In Chapter 11 of McQuail Mass Communication Theory, McQuail looks at internal and external influences on Mass Media production and content. In his words, it is important to “look not only at internal features of media organizations but also at their relationships with other organizations and with the wider society.” He supports his argument with the theory that media content is most influenced by organizational routines, practices, and goals. In context with the chapter’s discussion of media professionals, I took this theory to suggest that media content is affected by media professionals outside of the organization more so than it is affected by “personal or ideological factors” within a media organization. (McQuail, 277)
The Chapter also talks about research that has been done on “selective attention” of media content, and the mass media as “symbolic ‘construction’ of reality.” (276) Because the media is so widespread and influential, it is also important to look at incentives and public interest, and whether or not the two are coinciding. In Chapter 13 of McQuail Reader, “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma” talks about the mass media in our country and how they claims to operate “in” the public interest according to the Constitution. It is important, however, to compare the interests of the press to the interests of the public. The media is obviously concerned with profit, ratings, and relationships with external organizations. It is important to look at these factors and how they influence media professionals and content that is produced. This is where the profession of public relations so often gets blamed.
As media studies majors which most of you are, what is your take on Public Relations professionals and the effect hat they have on media content? (be nice)
McQuail brings up the model of mass communications my Westley and MacLean (1957) that “represents the communicator role as that of a broker between, on the one hand, would-be ‘advocates’ in society with messages to send and, on the other, the public seeking to satisfy its information and other communication needs and interests.” (281) It is arguable that the ‘advocates’ in this case are the PR practitioners who are representative of so much of the content that is being produced in the media. Like any profession, there are ethical PR practitioners, and there are unethical PR practitioners. However, because PR is so closely linked to the media, the affects if unethical PR has widespread and damaging effects on public interest. It is the so-called “spin” that becomes damaging to the public who is relying on the media as their source of truthful information. It is understood that media professionals should meet the interest of their audience first, and the interest of their clients should be secondary. However in PR, the interest of the client is always top priority. That is where journalism and PR butt-heads.
In addition to putting spin on news, PR is often criticized for creating news out of nothingness for publicity and profit. PR generated stories are examples of positive framing and can effect agenda setting in the news, sometimes taking away from more newsworthy stories. I found a good example of this in an article in PRWeek’s website.
http://www.prweekus.com/Starbucks-internal-meeting-goes-public/article/107484/
The article is about the event of Starbucks closing down all of its US shops to give employees (or ‘baristas’ who call a small a tall, if you’re into that kind of thing) a so-called “refresher course on making the perfect cup of coffee.” This all happened on February 26th and gained a ton of media coverage for Starbucks, conveniently at a time when the company is starting to see a decline in business due to the rising costs of coffee beans. The article stated: *notice poor sentence structure.. ha
“While Krum [Starbucks spokeswoman] staunchly maintained that it was not the meeting's intent was not to drum up media attention, the company issued about five press releases prior to the event, sent info out on Business Wire, and a few select reporters were invited in to witness the training.”
I don’t know why they would even argue that the event was not a pseudo event to draw media attention, and then go on to say “Given that we are a daily part of so many people's lives, we knew that there would probably be a lot of interest.” Although the idea of shutting down all Starbucks locations in the country to master the art of making a perfected cup of coffee is surprising and ridiculous, is this really newsworthy information? Considering the effects that a PR generated story like this might have on agenda setting, and the frame in which the story is set to take away from Starbucks current pricing issues, do you think that content like this is necessarily in public interest?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I’m going to go ahead and be obnoxious to say yes, I think this is newsworthy. To be honest, we all know in the greater scheme of things, and all worldly news considered, Starbucks stories are not all that important. HOWEVER- we cannot undermine the power Starbucks has over our culture, nor can we overlook how big of a staple Starbucks coffee is in millions of people’s daily lives. There are people, we all know at least one annoying one, who just can’t go a day without their coffee. And I am willing to bet that the average coffee drinker would be more effected by the closing down of Starbucks than by a shooting in the next town over. Thus, Starbucks drama is absolutely newsworthy.
Now, I would also be a fool to think this isn’t a ploy to boost sales. It is definitely a PR savvy move..but hey, it’s probably going work. Wouldn’t you go to Starbucks over the average place if you knew employees there “prepared the best cup of coffee guaranteed?” McQuail says “it is no accident that media markets often coincide with other consumer divisions. Most free-market media are finely tuned to jointly maximizing the needs of advertisers and their own interests..” (261).
Yes, Starbucks news is noteworthy. Should it be the main running story? No, probably not. But, something that effects consumers lives directly should definitely break headlines. As for me, as a coffee drinker and average consumer who is interested in basic big name business news, I appreciated the fact that Starbucks was in the news. It gave me something to read other than Hillary and Britney drama, and it was light, informative, and pertained to mine and my friends’ lives.
Okay, in terms of something being newsworthy based solely on whether it affects a number of people, then yes, I would have to say that this story was newsworthy. That being said, would I have spent time reading this article (or other related articles) had it not been for this class? No. Personally, this is not the information that I spend my time looking for or spend my time reading when I happen upon it. Perhaps this is because I am not a coffee drinker, so it doesn’t really affect me, but I also believe that there are much more important things going on in the world that I should spend my time learning about than learning about how my friends won’t be able to obtain their coffee fix for the day, or will have to seek it elsewhere.
I do think that, despite its lack of importance to me, the information that Starbucks nationwide will be closed on a certain day, is important to reach the public. Whether or not this was a planned PR stunt (which I think it is, given the number of press releases and instances of other media involvement), it certainly did make a point. In the interest of the public, it was probably nice not to drive all the way to your favorite Starbucks location to find out that it was closed. However, in terms of it being a press stunt, I think there was definitely some hope for the media attention to round up some more sales for the company. As McQuail states, most media outlets work to “…[maximize] the needs of advertisers…” and if Starbucks was noticing a decline in sales, then it makes sense to create a media frenzy about something that will hopefully increase sales (261). I actually think it probably will work to increase sales, because it seems that there was a fair amount of media coverage.
I think that Starbucks training its employees is without question NOT newsworthy. Every time a company hires a new employee and they go through training do you think a press release should be sent out? I think it is ridiculous that Starbucks tried to cover their ass and call this a news story, not a psedo event. On the other hand (responding to the media studies question if I may) as a PR major I think that the event is ingenious. People who live and die by Starbucks and pull up to the drive through and are pissed off because its closed now know that they wonderful baristas who are making their coffee are actually being told how to make the wonderful coffee even BETTER by the coffee GODS. People who eat up all the Starbucks latte, tall, grande crap would go for it every time. In the book it says that mass communicators are portrayed as “operating under pressure from various external ‘power roles’ including clients, competitors, authorities, experts, other institutions and the audience.” I think this event is perfect because it suits essentially everyone on that list. Starbucks is happy because we are talking about them in this blog for class, aka gaining them attention, the competitors are pissed because Starbucks came up with a genius plan to put momentum back on their side, the audience is completely satisfied because they think its all for them. As a PR person, I would never classify PR as news and I don’t think it should be. People in PR don’t want to get you the news, if they did they would have gone into broadcast journalism, they want to make their client as much money and gain them as much exposure as possible by whatever means possible. Kudos to Starbucks for coming up with a great campaign and for freaks that like to over analyze the media like us talking about it.
As a sometimes (note the word sometimes) Starbucks customer, I would have to say that yes, this is a newsworthy story. Obviously it should not be the top priority of any newscast of any kind, there are much worse things going on in the world. However, because of this story being somewhere on the news, I knew to avoid Starbucks the day that the training occurred. As a customer, I would have been extremely upset if I went to get a coffee and couldn't because the "baristas" (who by the way are not that talented at making coffee, anyone can press the button on a blender) were learning how to make a better latte.
In box 11.3 of Chapter 11 in McQuail's text, one of the goals of media organizations is "serving the public interest". Starbucks is a multinational, absolutely huge publicly traded company. Informing their millions of customers is in fact “serving public interest”. Obviously at the same time this was a PR move as well, however I would have to say that it was a smart one. Not only does it gain the company media attention, but it gives them a good image, which they obviously strive for with all of the green marketing that they do. This good image will keep their customers, including myself, coming back for coffee. Even though I know that this “training” was probably something that could have been done after the shops closed, it doesn’t deter me from going back to get a coffee. I’m not one of those “starbucks-aholics”, I just find the coffee very good, and I don’t mind paying more for a better quality drink. If Dunkins is closer, or I just want a quick in and out visit, I’ll go there instead. If Dunkin Donuts had pulled the same PR stunt I would have reacted the same way. Coffee is coffee.
As far as the PR question goes, I am fascinated by the world of PR. As a media studies major I don’t get to experience much about it, but I think that they way they can manipulate (in a good way!) the media is genius, and if it benefits their clients, then they are doing their jobs.
On page 291, McQuail states that "there is no doubt that owners in market-based media have ultimate power over content and can ask for what they want to be included or left out." He then mentions "Nevertheless, there is an inevitable tendency for owners of news media to set broad lines of policy, which are likely to be followed by the editorial staff they employ. There may also be informal and indirect pressure in particular issues that matter to owners (for instance, relating to their other business interests.)."
So to answer your first question I believe Public Relation professionals listen to what there higher-ups tell them to do and they follow through otherwise they'll be out of a job. It is their responsibility to maintain a good image in the the publics eyes. With the power that media owners have the blame cannot be placed on PR people for the hat effect upon media content.
The fact that this story made national news does not surprise me , however, in my mind this story does not deserve the amount attention that it received. Our economy is crumbling, we have a presidential election in November, and troops are still overseas. Yet despite all of this going on, the public is told that Starbucks will be shutting down and no Frapachinos will be served until the coffee technicians perfect their 5 dollar cup of joe. To tell you the truth I'm getting tired of these stories and this just further proves how far these media owners have their heads up their A$$. Maybe if they actually cared about the future of America they would demand their news outlets to actually report about something that wouldn't scare the public or brainwash them with product placements during the evening newscast's.
If a Journalist's responsibility is to report the news then it should be the owners obligation to the public to inform and educate us through the news instead trying to make us live in fear. The owners could put a positive spin on the news by throwing out junk stories and making these daily broadcasts worthwhile. A story such as the one about Starbucks is of interest only to those who can afford to go their. This story is just a ploy by the company to build stronger customer loyalty to their brand. Starbucks was attempting bring back customers that may have found an alternative beverage to satisfy their wants and needs.
Huvane
Well it may be sad, but yes, I do think this is newsworthy. Starbucks is a daily stop in the routine of many people. For some people, multiple stops at Starbucks are required. Per chance, there could be a first timer in the Starbucks department and they decide to grab a mochafrappacino or who knows what and the store is closed. People are going to want to know why or at least know ahead of time before going out of their way only to find they are closed. Not to mention, this is pretty good PR. Who knows if they are really perfecting their cup of coffee, if they are, that’s great...if not then one day of business won't kill them and this would raise the name once again. Regardless, if this is a stunt or not, this is getting the name out there, perhaps even more so than it is. In turn, someone may realize how much they love Starbucks within that 24 hours of closing and be driven even more to have that delicious and even better since the closing, cup of coffee. Maybe someone who felt their coffee wasnt so good decided to give them another shot since they are improving and perfecting their java.
Of course, there are more important issues currently happening. This may not serve the interest of many, but their is a population of people who this will serve interest to. As McQuail sates, "Most free-market media are finely tuned to jointly maximizing the needs of advertisers and their own interests as a normal condition of operation"(McQuail, 292). It works for them. Obviously, like I said, these are not the issues of high importance, but at the same time it is something that could be interesting and pertain to the lives of many coffee drinkers who were affected by the closing, so yes, this was newsworthy. It is not irrelevant and possibly quite important to the daily user.
The question isn't whether this is or isn't newsworthy because that is completely subjective. It is newsworthy to some for certain reasons, and it isn't for others for different reasons.
What does matter is that PR individuals are doing their job and are making an effort to keep their client's name out in the public. Which is exactly what McQuail was saying when he explained that advertisers and marketers work is driven by self-interest.
In essence, this story sounds kind of fluffy, but if you think about it, this corporation affects people all over the world. They have employees, customers, and suppliers that amount to probably billions of people. It may not sound like the most interesting article for everyone to read, but it gives you a chance to read between the lines, expand on this idea that the PR representatives are throwing out there, and appreciate everyone that this affects.
Even if the average reader does not put that much thought into it after reading this article, they take away the message STARBUCKS which will subliminally influence product placement which can only increase sales.
Post a Comment