Yes... I agree.
Can I add evaluation. It is how we learn what and how we did and how we can do it better. It applies to each of your elements.
Hi David,
Thanks for your comment! So do you mean incorporating "evaluation" as part of each phase? The point would be that before an organization would move from one phase to the next they would evaluate what they learned from the current phase to determin whether or not they want to move on to the next phase?
This makes sense and is a valuable contribution. Of course it assumes that organizational decision-makers are rational beings who deliberate and make conscious decisions (often times I think our decisions are far less rational and that rationality is what we construct when we account for our actions to others, often retrospectively). But your point is a valid one, thanks!
Walter
Hi Walter
Yes, I think monitoring and evaluation should be like the words in Blackpool Rock (candy) it should be part of the elemental DNA of new media management.
I am attempting to put together a Masters Planning and Management course right now (using the blog/podcast/wiki combination that I am experineting with on this blog). This means that I have to resovle the issue.
The existing models (Gregory, Grunig and Hunt, Cutlip, Center and Broom etc) are OK but they do not have the evaluation element in each phase and at every pass.
I take your point about reporting and my thinking goes along these lines - we are answerable 24/7 to the Internet Commons first and our masters second unless we want the whole pack of cards to collapse.
Question - is PR being disintermediated by this or is organisational managment? I have argued that Coarse is wrong and that an organisation is the nexus of relationships which is why I am reasonably comforable with the idea.
As an argument it needs articulating and some case studies are needed.
Good news! When I read your six steps I made an automatic connection to a very traditional brand adoption model:
Discovery
Awareness
Trial
Retrial
Repeat (pattern of regular use)
Adoption
Nicely, it too has six steps. There is an alternate brand adoption model that I also found relevant:
Availability
Trial
Retrial
Repeat
Adoption
Recommendation
again, 6 steps.
Finally, there is a communication & understand model I found relevant and, possibly, a bit contracdictory to your comments about how an organization can move/jump through the 6 steps in your model. At its generic level, this third model says that one can move just one stop at a time through this process (I may not have the precise words, but the process is whole):
Unaware
Aware
Understand
Appreciate
Adopt
Endorse
and...again...6 steps.
To summarize, I think you have the right steps [and, certainly, the right number of steps 
], but perhaps it requires more sequential, linear movement?
Hi Stuart,
Sorry it's taken me so long for my reply to your blog comment... you mentioned other six-stage models that have a linear, sequential path through the stages. Most research on stage or phase models find that, in reality, people rarely go through the phases in a linear order and more often take multiple paths, skipping some stages or cycling back through other stages multiple times. You can read more about this in critiques of the "hierarchy of effects model" [http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/
99_spring/theory/huey/Theory/hierarch.htm]
Another critique of these linear models is that they imply an end point that is more desired than others, when in reality that endpoint may not always be appropriate. For example, it might not be appropriate for all companies to "respond" or "join in" the conversation about certain topics with certain audiences (it may be perceived as invasive, for example, or "neglect" may be a better strategy if the conversation if the goals of some parties is never to have a constructive dialogue).
So I think I need more flexibility that would allow for a company to be at diffrent phases of the model for certain product categories or business units, or for certain topics of discussion, and can have different response options at various times.
If I represented the model as below then it would be in the order of greater levels of involvement and then companies could take different actions to specific issues as they come up and after they evaluate their options for action (Indifference/Neglect, Responding, Type of Response, etc.) and learning:
Oblivious --> Monitoring --> Listening --> Joining In (Evaluation of Appropriate Action & Learning for each phase)
This still needs to be fleshed out and illustrated with multiple cases but thanks for helping to move it forward!
(And thanks to David Phillips' comment for suggesting to add in the evaluation component at each phase).
The good thing about your information is that it is explicit enough for students to grasp. Thanks for your efforts in spreading academic knowledge. Regards.
good blog
i fond this subject is very use full
Commenting by HaloScan
