The World Wide Web as a Public Relations Medium:
The Use of Research, Planning, and Evaluation by Web Site Decision-Makers
Abstract
The World Wide Web is viewed as a new medium for public relations by many
organizations. Given the evolving nature of the Web and the mixed findings
about commercial successes of Web sites, little is known about the managerial
aspects of Web site research, planning, and evaluation. This study found that
in many cases, Web site planning is done by trial and error based on subjective
knowledge and intuition, with little to no formal research and evaluation.
Introduction
The World Wide Web can be considered the first public relations mass medium in
that it allows managed communication directly between organizations and
audiences without the gatekeeping function of other mass media; content is not
filtered by journalists and editors. Indeed, Edelman Public Relations Worldwide
touts the Web as an ideal public relations medium (Gleason, 1997). It is a
unique medium that affords new opportunities for organizations to reach and
interact with stakeholders.
Cross (1994) points out that businesses use the Web for not only advertising
and marketing activities, but also to obtain feedback and improve public
relations. Alba et al. (1997) theorize how electronic marketplaces might
function and explore consumers, retailers, and manufacturers' motivations for
playing an active role in such environments. Johnson (1997) notes that public
relations practitioners use the Web to facilitate media relations, for employee
communication, and government and investor relations as well as for customer and
consumer relations.
However, most academic research to date has focused on the "first-level
effects" of the technology, defined by Sproull and Kiesler (1991) as the
anticipated or potential efficiency effects of the technology itself. Likewise,
professional seminars proliferate that advise organizations how to create a Web
site, but few communication professionals are asking why. A review of articles
from September 1994 to the present in Public Relations Tactics, a newsletter
published by the Public Relations Society of America, found most articles about
the World Wide Web fit into the following categories: designing and creating
Web sites, media relations (posting and disseminating news releases,
source-reporter relations, setting up media centers for crisis communication),
publicizing web sites, and using the Web (to monitor competition, public
opinion, news sites). Articles about setting up Web sites focused on design
considerations, links and navigation, and software. Professional trade journals
in advertising and marketing also focus primarily on the technological
capabilities. (Computerworld [Seybold, 1996], however, cautions companies not
to allow corporate public relations departments to control Web sites lest they
become boring corporate brochures.)
Marken (1995) advocates strategic thinking for creating Web sites and calls the
Web the perfect channel for educating, informing and persuading organizations'
diverse audiences, but focuses on site design. When the term "planning" is used
in most articles about the Web, it is refers to planning what the site should
look like and who will maintain it. This perspective does not take into account
the needs of the audience with whom the organization wishes to communicate. In
fact, most articles assume there is an audience ready and waiting. However, it
must be recognized that the audiences for many organizations do not fit the
profile of Web users, a fact that is often overlooked particularly by those in
corporate and academic settings where Web access is common. CommerceNet/Nielsen
Media Research (1997) reports nearly 23 percent of about 220 million individuals
over the age of 16 in the U.S. and Canada use the Internet. About 37 million
individuals or 17 percent are Web users. While this number increases daily, it
is still only a small portion of the public of most organizations.
Research, planning, and evaluation
The direct link between research, planning and evaluation and achieving
effective public relations outcomes is well-documented (Broom and Dozier, 1990;
Dozier and Ehling 1992; Kendall, 1996; Wilcox, Ault, and Agee, 1997). In a
typical public relations planning process, formative research is conducted to
define the problem clearly and to define publics or target markets. Objectives
specify desired outcome, identify target audiences and state an expected level
of attainment (Kendall, 1996). This step is followed by the formulation of
message strategy and message testing before any communication is implemented.
Gronstedt (1997) advocates an "outside-in" approach to planning which considers
the behavioral and communication objectives of the audience and the "personal
media network" for the target audience. Evaluative research is conducted after
the communication campaign is executed (Wilcox et al. 1997). A similar exercise
is followed for marketing and advertising. A budgeting exercise considering
competition, objectives, and resources is conducted and a media plan and
creative strategy are mapped out. A mechanism for assessing effectiveness of
the program is also planned (Batra, Myers and Aaker 1996).
With the Web becoming an important medium to reach stakeholders, it would
seem apparent that Web site creation would follow a detailed and organized
planning effort equal to if not more than traditional communications planning.
Thus we would expect that Web site creation would entail careful consumer
research, clear defining of the objectives of the Web site, and on-going
research to continuously refine the Web site given its importance to many
organizations.
In practice, however, even when using traditional communication channels,
thorough planning and evaluation processes are not always carried out.
Lindenmann (1990) found that even though public relations practitioners believe
research and evaluation are necessary, most practitioners talk about it more
than actually do it. Hon (1997) also found that planning and evaluation are
often constrained by lack of resources and by the difficulty of the tasks, even
when their value is acknowledged.
The World Wide Web is a unique medium, not only terms of electronic digital
delivery but because it emerged quickly and changes constantly. The media hype
about the Web has created a gold rush mentality - organizations are rushing to
establish an "Internet presence." Many public relations practitioners who
usually would not create messages without a researched-based target are rushing
to get on-line, and may not be asking the basic questions they would consider
when using traditional media: What do we wish to accomplish? Whom do we need
to reach? A desire to keep up with new communication technology should not
supersede the rational decision-making process that most organizations would
apply to communication through traditional media. While the Web has
unprecedented capabilities - asynchroneity, a continuous presence, reach to a
mass audience without gatekeeping restraints - and has acquired a mystical and
ethereal characterization, it is at a very basic level, another communication
medium. As with any other medium, there needs to be objectives and planning
for the communication transmitted via Web sites.
This research studies these issues by examining managerial objectives of
creating and managing Web sites, and explores the impetus behind the dash to get
on-line. The study was conducted to obtain a snapshot of the current level of
Web site research, planning, and evaluation done by organizations.
Method
A qualitative method was employed in this study since qualitative
approaches are preferable in exploratory research where the goal is to
understand a process or phenomenon. Structured interviews were conducted to
examine actual practices of Web site decision-makers. A copy of the interview
guide is included in the Appendix.
Respondents were selected using a random procedure. A World Wide Web
"yellow page" directory Web Bound (1997), consisting of over 25,000 Web site
addresses was used to select a sample of 60 Web sites. The researchers talked
by telephone with the editor of this publication to determine how Web sites were
chosen for inclusion in the directory. The editor chose categories of products
and services he believed had relevance to a large audience. More than 400
categories were tracked on the major search engines like Yahoo, Web Crawler,
InfoSeek, and Lycos. The editor then sorted out the Web sites in each category
that appeared to have a broad base of interest, and eliminated those that did
not have upper level domain addresses since his readership research indicated
readers want reliable, shorter addresses. The editor made an arbitrary
selection of sites for each category, weeding out sites that were narrow in
focus and making each category in the directory proportionate to the size of the
category on the search engines.
About 160 addresses were listed on each page from pages 19 to 144. A
computer program was used to generate a random list of numbers from 1-160.
These numbers were then used to select the sample of Web site addresses from
every odd numbered page. If the random number did not fall on a commercial
domain (.com), the next number from the list was chosen. This procedure
resulted in a pool of 60 Web site addresses which included corporations, small
and large businesses, non-profit organizations, and the Web site of a
metropolitan newspaper. (Table 1).
Twenty-two "Web site decision-makers" from the pool of 60 Web sites were
the respondents for this study. A Web site decision-maker (WDM) is defined as a
manager who has responsibility for planning the content and format of the Web
site. In contrast, a Webmaster maintains the Web site. In some cases, these
roles may be assumed by one person. To ensure that respondents in this study
were WDMs, the sample was screened with the following questions: " Who is
responsible for decisions involving planning of your Web site?" and "Who
maintains the Web site?"
Telephone interviews were conducted over a three-week period. The
interviews averaged 30 minutes each and were tape-recorded. After 22 interviews
were completed, it was apparent that little new information was forthcoming.
Marshall and Rossman (1989) note that sample size in qualitative research is
less important than repetition of themes among respondents. McCracken (1988)
suggests that iteration generally occurs somewhere between 8 and 20 interviews.
Using inductive qualitative analysis, interview data were analyzed using a
technique described by Corbin and Strauss (1990) which prescribes linking and
relating sub-categories by denoting conditions, context, strategies and
consequences. The interview tapes were transcribed onto note cards, with each
note card indicating the name of the Web site and containing a single idea or
unit of information (open coding). Units of information which were redundant or
not relevant to the study were discarded, leaving nearly 200 cards which were
sorted into categories through a method of constant comparison and evaluation of
ideas (axial coding). Finally, the categories were examined to determine how
they related to one another and what central themes or ideas emerged (selective
coding). (Table 2)
Categorical Responses to Interview Questions
Since this research explores new ground, an aggregate of the responses to the
principal interview questions is provided. Understanding the thoughts behind
the creation of Web sites in this sample may provide insight into better
planning and execution of sites in the future.
Decision-making process
In almost all the organizations in the study, the decision to develop a Web
site was made by one person, usually the CEO or marketing manager. Most often
this was a result of a personal interest in the Internet on the part of the WDM.
In a few cases, the WDM was approached by a Web developer outside the company
and "sold" on the idea of a Web site. The formal position of the WDM within the
organization varied greatly, but no WDM in the sample had the term "public
relations" in his or her job title.
A frequent factor in the decision-making process was a combination of a belief
that the Internet is the way of the future and a fear of being left behind by
competitors. This can be seen in the following statements.
Why? Peer pressure. It became apparent to us that it was the place
to be, the up-and-coming thing.
We thought other people were starting to do this (create Web sites)
and we needed to get our name out there before it was too late.
We knew there was a lot of potential there and it was the way a lot of
businesses were going to be going.
One organization made the decision to develop a Web site because "our customers
started asking us if we have a Web site." It is interesting to note this site
had been operational for the shortest period of time compared to the rest of the
Web sites in the sample (Table 1). This implies that customers expect
organizations to have a Web site by this point in time.
Purpose of Web sites
The most often-stated purposes for a Web site were to provide information, for
advertising and marketing, and for customer communication and feedback (e-mail).
One WDM specifically stated that the site was created for public relations. A
few sites were for on-line retailing - two in the sample were on-line
storefronts with no physical facilities; entertainment was mentioned only twice.
Content of Web sites usually consisted of written or printed material from
brochures, advertising and/or existing annual and quarterly reports which were
already available. Content was changed when the WDM "felt like there was
something new to add."
Research
None of WDMs in this sample conducted formal research before launching their
Web site. Only three were conducting any formal on-going research. Before
creating the site, they browsed the Web and looked at other Web sites, read
trade magazines about Web sites and software, and talked to friends and
co-workers about what they liked or didn't like. Decisions were usually made
based on the WDM's personal preferences, copying what he or she liked about
other sites, or were left up to the outsourced Web consultant. Terms such as
gut feeling, common sense, and seat of my pants were frequently used to describe
the "research" process. A respondent sums this:
I don't know why I did what I did. We slap it on the wall and see if
it sticks.
Three organizations used brainstorming committees before creating their sites.
Committee members asked one another questions such as, "What does a person need
to know to understand us?" One of these committees had written objectives that
were faxed to the researchers. However, not a single one of the 22
organizations conducted research about their consumers regarding the Internet
prior to creating their site.
On-going evaluative research is equally informal. The buzzwords here were:
trial and error, work in progress, and ever-evolving. Many WDMs realized they
should be conducting more formalized research, but were uncertain how to go
about it. Most measure and/or track hits, look at email to get feedback from
customers, and keep an eye on the sites of their competitors. A few make sure
their site comes up on the search engines, making key word changes if necessary.
Some say they do nothing but modify the site when something changes in the
organization. Most admit they do not know if their site is effective. Some
interesting responses were elicited by the question, "Are you conducting any
on-going research about your Web site?"
Yeah, I attended a technology trade show to look at new stuff.
I don't know what you mean by that. [Interviewer explains the
question] We don't talk to consumers. We are not doing any focus
groups or anything like that.
Our method is to fly by the seat of the pants and change as needed
based on my perception.
We copy the big guys and look at trends. They're the ones that spend
the bucks on research.
Only three organizations had conducted formal on-going research. One used an
on-line survey; the other two included information that would be useful for the
Web site on business-wide surveys.
Target audiences
Most WDMs could identify the target publics of their organization, but admitted
they had no way of knowing if they were reaching their audience through their
Web site, as is seen in the following response.
We target the corporate pilot with the Internet in his hangar. We
have no idea how many that would be.
Most WDMs said their Web site was intended to reach "anybody and everybody," or
"anyone surfing the net," and "baby boomers." Three mentioned that a Web site
was the most effective way to reach an international market.
Some target publics seemed incongruent with the profile of typical Web users.
Consider the following descriptions:
We serve rural areas of Alabama. Our population is older, so you
won't find complicated things on our Web site because our customers
many not be computer literate.
One of the problems is that body builders [this organization's primary
target market] are not known to be real computer literate.
Cost effectiveness
Many WDMs mentioned that Web sites are an economical means to reach customers
and an inexpensive way to advertise. Costs of Web sites varied. The most
expensive site, that of a metropolitan newspaper, cost more than $300,000 a
year; others pay under $500 a year to an Internet service provider.
Seventeen of the 22 WDMs said their Web site was cost effective. For one, a
religious diocese, profit was not an issue; only one said he had no way to
measure. All of the three WDMs who said their organization's Web site was not
cost effective, believed it would be in the near future:
Cost effective? Not right now. The object at this time is to have a
presence. It is necessary evil until we can get around to putting it
the way we want it, then I believe, have a gut feeling, it will be cost
effective in the future.
Right now I would have to say no. But give it another six months and
I think we are going to have more hits. Eventually we will break even,
if not make a profit.
At this point, no. Our goal is that it will be in the future as we
update and expand it...at that time it will be cost effective.
Many of the comments of the 17 WDMs who answered yes to this question indicated
they understood the term cost effective to mean economical or valuable, rather
that profitable.
Cost effective? Yes, compared to the cost of print or magazine ads.
Absolutely, if only in terms of perception.
Yes, because we are spending little for it and are able to reach a lot
of people.
When asked how they knew their site was cost effective, most admitted they had
no data; a few qualified their previous positive response.
Yes it's cost effective. I am providing an amazing site for one
person. I admit my revenues don't offset the costs... but the pay off
is down the road.
Oh yes, it's been very cost effective. We actually made a
profit...well no, I can't say that we made a profit last year. Let me
retract that.
If you look at straight dollars, it's probably a trade off. If you
look at PR its probably worth it.
Only three WDMs had hard data to show their site was cost effective. One is an
electronic mall (an on-line business), the second is a real estate company, and
the third is an on-line clearinghouse for retirement communities. The
retirement site has been linked to 200 other sites, sells banner ads, and
charges retirement communities a fee to be described on the site. Their profit
is not coming from the senior citizen consumer, but from marketing to other
businesses. It seems apparent that the nature of the business is a factor in
cost effectiveness.
Emergent Themes
All units of information, including responses to the questions above, responses
to other questions, and unsolicited or off-the-subject comments were compared
and contrasted and sorted into thematic categories. Each category was examined
for redundancy and checked to see that the units in the category "loaded"
together. Each theme was given a name.
Competition
"The World Wide Web is successful because it is based on people's
natural emotions including fear, greed and vanity,"
- Eric Schmidt, VP of Technology, Sun Microsystems, (
Newsweek, Dec. 25, 1995, p. 27).
There was evidence of competitiveness in almost every question category. Most
WDMs said they built sites to stay competitive, as is evident in the following
response: "Why? Because other newspapers had one and we feared electronic
competition." A reference to being competitive, staying ahead of competition,
or fear of competition occurred in all 22 interviews. Interestingly, even the
WDM for the Web site of the religious diocese mentioned competition, noting that
other religions had Web sites. The attitude here seems to be, "he has one, so I
want one."
We wanted to have one because everyone else had one. Our competition
started getting on the Web and we had to follow.
We look at what other people do for the sake of keeping up. We want
to give people what they want so they enjoy the experience. We don't
want to fall behind.
The Internet is like a store front for world business. If you're not
there, you're not even close to doing business this day and age.
Hedge against the future
Closely related to competition, and nearly as frequently mentioned, was the
idea of creating Web sites as a hedge against the future. While many
respondents expressed doubt about reaching their target markets or turning
profits on the Internet at the present time, they still believed this was the
way of the future. Some viewed their site as a "place holder." One WDM noted,
"It's like entering into the world yellow pages of the future." Other comments:
The reason we are maintaining it is for the future, to keep the
presence up.
The potential is there so when we're ready to more aggressively market
the Web site, we're not going to have to re-invent the wheel. It is an
up-front investment that is not maxed out as far as our business is
concerned.
As computers get easier to use and there are more computers around, you'll have
more people who use the net. It is a hedge against the future.
Creating an Internet presence
A more ethereal purpose of Web sites is, in the words of one respondent,
"strictly to have a presence on the Web." Another said, "We established our
site to have an Internet presence." Many made comments such as "it is a good
place to put our presence," in addition to their more concrete purposes.
Creating a Web site is like saying I'm going to open a store. You
hang out a shingle by being on the Internet. It's almost like having a
business card there.
This is our first year -- we said let's create a presence. In the
coming year we'll probably figure our what we want to do with it.
Web sites as status symbols
Another theme that emerged from the interviews was the concept that having a
Web site is, in a sense, a status symbol for the organization. A Web site is
perceived as evidence that an organization has the latest bells and whistles in
technology and serves as a sort of vanity press.
Having a Web site is one of those trendy things corporations do now.
You need to have a Web site, if for nothing else, just to say you have
one.
Frequently it's an ego trip for the owner or manager of the company to
be able to say yes, we have a Web site.
Almost everyone has it. It's hard to meet someone who hasn't been
there - on the net.
Image building
In addition to providing status to an organization, WDMs believe their Web site
projects the image they want their organization to portray. A few mentioned
they use the site to position their company as a leader in all areas, including
technology. Others mentioned the use of Web sites for public relations and
credibility.
We have a theory that if we project an image of being on the leading
edge in anything in technology, clients believe you're on the leading
edge of everything. Our members want us to be right up there with the
best, and if we're not there, that says to them maybe they shouldn't
leave their money with us.
Our object is exposure...to show that we're sort of a modern company,
that we have the latest marketing outlet. Sales would be great, but I
can't say we're accomplishing that.
A Web site provides a proactive image of being in step with technology.
Monetarily it is break-even, but it gets us out there...promotes good
will.
Dynamic, evolutionary process
Web site decision-makers admitted that much of what they did was based on
intuition and their own assessment of what was working. This is understandable
since the technology is rapidly changing and evolving, and tried and true
planning tools are not yet available. Another theme throughout the interviews
was the dynamic nature of the Web.
We hoped we would have sales, but it's not working that way. Instead
they (customers) are calling and saying, I saw your Web site, using it
as a brochure.
It has to be evolving, can't remain stagnant, and has to be
continually changing. It is a mirror image of what goes on inside our
firm.
It was designed as a communications tool, but what has happened is
people look at our site and it establishes a credibility level for our
company.
There will be much more effective use, but this is a way to introduce
them at the ground floor.
As mentioned earlier, WDMs believe their sites will be more useful to their
organization at some future date. This is due in part to the belief that
eventually they will figure out its usefulness. An aspect of the evolutionary
process is an attempt to make the Web site "work" for the company. Many WDMs
were looking for ways to make their site more functional.
We need a working Web site versus an information site. This is the
struggle. It is a live medium, always changing. You always have to
work on it.
We provide rates, but want to clients to be able to do on-line
transactions.
We want to put specification; etc. on it and customers can get
them without us having to FedEx it.
Cynical realism
A small thread of cynical realism also ran through the interviews. It must be
noted that the overwhelming attitude toward the Web was one of awe - a Web site
is a must to have. The interesting thing about the following comments is that
in many cases, the comment directly contradicted something the respondent said
in a different part of the interview. The comment below is from a WDM who said
earlier that his site was cost effective and that he put it up to be
competitive.
It's an ego thing. Your really don't need it and it's completely
useless. It's just another medium for advertising.
You can have the greatest Web site in the world, but unless people
visit it, it's like putting a $3,000 billboard in the middle of the
woods.
I am very critical of reasons many organizations put up Web sites. I
don't think it's defined. I don't think they have defined outcome
expectations. I don't think they have any way of evaluating the
results.
I don't think Internet commerce has taken off like we would have
expected it to by now. I believe it will in the next 2-3 years. The
key will be Web TV. When every household in America has access to the
Internet, it will take off like crazy.
The only people making money on the Internet are the people building
sites or people selling sex.
These comments ring true, and show that at some level, WDMs recognize the
weaknesses as well as strengths of the Internet, even if at this time it is
almost taboo to admit them.
Conclusion
This research provides preliminary evidence that in the haste to take
advantage of the Web and to establish an Internet presence, the basic tenets of
public relations research, planning, and evaluation are often ignored. Findings
of the study indicate that Web site planning is done by trial and error, based
on intuition, with little to no formal research. In the absence of Web planning
tools, it is not surprising that much of Web site creation is purely
experimental. The results also indicate what WDMs know: nothing concrete about
building effective Web sites. In fact, several of the 60 sites in the sample
contained no contact numbers nor mailing or email addresses - the most elemental
piece of information.
However, WDMs have many beliefs, even if they are unsupported by empirical
knowledge. They believe that Web sites are the way of the future. They believe
that Web sites are cost-effective even though they lack support for this belief.
A majority of the WDMs claimed their Web site was created before the Web sites
of their competitors and most of them said they had the first Web site in their
product category. What probably happened is that WDMs looked at the Web about
the same time, did not find Web sites for their competitors, and built their
sites not realizing that the competition was most likely doing the same thing at
the same time. A quick look at Table 1 indicates that many sites in the sample
were created between two and three years ago.
The study found evidence of a copy cat phenomenon; that is, WDMs browsed
the Web and modeled their sites with features that they liked on other sites.
There seems to be a belief that other organizations were designing and modifying
their sites based on research and that somehow this research was transferable.
However, the findings of this study indicate that no one is conducting formal
research. WDMs also believe that Web sites are perceived by their publics as a
mark of quality. Future research needs to examine if audiences share these
beliefs. To plan and build effective Web sites, the audience perspective should
be considered. Focus groups with Web users, conjoint analyses using Web site
attributes for trade-offs, or experiments may achieve these goals.
This research paves the way for further inquiry into management and
planning of Web sites. A survey using a larger sample of WDMs will help to
understand current Web management practices better, and a survey directed
specifically to public relations practitioners is needed to determine the role
of public relations managers in Web site decision making. The purpose of this
research was not to examine the roles of public relations practitioners, but
rather to look at the research and planning process; the method and sample size
were appropriate for the latter. Nonetheless, it was somewhat unexpected that
none of the WDMs interviewed identified their job as public relations. Review
of the public relations trade publications, on the other hand, indicates many
Web sites are designed by public relations staff and it was presumed that at
least some Web site decision-makers would be public relations professionals.
Considering the role of WDMs (whatever their job title) using the four role
concept developed by Broom and Smith (1979), it appears that the WDM role at
present is one of communication technician, concerned with producing the
communication rather than looking at the strategic implications. To create more
effective Web sites, WDMs should be expert prescribes, using the available tools
of research, planning, and evaluation. Otherwise, as Seybold (1996) warns, the
contents of Web sites may be less than a bad brochure intended for an ethereal
audience who may not even have access to the medium. Table 1. Selected Web
sites
Accounting (24)* Automotive (18)
Aviation (18) Church Diocese (24)
Credit Unions (12) Electronic Malls (36)
Fitness (18) Food (36)
Gifts (36) Hardware (12)
Insurance (12) Magazines (18)
Music Retailers (24) Newspapers (19)
Publisher (24) Real Estate (31)
Retirement Services (24) Toys (3)
Utilities (12) Video Production (36)
Windows & Doors (12) Wine (36)
* The number in parentheses refers to the number of months that
the site has been on the Web.
Table 2. Analysis of Data
Units of information labeled in open coding
Decision-making process
Purpose of Web site
Research (or lack of)
Target market
Cost effectiveness
Categories which emerged in axial coding
Competition
Hedge against the future
Creating a presence
Status Symbol
Image building
Dynamic, evolutionary process
Cynical realism
Selective themes
What WDMs Plan
Know
Believe
References
Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan
Sawyer, and Stacy Wood (1997), "Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer,
and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces," Journal
of Marketing, 61 (July), 38-53.
Batra, Rajeev, John G. Myers and David A. Aaker (1996). Advertising Management.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Broom, Glen M. and G. D. Smith (1979), "Testing the Practitioner's Impact on
Clients," Public Relations Review, 5 (3): 47-59.
Broom, Glen M. and David M. Dozier (1990), Using Research in Public Relations:
Applications to Program Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall,
Inc.
Clark, Kevin A. (1997), "Media Transformation and the Practice of Public
Relations," In
C. L. Caywood (ed.) The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & Integrated
Communications, ( pp. 222-230), New York: McGraw-Hill.
CommerceNet/Nielsen Media Research (1997).
http://www.commerce.net/work/pilot/nielsen-96/.
Corbin, J. and A.L. Strauss (1990), "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures,
Canons, and Evaluative Criteria," Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1): 3-19.
Cross, R. (1994), "Will New Technology Change the Marketing Rules," Direct
Marketing, (Oct), 14-40.
Dozier, David M. and William P. Ehling (1992). "Evaluation of Public Relations
Programs: What the Literature Tells Us about Their Effects. In J. Grunig
(ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management, (pp.
617-638), New York: Erlbaum.
Find/SVP (1997). Emerging Technology's Research Group Survey.
http://www.etrg.findsvp.com/features/newinet.html
Gleason, Mark (Jan. 20, 1997), "Edelman sees niche in Web public relations,"
Advertising Age, 68 (3): 30.
Gronstedt, Anders ( (1997), "The Role of Research in Public Relations Strategy
and Planning," In C. L. Caywood (ed.) The Handbook of Strategic Public
Relations & Integrated Communications, (pp. 34-59), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grumpert, David E. (1997), "Freshening the Web Site," The Public Relation
Strategist, 3(3): 42-44.
Hon, Linda Childers (1997), "Demonstrating Effectiveness in Public Relations:
Goals Objectives, and Evaluation." Presented to the Public Relations Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago,
Ill.
Johnson, Melissa A. (1997). "Public Relations and Technology: Practitioner
Perspectives, Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 (3): 213-236.
Kendall, Robert (1996). Public Relations Campaign Strategies: Planning for
Implementation, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Lindenmann, W. K. (1990). "Research, Evaluation and Measurement: A National
Perspective," Public Relations Review 16 (2): 3-16.
Marken, G. A. (1995), "Getting the Most from your Presence in Cyberspace (What
Works in PR)," Public Relations Quarterly, 40 (3): 36-37.
Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman (1989), Designing Qualitative
Research Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
McCracken, Grant (1993), The Long Interview, Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Seybold, Patricia (April 8, 1996), "Don't Let PR Control Your Web Site!"
Computerworld, 30 (15): 37.
Sproull, Lee and Sarah Kiesler (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the
Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Web Bound (1997). Spring. Art Mac Cammon, Publisher.
Wilcox, Dennis, Phillip H. Ault and Warren K. Agee (1997). Public Relations:
Strategies and Tactics, 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Appendix
Interview Guide
1. Note Web site address, contact number, and postal address.
a. Inquire about person responsible for Web site (WDM).
b. Contact these individuals (phone numbers)
2. Who (person) made decision to have a Web site in the first
place? (Initiator) If WDM is not initiator, skip to #4, and
pose #3 to Initiator (separate call). Who maintains your Web
site? (Webmaster)
3. Why did you decide to have a Web site? Could you take me
through your process of making the decision to have a Web
site?
4. How long have you had a Web site? What is the primary
purpose of your Web site? What are the objectives of your Web
site? How are you ensuring that these objectives are being
met?
5. What particular audience did you have in mind? How do you
know that you are reaching this audience?
6. How did you decide on the format of your Web site? How
did you decide on the content of your Web site? How did you
decide how to categorize the content?
7. What research did you do to plan your Web site? Details
on what was done, how, by whom, methodology etc.
8. Do any of your competitors have Web sites? Name them.
Did you develop your strategy in competition to theirs? If
so, how?
9. How often do you modify/make additions to your Web site?
On what basis? Has your Web site undergone any major changes
(design/content)? Describe these.
10. Do you conduct any research on an on-going basis to
modify your Web site? Details.
11. Can you tell us how much money (including hiring or
outsourcing of individuals) you are spending on your Web
site? Do you feel that your Web site is cost-effective? If
yes, how so? If not, then why are you continuing to maintain
your Web site?
12. Would you say that Web sites are aimed at targeted
audiences or that they are merely created and the target
audience selects itself?
13. Is your Web site meant for business-business or business-consumer?
Why? How are you ensuring this?
|
