PUBLIC RELATIONS LECTURE
12/2/99
Description of the Major distinguishable publics of a Park and Recreation Agency
Input Publics
Support Publics - determine allocation of dollars for the facility. They may include: legislators; city council; board of commissioners; foundations; individual or corporate donors; volunteer groups; "friends of the parks" groups; local financial institutions who may be prepared to support revenue bond issues for particular facilities.
Benefits they may seek:
· the satisfaction of contributing to the quality of life in the community by allocating resources to the agency
· meeting commitments which they made to electors/constituents when they were placed in this role of resource provider
· public relations
· increase their own personal stature in the community through having been prominently associated with the project when it reaches fruition
Supplier Publics - contractors sales representatives, equipment suppliers, consultants' services, landowners, transportation services, concessionaire operators.
Benefits they may seek:
· opportunities to sell their products/services
· contribute to an improvement in the quality of their community's life
Employee Publics - the agency's own employees, on whose commitment, skill, and enthusiasm the agency will ultimately be judged.
· enhancement of job security
· increased job satisfaction derived from providing improved client services
Figure 16-7. The possible reaction of different publics to a proposed new recreation or park facility.
Output Publics
Agent Publics - people or organizations perceived to be acting on behalf of the recreation and parks agency, for example, individual commissioners, advisory commissions, the mass media, "friends of the parks" groups. Often the agent publics may also serve as part of the Support Group Constituency.
Benefits they may seek:
· same as those of Support Publics
Consumer Publics - those who directly benefit from the services to be delivered. They may also be termed client publics.
Benefits they may seek:
· the services which they directly receive
Sanctioning Publics
General Public - consists of nonusers as well as users. They provide the tax support base either directly through their vote in bond referendums (in which case they should be viewed as a Support Public) or through more indirect influence on their elected representatives.
· development of amenities is evidence of the agency's contribution to the general well-being of the community.
· non-users benefit indirectly from development of facilities such as parks, since they are a common good in which all share because they lead to an upgrading in the quality of the community.
· there is psychological benefit from knowing a service is available even if it is never used by an individual.
Competitor Publics - the major competitor publics can be readily identified by reference to Figure 3-3 in chapter 3. At the local level, a program may be in direct competition with those at state and federal levels, as well as with competitors in the non-public, home recreation and tourism sectors. Emphasis here is likely to be upon securing passive acceptance rather than upon positive support.
Benefits they may seek:
· compatibility of the program with their own operation; emphasis on the complementary rather than the competitive elements of the project.
· if competitors are seeking only passive acceptance, the agency need only emphasize how it will not hurt them rather than what benefits it will bring to them.
Special Publics - examples would be special interest groups such as conservation organizations, handicapped groups, minority groups, juvenile delinquents, impacted landowners, or residents.
Benefits they may seek (for example, a handicapped group):
· how it will serve needs of the handicapped
· particular features incorporated to accommodate the handicapped
· opportunities for interaction with other groups in the community
Government Publics - permit or grant providing agencies; cooperating agencies, e.g., school board.
Benefits they may seek:
· a superior project which the granting agency can be assured is likely to be successful
· a non-controversial project which is unlikely to subject the cooperating agency to public criticism
· provide the agency with credits and publicity
· save expenditures by jointly sharing costs of development and operation
This generalized example is only illustrative. The particular benefits which constituents in each of the nine publics will seek in exchange for their support will vary according to the composition of the constituent group and the specific nature of the project for which their support is being sought.
The example has used a proposed facility for the purposes of illustration. However the framework of publics would be equally appropriate for a program, event or service.
(Howard & Crompton, 1978)