When Patrick Henry spoke those words more than two hundred years ago, the development of issues management was far away. Nevertheless his words describe what can be called the essence of issues management (IM) over the past 25 years. According to Jones and Chase (1979) issues management can be defined as a tool which helps companies to identify, analyse and manage emerging issues and allows for responding to them before they become public knowledge. Issues emerge, when a stakeholder has a problem with the company relationship, but a problem only turns into an issue when it moves from private to public concern (Coombs 2002).
According to Niklas Luhmann (1996 [2000]) who states whatever we know about our society, we know through the mass media, IM used to be concerned with monitoring, influencing and reacting on media events, and thus changing company reputation in the eyes of the public (Moloney, 2000, Philipps, 2000). Accordingly media could be seen as a transmitter between stakeholder and organisation. Due to the gatekeeper function of journalists the louder voice of industry naturally has had more chance to be heard and get media coverage (MacLeod, 2000). This has led to a corporate communication which used to be a merely one-way activity in the times of traditional mass media (De Bussy, Watson, Pitt and Ewing, 2000).
The internet has changed this situation. Not only that it allows for the first time real two-waycommunication (White, Raman, 1999), it has also added a new dimension to direct communication between organisations and their stakeholders (de Bussy et al, 2000). PR people as former gatekeepers of company’s reputation are now bypassed (Philipps, 2000). People are communicating not only with the company if they have problems to address. They are communicating with each other. Recent PR books (Haig, 2000, Philipps, 2001, Middleberg, 2000) work already as a modern Cassandra, exhorting companies to be aware of the potent ial danger of the internet.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Internet Impact on Issues Emergence
3. Times have changed
4. The Sharpness of the Edge
5. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Topics
This paper explores the transformative impact of the internet on the field of Issues Management (IM). It examines how the internet alters the traditional lifecycle of issues, empowers stakeholders, and challenges conventional PR strategies by enabling direct, multi-directional communication flows between organizations and the public.
- Evolution of issues management models in the digital age.
- Impact of the internet on issue development and stakeholder activism.
- Evaluation of online communication as both a threat and an opportunity for corporations.
- Analysis of prioritization methods and monitoring tools for online reputation.
- The role of web-based transparency and the challenge of unpredictable online discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
The Sharpness of the Edge
As outlined above the internet has the potential to accelerate the spread of issues and increase their spread. Albeit public accessibility of an issue alone does not mean that it needs action. In order to predict potential issues simple mathematics help to develop a prioritisation since the important factors are: a) impact an issue might have on stakeholders; b) the power those stakeholders have to organise and force action. The quotient of those two factors can be used to find a hierarchy of problems before they become issues or crises. A similar method is suggested by Coombs (2002) but it addresses more the already arisen issues and tries to sort them. In this case again a potential impact of an issue is important as is the likelihood of an issue gaining momentum. Coombs (2002) suggest the formula ‘threat = impact x likelihood’, whereas likelihood is dependent on the quality of issues meaning the extent to which an issue is recognized as public concern and the power of the issues manager. In this sense Coomb’s (2002) formula is a direct extension of that suggested above. The factor “likelihood” is independent from the company therefore it has to be analysed when talking about the threat of internet. As Coombs (2002) points out likelihood depends on the power of the issues manager and the legitimacy of its topic. Certainly the internet alters the centrality an issues manager can have in a stakeholder’s network by giving him the possibility of talking immediately to a high number of likeminded people for example in newsgroups or via opinion sites. Legitimacy on the other hand is built either through endorsement or through self evidence based on tradition, rationality or emotionality (Coombs, 2002). In terms of endorsement the internet is a very powerful tool for stakeholders. The practise of syndication allows every website owner to reference in an easy way every other websites. This is especially obvious at weblogs, which gain a huge part of their power out of this practise. Also testimonials given via photos, multimedia elements or guestbook entries can increase the legitimacy an issue has.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the core concepts of Issues Management and discusses how the traditional gatekeeping role of mass media has been disrupted by the rise of the internet.
2. Internet Impact on Issues Emergence: This section analyzes various theoretical models of issue development to understand how online environments accelerate the transition of problems into public issues.
3. Times have changed: This part explores the shift toward transparency and dialogue, examining how spoof sites, rogue sites, and digital activism require companies to adopt new communication strategies.
4. The Sharpness of the Edge: This chapter evaluates the tools and metrics available for assessing online threats, arguing that traditional models often fail to capture the complexity of decentralized digital discourse.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the internet as a "two-edged sword" and calls for further research into stakeholder information habits to better inform future IM practices.
Keywords
Issues Management, Internet, Stakeholders, Corporate Communication, Digital Activism, Public Relations, Online Reputation, Issue Lifecycle, Crisis Prevention, Transparency, Media Gatekeepers, Online Discourse, Weblogs, Digital Monitoring, Communication Models.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how the internet has fundamentally changed the practice of Issues Management (IM), shifting it from a traditional media-centric approach to a more complex, multi-directional digital environment.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The themes include the acceleration of issue development, the rise of online stakeholder power, the loss of traditional gatekeeping control, and the duality of the internet as both a risk and a strategic tool for companies.
What is the main objective or research question?
The main objective is to explore the impact of the internet on IM, specifically analyzing whether current prioritization methods are sufficient to manage the unpredictability of digital issue emergence.
Which scientific methods or theoretical frameworks are used?
The paper utilizes established IM models, such as Grunig’s Situational Theory, the catalytic model by Crable and Vibbert, the Hainsworth cycle, and Coombs' formula for threat assessment to evaluate online developments.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body addresses how the internet enables two-way communication, the emergence of online activism through spoof and rogue sites, and the necessity for companies to move beyond one-way messaging.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
The paper is characterized by terms such as Issues Management, Digital Activism, Corporate Reputation, Stakeholder Network, and Crisis Prevention.
Why does the author use the metaphor of a "two-edged sword" for the internet?
The metaphor highlights that while the internet exposes companies to increased risks and rapid spread of negative issues, it simultaneously provides organizations with powerful tools for monitoring, proactive dialogue, and crisis mitigation.
What specific issue is highlighted regarding the "prioritization models"?
The author argues that existing prioritization models, which weigh impact and likelihood, are insufficient in the digital age because they fail to account for the massive scale of web-based communication and the decentralized nature of information spread.
- Quote paper
- Judith Hoffmann (Author), 2005, Discussing the Impact of the Internet on issues Management, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/50838
