SPEAKING FOR OTHERS: CURRENT PRACTICES AND ISSUES

By James E. Lukaszewski, APR, Fellow PRSA

As Published by the Professional Standards & Business Practices Committee of the Counselors Academy of the Public Relations Society of America, April 1990

 Copyright © 1990, 2000, James E. Lukaszewski.  All rights reserved.

Speaking for others and helping others speak for themselves is and will continue to be a principal function in the practice of public relations.  The spokesperson role has always had its fuzzier aspects, but with the increasing utilization of the practitioner-spokesperson on behalf of issues and organizations, it's appropriate to explore some areas of key concern and business practice.

Key questions regarding spokespersonship include:

As you read this discussion paper, other questions may occur to you.  That, indeed, is one of the reasons for this paper - exploration of business practices, business processes, and the ethical decision-making public relations practitioners face each day.  You are encouraged to examine the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) "Code of Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations," especially Articles 5, 7 and 8, as you review this paper.

The Issues

The role of the spokesperson as an effective and trustworthy source of information grows in importance daily.  From the vantage point of the organization utilizing spokespersons, reputation, credibility, marketplace presence, position, and perceptions all hang in the balance when their spokesperson's mouth is moving.

The spokesperson's role is complex and sometimes controversial.  That's because products, issues, and business purposes are increasingly complex and often controversial.  For example:  There are powerful, grassroots-level concerns involve such issues as animal rights, the environment, labor, privacy, product integrity, cultural conflict (Japan vs. America), and others.  The rise of grassroots activism particularly on environmental and other preservation issues is forcing organizations, products, and institutions under attack to speak to more audiences more frequently.  Organizations affected by grassroots issues are increasingly learning that there are many ways to address audiences that improve the manageability of the dialogue, but there is often no effective substitute for a human being talking directly with those affected.

In the United States, certain spokesperson roles are attracting additional hazards as states begin moving violations of environmental regulations and laws into the criminal statutes.  Those representing organizations, which come under indictment or criminal scrutiny, may find being a spokesperson far more than they bargained for.

Another new issue facing spokespersons, especially celebrities retained to represent products, is liability.  In the summer of 1989 in a decision arising from an investment scheme, which wound up costing investors some $40 million and in which the top executives of the companies involved went to jail, Federal Judge Robert Ginsburg expanded liability exposure involving product endorsements.  Judge Ginsburg's opinion (as stated in The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, February 28, 1990), "[Lloyd] Bridges was an endorser . . . and therefore had a duty to make an independent inquiry  . . .   to determine the truthfulness of the message he delivered on [their] behalf."  According to the Journal, Mr. Bridges settled out of court to avoid risking a jury verdict.  While this may be of more concern to the advertising agency, the presumption that a spokesperson "has a duty" to make an independent inquiry and be knowledgeable clearly affects the spokespersoning done internally or externally as a part of any public relations program.

The Relationship

The specifics of a spokesperson's role must be negotiated between the individual doing the talking and the organization for which the talking is being done.  There ought to be a set of ground rules or guidelines, preferably in writing and mutually agreed upon at the outset by both parties.  These ground rules or guidelines should address, at a minimum, six specific corporate or public circumstances:

  1. Authority to Speak:  Develop a clearly outlined approval process that provides final authority for the language of statements and the selection of the person to deliver that language.  Such an outline would cover three basic areas:

    • Who has final say
    • Who is the back-up final authority
    • When the process can be ignored or overridden

  2. Ownership:  The work products such as drafts, scripts and drawings leading to the final statements used are the privileged property of the organization provided ownership is stipulated as a part of the agreement with those doing the speaking.  (See official interpretations of the Code, Paragraph 13, Number 3.)

  3. Authorship:  If the spokesperson is a major generator of policy or position language and thought, that information should be revealed so that the spokesperson is accountable along with his or her organization.  (See Code, Articles 7 and 8.)

  4. Confidentiality:  Private matters, even in public life, should remain that way unless there are specific written agreements that identify those topics that can be revealed.

    This ought not to be a negative option.  In the absence of an agreement, nothing should be revealed.  (Refer to Article 13 of the Code and official interpretations.)

  5. Anonymity:  There are special circumstances when the spokesperson for an organization chooses to speak without being personally identified or having the organization's identity come to light.  These circumstances should be agreed to in advance.  And you must comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the Code.

    Perhaps the most common example would be the briefings and comments provided news organizations on a "background" or "off-the-record" basis.  Here, presumably, the individual making the comments is identified and the linkage to the issue, topic, or problem is clearly known to the reporter; the circumstance being that such information might not be obtainable except on the condition that the source, although identified, remain anonymous in subsequent stories.

    If you choose to be an anonymous spokesperson for your organization, there are some key questions that you need to answer satisfactorily first:

  6. Ideology:  Matters of conscience always exist and must be recognized.  Either side is compelled to act in the interest of ethical behavior.  Some typical current matters of conscience are:

Internal Spokespersons

With respect to internal communicators, there are some additional nuances that may appear to be barriers to effective communication.  The internal spokesperson carries three additional burdens that the external spokesperson often does not:

The critical issue for the internal spokesperson is personal consistency, credibility, and acceptance among internal audiences.  The tests for credibility remain as simple and basic as ever:

  1. Can we and do we admit shortcomings and failures honestly and quickly?
  2. Do we listen to the audiences we reach and are their views, objectives, and suggestions reflected in future policies, communications, and actions?
  3. Can we and do we provide recommendations/counsel for management messages that ensure that management leadership is maintained while building the followership of base audiences and publics?
  4. Can matters of conscience be raised with management and management's views and messages be successfully altered?
  5. Does the spokesperson know enough about the audiences being reached to deliver messages that are expected, or if not expected, acceptable.

External Spokespersons

While much of what has been said here applies with equal force to the external spokesperson, there are at least two important additional considerations when the individual doing the talking is someone who is hired specifically for that purpose _ whether than person is a professional spokesperson or a celebrity:

  1. The external spokesperson's paid affiliation with a product, issue, company, or organization ought to be clearly understood and frequently acknowledged.
  2. The spokesperson's personal behavior should reflect the endorsement or appropriate disclaimers should be made (a vegetarian doing commercials for a meat or poultry industry trade association; a spokesperson without a drivers license promoting a line of automobiles.)

Roles and Goals for Spokespersons

The spokesperson ought to have very specific, publicly recognized, personal roles and goals.  Among the most important spokesperson goals are to: 

Conclusion

Our credibility as spokespersons depends in large part on the public acceptance of those we represent.  In our roles as spokesperson, whether we are selling an idea to the news media for use as a story or in a story or being paid spokespersons to appear before audiences on behalf of someone else, it makes good sense to stand back and examine this communications role from time-to-time.  This process has two important objectives:  reviewing our performance against the expectations of those who hire us, and to look for ways to build more value into the process while maintaining credibility with both the client and the consumer of the messages.



Copyright © 2000, James E. Lukaszewski. Permission granted to reprint with attribution.