Agenda Building and Agenda Setting in Business: Corporate Reputation Attributes

Abstract

Grounded in an agenda-building and agendasetting framework, the current study explored the transfer of salience relationships among public relations materials, news media coverage and online public communications in a business communication context. A total of 2,576 communication messages were analyzed in terms of the dominant business corporation (object), corporate attributes (substantive attributes) and the tone of attributes (affective attributes). Our results showed that the transfer of salience relationships were strongly supported at the second-level among corporate public relations messages, media coverage and consumers' messages online. The salience of corporate attributes has a stronger correlation than the salience of the corporate names among communication messages. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Delapan agenda pembangunan Provinsi NTT tahun 2013-2018 dalam agenda surat kabar

“…Rumusan delapan agenda pembangunan dilatarbelakangi oleh berbagai isu strategis pembangunan yang dikaji secara mendalam, menjadi acuan dalam perencanaan dan pelaksanaan pembangunan. (Cohen, 1963:13, McCombs dan Shaw, 1972 dalam (Kim et al, 2015). Agenda setting oleh ketiga surat kabar tentang pelaksanaan delapan agenda pembangunan provinsi NTT tidak sekedar mempublikasikan berbagai isu atau realitas tetapi menunjukkan bagaimana eksistensi surat kabar dalam menyikapi jalannya pembangunan di provinsi NTT.…”

Public relations, media coverage, and public opinion in contemporary China: Testing agenda building theory in a social mediated crisis

“…Specifically, the attributes can be examined from the substantive or affective dimension. Substantive attributes such as the personality and policy position of candidates refer to the cognitive characteristics of an object (Kiousis et al, 2015), while affective attributes refer to the emotional characteristics of an object such as the tonality of an issue (i.e., positive, negative or neutral tone) (Carroll & McCombs, 2003). Numerous studies (Curtin, 1999;Kiousis & Strömbäck, 2010;Kiousis et al, 2006Kiousis et al, , 2007Ku et al, 2003) have found that information subsidies influence not just which topics are covered by the media (first-level), but also how these topics are described (secondlevel).…”

“…Such first-level and second-level agenda building theories are mostly applied in democratic societies where interest groups and policy makers reach the public and influence their opinions by building mass media agendas (Berger, 2001;Kim et al, 2015, Kleinnijenhuis, Schultz, Utz, & Oegema, 2013. Democratic conditions for agenda building, however, seem not to be present in the RCSC case given the social and political situations in China.…”

“…Second, this study uses an online context to extend the research that has explicated aspects of agenda-building theory as it relates to traditional news coverage and organizational structure (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007;Ku, Kaid, & Pfau, 2003;Lancendorfer & Lee, 2010). Third, this study proposes a different methodology from existing agenda-building research that has mainly depended on data derived from cross-sectional investigation at a certain point in time (Kim et al, 2015;Rogers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993). As suggested by Conway and Patterson (2008), the self-reported survey data from such studies can be too suggestive or otherwise prone to error.…”

More or less diverse: An assessment of the effect of attention to media salient company types on media agenda diversity in Dutch newspaper coverage between 2007 and 2013

“…Others have used the broader concept of ‘agenda building’, or ‘media agenda setting’ ( Denham, 2010 ), to study how media select and emphasize some organizations and/or issues over others, thereby mainly focusing on the impact of public relations on the news (e.g. Kim et al, 2015 ; Kiousis et al, 2007 ; Moon and Hyun, 2014 ; Ragas et al, 2011 ). A particular relevant research avenue that remains unexplored by these ‘agenda scholars’ interested in organizations is that of media agenda diversity.…”