Focus question: How have digital platforms changed PR strategies and how do they interact with non-digital platforms?

Public Relations have made dramatic changes since the inclusion of digital platforms. This has allowed PR strategies to establish online campaigning through aspects such as social media.

Social media site Twitter has become an open forum for conservation which has allowed new PR strategies to take place. This has become a popular place for campaigning as a direct lobbying tool as seen in the reading Behind the Digital Campaign, ´New digital media offer opportunities to transform political campaigning and representative democracy.´ (Williamson, A. Miller, L. & Fallon, F). Political people, celebrities and CEO’s of major companies have employed twitter to coordinate mass advocacy campaigns. In order for PR to reach its public’s they have used the approach of tweeting, retweeting, hash tags and lists to create a community of interest to reach their target audience. In terms of politics, Twitter has become a major campaign method to gain popularity of the public. The use of political figures and also political commentary shows such as Q&A has now become popular hash tags. Twitter has allowed politics to campaign their issues on democracy to create an open forum of discussion and gain popularity to its publics. 


These digital platforms have allowed PR to engage with journalists in a different form. There is significant importance to keep a close and informed relationship with journalists. This relationship will enable to exposure to media which is a fundamental aspect of PR campaigning. The strategy in which to engage journalists is to use social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook to keep them up to date on relevant information.  PR has changed its strategy in communicating with Journalism due to these digital platforms in which they are able to connect by using social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook.  

Not only is social media the only form of digital platforms that change PR strategies, there is also the inclusion of website, blogs and YouTube videos. These are very important aspects apart of a PR strategy. Although social media can have major effects most campaigns are not solely based on just social media. This is due to ensuring an interaction is kept with non-digital platforms. These non-digital platforms allow target audiences to be linked and access information to the digital platforms. These strategies include brochures and flyers that inform publics of the campaign as well as linking them to the social media and online sites.



Focus question: Referring to Jurgensen & Ray (2012), how are digital technologies affecting (in positive and/or negative ways) users’ privacy?

Digital Technology has made an alarming effect of the nature of privacy. This is due to the expansion of privacy due to the expansion of social media. These effects have both seen negative and positive results to the nature of privacy especially online. Jurgensen and Ray refer to both the positive and negative aspects of users’ privacy.

Social media sites are the main source for the erosion of the once-valued privacy. The erosion has led to a new cultural movement of mass publicity. Jurgensen and Ray refer to the aspect of zero sum game. This refers to the idea in that something must lose in order to win. This is relevant in the relationship of publicity and privacy. In order to achieve to publicity there evidently must be the loss of privacy. This is evident issue in the users’ privacy in digital technology. The negative aspect of this relationship is that publicity and privacy are an act of disclosure. This is evident in the privacy policies of Twitter and Facebook. In terms of Facebook, your information is used in order for advertisements to appear on your news feed as suggested posts. This is also an evident issue in Twitter in which your information is able to be release publicly at any point.



The positive aspects to the users’ privacy online are users’ ability to select which information they wish to ‘front stage’ and which information they would rather be left in a ‘dramaturgical’ status. This is evident in the reading that privacy is not secrecy, it is selectively revealing information. This allows other users to understand the identity of other users’ by knowing their interests and common information. Not only is there an identity established, as mentioned in Licklider and Taylor, there is a common interest formed. Jurgensen and Ray’s argument shows that publicity and privacy are co-implicated.  This is evident in their celebrity metaphor in which a celebrity in order to minimize their privacy means it will add their publicity. However there is also the aspect of control to how the information is released in order to maximise their privacy thus showing that privacy is the selectively revelation of information rather than just secrecy.

Jurgensen and Ray’s criticism of privacy takes an alternative approach in looking at the more positive aspect of privacy, noting the dialectal relationship with publicity. However there are still evident negative aspects of digital technology affecting users’ privacy due to differing privacy policy and the theory of zero-sum.


–          Jurgensen, N. & Rey, P. (2012). The Fan Dance: How Privacy Thrives In An Age Of Hyper-Publicity. Institute of Networked Cultures, Amsterdam, 2013

–           Licklider, J.C.R & Taylor, R.W. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Viewed 17th September 2013. Reprinted Science and Technology (1968)