Image

The term image is one of the more controversial and confusing terms in the lexicon of public relations. Image is both heralded as essential to an organization and dismissed as irrelevant to an organization. Edward Bernays condemned the concept while others embraced it, and corporations spend millions of dollars a year to build images.

The problem is that image developed a negative connotation for stakeholders. Image has a variety of definitions in the public relations and marketing literature. Multiple definitions are not new in public [Page 435]relations, but the definitions for image often refer to very different topics. For instance, is an image the messages sent by the organization or interpretations constituted by the stakeholders? For these reasons the terms reputation and reputation management in both research and practice replaced the term image.

Early skeptics discounted the basic idea of an image. Many in public relations felt the concept was irrelevant because it did not affect public relations. Since an image is not tangible, a person cannot touch it; it does not really matter. Efforts and money spent on building reputations were considered wasted. Kenneth Boulding's (1977) early work on image suggested the opposite. He believed that people treat images as if they are real, as if they refer to and interpret something quite real.

Later research conducted in business found an image has significant effects on organizations. Images were found to affect a stakeholder's behavior toward an organization on the assumption that “perception is reality.” Early research found images related to stock prices and employee recruitment. Images do matter because they can shape stakeholder behaviors. The problem is not if image matters; it does. The problem is in the use of the term image by organizations.

Image has many meanings, but focusing on the negative version of meaning helps us understand how it came to be vilified and ultimately replaced in the public relations lexicon. Carl Botan (1993) noted that the most common definition of image was that of a manipulated representation of an organization that lacked substance or accuracy. This can be termed the shallow use of image representing style over substance. An image was something that an organization or even a nation tried to fabricate. The image was based on what the organization said about itself, not what the organization actually did. Zeta Corporation might promote its environmentally friendly image in advertisements and brochures but do little to help the environment. Jarol B. Manheim and Robert B. Albritton (1984) documented that many repressive nations with “bad images” hired U.S. public relations firms to help place positive stories about them in the U.S. news media without doing anything to change their repressive policies. The organizations or nations “talked the walk,” but did not “walk the talk.” For an image, actions became detached from words. The image became a projection that may have no basis in reality. If an organization does not like its image, it can simply try to project (manufacture) a new and better one. An organization is perceived to be whatever it manufactures.

...