1. We need to treat our social networks and the conversations that we have in
them as if they were conversations on a crowded train, very likely to be
overheard, rather than hushed intimacies discussed in private.’ (Brown
2009:159)
Discuss the implications of this statement for public relations practitioners
engaged with social media.
Introduction
The advent of the internet has changed the shape of public relations. Social media
in particular has been influential in altering how practioners communicate. No longer
is it effective enough to employ traditional public relations practices, in this digital age
social media strategies are key to a successful organisation. As Phillips recognises:
“Internet PR is not a bolt-on, nice-to-have option: it is critical to survival” (2001, p.34).
„Social media, or Web 2.0, are a collection of new internet applications that
emphasises participation, connectivity, user-generation, information sharing and
collaboration‟ (Henderson and Bowley, 2010). These include social networks, blogs,
microblogs, video-sharing, photo-sharing, online discussion boards and chat rooms.
With the vast amount of information flowing around numerous channels of the
internet highway, there are consequences to using social media as the internet has
very different characteristics to traditional media. As such, Brown (2009, p.59)
acknowledges in the statement above that we cannot take privacy online for granted
and must assume that conversations users have within social networks are
„overheard‟.
Drawing heavily on the case study of „Nestlé vs. Greenpeace‟, I will discuss the
implications of the above statement on public relations practioners; how social media
in the wrong hands can prove destructive but also the opportunities social media
opens up to the public relations sector.

2. Gregory’s characteristics of the internet
The prospect of social media can be daunting for public relations practioners,
unfamiliar with the technology and more significantly, the distortion in power.
However this is not a passing fad that those working in the public relations sector
can afford ignore. Horton (2001) advises: “The worst mistake a PR practitioner can
make is to ignore what is happening online” (cited in Chipchase and Theaker 2004,
p.277).
In a paper for the Internet Commission, Anne Gregory (The E-Role for PR – Part 1,
1999, online) notes three phenomena of the internet that public relations
practitioners must take account of: porosity, transparency and agency.
Gregory‟s term porosity refers to passages of information carried from within an
organisation to external audiences, meaning communications can be misdirected to
other audiences, whether voluntarily or accidentally. As Brown‟s statement takes into
account, we must assume that conversations that take place via the internet are
likely to be „overheard‟ or in the case of internal to external audiences may be
„leaked‟. The interactivity between users and the nature of the internet makes
sharing data so effortless that once information is online in the public domain, there
is no way to predict the scale of the reach.
The term of transparency for Gregory refers to opening internal systems to scrutiny
from those external to the organisation. This could be described as a knock-on effect
of porosity in that the speed news travels has encouraged organisations to be more
transparent and ethical in their processes. The compression of time, space and the
interactivity of users have made it easier for consumers to share their experiences of
an organisation. However, it should be acknowledged that this works both ways and
users are also able to share their positive experiences.
Agency refers to transforming messages and images as they are passed from one
person to another, this can refer to manipulating images on „suck‟ sites. This can be
damaging to the company and are completely out of the control of practitioners.

3. Case study: Greenpeace vs KitKat
In March 2010 Greenpeace kicked off their „Give rainforests a break‟ against Nestlé
for using Sinar Mars, a supplier of palm oil who were accused of illegal deforestation.
The campaign began with a video uploaded to video-sharing site, YouTube,
featuring a man eating what appeared to be a Nestlé KitKat but was in fact a gorilla‟s
finger (Greenpeace, online). Nestlé responded by demanding the video be removed
citing „breach of copyright‟, which YouTube agreed to. This lack of transparency on
Nestlé‟s behalf caused the problem to escalate. If an organisation chooses to delete
or censor online content that they do not agree with or approve, this does not make
the issue go away; it simply makes the organisation look guilty and as if they have
something to hide.
The campaign included an altered KitKat logo to read „Killer‟ (see fig.1) being
featured on a dedicated page on the Greenpeace website (Greenpeace, online).
This example of agency was then spread through social networks where the spoof
logo was used as the profile picture of many Facebook users in protest of Nestlé‟s
actions.
As a result of porosity, information was soon passed from one online community to
another and users flocked to the Nestlé fan page on the social networking site to
leave negative comments in support of Greenpeace. Unusually, the moderator of the
Nestlé fan page responded to their posts, yet rather sarcastically which fuelled the
flames further (see fig. 2).
The moderator should have realised this was not a private squabble with a friend -
he was acting on behalf of a major corporation for the entire world (or the entirety of
cyberspace) to see. As Huba and McConnell (2007) note of social media:
“Conversations are created in real time allowing users to „discuss, debate, and
collaborate with one another as millions more watch, listen and learn” (cited in
Henderson and Bowley, 2010).
Huba and McConnell reiterate Brown‟s statement that conversations can be
overheard online, although they highlight the fact that is obviously on a much larger

4. scale. The speed, reach and connectivity of the users ensured the issue went „viral‟,
crossing over to other social media such as Twitter, and then into traditional media.
Nestlé‟s behaviour caused the issue to escalate and within four days had crossed
over from social media to national press highlighting the damaging impact of social
media if handled badly.
Shift in power relations
As can be seen from the Nestlé case study, social media has changed
communication between organisations and stakeholders as the power balance has
been altered. The web gives users the anonymity that allows them to express their
views and opinions openly. The internet has become democratised as their voices
can be heard without having to go through the traditional media „gatekeepers‟. As
evidenced by the Nestlé example, „this shift in power has seen traditional
gatekeepers lose control over online content‟ (Baumann 2006; Harwood 2006 cited
in Henderson and Bowley 2010). In Nestlé‟s case, they did not know how to handle
this loss of control which proved damaging.
“Once companies had control over what was said and believed about their activities.
Now every stakeholder has, can and does provide knowledge and opinion freely.
Anyone can create a website. Unacceptable practice attracts comment, criticism and
active opposition” (Phillips 1999 cited in Chipchase and Theaker 2004, p.274).
Nestlé‟s acceptable practice in the form of using unethical palm oil suppliers,
censorship and then aggressive comments from the Nestlé moderator did attract
comment, criticism and active opposition in a way which would never have been
possible before the advent of social media.
Holtz (1998 cited in Chipchase and Theaker 2004, p.259) suggests that with „social
media public relations practioners communication needs to shift from Reingold‟s
hierarchal, top-down model (the broadcast paradigm) to a networked, accessible
system (the network paradigm) when engaging online‟. It is apparent Nestlé, or the
site moderator acting on Nestlé‟s behalf, was unfamiliar with adapting

5. communication to fit the channel, instead trying to censor what could be seen and
dismissing the views of the audience. Social networking is about two-way
conversation and Nestle attempting to censor users‟ opinions and actions only riled
the masses as this was an unfamiliar tone in „their‟ space. If Nestle had not been so
aggressive with their tone, it would never have been spread to far.
Saved and stored
As can be seen from the Nestlé moderators conversation, conversing online
provokes quick responses in the heat on the moment; „…because a communication
is electronic people take less care when putting things down in black and white‟
(Gregory 2004, p.70). However, unlike words said in private they are non-transient
and can be stored, saved and distributed. Unfortunately for organisations such as
Nestlé who get it wrong, these mistakes can be searched for at the click of a button,
ensuring that they are never completely committed to history.
Clive Thompson acknowledges: “Google is not a search engine. Google is a
reputation management system…Online your reputation is quantifiable, findable and
totally unavoidable” (Wired magazine, online).
This is evidenced by entering the search term „Nestlé‟ into Google, which brings up
„Nestlé boycott‟ as the fourth term in the results, evidencing that users do not need to
be looking for information to come across it [accessed 16 January 2011]. This is in
reference to the allegation of Nestlé unethically promoting its baby milk. Although
Brown‟s statement suggests we should treat our conversations we have online as if
we were having a conversation on a train, it could be argued that users should in fact
be more careful when expressing opinions online as they are in effect conversations
that have been recorded and can be replayed again and again.
Opportunities for the sector
Despite how easy it can be to get wrong, social networking in fact provides many
opportunities to public relations practioners. The fact that conversations can be
overheard can be used to an organisation‟s advantage.

6. “You‟ll be able to respond to accusations, reinforce positive messages, and
correct misconceptions. More important, though, is the ability to identify
looming crises and develop plans to address them before they transcend the
internet and begin making headlines in the traditional media” (Holtz 2002,
p.129).
A case study by Chipchase and Theaker notes how corporate reputations can be
managed positively by monitoring online activity, also known as „landscaping‟. In
March 1999, complaints about Pioneer DVD players began to appear on
newsgroups. Rather than ignoring the complaints, Pioneer took a pro-active
approach and responded to the complainants by email, offering to fix their DVD
players. As such, a potential crisis that could have reached the mainstream media
was avoided and their reputation managed effectively (2004, p.274).
This case study is an example of how social media has the ability to make Grunig‟s
(1984) model „two-way symmetrical‟ a reality. Although it has been criticised by
L‟Etang and Pieczka (2006, p.1) for being „simplistic as it assumes that power is
shared equally in society and that symmetry between organisations and publics is
achievable‟, this example in fact shows that symmetry can be created as consumers
opinions are not only being listened to but organisations are responding. Practices
such as this demonstrate the opportunities that have been opened to practitioners by
social media. Engaging in dialogue with publics simply aids the foundations of
building and sustaining relationships which ultimately contributes to a better
reputation.
Conclusion
It is essential for public relations practitioners to understand their audience and their
aim before engaging in social media. The Nestlé case study not only highlights the
power of social media in inciting change, but how far information can reach due to
the networked communities within it. While users may feel isolated sending out the
message, blind as to how many people could view the post, due to the speed, reach,

7. interactivity and seemingly timeless zone of the internet, damage can be done in an
instant.
While this paper has highlighted the negative implications of what can go wrong if
social media is handled badly it is important to recognise that this is a rare incident. If
social media is utilised within a digital strategic plan it can have great benefits to
organisations and public relations as a sector.
The internet has encouraged companies to work ethically and transparently, which
can only improve the reputation of the field. Companies are no longer able to hide
behind their anonymity anymore, you must work ethically or your consumers will find
you out and can and will share their experiences with other internet users. As long as
practitioners are aware of the negatives and have a strategic social media plan in
place, then the sector will reap the positives of the technology.
Word count: 1, 623

8. Bibliography
Brown, R (2009) Public Relations and the Social Web London: Kogan Page
Chipchase, J and Theaker, A. Using the internet effectively in public relations in
Theaker, A (2004) in The public relations handbook (2nd
ed) New York: Routledge
Grunig (1984) Managing Public Relations, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Gregory, A (2004) Public relations in practice (2nd
ed) London: Kogan Page
Holtz, S (2002) Public Relations on the Net: Winning strategies. Informing and
influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public and
more! (2nd
ed) Amacom
L‟Etang, J. & Pieczka, M (Eds.) (2006) Public Relations, Critical Debates and
Contemporary Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Phillips, D (2001) Online public relations. New York: Kogan Page
Journals
Henderson, A. and Bowley, R. (2010) Authentic dialogue? The role of „friendship‟ in
a social media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication Management Vol
14 (3) [Accessed 15 January 2011]
Report
Gregory, A (1999) The E-role for PR – Part 1. Internet Commission. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.netreputation.co.uk/managementclarity/the_e_role_for_pr_part_1.pdf
[Accessed 10th January 2011]
Websites
Greenpeace, „Ask Nestle to give rainforests a break‟ [online] Available at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/
[Accessed 12th
January 2011]

9. Wired magazine online, (March 2007, Issue 15.04) „See-Through CEOs‟ [online]
Available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/wired40_ceo.html
[Accessed13th January 2011]
Appendix
Fig 1.
Fig 2.