Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 552–578 | Cite as

Buying media-savviness? Interest groups as clients of public affairs consultants

  • Juho VesaEmail author
  • Aasa Karimo
Original Article

Abstract

Public relations agencies are on the rise, and studies have shown that also membership-based interest groups use their services. These agencies employ public affairs consultants who help their clients influence public policy, and their use may have important consequences for interest group systems. As we know little about why interest groups use public affairs consultants and what kind of groups use them the most, we surveyed nationwide interest groups in Finland. We argue that groups use consultants especially when they face challenges with their advocacy strategies. The results show that the more important media strategies are in their advocacy work, the more groups use public affairs consultants. Business groups are more likely to use public affairs consultants than other kinds of groups. When groups’ resources are held constant, more recently established groups use more money on consultants than older groups. We conclude that consultant use may deepen existing biases in interest group politics by strengthening the business groups’ position. The results also imply that media strategies have become especially challenging for groups in the current complex media environment.

Keywords

Public affairs Public relations Consultants Membership-based groups Advocacy strategies Media strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant nr. 309934), the Kone Foundation (postdoctoral grant for Vesa), and the Finnish Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities (‘KAMU’ project). We would like to thank Anu Kantola (the principal investigator of the ‘KAMU’ project), Mika Vehka for his assistance in conducting the survey, Helena Blomberg and Christian Kroll for helping to translate the survey into Swedish, the three anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments, and everyone else who helped with the survey, gave us information, or commented on earlier versions of the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allern, S. 2011. PR, politics and democracy. Central European Journal of Communication 1(6): 125–139.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R., J.M. Berry, M. Hojnacki, D.C. Kimball, and B.L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berkhout, J. 2013. Why interest organisations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(2): 227–250.Google Scholar
  4. Beyers, J. 2004. Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.Google Scholar
  5. Binderkrantz, A.S., P.M. Christiansen, and H.H. Pedersen. 2015. Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament and the media. Governance 28(1): 95–112.Google Scholar
  6. Binderkrantz, A.S., and P.M. Christiansen. 2015. From classic to modern corporatism: Interest group representation in Danish public committees in 1975 and 2010. Journal of European Public Policy 22(7): 1022–1039.Google Scholar
  7. Binderkrantz, A.S., and A. Rasmussen. 2015. Comparing the domestic and the EU lobbying context: Perceived agenda-setting influence in the multi-level system of the European union. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 552–569.Google Scholar
  8. Binderkrantz, A.S. 2012. Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over time. European Journal of Political Research 51: 117–139.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01997.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Binderkrantz, A.S. 2005. Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies 53: 694–715.Google Scholar
  10. Blach-Ørsten, M., I. Willig, and L.H. Pedersen. 2017. PR, lobbyism and democracy. Mapping the revolving door in Denmark from 1981 to 2015. Nordicom Review 38(2): 19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanes, I., J. Vidal, M. Draca, and C. Fons-Rosen. 2012. Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review 102(7): 3731–3748.Google Scholar
  12. Chadwick, A. 2013. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chalmers, A., and P. Shotton. 2016. Changing the face of advocacy? Explaining interest organisations’ use of social media strategies. Political Communication 33(3): 374–391.Google Scholar
  14. Christiansen, P.M., A.S. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, T. Svensson, G. Thesen, and P. Öberg. 2010. Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21: 22–40.Google Scholar
  15. Christiansen, P.M. 2012. The usual suspects: Interest group dynamics and representation in Denmark. In The scale of interest organization in democratic politics. Data and Research Methods, ed. D. Halpin and G. Jordan, 161–179. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Collander, K., E. Rämö, and U. Blom. 2017. Finland. In Lobbying in Europe: Public affairs and the lobbying industry in 28 EU countries, ed. A. Bitonti and P. Harris, 131–141. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Culpepper, P. 2011. Quiet politics and business power: Corporate control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, S. 2015. Everywhere and nowhere: Theorising and researching public affairs and lobbying within public relations scholarship. Public Relations Review 41: 615–627.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, A. 2002. Public relations democracy: Politics, public relations and the mass media in Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  20. De Bruycker, I. 2019. Blessing or curse for advocacy? How news media attention helps advocacy groups to achieve their policy goals. Political Communication 36(1): 103–126.Google Scholar
  21. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2013. Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research 52: 660–686.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission 2013 & 2014. Eurobarometer 80–82. November 2013–November 2014. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social.Google Scholar
  23. Finnish Association of Marketing, Technology and Creativity 2013. Markkinointiviestintätoimistojen liiketoiminnan tila 2012 [The state of marketing communication market 2012] Helsinki: MTL.Google Scholar
  24. Flöthe, L., and A. Rasmussen. 2018. Public voices in the heavenly chorus? Group type bias and opinion representation. Journal of European Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1489418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halpin, D.R., and G. Jordan. 2009. Interpreting environments: Interest group response to population ecology pressures. British Journal of Political Science 39: 243–265.Google Scholar
  26. Heylen, F., B. Fraussen, and J. Beyers. 2018. Live to fight another day? Organisational maintenance and mortality anxiety of civil society organisations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47(6): 1249–1270.Google Scholar
  27. Hoffmann, J., A. Steiner, and J. Otfried. 2011. The inimitable outsider: Contracting out public affairs from a consultant’s perspective. Journal of Communication Management 15(1): 23–40.Google Scholar
  28. Hoffmann, J., A. Steiner, and J. Otfried. 2008. Unravelling the muddle of services and clients: Political communication consulting. International Journal of Strategic Communication 2(2): 100–114.Google Scholar
  29. Holyoke, T.T. 2009. Interest group competition and coalition formation. American Journal of Political Science 53: 360–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00375.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Junk, W.M. 2016. Two logics of NGO advocacy: Understanding inside and outside lobbying on EU environmental policies. Journal of European Public Policy. 23(2): 236–254.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1041416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jørgensen, B., and M.C. Paes De Souza. 1994. Fitting Tweedie’s compound Poisson model to insurance claims data. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 1: 69–93.Google Scholar
  32. Kantola, A. 2013. From gardeners to revolutionaries: The rise of liquid ethos in journalism. Journalism 14(5): 606–626.Google Scholar
  33. Kantola, A., and L. Lounasmeri. 2014. Viestinnän ammattilaiset promootioyhteiskunnassa: Aktivisteja ja ajatusjohtajia [Communication professionals in promotional society: Activists and thought leaders]. Media and Viestintä 37(3): 3–21.Google Scholar
  34. Kantola, A. 2016. Cleaning rotten politics, selling exclusive liaisons: Public relations consultants as storytelling professionals between markets and politics. Public Relations Inquiry 5(1): 33–52.Google Scholar
  35. Kitschelt, H. 1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science 16(1): 57–85.Google Scholar
  36. Klüver, H., C. Braun, and J. Beyers. 2015. Legislative lobbying in context: Towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4): 447–461.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kollman, K. 1998. Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kriesi, H., A. Tresch, and M. Jochum. 2007. Going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 48–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005285753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lahusen, C. 2002. Commercial consultancies in the European Union: The shape and structure of professional interest intermediation. Journal of European Public Policy 9(5): 695–714.Google Scholar
  40. Lahusen, C. 2003. Moving into the European orbit. Commercial consultants in the European Union. European Union Politics 4(2): 191–218.Google Scholar
  41. Leech, B., F. Baumgartner, T. La Pira, and N. Semanko. 2005. Drawing lobbyists to Washington: Government activity and the demand for advocacy. Political Research Quarterly 58(1): 19–30.Google Scholar
  42. Lounasmeri, L. 2018. The emergence of PR consultants as part of the Finnish political communication elite. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 26(4): 377–391.Google Scholar
  43. Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 2004. Bias in the heavenly chorus: Interests in society and before government. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(1): 5–29.Google Scholar
  44. Mahoney, C. 2008. Brussels versus the beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mazzoleni, G., and W. Schulz. 1999. ‘Mediatisation’ of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication 16(3): 247–261.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, D., and W. Dinan. 2000. The rise of the PR industry in Britain, 1979–1998. European Journal of Communication 15(1): 5–35.Google Scholar
  47. Öberg, P., and T. Svensson. 2012. Civil society and deliberative democracy: Have voluntary organisations faded from national public politics? Scandinavian Political Studies 35(3): 246–271.Google Scholar
  48. Palm, G., and H. Sandström. 2014. Migration between politics, journalism and PR. Nordicom Review 35: 141–154.Google Scholar
  49. Rasmussen, A., and B.J. Carroll. 2014. Determinants of upper-class dominance in the heavenly chorus: Lessons from European Union online consultations. British Journal of Political Science 44(2): 445–459.Google Scholar
  50. Rommetvedt, H., G. Thesen, P.M. Christiansen, and A.S. Nørgaard. 2013. Coping with corporatism in decline and the revival of parliament: Interest group lobbyism in Denmark and Norway, 1980–2005. Comparative Political Studies 46(4): 457–485.Google Scholar
  51. Schlozman, K.L., and J.T. Tierney. 1983. More of the same: Washington pressure group activity in a decade of change. Journal of Politics 45(2): 351–377.Google Scholar
  52. Schlozman, K.L. 1984. What accent the heavenly chorus? Political equality and the American pressure system. Journal of Politics. 46: 1006–1032.Google Scholar
  53. Strömbäck, J. 2008. Four phases of mediatisation: An analysis of the mediatisation of politics. International Journal of Press/Politics 13(3): 228–246.Google Scholar
  54. Svallfors, S. 2016. Out of the golden cage: PR and the career opportunities of policy professionals. Politics and Policy 44(1): 56–73.Google Scholar
  55. Trapp, L., and B. Laursen. 2017. Inside out: Interest groups’ ‘outside’ media work as a means to manage ‘inside’ lobbying efforts and relationships with politicians. Interest Groups and Advocacy 6(2): 143–160.Google Scholar
  56. Vesa, J., A. Kantola, and A.S. Binderkrantz. 2018a. A stronghold of routine corporatism? The involvement of interest groups in policy making in Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies 41(4): 239–262.Google Scholar
  57. Vesa, J., H. Blomberg, C. Kroll, and P. Van Aelst. 2018b. What politicians look for in the news and how that affects their behavior: A uses and gratifications approach to political agenda setting. International Journal of Communication 12: 4158–4177.Google Scholar
  58. Zhang, Y. 2013. Likelihood-based and Bayesian methods for Tweedie compound Poisson linear mixed models. Statistics and Computing 23(6): 743–757.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations