing Loyalty, and Staying Competitive, 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. Taylor, M, Kent, L & White, J (2001), How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, pp. 263-284. Taylor, M (2004), Exploring public relations in Croatia through relational communication and media richness theories, Public Relations Review, Vol 30, pp. 145-160. Theaker, A (2004), The Public Relations Handbook, 2nd edition, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, Routledge. Thomlison, D (2000), An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 177-203. Thomsen, S (1996), @work in cyberspace: Exploring practitioner use of the PR forum, Public Relations Review, Vol 22, No 2, pp. 115-131. Thomsen, S (1997), Public relations in the new millennium: Understanding the forces that are reshaping the profession, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 42, No 1, pp. 11-17. Ulmer, R (2001), Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships: Malden Mills as a case study, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol 14, No 4, pp. 590-615. Wood, JT (2000), Relational Communication, Continuity and Change in Personal Relationships, 2nd edition, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

23

Wright, D (2001), The Magic Communication Machine, The Institute for Public Relations, University of Florida, Funded by WORLDCOM Public Relations Group for the Institute for Public Relations, Accessed 14/11/2003, from www.instituteforpr.com.

24

25