Citation:Ohiagu, O. P. (2009). Modern public relations is founded

on a fresh realization of the supremacy of publicopinion. African Journal of Communication & Development,3(1), 77-93.

AbstractThe actions, inactions and reactions of the publicstowards an organization are largely dependent on theiropinion of the firm. Therefore, no well-meaningorganization can afford to ignore public feelings orattitudes towards her. To do so would be suicidal.Following a heightened competition among firms andindustries for public patronage and support, manycompanies recognized that the only way to beat othersin the competition was to court a favourable opinionof the people so as to gain their goodwill andacceptance. Consequently, one major force thatpropelled the growth of modern public relations was anew and growing awareness of the supremacy of publicopinion just as it gingered its inception oremergence. With the candid admission of the might ofpublic opinion, public relations became highlyinevitable in the scheme of things for manyorganizations. Every public relations activity fromthen became either an implicit or explicit effort toinfluence the opinion of the public in favour of theorganization. Both in its primitive stage and in itsmodern practice, following this recognition of thepower of public opinion, one central role of PR is tomobilize public opinion in favour of the organization.Public opinion and attitude management even todayprovide the basis for modern public relationspractice. The task of influencing public opinion infavour of the organization can take the form ofcrystallizing an existing positive opinion, changingthe opinion out rightly from negative to positivedirection, or at least managing an unfavourableopinion; in other words, influencing the direction and

0

intensity of public opinion. This paper, therefore,aims at providing intellectual support to theproposition that public relations started, developedand bloomed from the awareness of the supremacy ofpublic opinion.

Introduction: The Force of Public OpinionPublic opinion is like the wind, you cannot see it ortouch it, but you can strongly feel or sense itsimpact. Just as the invisible wind can pull down tallbuildings and mighty trees, unhealthy public opinioncan forcefully tear down the walls of an organization.The impact can be highly devastating or comfortingdepending on its direction and force. It is a double-edged sword it has the potential to be disastrous yet,if managed well, public opinion can be a powerful toolworking in favour of the organization. Thistheoretical analysis aims at providing intellectualsupport to the standpoint that public relationsstarted, developed and bloomed from the awareness ofthe supremacy of public opinion. Perhaps the best wayto start is from the beginning.

Historical Founding of Traditional and Modern PublicRelations on Public Opinion

Many public relations scholars traced the origin ofunprofessional public relations to the Romans who manycenturies ago coined the expression vox populi, vox Dei(the voice of the people is the voice of God).Contrasting this view, Bittner (1989) citing Scott M.Cutlip, the public relations guru, in his book PublicRelations, attributes its primitive beginning to theancient Greeks who conceived the idea of the ‘publicwill.’ Despite the disagreement on whether Rome orGreece should be considered the home-town oftraditional public relations, both schools of thoughthave something in common: a high regard for the publicand their consensus on an issue.

1

While the origin of traditional public relations iscontroversial, the beginning of modern publicrelations is incontrovertible. The place is America.Public relations’ history has it that during the FirstWorld War, the Germans and their allies made extensiveefforts to influence opinion through the disseminationof propaganda. When the United States joined the war,it followed suit. The American Congress went a stepfurther to set up the Committee on Public Information(the Creel Commission) to help mould American opinionin favour of the war effort. By the end of the war,the profession of public relations had grown into animportant tool for persuasive communication both inthe government and in the business world. However, thepublic relations practiced at that time waspredominantly press agentry and propaganda.

The First World War thus helped stimulate thedevelopment of public relations as a profession. Manyof the first public relations professionals in theUnited States, such as Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, andCarl Byoir, started their practice of public relationswith the Creel Commission which organizedpublicity/propaganda to champion U.S. objectivesduring the war period. Cutlip, Broom and Center(2000) observe in Tench and Yeomans (2006) that duringthat war, the American Revolutionaries used techniquescommonly employed today, including symbols, slogans,events, agenda setting (promoting certain topics toinfluence the themes covered by the media) and long –term campaign development. Although the concept wasneither understood nor the profession practiced withthe same sophistication with which it is practicedtoday, many of those strategies employed at the earlystage of its practice are still identifiable in itsmodern practice.

2

The second war too encouraged the profession as publicrelations continued to be used to support the Americancause. According to Tench and Yeomans (200), it wasused by the armed forces during the second war as thediscipline that could promote American interests andidentity overseas. They made extensive use ofadvertising to generate popular support for theconflict, a combination still being used today inmarketing and communications strategies. In 1955Edward Bernays published ‘The Engineering of Consent’,underpinning public relations as a discipline thatcould shape and mould public opinion rather thanengage and have a dialogue with individual groups.

It could be rightly said that the wartime publicrelations was purely about moulding and influencingpublic opinion in favour of the war. It is equallytrue from the foregoing that the first widespread useof public relations was in the service of politics.Citing Price (1992) Tench and Yeomans (2006) observethat:

The concept of public opinion becamerelevant in the mid-eighteenth century,accompanying the emergence of fledgingdemocratic states. Rousseau, the Frenchphilosopher, is generally credited withfirst coining the term, in 1744; and itsuse quickly became more extensive asdiscussions continued about howdemocracies should and could incorporatethe views of the populations they weresupposed to govern (p.7).

Underlining this recognition of the privilegedposition of public opinion in politics, GeorgeWashington (1732-1799), first president of the UnitedStates from 1789-1797 and one of the most importantleaders in United States history was once quoted to

3

have said that ‘with public opinion on our side, wecan do anything; without it, nothing’. So, as farback as the 18th century, the power of public opinionin politics was already an established statement offact. Baskin and Aronoff (1988) in Nweke (2007)observe that:

Public opinion has always been a force inhuman events. Leaders have courted thesentiments of the people to sustain theirpower and gain support for their actions.Only those rulers who were believed to begods, or chosen by gods, could afford toignore public attitudes and even theyusually took pains to assure theirsubjects that their faith was wellplaced. Many depots, believing they hadabsolute power were thus immune to publicopinion, later lost their heads (71).

However, it was mainly press agentry, propaganda,publicity grabbing strategies like staging andmanaging events as well as other simple forms ofpublic relations that were employed then. Dominick(2007) concurs that: public relations was practicedboth in the church and guilds in its rudimentary formsduring the medieval times. It was only much laterduring the American Revolution that more recognizablepublic relations activities became evident. “The earlypatriots were aware that public opinion would play animportant role in the war with England, and theyplanned their activities accordingly. For example,they staged events such as the Boston Tea Party, togain public attention, ” (p.307). Renowned authorsalso were said to use political propaganda to swingpublic opinion to their side. Interestingly in bothprimitive and modern histories of public relations,public opinion is a paramount consideration. Theexalted place of public opinion is a commondenominator. The effort to influence public opinion in

4

favour of the war through propaganda was an impliedrecognition of the public will.

Igben (1997) shares the view that: “The historicalfoundations of public relations has one significantfocus and that is the recognition of the role ofpublic opinion” (p.81). Ivy Ledbetter Lee, who istoday acknowledged as the father of modern publicrelations was reputed for regarding his role as thatof a lawyer who solicits on behalf of his client inthe court of public opinion.

The Evolution of PR and Relevance of Public OpinionFollowing the Industrial Revolution

However, before the dawn of professional publicrelations, besides the recognition of the power ofpublic opinion in government circles, many commercialorganizations erroneously ignored the judgment of thepublic about them. The belief was that a company hadno business letting the public into ‘its business’other than sell products or services to them. Then itwas strictly a distant buying and selling affairtotally devoid of any form of relationship or warmth.This disregard for both the public and their opinionwas expressed in various ways. It manifested either asoutright snubbing of the people even during importanttransactions, or a refusal to inform the public ofcorporate activities/policies, and sometimesindifference to winning the people’s goodwill. Manysuch companies were then taking pride in keeping theirsecrets secret. Whatever ‘magic’ that made them tickwas jealously guarded with maximum confidentiality.

But this did not augur well with them for long,especially with the stiff competition that followedthe industrial revolution. Mass production that beganin that period made business competition tough. Thetune of the music swiftly changed to the popular note,‘survival of the fittest’, but this time not the

5

physically fit but the shrewdly fit. Following thisheightened competition among organizations andindustries for public patronage and support, manycompanies realized that the only way to beat others inthe competition was to court a favourable opinion ofthe people so as to gain their goodwill andacceptance. Public information of all corporateactivities, among other approaches, became a strategicbait to let the public in, so as to understand andappreciate the organization.

Thus with the candid admission of the might of publicopinion, public relations became highly inevitable inthe scheme of things for many organizations. Everypublic relations activity from then became either animplicit or explicit effort to influence the opinionof the public in favour of the organization.Consequently, one major force that propelled thegrowth of modern public relations was a new andgrowing awareness of the supremacy of public opinionjust as it gingered its inception/emergence.

An advertisement contained in Bittner (1989), capturesthis evolution very well.

We used to say no comment. Now we areasking for your questions. For years atAdolph Coors Company we were quiet aboutour business. Not that we had anything tohide, just the opposite. Since that firstbarrel of Coors beer was brewed in 1873we‘ve taken great pride in the quality ofour product, in our concern for thecommunity, the environment, the worldaround us. We’ve always had a good storyto tell. We just thought our work willspeak for itself. But that’s all changed.Now we are asking for your questions. Werealize that as competition in the brewingindustry gets stiffer, a company that is

6

bent on surviving must talk to the mediaopenly and frankly about anything: Coorsresponsibility for the environment,brewing process contributions, relationswith minority groups. So call us tollfree. Give us a chance to answer yourquestions. We will give you the facts (p.234).

Adolph Coors Company, epitomizing the experience ofnot a few companies, in the long run acknowledges theneed to inform the public of its activities. What ismore, it literally ‘begs’ them (the public) to informthe company of their own side of the story, even atthe company’s expense. What a transition, fromsnubbing the public with a no comment tag, to wooingtheir remarks with toll free calls! By going the extramile of bearing the cost of the call for the customer,the company shows its unreserved commitment andaspiration to ensure there is no impediment to itsdesired communication flow with the public. And thisis what modern public relations is all about. Biagi(2005) insists that what makes a bad public relationsoperation is “companies that think they can hide thetruth from the public or believe it is none of thepublic’s business” (231). According to Center andJackson (2003) Coors created many dogged publicrelations programmes within the period and the resultwas very evident as the company prospered despite abad economy and a flat beer market. Coors is now thethird largest brewer in the United States. Not too badfor a company some predicted a few years earlier wouldfail when it was targeted for the longest-runningboycott in recent history.

As a management function public relations, among otherthings, strives to anticipate, monitor, analyze andinterpret public opinions, attitudes, and issues thatmight impact for good or ill on the operations and

7

plans of the organization. The anticipation,monitoring and analysis of public opinion are premisedon the obvious and accepted relevance of the publicwill. Because an organization’s publics constitute apotent ingredient of its survival and success,corporate bodies are compelled to keep a keen eye onthe direction and intensity of their opinions andattitudes in order to preempt their possible lines ofaction and act accordingly. Nweke (2001) concurs that:

Public opinion and attitude managementprovide the basis for modern publicrelations practice. They helporganizations to develop and care forpublic sensitivity and welfare, soundcorporate social responsibilityprogrammes, good community relations,employee relations and other profitablerelationships with the publics. Thisperhaps informs the opinion of Keeney tom(1985) as he submits that, the objectiveof public relations is to determine andanalyze attitude of people in order tounderstand, and perhaps, anticipatepublic opinion on controversial problems(p. 81).

If public relations is worth its while, it isbasically because public opinion is aptly recognizedas crucial in an organization’s success story. Whywould any organization spend much of its resources incourting the friendship of its publics if it doesn’tgive a damn about what they think of it? Cutlip, Broomand Center (2000) speak of public opinion as a forceand energizer that no intelligent organization canafford to ignore. Organizations must deal with realand perceived public opinion as they establish andmaintain relationships with their publics. Public

8

opinion is the energizer of corporate actions whilethe organizations are the actors.

Igben (1997) argues that: “public opinion plays asignificant role in the practice of public relations.The root of public relations is constant or sustainedadjustment of the individual or organization to thedirection of public opinion” (p.88). Public opinionprovides the resource for knowing the current image ofany organization or individual; reveals the need forchange; predicts the destiny of an organization,serves as a dependable resource for public relationsprogramme planning and for public relations programmeevaluation.

In fact, in one of their publications posted on thenet, Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center definedpublic relations as a planned effort to influenceopinion through good character and responsibleperformance based upon mutual satisfactory two-waycommunication. Nweke (2001) consents that:

The simple definition of public relationsas good performance publicly appreciatedsuggest that public interest and welfareis a dominant factor in organizationalpolicy decision, and that anorganization’s prestige through goodwords and deeds facilitate the formationof positive public opinion.Organizational leaders and all otheroverseers of human institutions desirousof public support, goodwill and approvalshould therefore try to study the factorsthat influence opinion and attitudechange and work with them. (p.82).

The judgment of the people about a corporate body isfundamental because it is one of the principal

9

determinants of their actions and inactions whichmight impact for good or bad on the operations andplans of the organization. In fact, public relationsrevolve around couched and overt effort to sway theopinion of the public in favour of the organization.According to a PRSA (Public Relations Society ofAmerica) information posted on its website “themanagements of institutions need to understand theattitudes and values of their publics in order toachieve institutional goals’.

Indeed corporate success or failure more often thannot is traceable to the organization’s attitude to theopinion of the public more than to any other factor.As far back as its early days, Ivy Lee already sawpublic opinion as capable of making or marring anorganization even more than business principles coulddo. Tench and Yeomans (2006) citing Grunig and Hunt1984 confirm this view:

Public relations practiced (in USA, earlydays) was predominantly press agentry,using the media to influence publicopinion. It was in this environment thatIvy Lee emerged as the first formal andwidely recognized public relationspractitioner. Making his mark as apublicity agent for the PennsylvaniaRailroad, he argued that businesses hadto build bridges to a skeptical public ifthey were to establish understanding andbuy-in to their practices. If they didnot, their legitimacy would be calledinto question and their operationsconstrained more by public opinion thanby good business principles. He put thisinto practice by opening upcommunications for the Railroad and beingthe first to issue press releases to keep

10

journalists up to date with events(p.9).

Acknowledging the power of public opinion, Okoro,Udeze and Agbo (1999) admit that the “survival of anygovernment or organization depends on what peoplethink about it as it depends on the will of God.People can unsit a government through revolts just asthey can ruin organization through violentdemonstrations and attacks” (p.61). Therefore, onecan safely conclude that both the beginnings andgrowth of public relations are traceable to therecognition of the might of public opinion. At thispoint, it will be pertinent now to explore the conceptof public opinion.

What is Public Opinion?Public opinion is the summative or cumulative views ofthe majority and minority members of a group in anissue. It is a consensus derivable from the measurableviews of individuals or groups who have a stake orinterest in a controversy. So before arriving at thesupposed opinion of the public, there must be anissue, controversy or at least divergent views on atheme. The views must be explicitly expressed. Thepopular or aggregate of all important and activeexpressions on the issue thus becomes the publicopinion. This does not in any way suggest thateverybody in the group will share the point of viewneither must they be a uniform group reasoning andbehaving alike.

So, why it does not necessarily mean that the majoritymust express the same views, yet it must be theopinion of at least significant number of persons whocan reasonably and effectively represent the entiregroup on the issue which of course must be of commoninterest to the group. For Cutlip, Broom and Center(2000) the emphasis is not on the collectivity of

11

different views but on the commonality of a particularview. In other words, rather than assemblingeverybody’s position on an issue, the importantconcern they believe, is rallying everybody to thesame point of view. In their words:

The common notion of public opinion holdsthat it is simply the aggregation ofindividual views on some issue. This‘individual agreement’ to defining publicopinion however, misses the point that itis public. Individual cognition may ormay not represent the consensus of‘thinking together’ that more fullyrepresents the kinds of opinions thatform and are formed by public discussionamong those sharing a ‘sense ofcommonness’(p. 265).

Nweke (2007) insists it is both a summation ofindividual views and a consensus of views:

Public opinion is defined as theaggregate result of individual opinionson public matter which affect groups ofpeople, a consensus among a varyingsignificant number of persons whichemerges overtime from all the expressedviews that cluster around an issue indebate. It could also be viewed simplyas the sum total of individual views,feelings, and utterances which are eitherinferable or measurable and held by agroup of persons who have similarinterest in that particular issue (p.71).

On a similar note, Tench and Yeomans (2006) argue thatit can be identified variously both to accommodate thecollective common view as well as the aggregate ofindividual views:

12

Public opinion can be defined either as:aggregate view which refers to the sumtotal of individual opinions of thepopulation governed by the democraticstate. One example of such an issue isbanning smoking in public places. In theUK the views of the majority of thepopulation, tested over time throughpolls, appear to be in favour of a ban.Or as: collective view which refers toissues that emerge through rationaldiscussion…. One example of such anissue is the general agreement amongopinion formers (e.g. healthprofessionals) that obesity in youngchildren is caused through poor nutritionand a lack of exercise (p.7).

Citing Pieczka (1996) Tench and Yeomans (2006) goesfurther to highlight some of the problems associatedwith both definitions of public opinion:

Two basic conceptions of public opinionhave dominated the evolution of the term:public opinion as an abstract, collective viewemerging through rational discussion ofissues in the population, and publicopinion as an aggregate view, the sumtotal of individual opinions of thepopulation governed by the democraticstate. There are limitations to bothviews. For example, who is included in,and who is excluded from the term“public”? To what extent does therational debate required for the‘collective view’ really take place anddoes everyone have equal access to thedebate?, if not, then ‘public opinion’may only be the view of a select numberof individuals who bother to engage in

13

discussions. Alternatively, if publicopinion is interpreted as an aggregate ofindividual opinions, then what happens tominority views that are swamped bymajority concern? Where do they findexpression? (p. 7)

Okoro, Udeze and Agbo (1999) simply defined it as theexpression of views held common by members of thepublic on controversial topic. Not only is scholarlydebate unsettled about the concept of public opinionor how it should be described, equally negotiable iswhether the meanings of opinion and attitude can beused synonymously. Opinion is sometimes usedinterchangeably with attitude and belief as if theterms are the same. Admittedly it is only a thin linethat separates them yet they are distinct concepts.Opinion is more superficial and unstable while beliefis deeply rooted in a person and more resistant tochange and manipulation. Attitude on the other hand isan outgrowth of one’s belief which finds expression asopinion. So attitude is somewhere in the middlebetween the strongly held internal-belief and theovertly expressed opinion. Long held feelings,thoughts and ideas usually develop into beliefs;beliefs in turn spawn to attitude, attitude results inopinion, and opinion eventually defines a person’sactions and reactions. In other words, opinion isusually an expression or communication of one’sconscious or unconscious beliefs, emotions andthoughts groomed as attitude. Attitude on the otherhand, is simply an inclination or predisposition toreact or respond in a given way to a prevailingdevelopment, or the predisposition of the individualto respond to or evaluate controversial questions in afavourable or unfavourable manner.

Feelings/ideas are the breeding ground for beliefs,the latter in turn generate to attitudes. Attitudes

14

eventually lead to opinion formation and opinions arethe determinants of a person’s actions, inactions orreactions as the case may be. This can bediagrammatically represented thus:

Feelings/ideas→ belief→ attitude→ opinions→actions/inactions/reactions (behaviour).

These actions or inactions and reactions can bepositive or negative depending on the direction of theopinion. Again opinions are often tied to a particularsubject or circumstance and change with the theme orissue on discussion, whereas attitude and belief aremore of a person’s inherent and general disposition toissues. Cutlip, Broom and Center (2000) citing Priceand Roberts distinguish opinions from attitudes:

Opinions are generally considered to beverbal, or otherwise overt responses to aspecific stimulus (an issue), whileattitudes are more basic globaltendencies to respond favourably orunfavourably to a general class ofstimuli. While opinions are generallysituational, attitudes are more enduringwith a person across situations. Second,opinions are considered to be morecognitive and somewhat less affective intheir make-up…an attitude is animmediate, intuitive orientation whileopinion is a thought-out, reasoned choicebetween alternatives for action in asocial matrix (p. 271).

Newsom and Carrel (2001) consent to theinstability of opinions as distinct from themore stable attitudes and beliefs.Nevertheless, they are of the opinion that theterms are not too different.

15

Opinions are temporal, fleeting andunstable. They can change on a whim.Attitudes are a little more stable andare less likely to change immediately.Beliefs however are very stable and theyare very resistant to change…. When weaccumulate information and experiences weform opinions. Some of these opinionstend to cluster as especially relevant toa specific attitude. Attitude clustersthen tend to gather in support of aspecific belief…opinions can change withthe wind, beliefs can change, too, butthey are slow to do so. Attitudes fallsomewhere between these extremes. In manyrespects, opinions, attitudes and beliefsare closely linked, so it makes sense forus to discuss them as one using the termattitude to signify them (p.45).

The Direction and Intensity of Public Opinion The direction of public opinion can be favourable orunfavourable, positive or negative or even neutral.Every organization desires to have favourable orpositive public opinion. In fact, public relationsefforts are usually geared at reinforcing favourablepublic opinion or changing negative or neutral opinionto a positive one. Beyond the direction of publicopinion, its intensity can also be measured in degreesof strong or weak calibrated rulers. A very weaknegative opinion cannot be as dangerous or deadly as avery strong unfavourable opinion. So a professionalhas to monitor whether the opinion is favourable ornot (identify its direction), he has also to takecognizance of the strength or intensity of theopinion.

Intensity measures provide initial estimate of therelative strength of predisposition. In other words,

16

it gauges how strongly people feel about theiropinions whatever the direction. Written copies of aquestionnaire or oral interview may be used to requestpeople to indicate ‘on a scale of 1 to 10’ (forexample) how strongly they felt about an issue.Sometimes such opinion surveys may request respondentsto mark ‘strongly agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly disagree’ thus measuring both the directionand intensity of feelings in one move. Thus it can beestablished not only how people feel about issues butalso how deeply they hold the feelings.

Stability on the other hand refers to how longrespondents have held or will hold the same directionand intensity of feelings. Measures of stabilityrequire observations taken at two or more points intime.

Treading this line of thought, Igben (1997) arguesthat: opinion can be assessed by the course it takes,degree of fixity and concentration. The course ofpublic opinion must be identified in terms of whichposition the opinion holder maintains over an issue,whether he is for or against. This can be scaled forpurpose of precision from one extreme, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5to the other extreme +1 +2 +3 +4 +5. However, fixityof opinion refers to the degree of commitment of anopinion holder to an issue. The greater thecommitment, the longer the opinion is maintained. Alsothe more interaction he/she has with those who holdthe opinion the longer the opinion lasts. Then againthe degree of concentration of the publics on theopinion also helps to reinforce the opinion.

The Primacy of Public Opinion in Public RelationsAt this point it is imperative to ask the question whydo organizations strive to win public understanding,acceptance or goodwill, which after all is what publicrelations is all about? Why do they spend huge money,

17

time and effort just to woo the people’s support,approval or sympathy? The answer is simple. Manyorganizations just like Adolph Coors Company arefinally aware that what their publics think about themin the long run decide their fate. The people’s idea,opinion or thinking about an organization determineshow they react or act towards that organization. Sincethe publics’ actions and inactions are brewed in thefurnace of public opinion, no well-meaningorganization can afford to ignore public feelings orattitudes towards her. To do so would be signing theorganization’s death warrant.

Corporate bodies that care about the people’s actionsand reactions towards them, which of course is a mustdo for all organizations except if they are ready forcrisis; devote a lot of time and money to influencepeople’s opinion to their favour. This task ofinfluencing people’s attitudes and opinions is a majorfunction of public relations. In fact, every publicrelations effort is founded on the acceptance of thepower of public opinion. All public relationsactivities are either aimed at out-rightly changing,influencing to an extent, or at least managing theopinion of the public. Nweke ( 2007) holds a similarview:

To gain the confidence and respect oftheir business communities, organizationsare required to properly identify andaccommodate the views of theirconstituencies on issues affecting themand implementing programmes of actionaimed at bettering their lots.Organizations that still want to remainin business must have this at the back oftheir minds. The publics must not only beseen and known, they must also be heardand their views properly respected inorganizational decision-making if the

18

organization does not want to courttrouble and submit itself to untimelydeath. Cutlip and Center (1982) are awareof the dangers of public opinion neglectand consequently caution the power ofpublic opinion must be first understoodand dealt with. It provides thepsychological environment in whichorganizations prosper or perish (p.70).

So we react to the question above about whyorganizations court the publics’ friendship by makingsome hypothetical statements. First, that anorganization’s publics represents a dominant elementof its survival and success story. A secondsupposition is that because of the existing businessscramble for the publics’ attention, patronage,loyalty and support, wooing their favourable opinionbecomes a major way, if not the only way to the top.Corporate bodies are thus duty-bound to anticipate,monitor, analyze and interpret public opinions,attitudes, and issues that might impact positively ornegatively on the operations and plans of theorganization. By being watchful of the direction andintensity of public opinions and attitudes,practitioners are better positioned to predict theconsequences of such trends, preempt the publics andcounsel organizational leadership to act accordingly.Ohiagu (2008) opines that public opinion is at theheart of public relations.

Indeed, the whole essence of publicrelations is to develop and sustain agood corporate image in order tocommand a favourable public opinion.The image is the message or the centreof corporate communications. This meansthat every public relations activity ofan organization is done to win publicunderstanding by carving a good image

19

in the eyes of her various publics.This is premised on the belief that ifthe image (personality) of theorganization is satisfactory, then theopinion of the public about itlogically would be positive; and sincepeople’s attitudes, actions andinactions are based on their opinions,the positively perceived organizationwould achieve better understanding andharmony with the people (p. 638).

It is interesting to note that Dominick (2007) in anattempt to catalogue what public relations people do,ranked the top most function of public relations, asinfluencing public opinion in a way that is positiveto the client. Similarly, Igben (2007) believes that:one of the ten major functions of community relationsis researching into opinions, attitudes andexpectations of the host community. Discussing tenspecialized areas of public relations, Igben (2007)equally positioned public opinion as the first of theten sub-sects of public relations. Out of the sixtools of public relations they listed out, Okoro,Udeze and Agbo (1999) also ranked public opinion asthe first tool.

Among the many tools of public relationsis public opinion. The objective of publicrelations is to develop favourable publicopinion for a social or politicalinstitution. The main task before thepractitioner is to influence theindividual’s attitudes. This means that hemust be familiar with the source of theperson’s attitudes, value systems andpersonality and the process which bringsabout change of attitude. All these are ofbasic importance in understanding publicopinion (p. 10).

20

Biagi (2005) presents Edward Bernays as one of thefathers of public relations whose interest was in masspsychology – how to influence the opinions of largegroups of people. And in 1955, Bernays wrote thatpublic relations is the attempt by information,persuasion and adjustment to engineer public supportfor an activity, cause, movement or institution.Nweke (2001) consents to this centre stage which thepublics and their opinions occupy in the scheme ofthings if corporate interest is to be achieved.

The fundamental philosophy of publicservice is the foundation of modernpublic relations. It is a philosophybuilt on the premise of understandingthat public support, approval andgoodwill are essential to the existenceand profitability of business. Noindividual or institution in business canlong prosper in today’s complex andhighly competitive environment by keepingthe publics aside. It is the will of thepeople that sets the ultimate standard onwhich organizations carry on with theiractivities and successfully accomplishtheir aims (p. 70).

So an organization has no choice on whether to havepublic relations or not. Like it or not, organizationsare always communicating to those publics that areimportant to them. So the decision is whether thisinevitable communication should be managed positivelyby handling it in a planned and organized manner orwhether it should be left to an accidental,haphazardly and probably inconsistent affair. Success-oriented organizations should ensure that theirpolicies, programmes, activities and procedures shouldbe formulated and executed in such a way as tocontribute to the formulation and articulation of

21

favourable opinions (of the publics) toward theorganization.

The Task of Shaping, Influencing and DirectingOpinionAs earlier noted, one primary role of PR is tomobilize public opinion in favour of the organization.It is this task of shaping, influencing or directingpublic opinion that makes public relations apersuasive form of communication. Like all other formsof persuasive communication such as advertising andpropaganda, public relations attempts to convince orpersuade the publics to the practitioners own point ofview: that the organization is good. Tench and Yeomans(2006) assert that:

Early public relations theorists had noproblem with acknowledging the centralityof persuasion to public relations; indeedBernays considered public relations to beabout ‘engineering public consent’.However, more recent public relationstheory has tended to move away from thisaspect of communication to concentrate onthe more acceptable images of negotiationand adaptation (p. 271).

As in all persuasive information even in opinionmoulding, the persuasion must not be obvious otherwisepeople will naturally resist to be swayed orpersuaded.To effect opinion change, a lot of communicationeffort is needed. Using honest information, thepractitioner strives to sway people to change theiropinion if different from what the company would wishthem think. However, it must be quickly added thatalthough information helps to shape opinion, yet it isonly one element and not necessarily the mostimportant. For example, if employees of a companybelieve with good reasons and evidence that the

22

organization is uncaring, no amount of informationwill persuade them to change their opinion. On theother hand, if the company is actually caring contraryto public opinion, relevant information espousing thecompanies caring effort/activities may be enough tosway the workers to a change of mind. So informationis necessary, but to be helpful it must be honest ortrue to reality in order to effect opinion change.White propaganda which makes use of abundant honestinformation to persuade the public to a desired lineof thought is an acceptable public relations strategyas distinct from the unacceptable black or darkpropaganda that thrives on falsehood persuasion.

Tench and Yeomans (2006) describe propaganda as the“deliberate and systematic attempt to shapeperceptions, manipulate cognitions and directbehaviour to achieve a response that furthers thedesired intent of the propagandist” (p. 269).

Citing Grunig and Hunt 1984 Tench and Yeomans (2006)“locate propaganda in the press agentry model, thefirst of their four models: ‘public relations serves apropaganda function in the press agentry/publicitymodel. Practitioners spread the faith of theorganization involved, often through incomplete,distorted or half-true information’ (p. 269).”

In what they called ‘Public Opinion Justifying PublicRelations’ Tench and Yeomans (2006) concur that thepractice of using communication to influence thepublic is hundreds of years old, with its root inancient civilizations, including the Greek and RomanEmpire. Citing Grunig and Hunt (1984) Tench andYeomans (2006) write: “Throughout history,governments, monarchs and powerful institutions suchas the Catholic Church have used communication andinformation to generate support for their cause amongthe populace” (p. 7).

23

Most organizational goals and objectives dealing withpublic relations depend to some extent on the conceptof public opinion. Therefore, public relationsresearch is used to sample public opinion. So inaddition to an elaborate communication effort, equallyneeded is a consistent research practice. A traditionof regular research would reveal the direction andintensity of public opinion. Modern public relationsuses a variety of techniques including opinion pollingand focus groups to evaluate public opinion. To effectopinion change, the practitioner must be familiar withsources of opinion, the opinion leaders of the groupas well as how to effect attitudinal change where andwhen necessary. The practitioner must consistentlymonitor the corporate environment in order to gaugethe course and strength or force of public opinion inorder to regulate, correct, change or influence it asmay be necessary. Through the strategic window, thepractitioner must monitor the corporate environment inorder to know the public opinion about hisorganization.

If he discovers that the opinion is negative orunfavourable, he must nip it in the bud before itspreads and develops into a crisis or a chain ofunfavourable actions. The result of the research orcorporate monitoring would reveal the position ofpublic opinion and this would determine the directionof the public relations effort. It could be geared atreinforcing or fortifying a favourable opinion (if thedesired opinion is already present but perhaps weak)or changing a negative opinion to a positive opinionor at least merely neutralizing it. So to influencepublic opinion there must be consistent research,steady and sufficient information flow and regularmonitoring of public opinions. Therefore, publicrelations is aimed at achieving anyone or more ofthese:

24

1. changing or neutralizing negative publicopinion

2. crystallizing existing opinions 3. reinforcing favourable public opinion

Negative attitude Neutral Positive Attitude

bad position fair position good position

© Ohiagu, O. P.

Any public relations campaign is designed to move thepublic opinion pendulum from the negative region to atleast the neutral zone or better still to the positivesection. The farther away the pendulum is to theextreme of the positive pole the better for allinvolved. Center and Jackson (2003) consents thateffective public relations elicits change in threedimensions: motivates new behaviour, reinforcesexisting positive behaviour or modifies negativebehaviour.

But it must be admitted that opinions and attitudesare deeply rooted and are influenced by a lot offactors such beliefs, background, education,personality and thus do not easily give in to change.Reinforcing an existing attitude is far easy to dothan to change it entirely from one pole to the other.Opinion or attitudinal change has to do with both thedirection and intensity of the opinion.

Cutlip, Broom and Centre (2000) see the task as evenmore demanding. To them, public opinion is not“necessarily logical, it is amorphous, ambivalent,contradictory, and volatile. Consequently, those of us

25

who would hope to influence public opinion can onlyexpect that our efforts, over time, may nudge theconsensus toward some reasonable perception of theissues” (p.264).

Opinion FormationOpinions are not easily changed from one direction tothe other first because they originate from people’sbeliefs and attitudes which are deeply rooted and alsobecause the process of their formation is quiteobscure since there are a number of interveningvariables. Discussing the complexity of attitudeformation, Newsom and Carrell, (2001) outlined anumber of factors that can influence the formation ofattitude in a person to include:

Social environment (personal backgroundor historical setting influences aperson’s background. Where was the personborn? Where did he or she grow up? Whatwas the social and economic condition ofthe day? These and similar factors helpto shape personality… All of theseconsiderations are part of the socialenvironment in which communication andpersuasion take place. Individuals belongto groups with social norms that affecttheir opinions. A person’s lifeexperiences also play a large part inattitude formation. And naturally, thecharacteristics of the issue at hand areimportant. One other major element of thesocial environment influences attitudes:available information. Here is the onedoor open to the persuasive writer. Thewriter has no power to change a person’shistory or the norms of social groups,although persuasive messages may be woveninto those fabrics of experience. You

26

can’t expect to change someone’s lifesituation or provide a significant newexperience with your message. As awriter, however you can hope to add tothe information on which attitudes may bebased. If you look at the situationobjectively, it does not appear to beencouraging. Why spend all the effortsand resources necessary to shape and sendpersuasive messages if there isn’t muchhope for change? The fact is thatproviding information is your chance ofmaking an impact. Even if the impact isminimal, you have to try. That is why youneed to understand the nature ofpersuasion (p.46).

It would have been a write off on the profession ofthe persuasive writer (the public relationspractitioner) if we had ended this discussion bysaying that opinion change does not easily come bybecause a lot of things influence opinion formation.In fact, why even bother about public relations ifpeople’s mind or judgment about an organization oncemade up cannot be changed? Yet the good news is thatwith much persuasive information the practitioner hassome chance of changing the opinion of his publics.Therefore for him to succeed in his task ofinfluencing opinion, he must be at home with howopinions are formed and also learn persuasive skills.The success and efficiency of modern public relationspractice to a large extent revolves aroundunderstanding the process of public opinion formationand attitude change.

Newsom and Carrell, (2001) underlined ‘designs’ ofpersuasion: first is the Stimulus-Response design, andthen the Cognitive design. Stimulus-Response approachis based on the idea of association. (If two things

27

are seen together many times, people tend to think ofone when they see the other. Although he maintainsthat “this design is not a very good way to persuadesomeone regarding a complex issue. If however, yousimply want to establish an association between anidea and your organization in the public mind,stimulus-response may provide an adequate model tofollow.” In cognitive design- people can think andreason about what they read, see or hear. And theywill come to the right conclusion if they are giventhe right information in an understandable way. If aperson has no personal stake in an issue, or has nopreconceived notions about it, cognitive approach canbe effective, whereas motivational design is based onthe idea. This emphasizes the purposefulness ofpropaganda, its organization and the way propagandaseeks to further the sender’s not the receiver’sinterests. It also shows that the propagandist seeksto influence the thoughts and behaviours of theaudience. The problem is that it could equallydescribe a great deal of public relations activity.This is where the persuasive writer finds hisstrength: that with the right information to someextent he has the power to manipulate or at leastinfluence what the publics think even if it is only inthe agenda-setting capacity.

The notion that opinions are expressed makes themimportant to the formation and study of publicopinion. On the other hand, unexpressed intrapersonalpredisposition does not affect public opinionformation. Not until attitudes get expressed throughopinions in discussions or other public communicationdo they have an impact. That opinions are publicexpressions or must be publicly expressed to be ofrelevance establishes public opinion as a socialphenomenon.

28

It has been established so far that public opinionhas become a powerful force to reckon with in allcivilizations and modern-day business practices.Aligning public opinion to favour an organization isboth the root and crux of public relations. And if weacknowledge this fact, then we have no option otherthan to do everything in order to ensure that people’sopinions are well respected and valued in allcorporate policy formulation and implementation. Infact, no right thinking organization can afford toignore the opinion of its publics or fail to meet oris perceived as failing to meet the legitimateexpectations of the public it seeks to service.Abraham Lincon was said to have asserted that: “Publicsentiment is everything. He who moulds publicsentiment goes deeper than he who executes statues orpronounces decisions”. So the age of ‘let the peoplebe damned, we don’t care a hoot about what they say’is far gone. A lot of ills in the society could beaverted if only there is adequate consideration to theopinion of the people.

29

ReferencesAbayomi, D. (2003). Fundamentals of professionalpublic relations. Lagos:

Certified Marketing Communications Institute ofNigeria.Biagi, S. (2005). Media Impact (7th ed.). Belmont:

Thompson Wadsworth.Center, A. and Jackson, P. (2003). Public relationspractices (6th ed.).

New Delhi: Asoke K. Ghosh, Prentice Hall.Cutlip, S.M., Center, A., and Broom, G., (2000).

Effective public relations. New Delhi: PearsonEducation.

Dominick, J. (2007). The dynamics of masscommunication (9th ed.). New York:

McGraw Hill.Igben, H.G.O (1997). Public relations practices (6th

ed.). Delta: COEWA publishers.

30

Igben, H.G.O (2007). Principles and Practice ofCommunity Relations” pp 145-

166 in Introduction to mass communicationprinciples and practice. Uyo:

Robertminder International Publishers Limited.Newsom, D. and Carrell, B., (2001). Public relations

writing, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: USA.Nweke, O. (2001). Public relations practice. Enugu:Hamson – Pal Agency LtdOhiagu, O. P. (2008). “Peace and Reconciliationthrough Integrated Marketing

Communications” pp 634-644 in Media, dialogue,peace building and reconciliation: Conferenceproceedings. Abaraka: African Council forCommunication Education.

Okoro, N., Udeze, S., & Agbo, B. (1999). Contemporary publicrelations strategies and

Practice. Nsukka: Prize Publishers.Tench, R & Yeomans, L. (2006). Exploring Public

Relations. England: Pearson Education Limited.

31