|
In writing the above headline, I couldn't decide if the statement should be declarative, rhetorical or questioning....
I went with the question only because I am uncertain of the answer. While it is clear to me that public relations (PR) is a form of propaganda (information representing the views of a group of people), which is just another way to spell marketing, much of the business world seems unwilling to accept the premise.
For starters, Public Relations is almost always placed within its own department or within the Communications Department. And those who work the media from their corporate cubicles often seat themselves on a throne adorned with script of a higher calling then the prose emitted from their brothers and sisters in Marketing.
In fact, having grown up as a daily reporter and then worked within a number of communications departments, I think it safe to say that those in PR hold marketers in relatively low esteem. I ask myself why. At the same time, I remind those in PR that the media sees us very much the same as they see those in marketing--tools to spread corporate news and information.
Let's take a simple, 10,000-foot view of the two jobs and their tasks:
1. Both exist to inform and educate
2. Both exist to spread good news and tamp bad
3. Both are at the mercy of the Executive Team, Human Resources and Legal
4. Both are held responsible for increasing sales through messaging
5. Both use the same media to spread their messaging
6. Both tell a similar version of the truth (propaganda)
7. Both use story-telling to grab their audiences
8. Both are rewarded when good news carries the day
9. Both are scolded when bad news carries the day
10. Both get their marching orders from the same sources
11. Both sit on the lower rungs of the corporate ladder
Yet, seldom do PR and Marketing share the same space or work closely with one another. Therefore, employees and customers are subject to mixed and contrary messages.
With that in mind, does anyone else question why public relations, and internal communications, as well, are not seen as marketing tools in every instance? Do we need to create two departments responsible for messaging (not to mention HR's attempts to communicate)? Should PR be a constant and regularly used tool in the Marketing mix?
Just wondering. In my consultancy, PR and Advertising are seen as marketing tools (tactics). It just seems natural. That's why I ask the question. I don't want to be on the wrong side of messaging correctness.
|
Comments
Yep, PR...just like direct marketing, promotion, sales and advertising are all "categories" of marketing (tools too, as you aptly recognize). I can show you the matrix from Phil Kotler in one of my books from business school :-).
And yes, the teams should be working together. What I'm so pleased with is that I'm hired by as many PR firms as I am ad agencies--PR firms see positioning, messaging, targeting as a collaborative marketing effort. Phew!
And it shouldn't go without saying that PR is more vital than ever (Ries & Ries have said this for a decade). But now, with social media, PR is coming front and center as we're truly facing the public, one-on-one, in the blogosphere.
Posted by: CK | 10.06.06
Whatever happened to integrated marketing communication and why do I always have to explain that PR is an integral part of IMC? We only do ourselves a deep disservice by arguing which tactics (usually PR versus advertising) are the most important. The C-suite doesn't care. They just want results, and the best results happen when PR and advertisng work together.
Posted by: Merry Elrick | 10.07.06
CK and Merry:
Thank you for your contributions. I agree that PR is part of Marketing and that integrated communications is a must. (In fact, two weeks ago I had to convince a client that anything less than an integrated plan is not worth pursuing.)
But Merry. If the C-suite doesn't care, why do they create a Communications Department (PR and Internal Communications), a separate Marketing Department, a separate Sales Department, and an HR Department that insists on doing its own communications?
Corporatations and businesses of every size would be better served if communications were under one C-leader instead of four, each fighting for its own precious domain.
Lewis
Posted by: Lewis Green | 10.07.06
Yes, Lewis, I agree 100% that p.r. and all communications should be under one C-leader.
In my 30+ years in the p.r. agency world (including the last 15 with my own firm), I've seen it both ways. But many clients had us all reporting into a top marketing person who was a direct report to the CEO. I've also worked in situations where p.r. had a direct line to the CEO and a dotted-line relationship to marketing.
Whatever the mechanics, it's important that all the marketing functions should be speaking with the same voice, or at least putting the same message out through the various voices of advertising, public relations, customer relations, shareholder relations, etc.
David Reich
Posted by: David Reich | 10.07.06
David,
Thank you for your insights. I think we all are on the same page. I am passionate about alignment, especially within communications, and all too often I see too many voices competing for attention within the same organization, and I don't think that is helpful.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 10.08.06
Lewis, isn't it amazing that in so many organizational structures, there are competing departments, messages, objectives, etc. Doesn't it make one wonder what ever happened to the strategic plan and mission?
Having worked in environments where this tug-of-war is evident, I can only say it's no fun at all. There's absolutely no brand management in a system where differing departments are vying for attention from similar audiences - both internal AND external. How confusing is that?
I always boil marketing down to one simple definition: the discipline of influencing behavior. Sure, your therapist does that, too, but for your own good (hopefully). When marketers convince people to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or wear the latest trend in clothing, whether it becomes them or not, it may not be good for them, but that's our job. The marketing strategy is to influence specific people to make a product or service purchase (unless it's strictly social marketing). The PR and marketing communications are the tactics to reach that objective. So, for the most effective results, you're right - this can only be achieved by employing a wholistic approach between all areas that share in the attempt to influence.
It isn't rocket science, so how come more organizations don't get it? Human nature. We're still just not as evolved as we'd like to believe. In general, humanity is territorial, competitive, greedy and doesn't easily share. Sound like your kids not getting along? :)
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 10.09.06