Meshworked reputation: Publicists’ views on the reputational impacts of online communication

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Meshworked reputation: Publicists’ views on the reputational impacts of online communication Pekka Aula ∗ Department of Social Research, Media and Communication Studies, PO Box 54, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 22 April 2010 Received in revised form 27 August 2010 Accepted 27 September 2010 Keywords: Reputation Reputation management Organizational communication Online communication

a b s t r a c t This paper discusses the conceptual and empirical connections between an organization’s reputation management and online communication. The paper develops a theory driven model of the structural dimensions of reputation and analyzes organizational communication professionals’ views on the potential that online communication has for reputation management. The survey data showed that online communication was perceived to have positive impacts on the structure and advantages of reputation, and that these two aspects would seem to be strongly dependent on each other. Thus, online communication can be used to influence the assessments made by stakeholders about an organization’s products and services, corporate responsibility, success, its ability to change and develop, and its public image. In addition, online communication can generate reputational advantages by strengthening stakeholder relationships and building social capital for the organization. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Reputation and reputation management have attracted a great deal of attention among organization (e.g., Rhee & Valdez, 2009; Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward, 2006), communication (van Riel & Fombrun, 2007), and public relations (Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & Genest, 2001) researchers, as have electronic (Marlow & Sileo, 1996) and online public relations (Holtz, 1998) and their more recent derivatives, such as public relations in social media (e.g., Kelleher, 2007; Ryan, 2003; Scott, 2009). The concept of corporate reputation has been studied from the perspectives of financial success (Fombrun, 1996), competitiveness (Davies, 2003), corporate responsibility (Willmott, 2001), cultural representations (Karvonen, 1999), risk management (Larkin, 2003), and measurement (Caruana, 1997; Caruana, Pitt, & Berthon, 1995; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Lewis, 2001). Notably, the recent discussion on reputation has spread beyond the realm of business. Reputation has been studied from the perspective not only of companies, but also of non-profit organizations, government agencies, and communities, such as public administration (Luoma-aho, 2007), institutes of higher learning (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007), cities (Aula & Harmaakorpi, 2008), and even entire countries (Passow, Fehlmann, & Grahlow, 2005). An area of growing interest in reputation research is new communication technology, especially the Internet (e.g., Park & Lee, 2007) and its relationship to communications and stakeholder relationships (Walsh, 2003). However, one of the problems of studies of reputation in the context of the Internet has been that “cyberspace” is assumed to exist apart from organizations’ official communication, rather than being integrated into it (see Baym, Zhang, & Lin, 2004). In particular, the Internet is conceptualized as a managerial communication medium (e.g., Argenti, 2009) rather than a space or sphere where reputational meanings are born and disseminated. When the Internet is considered more as an “environment of meaning”

∗ Tel.: +358 9 191 24918. E-mail address: pekka.aula@helsinki.fi. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.09.008

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

29

(du Gay, 2000) for organizations rather than as a communication channel, the most relevant conceptualization of reputation is one in which reputation is created through social realities that are formed narratively (Deetz, 1986). In this light, reputation is a narrative and communicative construct; that is, it consists of a “collection of stories told about an organization” (Smythe, Dorward, & Reback, 1992, p. 19), and these stories are more prolific and heterogenic than ever on the Internet. Thus, instead of reputation belonging to the organization itself, it is to a large extent controlled and distributed by the organization’s stakeholders. To integrate the views related to reputation and the Internet empirically, the present article is concerned with the relationship between the notions of organizations’ online communications and their reputation and reputation management. More specifically, it asks how communication professionals view the potential that online communication has on reputation and its management. The aim is to study the possible connections between online communication and the reputation management of an organization in the context of the Internet as the environment of meaning. 2. Publicists as reputation builders Following the interpretative view on human communication (Carey, 1992), an organization’s communication can be defined as interactive processes that take place within certain organizational conditions (Aula, 1999) and in which people create, maintain, process, and form meanings (Carey, 1992). This definition is based on the fundamentals of the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), according to which an organization and even its environment (Weick, 1979) is socially constructed among its members, and this construction takes place not just with, but also within, communication (Deetz, 1986). Correspondingly, from the perspective that emphasizes the narrative or interpretative nature of reputation (see Aula & Mantere, 2008), an organization can, through its communications, participate in creating the realities attached to it, realities that reflect on the interpretations of the organization’s own members about themselves and their environment. For example, “informing” is not just about transferring information (see Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995), but also about participating in the dialogic negotiations (Kent & Taylor, 2002) that determine the development of the organization and the creation of meaning. One of the main purposes of the communication function of an organization, therefore, is to “take a stand” or represent a point of view in the environments of meaning surrounding the organization (Aula & Mantere, 2008). By doing so, the organization’s own opinions in areas such as social media services can support the building of its reputation. The central role of organizational communications within the process of building an organizational reputation explains why our research focuses on the views of communication professionals. A study of these views is also meaningful because the opinions of communication professionals have practical implications, since their views of the methods and effects of communications determine how an organization performs its communication function (Dozier et al., 1995). Furthermore, and perhaps slightly more practically, the views of communication professionals are considered important as the role of online communication is central to the work of communication professionals on the expert level. In Finland, for example, stakeholder relations have been characterized in recent years by changes brought about by new communications technology and online communication (ProCom, 2005, 2007). Also important is the fact that reputation and reputation management are relatively new concepts in organizational online communications and are only now establishing themselves in the communications profession, and more research concerning the connections between online communications and reputation management is needed. Furthermore, the relationships between online communication and reputation management are the focus of ongoing debate, which further strengthens the need for empirical research. 3. Building the framework: four approaches to reputation The issue of how organizational online communication has an impact on the reputation can be approached from the perspectives of the structure of reputation on the one hand and the attainable, potential reputational advantages on the other. The former refers to the reputation management that takes place online, when an organization strives to influence the interpretations and assessments that are made about the organization through its online communication. The latter assumes that a good reputation generates advantages for an organization, advantages that are made concrete as the result of professional reputation management. The review begins with a conceptual analysis of reputation as assessments, relationship, position, and social capital. 3.1. Reputation as assessments From the perspective of the assessments of organization, the operationalizing of reputation is based on the assumption that the subject is assessed according to certain properties or factors pertaining to it (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). We value and thus “reputationalize” an organization according to how we feel it is run, what kinds of products and services it offers, or the quality of its strategy, for example. Reputation can be operationalized according to Aula and Heinonen’s (2002) structural model of reputation (the reputation wheel), which describes the dimensions of reputation (Table 1). Accordingly, reputation is described as having six dimensions, each of which is defined by four sub attributes. The six dimensions of reputation are an organization’s culture and management, its products and services, success, corporate responsibility, public image, and its ability to change and develop.

30

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

Table 1 The structural dimensions of reputation and the respective subattributes (Aula & Heinonen, 2002). Reputation dimensions

Respective subattributes

Culture and leadership Products and services Success Community responsibility Public image Ability to change and develop

Loyalty and satisfaction, motivation and reward, respect, trust High standards, price quality ratio, reliability, value and usefulness Competitiveness, financial growth, international expansion, market leadership Enhancement, environment, ethical principles, participation Charismatic leadership, corporate profile, high media visibility, well known Adaptability, clear vision and plan, continuous development, courage

3.2. Reputation as relationships Reputation is considered to have both material and immaterial advantages for organizations (see e.g., Grunig & Chun-ju, 2002; Rindova et al., 2006). Grunig (2002) points out that the value of reputation management to organizations rests above all on stakeholder relationships. According to Grunig, reputation cannot be managed directly, but it can be influenced, for example, according to how management behaves in relation to stakeholders. A good reputation is thus the consequence of relationships between organizations and stakeholders and their success. These stakeholder related reputational advantages can be made concrete using the concepts of relationship, position, and social capital. Trust can be considered as one of the bases of a relationship between organizations and stakeholders. When trust exists between an organization and its stakeholder network, it is easier to build and maintain reputation (Aula & Mantere, 2008). Other characteristics of a good relationship include commitment (March & Simon, 1958), the feeling of having a true partnership, and credibility (Mahon & Wartick, 2003). The Internet is considered a useful tool for building stakeholder relationships, for example, from the perspective of dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 1998). According to the central tenet of dialogic communication, an organization’s online communications can influence the degree to which stakeholders consider the organization important as a current and future partner. In addition, in terms of credibility, online communications can influence how expert an organization is considered to be. 3.3. Reputation as positions Reputation is something that is spoken, related to, or talked about (Smythe et al., 1992). Accordingly, reputation always has a communicational dimension (the communication principle of reputation, see Aula & Harmaakorpi, 2008), and one of the basic tasks of reputation management is to try and influence discussions about it, including within networks among the organization’s stakeholders. Reputation also always involves a qualitative assessment of its subject (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). This evaluation principle of reputation (Aula & Harmaakorpi, 2008) is emphasized in several techniques for measuring reputation in which stakeholders are asked to assess certain factors involving an organization (e.g., van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). Furthermore, reputation is seen as something that differentiates its subject from others (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004). This differentiation principle of reputation (Aula & Harmaakorpi, 2008) comes into play when decisions are made that favor one organization at the expense of another. The persons making these decisions thus work in the “company’s name” when explaining their decisions to others. Organizations use reputation management to influence cultural presentations (Geertz, 1973) made about them and to create more favorable operating conditions (Karvonen, 1999). Thus, online communication, according to the reputation principles of communication, evaluation, and differentiation, can be seen as creating positional advantages for the organization in relation to other actors based on messages, assessments, and differentiation. 3.4. Reputation as social capital In addition to relationship benefits, reputation advantages can also be analyzed in terms of immaterial properties (Cornelissen & Thorpe, 2002), including social capital (Carow, 1999; Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski, Quinn, & Ainina, 1999). Organizational researchers often apply the concept of social capital, which refers to Bourdieu’s (1986) idea of forms of non-financial capital (see Aula & Mantere, 2008). According to strategy researchers Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), there are three dimensions to social capital: structural, relational, and cognitive. The structural dimension involves an organization’s social network, meaning either the organization’s official stakeholder relationships or the personal relationships among its personnel, generally its management. Relational social capital describes the quality of an organization’s relationship with other members within the network. It is built above all on trust, but also on a shared identification, common norms, mutual agreements, and other social phenomena defining the relationships within the network. The cognitive dimension of social capital is connected with an organization’s cultural and symbolic capital, which includes the language, stories, and meanings shared by actors within the network. Simply belonging to the network is insufficient, as are otherwise proper relationships with stakeholders. An ability to communicate effectively is needed (see Aula & Mantere, 2008). An organization’s reputation is built on the stories formed by stakeholders and spread within networks and on other shared meanings. Reputation is thus an integral part of an organization’s social-cognitive capital. Trust and other characteristics of relational capital are also connected with reputation. It is not enough for an organization

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

31

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the interdependencies between online communications, the structure of reputation, and reputational advantages.

to be known to have a good reputation; a good reputation means that the organization is trusted and identified with. The four approaches presented above and the assumed interdependence between them creates an initial framework for studying communication professionals’ views on online communication and reputation empirically (Fig. 1). The key dimensions of this framework are the structure of reputation and reputational advantages defined as a reputation relationship (the quality of relationships between an organization and stakeholders, i.e., trust, commitment, credibility), as a position (narratives, evaluation, distinction), and as the creation of relational, structural, and cognitive social capital (recognition, communication, goodness). 3.5. Data The cross sectional data for this research were gathered by means of an Internet survey in the autumn of 2007, utilizing the University of Helsinki’s e-form service. An e-mail invitation was sent to members of the Finnish Association of Professional Communicators ProCom, which has 1618 members in 2007, 433 of whom responded (a 27% response rate). The profile of the respondents (gender, age, position) corresponded well with the member profile of ProCom (ProCom, 2005). For example, the share of women who responded (89%) corresponds quite well with the share of women in the communications profession, which was 84% in 2005 and 2007 (ProCom, 2005, 2007). The questionnaire included 14 questions based on the reference framework presented above. The questions dealt with reputational structure (culture and leadership, responsibility, products and services, image, success, dynamics) and advantages (relationships, position, social capital). The questions were presented in the form of claims, for example: “Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our management and organizational culture.” All questions were answered on a scale of 1–5; for claims made about the effects of online communications, for example, the evaluation scale was 5 = “I agree very much” to 1 = “I do not agree at all.” Table 2 presents the constructs, the items, and their descriptive statistics. The respondents were provided with the following definition of online communication in the introduction to the survey: “Online communication refers to an organization’s communication technologies and the content that is conveyed by these technologies used by an organization to communicate with its stakeholders. The forms of online communication include the Internet (www, website), e-mail, messenger tools, Intranet, blogs, and mobile communication networks.” 4. Results One of the aims of the research was to form a general picture of how communication professionals view the relationship between online communication and reputation. Another aim was to consider the views of communication professionals on how online communication can influence the structure of reputation and to what degree online communication can achieve reputational advantages for an organization. The research was also designed to assess how well or how poorly the views of communication professionals correspond with the model of the impact of online communication derived from the literature.

32

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

Table 2 Variables, survey questions, and descriptive statistics for the variables. Conceptual basis

Variable name

Questions used the in survey

N

Mean

SD

Organization is assessed according to certain properties or factors pertaining to it

Culture and leadership

Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our organizational culture and leadership. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our corporate responsibility. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our products and services. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our public image. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our success. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence what kinds of assessments are made by our stakeholders about our ability to change and develop. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence the appreciation and trust of our stakeholders. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence whether stakeholders consider us to be an important partner in the future. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence to what degree the organization is considered an expert organization. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence the stories told about our organization. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence the critical attitude of our stakeholders. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence how well our organization stands out from other similar organizations, such as competitors. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence how well our organization is recognized. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence how well we manage our stakeholder relationships. Through our organization’s online communications we can influence how reputable our organization is considered to be.

431

3.80

.933

432

4.05

.871

432

4.71

.526

432

4.48

.667

430

4.05

.812

429

4.02

.883

431

3.62

.776

430

3.73

.736

430

4.11

.667

429

3.67

.842

426

3.41

.822

430

4.15

.719

431

4.06

.727

427

3.86

.826

429

3.61

.795

Corporate responsibility

Products and services

Public image

Success

Ability to change and develop

Trust as the basis of a relationship

Trust

Commitment to cooperate in the future

Commitment

The feeling of having a true partnership and credibility The communication principle

Credibility

Narrative

The evaluation principle

Evaluation

The differentiation principle

Distinction

The structural dimension of social capital

Recognition

The cognitive dimension of social capital

Communication

The relational dimension of social capital

Goodness

4.1. Views on how online communication can influence reputation Online communication can be seen to have a significant impact on the structural factors of reputation. According to the descriptive statistics presented in Table 2, the factors that are considered to have the biggest impact are assessments made about an organization’s products and services (M = 4.7, SD = .53) and public image (M = 4.5, SD = .67). The secondary group includes reputation factors related to an organization’s success (M = 4.1, SD = .81), responsibility (M = 4.1, SD = .87), and ability to change and develop (M = 4.0, SD = .88). Online communication is considered to have the least impact on cultural and leadership factors (M = 3.8, SD = .93). This can be interpreted to mean that the impact of online communication is considered to be great when these factors are assessed in relation to factors corresponding to an organization’s external relationships. Products and services are precisely this kind of central and relatively concrete interface between an organization and its stakeholders. In comparison, making assessments about an organization’s internal factors, such as those related to management and organizational culture, is understandably harder. This is demonstrated, for example, by the relatively large standard deviation in the reputational factor related to culture and leadership (SD = .93). Although communication professionals believe that online communication can achieve reputational advantages, the assessments of these reputational factors vary more than those for structural factors. Particularly interesting are the obser-

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

33

Table 3 Summation variables: the perceived impact of online communication on reputational structure and the advantages. Name

Description

N

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s alpha

Reputational structure

Impacts on culture and leadership, corporate responsibility, products and services, public image, success, the ability to change and develop. Effects of how well the organization is recognized, how well it communicates, and how reputable the organization is considered to be. Effects of the stories told about the organization, the critical attitude of stakeholders, and the ability to stand out from other similar organizations, such as competitors. Effects of the appreciation and trust of stakeholders and whether they consider the organization to be an important partner in the future (commitment) and to what degree the organization is considered an expert organization (credibility).

427

4.19

.551

.79

425

3.84

.627

.72

429

3.82

.629

.70

423

3.74

.631

.83

Creating social capital

Positional advantages of reputation

Quality of the reputational relationship

vations presented as averages in Table 2 according to which the assessments would seem to be more critical than for structural factors, despite the generally positive attitude towards the various factors of reputational advantages. Online communication was considered to have mostly distinct advantages that relate to the potential of online communication to influence an organization’s ability to stand out from its competitors or even from partners (Distinction, M = 4.2; SD = .72). Online communication was considered to have the least influence on the qualitative assessments made about an organization (Evaluation, M = 3.4; SD = .82). Online communication is not considered to influence the building of trust particularly strongly (Trust, M = 3.6; SD = .78). This is significant because trust is specifically considered to be one of the main factors determining the quality of stakeholder relationships and trust can be considered one of the basic pillars of the quality of an organization’s online information. Although analyzing the assessments of the impact of online communication in terms of factors related to reputational structure and advantages provides a sense of the true potential of online influence, further analysis is required to provide a clearer picture. What do communication professionals feel about the way online communication influences the overall structural factors of reputation (the reputation wheel) and reputational advantages, as considered in the original research framework? To obtain an overall picture, mean scales were formed from the variables measuring reputational structure and advantages. The scales were formed on the basis of the reference framework described above to measure the impact of online communication on reputational structure and advantages. The averages and standard deviations of these summation variables as well as Cronbach’s alpha (˛), which describes the reliability of the summation variables, are presented in Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha (˛) in all exceeds .7, which can be considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). The first row in Table 3 demonstrates that the impact of online communication on reputational structure is considered the most significant. The impact on creating social capital and the impact on the basic principles of reputation were assessed about equally. The last row of the table demonstrates that the quality of reputational relationships is considered to have the least impact. The opportunities for online communication to influence an organization’s reputation management are thus considered to be strong. It must be noted, however, that despite the relative homogeneity of the demographic structure of communication professionals, their views of the impact of online communication can vary considerably. 4.2. Reputation is multifaceted and sensitive to change The scale analysis presented above provides an overall picture of the views of the impact of online communication on reputation and the advantages generated. The problem with this analysis is its assumption that the various factors do not correlate with each other. In other words, the analysis does not take note of the mutual dependencies between the various factors; the more the respondents believe in the structural effects of online communication, the more communication is able to create social capital and position advantages and improve the quality of the reputational relationship between an organization and its stakeholders. In order for these interdependencies to be taken into account, the data can be further analyzed using structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling can be used to study how well a theoretical model fits the data. The idea is to study the causal relationships between various factors. Structural equation modeling is particularly appropriate for analyzing the connections between so-called latent variables (e.g., Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979), which in this research refers to an analysis of the relationships among Reputation (the impact of online communication on reputational structure), Relationship (the impact on the quality of the reputational relationship), Position (the impact on the positional advantages of reputation) and Social Capital (the impact on the creation of social capital). Fig. 2 presents the structural equation modeling solution.

34

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

Fig. 2. The structural equation modeling solution describing the structure of reputation and reputational advantages (x2 = 242.30, df = 81, p = .000, RMSEA = .064, CFI = .93).

After an initial analysis, the suitability of the model to the data was studied using a modification index. In this analysis the model was modified to allow the indicators measuring the same latent variables to correlate with each other in cases where it is theoretically justified. For example, the residual terms of the latent variable Social Capital’s Goodness and Recognition indicators correlate positively (r = .28). This could be due, for example, to the fact that the Goodness and Recognition measures describe some mutual variable other than “social capital”. The estimated number of mutual correlations between these residual terms is six: in all these cases, a positive correlation was found between the residual terms.1 In addition, it was noted that the residual terms of the latent variables Relationship, Position, and Social Capital correlate with each other. This is not surprising, as the common third factor (Reputation) affecting these three variables explains only some of the mutual correlations between the variables. For example, the variables Relationship and Position continue to correlate quite strongly (r = .52), even after the affect of the common factor Reputation is controlled. From this we can draw the conclusion that, even though the variable Reputation has a relatively strong connection to all three other variables, it does not fully explain the mutual interdependencies between all three factors. Fig. 2 shows that the connections between the variable Reputation and all three other variables are considerable. In addition, the factor loadings are relatively high, meaning that the reliability or validity of the measurements is not in doubt. Another important factor for the reliability of the results is that, based on the RMSEA value (.064), the suitability of the model fit is quite good, as generally a value of .050–.060 is considered good. Reliability is further enhanced by the CFI value (.93), which is close to the criterion of >.95 for a good fit. 5. Conclusion Based on a quantitative analysis of the data, we can examine the reasonableness of the research framework (Fig. 1) in order to study the communicators’ views on the connections between online communication and reputation, derived from the theory of reputation. Structural equation modeling strengthens the view of the model according to which online communication is seen, firstly, to have an impact on the assessments of the different reputational dimensions, and secondly, to generate considerable reputational advantages. The structural equation model demonstrates how reputation, which itself can be considered a socalled latent monolithic phenomenon, is associated with such factors as culture and leadership or corporate responsibility. Analysis of the factor loadings of reputation and its structural factors in Fig. 2 in turn demonstrates that these reflections coincide. In practice the structural equation model suggests that organizations that look after their reputation should focus their reputation building activities essentially on all six components of reputation. In an interesting way the analysis reinforces one of the popular chants of reputation: building a good reputation takes a long time, but it can be lost overnight. The

1 When interpreting Fig. 1 it should be noted that the correlations drawn between the variables Relationship, Position, and Social Capital are in fact mutual correlations between their residual terms, i.e., correlations after the effect of the common third factor (Reputation) has been controlled. The correlation arrows between the variable Corporate Responsibility and Products and Services and between Success and Public Image refer to correlations between the residual terms of these variables.

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

35

analysis also explains how the reflections in the minds of stakeholders are mutually dependent. If we feel that the services offered by a certain organization are poor, we are likely to believe that the organization is poor in other areas as well. The structural equation model also demonstrates that an improvement in reputational structure is positively connected to reputational advantages. In Fig. 2 the regression coefficients for the relationship between reputational structure and reputational advantages are each positive and relatively strong. In addition, when assessing the reputational advantages of online communication, attention should be given to two aspects. Firstly, the observations confirm the positive impact of the Internet in building stakeholder relationships and the possibilities of accumulating social capital and reputational positioning. Secondly, as with the structural impact on reputation, the importance of the advantages in question varies in terms of both the structural impacts on reputation and in relation to each other. For example, building trust online can be considered problematic. 5.1. Discussion This study reinforces other findings, such as those of Ryan (2003, p. 345): “public relations practitioners, at least those who are members of the Public Relations Society of America, have abandoned the debate about whether the World Wide Web is useful in public relations, whether practitioners need technical skills, and whether they are acquiring them. It is; they do; and they are.” That is, the results of the study show that the overall attitudes of communication professionals towards the opportunities for online communication in reputation management and in achieving reputational advantages appear to be quite positive. The analysis also demonstrates what a multilayered phenomenon online reputation management seems to be. Although online communication is seen to make an impact on the structure of reputation, its value as a reputational factor varies; for example, the respondents were more qualified in their views about its possibilities to influence the cultural and leadership dimensions of reputation. This means that practical reputation management cannot be approached on the overall reputation level alone. Accordingly, the multilayered aspect should be kept in mind when assessing and measuring online communication. This research also has clear limitations. Is it not obvious, for example, that communication professionals would consider online communication to be advantageous for their organization? The opposite opinion could undermine the value of their own work, which in turn could explain the positive responses in the survey. The purpose of this research, however, was not to assess the general potential of communications (“communication improves reputation”), but to assess specifically the relationship of online communication to the various factors of organizational structure and the components of reputational advantages. This is particularly significant since online communication is an increasingly important tool for communication professionals and reputation management is one of the rising functions of corporate communications. This research also does not prove any actual causal relationships between online communication and reputation, but simply explores the views of these relationships held by communication professionals, although from the perspective of a conceptual model. Furthermore, the purpose of this research was not to prove or leave unproved the factual impact of online communication on reputation, but instead to consider what these impact potentials look like and to what degree the different impact opportunities are related to each other. It should be also borne in mind that the data of the study was collected in 2007 and more resent data could have produced somewhat different results. For example, social media was not as visible four years ago as it is now, and more research is needed in order to define how social media and other forms of Internet-based social networking have affected online reputation management. With these reservations in mind, we can conclude with a few observations. This article demonstrates that the communicators’ views of the structural impact of reputation and reputational advantages would seem to be strongly dependent on each other. Although these interdependencies can to some degree be due to how a question was posed (for example, trust as an aspect of both relational variables and social capital variables), the dependency is sufficiently strong to be significant from even a practical point of view. In other words, as the impact of online communication on the structural factors of reputation grows, the advantages stemming from reputation are also strengthened. This reinforces the idea of reputation as a “circle of good” (Aula & Mantere, 2008), and, conversely, the “vicious circle” created by a bad reputation, and suggests how these circles operate in an organization’s online environment. Accordingly, communicational reputation management online (an “online reputation”) can create enough worthwhile consequences that organizations cannot risk failing at least to consider these factors from their own perspectives. Communication professionals view the possibilities offered by online communication in ways that match the conceptual model presented in this research. According to the model describing the establishment of online communication (Fig. 1), online communication could impact the structure of six dimensional reputation as described by the reputation wheel. This means that online communication can be used to influence the assessments made by stakeholders about an organization’s products and services, corporate responsibility, success, its ability to change and develop, and its public image. At the same time it has to be kept in mind that the potential effects of online communication are not focused on the overall reputation ratings of a firm (see Bromley, 2002), but in varying degrees on the different structural factors of reputation, which could also guide the practical allocation of resources for reputation management. Furthermore, according to the ideas in the model, online communication can most likely achieve reputational advantages. Communication can strengthen stakeholder relationships and position and build social capital for an organization. Above all, the model would seem to solidify the conceptual relationship between reputation and reputational advantages. Although reputation is created in the assessments made by stakeholders (and therefore is “outside” the organization), the

36

P. Aula / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 28–36

stronger the organization is in terms of communication, the more it is able through the Internet to influence what kinds of stories are being spread about it – and thus also to influence whether we consider the company’s activities to be acceptable and the company itself to be good (see Aula & Mantere, 2008). Therefore, it would be important to study the practical implications of planning and implementing online communication according to this model. References Argenti, P. (2009). Corporate communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. Aula, P. (1999). Organisaation kaaos vai kaaoksen organisaatio? Dynaamisen organisaatioviestinnän teoria. Helsinki: Loki-Kirjat. Aula, P., & Harmaakorpi, V. (2008). An innovative milieu – a view on regional reputation building: Case study of the Lahti urban region. Regional Studies, 42(4), 523–538. Aula, P., & Heinonen, J. (2002). Maine: menestystekijä. Helsinki: WSOY. Aula, P., & Mantere, S. (2008). Strategic reputation management. New York: Routledge. Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M.-C. (2004). Social interactions across media. New Media & Society, 6(3), 299–318. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bromley, D. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 35–50. Carey, J. (1992). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge. Carow, K. (1999). Underwriting spreads and reputational capital: An analysis of new corporate securities. The Journal of Financial Research, 22(1), 15–28. Caruana, A. (1997). Corporate reputation: Concept and measurement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(2), 109–118. Caruana, A., Pitt, L., & Berthon, P. (1995). The organisational reputation concept: Its role and measurement. Oxfordshire: Henley Management College. Cornelissen, J., & Thorpe, R. (2002). Measuring a business school’s reputation: Perspectives, problems and prospects. European Management Journal, 20(2), 72–178. Davies, G. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge. Deetz, S. (1986). Metaphors and the discursive production and reproduction of organization. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives I (pp. 168–182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co. Dozier, D., Grunig, L., & Grunig, J. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. New Jersey: Lawrence Elbaum Associates. Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258. Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (2004). Fame and fortune. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. du Gay, P. (2000). Markets and meanings: Re-imagining organizational life. In M. Schultz, M. Hatch, & M. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, image and the corporate brand (pp. 66–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Grunig, J. (2002). The value of public relations can be found in relationships, only secondarily in reputation. Maine-magazine, 02/2002. Grunig, J., & Chun-ju, F. (2002). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the PRSA Educator’s Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida. Holtz, S. (1998). Public relations on the net: Winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more!. New York: Amacom. Hutton, J., Goodman, M., Alexander, J., & Genest, C. (2001). Reputation management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review, 27(3), 247–261. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge: Abt Books. Karvonen, E. (1999). Elämää mielikuvayhteiskunnassa: Imago ja maine menestystekijöinä myöhäismodernissa maailmassa. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Kelleher, T. (2007). Public relations online: Lasting concepts for changing media. California: Sage. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Larkin, J. (2003). Strategic reputation risk management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lewis, S. (2001). Measuring corporate reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 31–35. Luoma-aho, V. (2007). Neutral Reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124–143. Mahon, J. F., & Wartick, S. L. (2003). Dealing with stakeholders: How reputation, credibility and framing influence the game. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 19–35. March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marlow, E., & Sileo, J. (1996). Electronic public relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Park, N., & Lee, K. M. (2007). Effects of online news forum on corporate reputation. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 346–348. Passow, T., Fehlmann, R., & Grahlow, H. (2005). Country reputation – from measurement to management: The case of Liechtenstein. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 309–326. Petrick, J. A., Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., Quinn, J. F., & Ainina, M. F. (1999). Global leadership skills and reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), 58–69. ProCom. (2005). Yhteisöviestintätutkimus. Finnish Association of Professional Communicators ProCom, PDF-document, www.procom.fi ProCom. (2007). Yhteisöviestintätutkimus. Finnish Association of Professional Communicators ProCom, PDF-document, www.procom.fi Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. (2009). Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 146–168. van Riel, C., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication. New York: Routledge. Rindova, V., Pollock, T., & Hayward, M. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 50–71. Ryan, M. (2003). Public relations and the web: Organizational problems, gender, and institution type. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 335–349. Scott, D. M. (2009). The new rules of marketing and pr: How to use news releases, blogs, podcasting, viral marketing and online media to reach buyers directly. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Smythe, J., Dorward, C., & Reback, J. (1992). Corporate reputation: Managing the new strategic asset. London: Century Business. Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Reputation beyond the rankings: A conceptual framework for business school research. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 278–304. Walsh, T. (2003). The reputation vortex: Online reputation management. Rollinsford, NH: Spiro Press. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd edition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Willmott, M. (2001). Citizen brands: Putting society at the heart of your business. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.