the world wide web as a public relations medium: the use of research, planning, and evaluation in...

Candace Whiteand NiranjanRaman

The World Wide Webas a Public RelationsMedium: The Use ofResearch, Planning,and Evaluation in WebSite DevelopmentABSTRACT: The World Wide Web is viewed as a desirablemedium for public relations by many organizations. Given theevolving nature of the Web and the mixed findings about com-mercial successes of Web sites, little is known about the manage-rial aspects of Web site research, planning, and evaluation. Thisstudy found that, in many cases, Web site planning is done by trialand error based on subjective knowledge and intuition, with littleor no formal research and evaluation.

Interviews with persons responsible for making Web sitedecisions for organizations revealed that competition and thedesire to establish an Internet presence were the driving forces indeciding to develop a Web site. Very little research about presenteffectiveness is done, but there is a strong belief that Web sitecommunication will be increasingly important in the future.

Candace White is assistant professor of public relations inthe School of Journalism at The University of Tennessee in Knox-ville. Niranjan Raman works for The Burke Institute in Cincin-nati, Ohio.

The research was funded by a Professional Development Grant from The University ofTennessee.

Public Relations Review, 25(4):405–419 Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

405Winter 1999

The World Wide Web can be considered the first publicrelations mass medium in that it allows managed communication to flow directlybetween organizations and mass audiences without the gatekeeping function ofother mass media; content is not filtered by journalists and editors. The Web in thissense is the first controlled mass medium. Wilcox and Nolte define a controlledmedium as one in which the sender of the message has control over the contentthat reaches the receiver.1 Traditionally in public relations, controlled messages aresent through newsletters, annual reports, and other vehicles written by communi-cation professionals in an organization. Before the advent of the World Wide Web,advertising was the only means to send a controlled message to a mass audiencethrough a mass medium. Indeed, Edelman Public Relations Worldwide touts theWeb as an ideal public relations medium.2 It is a unique medium that affords newopportunities for organizations to reach and interact with stakeholders.

To date, academic research has focused on the anticipated or potentialefficiency effects of Internet technology. Businesses use the Web for not onlyadvertising and marketing activities, but also to obtain feedback and improvepublic relations.3 Alba et al. theorized how electronic marketplaces might functionand explore consumers’, retailers’, and manufacturers’ motivations for playing anactive role in such environments.4 Johnson notes that public relations practitionersuse the Web to facilitate media relations, for employee communication, and gov-ernment and investor relations as well as for customer and consumer relations.5

Professional trade journals also focus primarily on the technological capa-bilities. A review of articles from September 1994 to the present in Public RelationsTactics, a newsletter published by the Public Relations Society of America, foundmost articles about the World Wide Web fit into the following categories: design-ing and creating Web sites, media relations (posting and disseminating news re-leases, source-reporter relations, setting up media centers for crisis communica-tion), publicizing web sites, and using the Web (to monitor competition, publicopinion, news sites). Articles about setting up Web sites focused on design con-siderations, links and navigation, and software.

Marken advocates strategic thinking for creating Web sites and calls the Webthe perfect channel for educating, informing, and persuading organizations’ di-verse audiences, but focuses on site design.6 When the term “planning” is used inmost articles about the Web, it refers to planning what the site should look like andwho will maintain it. This perspective does not take into account the needs of theaudience with whom the organization wishes to communicate. In fact, most arti-cles assume there is an audience ready and waiting. However, it must be recognizedthat the audiences for many organizations do not fit the profile of Web users, a factthat is often overlooked particularly by those in corporate and academic settingswhere Web access is common. CommerceNet/Nielsen Media Research reportednearly 23% of about 220 million individuals over the age of 16 in the U.S. andCanada use the Internet. About 37 million individuals, or 17%, are Web users.7

Although this number increases daily, it is still only a small portion of the public ofmost organizations.

The World Wide Web is a unique medium, not only in terms of electronic,

Public Relations Review

406 Vol. 25, No. 4

digital delivery, but because it emerged quickly and changes constantly. The mediahype about the Web has created a gold rush mentality—organizations are rushingto establish an “Internet presence.” Many public relations practitioners who wouldusually not create messages without a researched-based target are rushing to geton-line, and may not be asking the basic questions they would consider when usingtraditional media: what do we wish to accomplish? Whom do we need to reach?

Research, Planning, and Evaluation

The direct link between research, planning and evaluationand achieving effective public relations outcomes is well-documented.8 In a typicalpublic relations planning process, formative research is conducted to define theproblem clearly and to define publics or target markets. Objectives specify a desiredoutcome, identify target audiences, and state an expected level of attainment.9 Thisstep is followed by the formulation of a message strategy and message testingbefore any communication is implemented. Gronstedt advocates an “outside-in”approach to planning that considers the behavioral and communication objectivesof the audience and the “personal media network” for the target audience.10

Evaluative research is conducted after the communication campaign is executed. Asimilar exercise is followed for marketing and advertising. A budgeting exercisethat considers competition, objectives, and resources is conducted, and a mediaplan and creative strategy are mapped out. A mechanism for assessing the effec-tiveness of the program is also planned.11

With the Web becoming an important medium to reach stakeholders, itwould seem apparent that Web site creation would follow a detailed and organizedplanning effort equal to, if not more than, traditional communications planning.Thus, we would expect that Web site creation would entail careful consumerresearch, clear defining of the objectives of the Web site, and ongoing research tocontinuously refine the Web site, given its importance to many organizations.

In practice, however, even when traditional communication channels areused, thorough planning and evaluation processes are not always carried out.Lindenmann found that, even though public relations practitioners believe re-search and evaluation are necessary, most practitioners talk about it more than theyactually do it.12 Also, Hon found that planning and evaluation are often con-strained by lack of resources and by the difficulty of the tasks, even when their valueis acknowledged.13

The current research studies these issues by examining objectives of creatingand 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 siteresearch, planning, and evaluation done by organizations.

Method

A qualitative method was employed in this study becausequalitative approaches are preferable in exploratory research where the goal is to

Research, Planning, and Evaluation in Web Site Development

407Winter 1999

understand a process or phenomenon. Telephone interviews were conducted toexamine actual practices of “Web site decision makers” (WDM). An interviewguide was used, but respondents were allowed to elaborate on each question asmuch as they wished and were probed with additional questions when appropriate.A copy of the interview guide is in the Appendix.

Respondents were selected from a 1997 World Wide Web “yellow page”directory, Web Bound, which is organized by product and service categories. Apool of Web site addresses, which included corporations, small and large busi-nesses, nonprofit organizations, and the Web site of a metropolitan newspaper, wasselected.

Twenty-two WDM were the respondents for this study (Table 1). A WDMwas defined as a manager who has responsibility for planning the content andformat of the Web site (communication manager). In contrast, a Webmastermaintains the Web site (communication technician). In some cases, one personmay assume both these roles. Because the study explores the management func-tions of decision making, presumably based on research and planning, the theo-retical underpinning for choosing respondents was the role concept that definesresponsibilities of public relations practitioners as that of communication managerand communication technician.14 To ensure that respondents in this study wereWDMs, the sample was screened with the following questions: “Who is responsi-ble for decisions involving planning of your Web site?” and “Who maintains theWeb site?”

Telephone interviews were conducted over a 3-week period. The interviewsaveraged 30 min each and were tape-recorded. After 22 interviews were com-pleted, it was apparent that little new information was forthcoming. This is con-sistent with the literature about qualitative research that notes that sample size inqualitative research is less important than repetition of themes among respondentsand that iteration generally occurs somewhere between 8 and 20 interviews.15

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 and doors (12) Wine (36)

Notes: *The number in parentheses refers to the number of months that the site had been on the Web at the time of theinterviews.


408 Vol. 25, No. 4

With the use of inductive qualitative analysis, interview data were analyzedby using a technique that prescribes linking and relating subcategories by denotingconditions, context, strategies, and consequences. The interview tapes were tran-scribed onto note cards, with each note card indicating the name of the Web siteand containing a single idea or unit of information (open coding). Units of infor-mation that were redundant or not relevant to the study were discarded, leavingnearly 200 cards that were sorted into categories through a method of constantcomparison and evaluation of ideas (axial coding). Finally, the categories wereexamined to determine how they related to one another and what central themesor ideas emerged (selective coding; Table 2).16

Categorical Responses to Interview Questions

Because this research explores new ground, an aggregate ofthe responses to the principal interview questions is provided. Understanding thethoughts behind the creation of Web sites in this sample may provide insight intobetter planning and execution of sites in the future.

Decision-Making Process

In almost all the organizations in the study, the decision todevelop a Web site was made by one person, usually the CEO or marketingmanager. Most often this was a result of a personal interest in the Internet on thepart of the WDM. In a few cases, the WDM was approached by a Web developeroutside the company and “sold” on the idea of a Web site. The formal position of

TABLE 2

Analysis of Data

Units of Information Labeled in Open CodingDecision-making processPurpose of Web siteResearch (or lack of)Target marketCost-effectiveness

Emergent themesCompetitionHedge against the futureCreating a presenceStatus symbolImage buildingDynamic, evolutionary processCynical realism


409Winter 1999

the WDM within the organization varied greatly, but no WDM in the sample hadthe term “public relations” in his or her job title.

A frequent factor in the decision-making process was a combination of abelief that the Internet is the way of the future and a fear of being left behind bycompetitors. This can be seen in the following statements:

Why? Peer pressure. It became apparent to us that it was the place to be, theup-and-coming thing.

We thought other people were starting to do this (create Web sites) and weneeded 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 ofbusinesses were going to be going.

One organization made the decision to develop a Web site because “ourcustomers started asking us if we have a Web site.” It is interesting to note this sitehad been operational for the shortest period of time compared to the rest of theWeb sites in the sample (Table 1). This implies that customers expect organizationsto have a Web site by this point in time.

Purpose of Web sites

The most often-stated purposes for a Web site were toprovide information, for advertising and marketing, and for customer communi-cation and feedback (e-mail). One WDM specifically stated that the site was cre-ated for public relations. A few sites were for on-line retailing—two in the samplewere on-line storefronts with no physical facilities—entertainment was mentionedonly twice.

Content of Web sites usually consisted of written or printed material frombrochures, advertising, and/or existing annual and quarterly reports that werealready available. Content was changed when the WDM felt like there was some-thing new to add.

Research

None of WDMs in this sample conducted formal researchbefore launching his or her Web site. Only three were conducting any formalongoing research. Before creating the site, they browsed the Web and looked atother Web sites, read trade magazines about Web sites and software, and talked tofriends and co-workers about what they liked or did not like. Decisions wereusually made based on the WDM’s personal preferences, copying what he or sheliked 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 todescribe 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.


410 Vol. 25, No. 4

Three organizations used brainstorming committees before creating theirsites. Committee members asked one another questions such as, what does aperson need to know to understand us? One of these committees had writtenobjectives that were faxed to the researchers. However, not a single one of the 22organizations conducted research about their consumers regarding the Internetbefore creating his or her organization’s site.

On-going evaluative research was equally informal. The buzzwords herewere: trial and error, work in progress, and ever evolving. Many WDMs realizedthey should be conducting more formalized research, but were uncertain how togo about it. Most measured and/or tracked hits, looked at e-mail to get feedbackfrom customers, and kept an eye on the sites of their competitors. A few made suretheir sites came up on the search engines, making keyword changes, if necessary.Some said they do nothing but modify the sites when something changes in theorganization. Most admitted they do not know whether their sites are effective.Some interesting responses were elicited by the question, “Are you conducting anyon-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 likethat.

Our method is to fly by the seat of the pants and change as needed based onmy perception.

We copy the big guys and look at trends. They’re the ones that spend thebucks on research.

Only three organizations had conducted formal, ongoing research. Oneused an on-line survey; the other two included information that would be usefulfor the Web site on business-wide surveys.

Target Audiences

Most WDMs could identify the target publics of their or-ganization, but admitted they had no way of knowing if they were reaching theiraudience through their Web sites, as is seen in the following response:

We target the corporate pilot with the Internet in his hangar. We have no ideahow many that would be.

Most WDMs said their Web sites were intended to reach “anybody andeverybody,” or “anyone surfing the net,” and “baby boomers.” Three mentionedthat a Web site was the most effective way to reach an international market.

Some target publics seemed incongruent with the profile of typical Webusers. Consider the following descriptions:

We serve rural areas of Alabama. Our population is older, so you won’t find


411Winter 1999

complicated things on our Web site because our customers may not be com-puter literate.

One of the problems is that body builders [this organization’s primary au-dience] are not known to be real computer literate.

Cost-effectiveness

Many WDMs mentioned that Web sites are an economicalmeans to reach customers and an inexpensive way to advertise. Costs of Web sitesvaried. 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 sites were 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 sites were 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. Itis necessary evil until we can get around to putting it the way we want it, thenI 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 thinkwe are going to have more hits. Eventually we will break even, if not make aprofit.

At this point, no. Our goal is that it will be in the future as we update andexpand it. . . at that time it will be cost-effective.

Many of the comments of the 17 WDMs who answered yes to this questionindicated 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 sites were cost-effective, most admittedthey 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 admitmy 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, Ican’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 itsprobably worth it.

Only three WDMs had hard data to show their sites were cost-effective. Onewas an electronic mall (an on-line business), the second a real estate company, andthe third an on-line clearinghouse for retirement communities. The retirement sitehas been linked to 200 other sites, sells banner ads, and charges retirement com-


412 Vol. 25, No. 4

munities a fee to be described on the site. Their profit is not coming from the seniorcitizen consumer, but from marketing to other businesses. It seems apparent thatthe nature of the business is a factor in cost-effectiveness.

Emergent Themes

All units of information, including the responses to thequestions above, responses to other questions, and unsolicited or off-the-subjectcomments were compared and contrasted and sorted into thematic categories.Each theme was given a name.

Competition

There was evidence of competitiveness in almost everyquestion category. Most WDMs said they built sites to stay competitive, as isevident in the following response: “Why? Because other newspapers had one andwe feared electronic competition.” A reference to being competitive, staying aheadof 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.

We wanted to have one because everyone else had one. Our competitionstarted 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 givepeople what they want so they enjoy the experience. We don’t want to fallbehind.

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 frequentlymentioned, was the idea of creating Web sites as a hedge against the future.Although many respondents expressed doubt about reaching their target marketsor turning profits on the Internet at the present time, they still believed this was theway of the future. Some viewed their sites as a “place holder.” One WDM noted,“It’s like entering into the world yellow pages of the future.” Other commentswere

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 reinvent the wheel. It is an up-frontinvestment 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’llhave more people who use the net. It is a hedge against the future.


413Winter 1999

Creating an Internet presence

A more ethereal purpose of Web sites was, in the words ofone respondent, “strictly to have a presence on the Web.” Another said, “Weestablished 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 concretepurposes.

Creating a Web site is like saying I’m going to open a store. You hang out ashingle 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 yearwe’ll probably figure our what we want to do with it.

Web Sites As Status Symbols

Another theme that emerged from the interviews was theconcept that having a Web site was, in a sense, a status symbol for the organization.A Web site was perceived as evidence that an organization has the latest bells andwhistles in technology and serves as a sort of vanity press.

Having a Web site is one of those trendy things corporations do now. You needto 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 beable to say yes, we have a Web site.

Almost everyone has it [a Web site]. It’s hard to meet someone who hasn’tbeen there—on the net.

Image Building

In addition to providing status to an organization, WDMsbelieved their Web sites projected the image they wanted their organizations toportray. A few mentioned they used the sites to position their company as a leaderin all areas, including technology. Others mentioned the use of Web sites for publicrelations and credibility.

We have a theory that if we project an image of being on the leading edge inanything in technology, clients believe you’re on the leading edge of every-thing. Our members want us to be right up there with the best, and if we’re notthere, 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, thatwe have the latest marketing outlet. Sales would be great, but I can’t say we’reaccomplishing 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 theydid was based on intuition and their own assessment of what was working. This is


414 Vol. 25, No. 4

understandable because the technology is rapidly changing and evolving, and triedand true planning tools are not yet available. Another theme throughout theinterviews 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 continuallychanging. It is a mirror image of what goes on inside our firm.

It was designed as a communications tool, but what has happened is peoplelook 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 atthe ground floor.

As mentioned earlier, WDMs believed their sites will be more useful to theirorganization 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 anattempt to make the Web site “work” for the company. Many WDMs were lookingfor ways to make their sites more functional.

We need a working Web site versus an information site. This is the struggle. Itis a live medium, always changing. You always have to work on it.

We provide rates, but want clients to be able to do on-line transactions.We want to put specification and so forth 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 in-terviews. It must be noted that the overwhelming attitude toward the Web was oneof awe—a Web site is a must to have. The interesting thing about the followingcomments is that, in many cases, the comment directly contradicted something therespondent said in a different part of the interview. The comment below is from aWDM who said earlier that his site was cost-effective and that he put it up to becompetitive.

It’s an ego thing. You really don’t need it, and it’s completely useless. It’s justanother medium for advertising.

You can have the greatest Web site in the world, but unless people visit it, it’slike 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’tthink it’s defined. I don’t think they have defined outcome expectations. Idon’t think they have any way of evaluating the results.

I don’t think Internet commerce has taken off like we would have expectedit to by now. I believe it will in the next two to three years. The key will be WebTV. When every household in America has access to the Internet, it will take offlike crazy.


415Winter 1999

The only people making money on the Internet are the people building sitesor people selling sex.

These comments ring true and show that, at some level, WDMs recognizethe weaknesses as well as the strengths of the Internet, even if at this time it isalmost taboo to admit them.

Conclusion

Although qualitative research does not necessarily use apriori theory as a framework, theory building in the area of new technologies isneeded, and the findings of this study can be helpful in beginning that process. Thestudy found evidence that organizations perceive an urgency in creating Web sitesthat supercedes the rational planning process that is often used for traditionalcommunication vehicles. This sense of urgency is understandable because theWorld Wide Web must be reckoned in dog years. The pace of change is so fast that1 year on the Internet is like 7 years in any other medium.17 For most communi-cation technologies, there has been ample time for the innovation to be evaluatedwith reasonable reflection and to deliberate about how they should be used. Thisadds an interesting twist to the classic diffusion model that an innovation is com-municated through certain channels over time among members of a social sys-tem.18 Advances in Internet technology have been so rapid that the “time” ele-ment in the diffusion model has been greatly compressed. It is difficult to study aninnovation that changes faster than it can be adopted, and new models may beneeded to chart this process.

The study found that in the respondents’ haste to take advantage of the Weband to establish an Internet presence, the basic tenets of public relations research,planning, and evaluation are often ignored. Findings indicate that Web site plan-ning is done by trial and error, based on intuition, with little or no formal research.However, in the absence of Web planning tools, it is not surprising that much Website creation is purely experimental.

Nevertheless, the desire to keep up with new communication technologyshould not supersede the rational decision-making process that most organizationswould apply to communication through traditional media. Although the Web hasunprecedented capabilities—asynchroneity, a continuous presence, reach to a massaudience without gatekeeping restraints—and has acquired a mystical and etherealcharacterization, it is, at a very basic level, another communication medium. Aswith any other medium, there need to be objectives and planning for the commu-nication transmitted via Web sites.

The respondents in this study, like most people in the world today, believethat Web sites are the way of the future. They perceive that Web sites are cost-effective, even though they lack support for this belief. A majority claimed theirWeb sites were created before the Web sites of their competitors and most of themsaid they had the first Web site in their product category. What probably happened


416 Vol. 25, No. 4

is they all looked at the Web at about the same time, did not find Web sites for theircompetitors, and built their sites not realizing that the competition was most likelydoing the same thing at the same time. A quick look at Table 1 indicates that manysites in the sample were created between 2 and 3 years ago.

The study found evidence of a copycat phenomenon; that is, the site devel-opers browsed the Web and incorporated on their sites features that they liked onother sites. There seems to be a belief that other organizations were designing andmodifying their sites based on research and that somehow this research was trans-ferable. However, the findings of the study indicate that no one interviewed wasconducting formal research.

It was evident from the study that Web site developers believed that theirWeb sites were perceived by their publics as a mark of quality for their organization.Future research needs to examine whether audiences share these beliefs. To planand build effective Web sites, the audience perspective should be considered.Focus groups with Web users, conjoint analyses using Web site attributes fortrade-offs, or experiments may achieve these goals.

This research paves the way for further inquiry into the management andplanning of Web sites. Considering the roles of web site decision makers, it ap-pears that although the WDM role is, in theory, a managerial role, in practice it isthat of communication technician, concerned with producing the communicationrather than looking at the strategic implications. To create effective Web sites,WDMs should be expert prescribers, using the available tools of research, plan-ning, and evaluation. Otherwise, the contents of Web sites may be less than a badbrochure intended for an ethereal audience who may not even have access to themedium.

Appendix

Interview Guide

1. Note Web site address, contact number, and postal ad-dress.

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 thefirst 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 takeme through your process of making the decision to have a Web site?

4. How long have you had a Web site? What is the primarypurpose of your Web site? What are the objectives of your Web site? How are youensuring that these objectives are being met?

5. What particular audience did you have in mind? Howdo you know that you are reaching this audience?


417Winter 1999

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 tocategorize the content?

7. What research did you do to plan your Web site? Detailson what was done, how, by whom, methodology and so forth.

8. Do any of your competitors have Web sites? Namethem. Did you develop your strategy in competition to theirs? If so, how?

9. How often do you modify/make additions to your Website? 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 tomodify your Web site? Details.

11. Can you tell us how much money (including hiring oroutsourcing of individuals) you are spending on your Web site? Do you feel thatyour Web site is cost-effective? If yes, how so? If not, then why are you continuingto maintain your Web site?

12. Would you say that Web sites are aimed at targetedaudiences or that they are merely created and the target audience selects itself?

13. Is your Web site meant for business to business orbusiness to consumer? Why? How are you ensuring this?

Notes

1. Dennis L. Wilcox and Lawrence W. Nolte, Public Relations Writing and MediaTechniques (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), p. 289.

2. Mark Gleason, “Edelman Sees Niche in Web Public Relations,” Advertising Age 68(January, 20, 1997), p. 30.

3. R. Cross, “Will New Technology Change the Marketing Rules?” Direct Marketing(October, 1994), p. 14.

4. Joseph Alba, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, “Interactive Home Shop-ping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to participate in ElectronicMarketplaces,” Journal of Marketing 61 (July 1997), pp. 38–53.

5. Melissa A. Johnson, “Public Relations and Technology: Practitioner Perspectives,”Journal of Public Relations Research 9 (1997), pp. 213–236.

6. G. A. Marken, “Getting the Most from Your Presence in Cyberspace,” Public Rela-tions Quarterly 40 (1995), pp. 36–37.

7. CommerceNet/Nielsen Media Research, 1997. www.commerce.net/work/pilot/nielson- 96/

8. David M. Dozier and William P. Ehling, “Evaluation of Public Relations Programs:What the Literature Tells Us About Their Effects,” in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excel-lence in Public Relations and Communication Management (New York: Erlbaum,1992), pp. 617–638. See also Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, Using Researchin Public Relations: Applications to Program Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1990).

9. Robert Kendall, Public Relations Campaigns Strategies (New York: Harper Collins,1996), pp. 236–239.


418 Vol. 25, No. 4

10. Anders Gronstedt, “The Role of Research in Public Relations Strategy and Planning,”in C. L. Caywood (ed.), The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & IntegratedCommunications (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), pp. 34–59.

11. Rajeev Batra, John G. Myers, and David A. Aaker, Advertising Management (UpperSaddle, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), pp. 67–70.

12. Walter K. Lindenmann, “Research, Evaluation, and Measurement: A National Per-spective,” Public Relations Review 16 (1990), pp. 3–16.

13. Linda C. Hon, “Demonstrating Effectiveness in Public Relations: Goals, Objectives,and Evaluation,” Journal of Public Relations Research 10 (1998), pp. 103–135.

14. David M. Dozier, “Toward a Reconciliation of ‘Role Conflict’ in Public RelationsResearch,” paper presented to Western Communications Educators Conference,Fullerton, CA, 1983.

15. Grant McCracken, The Long Interview (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,1993), pp. 15–17.

16. Juliet Corbin and Anselm L. Strauss, “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures,Canons, and Evaluative Criteria,” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1990), pp. 3–19.

17. Peter McGrath, “The Web: Infotopia or Marketplace?” Newsweek (January 27,1997), pp. 82–84.

18. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 1983).


419Winter 1999

the world wide web as a public relations medium: the use of research, planning, and evaluation in...

Documents