The second step is the internal recognition that it is the task of communications staff to be aware of the characteristics of target audiences or to undertake research in the event of a segmented "new public" being created.

If this role is understood within the organisation, it will lead to the inclusion of communications practitioners in the planning process. "The planners must balance what they need to communicate to the organisation's environment with attention to the information coming from the environment" (Windahl et al., 1997:87).

Grunig and Hunt (1984) also point out that the ideal position for the public relations function is near the top of the organisation. This position helps provide the flexibility required to keep the trust of the organisation and the external audiences. It follows that such a position would also allow internal publics to understand the importance of the function and to include it in planning. It must be pointed out that communications at the DHCS was a staff function reporting directly to the top, the minister. However, as has been stated above, the communications function was not considered at the early planning stage of the case, when it could have made an important difference.

The author believes that it is the perception of the communications or public relations function internally that has made the difference here. This might be linked to the political function of the minister and the role of the communications staff in aiding the minister in that role. Often difficult policy decisions are made in a department of health and then must be made palatable to the public. The head of communications, Mr. Weseen, was perceived at being good at this function. This may have led department personnel to believe the function of communications staff was to be given something after decisions are made and asked to "sell" or "spin" the policy. This leads to the situation of the case where all decisions of policy and indeed the communications planning itself was complete before the communications staff were asked to be involved.

As stated in the theory chapter, the two-way asymmetric model is believed by the author to be the model which would work best in the situation described in this case. This model acknowledges that the amount of information coming from the organisation is larger and more significant than the amount of information received from the publics and that the power in the relationship rests with the organisation. It also acknowledges that the information coming from an organisation is designed to persuade. Indeed, the investigation of a public is undertaken in the two-way asymmetric model to enable efficient persuasion (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).