Hashtags vs engagement…

Simply Measured wrote a blog post entitled 5 Effective Tactics for Facebook Hashtags. The content of this post really struck me – they stated that “hashtags are not yet driving additional engagement overall”. Perhaps this is because people are equally as likely to search for a term as they are to click on a hashtag, or perhaps because organisations are fundamentally using hashtags in a way that doesn’t prompt as much interaction as they would like.

The examples provided by Simply Measured include the American Express #PassionProject and Credit Suisse’s use of #Wimbledon. These examples are clearly associating the brands with other topics and events. This use of hashtags ensures that people that follow American Express or Credit Suisse on Twitter have instant access to these collaborations. Rather than a useless hashtag that nobody would bother clicking, these directly nudge people towards the linked project.

I think hashtags are best used in this context: when a brand is promoting themselves as linked to an ongoing campaign or event. It means the public can easily access that event through Twitter and discuss it with others. Perhaps this is why it doesn’t seem that brands itself are gaining engagement through hashtags, rather they are associating themselves with other people. This is an incredible generalisation and so obviously isn’t the case all the time, but considering hashtags are not as prolific across Twitter as I originally thought, and these examples were two of the most powerful uses of hashtags focused on by Simply Measured, I feel it is a fair conclusion to come to. So perhaps what brands need to do now is use hashtags to promote their internal campaigns and aspects of their own organisations more, to prompt people to discuss them and consequently engage with the brand itself.


Litigation PR

Litigation PR is something I’ve come across quite recently. My academic background is in Law, and I’ve always found the litigation side of the subject more fast-paced and dramatic. I think I’m drawn to the subject by the convergence of Law and the media, and the careful management of the relationship between the two.

I have to admit that currently I don’t know much about the subject, but what I have read has intrigued me.

Haggerty (2003) defined litigation PR as the management of the communication process prior to and during the course of any legal dispute or adjudicatory processing so as to affect the outcome or its impact on the client’s overall reputation. Furthermore, Watson (2002) stated that there is a responsibility upon the lawyers involved in a case to balance any news coverage in favour of their clients, as the prosecutors in a case tend to use the media to shape public opinion in their favour – against the client.

There are two basic concepts of litigation PR. The first concept, outlined by Haggerty (2003), is that the outcome of the court case is influenced. This is done through encouraging early or favourable settlement, or by pressuring the prosecution into bringing lesser, or no, charges. The second concept, introduced by Haywood (2002), is the purpose of litigation PR in protecting the client’s reputation both before and during the trial; it is used in a similar manner to reputation management, and its intention is to manage the public’s perception and attitude of the organisation or individual in question. The relevant issue is this individual’s reputation, not knowledge itself.

Fitzpatrick (1996) listed six objectives of litigation PR:

  1. Counteracting any negative publicity that has arisen
  2. Making a client’s viewpoint on the matter known to everybody
  3. Ensuring that the media coverage of the case is balanced
  4. Helping the public, through the media, to understand any complex legal issues involved in the case
  5. Defusing any hostile environments
  6. Helping to resolve the conflict that the case is based upon

The way in which the PR ought to go about this was outlined in Fitzpatrick (1996), Haggerty (2003), and Reber, Gower & Robinson (2006). Firstly, the PR’s credibility with the media, as an information source, must be established. This is vital in order for the media to take the information that they convey seriously. Secondly, the flow of information to the media must be controlled in order that the correct message is put forward. Finally, this message must support the client’s position, and it must actually be transmitted to the media and then onto the public.

This article contains a quotation by Stephen Lock, who said that litigation PR “mixes the fun of consumer PR with the intellectual demands of financial”. Both of these are things that I am looking for in a career; I want something that is consumer-centric, and involves interacting with the public, but also something that poses a challenge.

There are further reasons that I am keen to follow this particular genre of PR. As emphasised by Gibson (1998), it is heavily dependent on relations with the media. Lukaszewski (1997) and Schweitzer (2003) stated that the usual PR strategies and tactics might not be appropriate, and may even be harmful, in the case of litigation PR. Taking this into account, the legal strategy must always take precedence. Seeing as I have a grounding in Law, this is an aspect of the industry in which I will have a fundamental knowledge and understanding that I wish to apply to my work. Gibson (1998) further outlined the regulations put upon litigation PR due to the potential to prejudice the case in question, and the heavily one-way and asymmetrical communication nature. Finally, Reber, Gower, & Robinson (2006) claimed that the goal of litigation PR is to reinforce the legal strategy and theory of the case, and to ensure a win and reduce any damage to the individual’s credibility and reputation.

All the above has led me to the conclusion that this is a subject I’m keen to learn more about. It’s a potential subject for my dissertation, but I still have a vast amount to read!