Useful advice from a practitioner, from https://www.rlyl.com/uk/public-relations-in-latin-america/
This week, I took notes as I went along, not knowing how I would pull it altogether. The textbooks, as in the past, used a selective round up approach, with some overlap. Whereas Freitag and Stokes (2009) focuses solely on Latin America (and Central America), Alaimo (2017) also included Canada and the United States. And the articles focused on specific aspects in Latin America.
While our weekly assignment is not to summarize but to synthesize, and while I was able to pull a few points out that I thought worth drawing attention to, I found no way to avoid a degree of recapping content, which will be woven in.
Freitag and Stokes noted how Latin American countries are very both different in terms of cultures from the United States but also from each other, and this impacts the practice of public relations. Its public relations philosophy reflects both the history and the region’s attempts at combining social concerns with economic reform. Since these multiple approaches to PR aren’t mutually exclusive, it has been suggested they come up with a new paradigm, in which public relations practitioners work towards the needs of society as well as to meet client objectives, acting as “social intermediaries.” Its humanistic approach reflects the idea that organizational corporate social responsiblity isn’t just an opt in or limited concept. It also spoke to me as preferable to the approach we have in the United States. Less cynical, more connected.
The authors’ round up tries to break out different countries’ distinctive aspects, i.e., Brazil licenses its practitioners. Alaimo picked up on this too. At the same time, Modello brought us information beyond the biggest countries, letting us know that public relations practitioners also have to be licensed in Panama.
Freitag and Stokes continue: Mexico is evolving and growing. Colombia and Venezuela have a balancing act going on, where practitioners are trying to demonstrate transparency and trust, but keep a low profile. In Central American countries, public relations tries to differentiate itself from advertising and has potential for growth as a discipline. They also point out the issues that practitioners face in Latin America: (1) Engaging with CSR, which means foreign investors have to too. (2) Addressing cultural differences and sensitivities means that in addition to being strategic and sensitive to regional needs, it’s important to “define a path for local participation and contribution.” (3) Media relations means that while the countries move from pay-for-coverage, professionals have to avoid going off-the-record and they need to provide background info about the companies they work for. Other issues include: (4) Diplomacy and government relations. (5) Tourism. (6) Employment and evaluation.
Alaimo echoes to a large extent, i.e., Latin America (Mexico, Central and South and Caribbean) has diversity due to historic roots. While family is important everywhere, public relations is less developed in Central America since its economic growth has been hindered. As Freitag and Stokes also noted, each country is different, especially Brazil. The point is made that it’s not enough to have an office in Miami for the entire region. Regions, languages, high-context cultural understanding is too varied to be operating from afar, or from the wrong place. Further, restrictions on freedom of press and ownership of media outlets impacts the practice of public relations. Like Freitag and Stokes, the text emphasizes the region’s view of public relations as serving a societal role. Alaimo then gives us some nuggets in Argentina (public elations folks mostly talk about local products), Brazil (social media is used to reach favelas, journalists want public relations to supply facts, employee pride is huge), Chile (storytelling and local influencing work), and Mexico (large and segmented country, so radio interviews is recommended; reporters editorialize). The opposite of journalists in Brazil wanting public relations professionals to only supply facts but the professionals in Mexico ought to be warned that journalists weave in a lot of opinion struck me as a clear warning not to group countries together when characterizing any of them.
See article, Four tips for practicing public relations in Latin America, from Kara Alaimo’s site, https://instituteforpr.org/four-tips-practicing-public-relations-latin-america/
What we see in Latin America isn’t confined to that part of the world. Garcia (2015) shows the similarities between the practice of public relations in Southern European countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) with Latin American countries (Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and points to clientelism – using information as currency primarily with government entities for business purposes – and economics as reasons why. Five commonalities between the two regions exist: absence of both social legitimacy and of professionalism, prominence of media relations, power of personal relationships and the gap between large and small companies. So, organizations in these clientelistic countries see the world as unequal, and contribute to imbalanced public relations information sharing. Since not all free market economies are the same, some find it is better to build relationships with the government than with the public. No reason to think this will change for these regions.
Molleda (2000), who summarized presentations to the 2000 CONFIARP, noted that part of the introduction of public relations into Latin America was the turning away of North American style public relations; instead of an “imported model,” they prefer more “humanistic and socially oriented” angle. The Latin American School of Public Relations as both Alaimo and Freitag & Stokes noted, posits that practitioners should contribute to the wellbeing of the environments their organizations belong to. Professionals should respond to what is going on and work to make it better. Change agents representing an organizational conscience is different than the model used elsewhere. Like the textbook authors, Molleda reiterates how economies are transitioning from government to private activity and how CSR is important.
When Zahama and Villalobos (2000) shed light how practices differ, they do it in the context of the countries’ embassies in the United States. But these are all playing to the audiences here, and to me, that means that their focus is on improving image more than anything else. The authors spoke of how diplomacy and public relations are intertwined, and in their examples (Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Argentina), we see how different countries with different goals all employ public relations strategies to help their embassies achieve favorable outcomes. Mexico uses its consulates. Colombia’s Ambassador writes letters to editors in consultation with the press attaché and works with a PR firm. Cuba’s Office of Cuban Interests is contained under the umbrella of the Swiss embassy and cannot hire a public relations firm, so diplomas promote Cuba with academics, solidarity groups, cultural visitors, etc. in order to offer more than the political view. Argentina’s embassy holds weekly meals (Argentinian beef) with journalists, members of Congress, etc. and tango classes as well to supplement traditional methods; they don’t use a PR firm but their press attaché is skilled. Indeed, it is useful for those who work in diplomatic and press-facing roles to be trained in public relations, no matter where they are operating.
Sewell pointed out how the United States’ foreign policy causes a backlash, and just as Zaharna and Villalobos, showed how Latin American embassies try to improve the reputation fo their countries, Sewell makes the point that there is a cycle of relations with our neighbors to the south, and that recriminations is often a part of it. Indeed, he tries to draw parallels between Eisenhower and Bush’s approaches to public relations. In all cases, both Latin America towards the United States and in the reverse direction, it is acknowledged that short term public relations success is no substitute for what is really needed, that is, taking actual actions that show a long-term commitment to improving relations.
For me, just as we learn from both textbooks that in Latin America there is a desire and even an expectation that public relations practitioners work to improve societal conditions since companies are recognized as existing in a larger universe than just their own, Alaimo’s description of how Canada operates struck me equally preferable to the United States model. Not only do public relations practitioners practice two-way communications better than its neighbor, but its focus is on looking for solutions and on win-win outcomes. That is, its orientation isn’t to win at another’s expense, to make others look bad, to solely pump up one’s image in the press, but to create a better whole. And while Alaimo also pointed out the the US has moved from more press agentry to more two-way and that social media has increased that as well, the bigger emphasis on self promotion and minimizing liability hasn’t gone anywhere.
Alaimo, K. (2017). Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street: How to Practice Global Public Relations and Strategic Communication. New York: Routledge.
Frietag, A. R. & Stokes, A. S. (2009). Global Public Relations: Spanning Borders, Spanning Cultures. New York: Routledge
Garcia, C. (2015) PR, clientelism and economics: a comparison of southern Europe and Latin America. Journal of Communication Management 19(2). 133-149.
Molleda, J.C. (2000). International paradigms: the Latin American School of Public Relations. Journalism Studies. 2(4). 513-530.
Sewell, B. (2008). The problems of public relations: Eisenhower, Latin America and the potential lessons for the Bush Administration. Comparative American Studies. 6(3). 295-312.
Zaharna, R.S. and Villalobos, J.C. (2000). A Public relations tour of Embassy Row: The Latin diplomacy experience. Public Relations Quarterly.