Image

The term image is one of the most controversial in the lexicon of public relations. It has been heralded as essential to an organization and dismissed as irrelevant to an organization. Edward Bernays condemned the concept, but others embraced it and corporations spend millions of dollars a year to build them. The problem is that image has developed a negative connotation for stakeholders. That is why it has been replaced by and large in research and practice by the terms reputation and reputation management. (Refer to the entry “Reputation management” for additional details.)

Early skeptics discounted the basic idea of an image. Many in public relations felt the concept [Page 406]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 people treat images as if they are 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. Early research found images related to stock prices and employee recruitment. Images do matter because they can shape stakeholder behaviors. The problem is not whether or not 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 meaning helps us to 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 environmentfriendly image in advertisements and brochures but do little to help the environment. Manheim and 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 changing their repressive policies. The organizations or nations would “talk the walk” but not “walk the talk.” For an image, actions became detached from words. The image became a projection that might have no basis in reality. If an organization did not like its image, it would simply try to project a new and better image. An organization could become whatever it desired to be.

The shallow use of image takes a very simplistic and patronizing view of stakeholders. First, it assumes a one-way view of communication. Organizations send messages to stakeholders with no need to gather feedback. An organization assumes the stakeholders receive the image messages and construct the desired image. People have many filters that affect how they interpret messages. It is simply wrong to assume all stakeholders will interpret a message in the desired fashion. Practitioners must solicit feedback to see if their messages are being received as desired. Twoway communication is recognized as a much more effective way of developing accurate message interpretations by stakeholders. Second, it assumes stakeholders are not critical consumers of messages. Stakeholders do not simply accept whatever an organization says. Stakeholders do evaluate statements made by an organization and will form images based upon those evaluations, not just upon what an organization says.

...