Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (11)
Similar to PR Congress 2011 | Plenary 2 - His Word Against Everybody Else
Similar to PR Congress 2011 | Plenary 2 - His Word Against Everybody Else (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
PR Congress 2011 | Plenary 2 - His Word Against Everybody Else
- 1. HIS WORD AGAINST EVERYBODY ELSE'S: ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES JUNIE DEL MUNDO CEO EON THE STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS FIRM 22 SEPTEMBER 2011 1
- 2. 2
- 3. A swiftly evolving communication landscape 3 Mass availability of satellite technology Virtual communities took shape and began to take the center stage in knowledge exchange The Internet revolutionizes information sharing Cell phones allowed instant reach of information
- 4. 4 Challenges in the current communication landscape SHARE
- 5. 5 Challenges in the current communication landscape
- 6. Who to trust? 6 ? + ? + ? = TRUST messenger channel information
- 7. A representative of the organization is MORE TRUSTED than the head of the organization 7 Outside the organization Within the organization
- 8. TV is the most trusted source of information about media, business, NGOs and government 8 Which sources do you usually turn to when you wish to get news and information about [institution]? N=500; In percentage; Top 2 answers/ Total mentions; MOE = +/- 4.47%
- 9. Integrity, results, efficiency and responsiveness are 5 of the most important attributes of trust 9 Please tell me how important or unimportant the following attributes are when evaluating an institution’s trustworthiness? N=500; Top box answer. Percentage of respondents who answered “very important”; MOE = +/- 4.47%
- 10. Trust is both “doing” and “being” 10
- 13. Higher expectations and increased public skepticism11
- 14. Who is a credible spokesperson? 12 I’m an expert on this topic I’m a person like you I always seek the truth I care I have the right tools for communication I’m an on-the-ground leader I know what’s best for you Everyone knows me
- 15. 13
- 16. 14
Editor's Notes
- With our increasingly complicated communication landscape, it has become difficult for the general public to decide on whom to place their trust.Trusting the sources of information has become as much about trusting the channels that deliver the information.
- Last week, as I sat down to breakfast and unfolded my newspaper, I found this particular piece of news. (Enter 1x for image animation)A few minutes later just as I was entering the shower, I also received a message alert on my Blackberry about the same news. (Enter 1x for image animation)I drive to work and hear the same news on the radio. (Enter 1x for image animation)Later in the day, I once more find the same news on my Facebook News Feed where a YouTube video of the senate hearing was upload by one of my friends complete with a frothing comment about the issue. (Enter 1x for image animation)And then again the same news on my Twitter timeline with a truncated link to a TV coverage posted by a television network.There has been a remarkable change in the delivery of news and issues from even just 4 years ago. News delivery which was once the realm of the news and public affairs department of television, radio stations and newspapers is now just another item on social media – posted and retweeted by a friend of a follower.But which information channel should we trust to give a complete and unbiased account of issues? Traditional media, the internet, the social media?(Next slide)
- (Enter 1x for image animation)In the 1980s we said video killed the radio star with the advent of cable programs and the mass availability of satellite technology that brought these cable programs across oceans in a matter of minutes. (Enter 1x for image animation)By the mid-1990s business organizations were scrambling to cope with the Internet which increasingly revolutionized communication and information sharing across the globe, among all walks of life. (Enter 1x for image animation)Mobile communication gadgets such as the cellular phones also began entering the communication landscape and suddenly almost everyone in the country was within instant reach of information. A relevant example of just how mobile phones changed the communication landscape was the so-called cell phone revolution, or EDSA 2, where text messages were sent out calling for a mass protest. Within 75 minutes of the abrupt halt of the impeachment proceedings of Pres. Estrada, 20,000 people converged in EDSA. Four days and over a million protesters later, Estrada stepped down from the presidency.(Enter 1x for image animation)Subsequent and swift advances in computer and communications technology found us in the new millennium when information moved at hyper speed and virtual communities took shape…(Enter 2x for image animation)and began to take the center stage in knowledge exchange.
- Our challenge is not just the advance of sophisticated communication technology.(Enter 1x for image animation)Our challenge is that we are faced with a public that knows perfectly how to take advantage of sharing and shared information. We have an empowered public that knows that with enough technological know-how, the right equipment and a bit of strategy they too can be resource persons and subject matter experts with even greater audience reach than the top broadsheet in the country.(Enter 1x for image animation)Information such as historical facts, scientific discoveries, market conditions, research studies and even news and issues can be appropriated by just anyone. Taken apart. Analyzed. Injected with personal opinion then shared back to the public as straightforward data.
- In this complicated landscape where information has become everyone’s game and the boundaries of ethical dissemination are continuously redefined, we are faced with the challenge of being credible sources of information and choosing the right communication channels that our stakeholders will respond to.It is no longer about which TV programs to watch or which TV stations to tune into all dayOur 200 or so radio stations nationwide which used to enjoy the reputation of being sources of trustworthy, real-time information now compete with mobile phones that are not only a means of communication between people but are also sources of instant news and current informationReaders no longer feel that our 9 national broadsheets are enough to bring news and entertainment.In the internet, information regarded as credible and trustworthy is no longer limited to official websites, the user-generated social media is now highly regarded especially among the young adults and there are many, many forms of social media.
- So how do we assess which information channels to use now?How do we ensure that we are able to present our information as credible?Who delivers the message? Who does the public see as trustworthy?How do you gain that trust?
- Last week, on September 15 in celebration of EON’s 13th Year Anniversary, we launched the Philippine Trust Index which aimed to discover the levels of trust in 5 key institutions and the factors that make people trust these institutions.The survey gave respondents a list of persons per institution and asked them who among the persons we mentioned they would trust most to give credible information. We found that among the internal sources respondents trusted a representative of the organization more than the head of the organization itself.
- As for information channels, the most trusted source across all institutions except the Church is the television followed by newspapers.The third and fourth place is a toss up between radio and online news sites or websites.
- In understanding the drivers of trust, we also asked our respondents to rate the attributes that are important to them when evaluating an institution’s trustworthiness, the results showed that more than 70% of respondents said that…
- transparency and honestyquality resultsopenness and adaptability to the changing timesefficiencyand responsiveness to stakeholderswere among the most important attributes of trust. Therefore, trust according to respondents is not only “doing” but also “being”.As Dr. Macaranas of AIM so elucidated, TRUST is “doing” – when people have the CONFIDENCE in a particular person or organization to do something; and it is related to REPUTATION which is about “being” – when people believe a particular person or organization to be something.
- So, what does this mean? Why do traditional media still figure prominently as sources of information despite advances in technology?And why is the preferred credible spokesperson just “representatives” of the organization, does this mean anyone can be a trustworthy source of information now?While trust in familiar media channels remain, advances in the communication landscape and access to these new forms of communication has increased expectations as well as public skepticism.Further, the speed and the volume of information exchanged, and a technology that allows posting and feedback has empowered the public to have more confidence in their own knowledge. Everyone or any “person like me” can now be resource persons and experts. So while internal spokespersons still play a big role in bringing across the message of an organization, the face of that credible spokesperson has changed.
- So in a noisy and confusing communication landscape, who is a credible spokesperson? What attributes make him or her trustworthy to his publics?(Enter 1x for image animation)Should the credible spokesperson someone the public can relate to?(Enter 1x for image animation)Is he the leader active in both management and operations and so knows the business like the back of his hand?(Enter 1x for image animation)Is he someone who is considered an expert on the topic?(Enter 1x for image animation)Is he someone well-versed in new technologies and is able to quickly respond to concerns or deliver messages instantly to stakeholders?(Enter 1x for image animation)Should he be someone popular?
- Which information medium will which stakeholder group trust the most and why?How do we assess the credibility of information sources?Let us park these questions for a while and allow them to linger in the minds of our panel as we listen to our next set of speakers. We shall return to these questions later and discuss them again when we open the floor for the Panel Discussion.