This month at Search Engine Strategies in Chicago I was on a panel called “Online PR: Where to Next?” Specifically, ten years after the Cluetrain Manifesto, where are we heading? The panel included smart folks like Sally Falkow, Duncan Alney, Andy Beal and Marty Weintraub.
I kicked off the panel with “The Future of Public Relations: What’s Old is New Again” because I felt it was really important in this day and age of online communications that organizations and people understood that public relations (PR) is NOT media relations/blogger relations alone. In fact, that is only 1/7 of the management activities that are associated with PR.
Let’s look at the definition of PR from “Effective Public Relations” by Cutlip, Center and Broom (8th edition, 1999):
“Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and the publics on whom its success or failure depends.”
The key phrase here that has been forgotten during the age of mass marketing and consumerism is “the publics on whom its success or failure depends.” If publics can make or break your business, wouldn’t it be wise to tap into that?
What is PR?
I mentioned above that media relations (i.e. publicity) was only 1/7 of management activities that are associated with PR. So what are all of the PR activities?
- Publicity (non-controlled media placement)
- Advertising (controlled media placement)
- Press Agentry
- Public Affairs (i.e. Community Relations)
- Issues Management
- Lobbying
- Investor Relations
Media/blogger relations equates to “publicity,” not public relations. Most organizations don’t have any issues with getting publicity because they have a well-oiled machine in place. But where they do struggle (or what they’ve forgotten) is the part about establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships.
I bet you are surprised (and probably disagree) with advertising being listed. That’s because the first thing people think of when they hear “advertising” is a way to push products, services, etc. In public relations, advertising is used for things like: announcing recalls, class-action lawsuit settlements, or to provide corrective information that the media or bloggers have not provided to the public. But today, in the online world, a lot of these things can be handled on a website or blog, saving a lot of expense. It really depends on who an organization is trying to reach or what’s been mandated by the government.
The Past Is Still With Us.
The idea of people gathering together or being social isn’t anything new. For ages that’s been the case and it’s not going to change anytime soon. If we look back at the 18th century (and, of course, many centuries before), citizens gathered together and spread the word about their causes, politics or store-owners via word of mouth, pamphlets, and demonstrations. Today, people do the same thing, they’ve just moved online.
How PR Can Work For You In Today’s Online World.
- Stop broadcasting.
- Listen to your publics.
- Be found online.
- Communicate with your publics.
- Partner with your publics.
- Tell your story.
- Get people talking.
- Don’t rely on tools. Rely on people.
Words of Wisdom.
“He that speaks much is much mistaken.” …. Benjamin Franklin (18th Century)
“Learning to speak like a human isn’t a parlor trick.” …. Cluetrain Manifesto (20th Century)
Questions:
- How will you ’speak’ in the 21st Century?
- Will you look at PR differently or will you continue to only focus on the media?
- Will you engage your publics online (and off)?
- Have you always engaged in all aspects of PR?
- Will PR become the frontrunner of marketing?
What else would you add or ask?
P.S. If you haven’t read the Cluetrain Manifesto RUN and pick up a copy soon or read the free online version. You won’t regret it! David Weinberger, co-author, will be joining MarketingProfs as our B2B Forum Keynote Speaker in May 2010 to discuss “What Marketers Are Still Missing: The Power of the New Digital Disorder.”
Tags: cluetrain manifesto, MarketingProfs, PR, Public Relations
I like that you asked the question of how will we speak in the 21st century Beth.
As a recent PR school graduate I was taught that PR should speak (or write) at an 8th grade level so that most people can understand. However, I think that that way of thinking is also shifting as most people move online and form relationships with organizations online. I think that an even more basic way of “speaking” is becoming more acceptable. People are using sites like Twitter which allow only so much space to say what you have to say and people understand that. I think that as long as you know your audience and publics you can speak to them in any way that feels comfortable between both them and you. PR is becoming much more personable like that.
That being said, that won’t work for everything. No one’s going to want to read an official report that looks like it was written through text messages, but again that goes back to knowing the specific audience and writing or speaking at a level that should feel comfortable to all parties involved.
I love the presentation, Beth. Very sharp, very smart!
I believe that Public Relations is evolving toward something more akin to “Community Relations.” I know the word community gets overused a lot, but I mean to use it here as a stand-in for a softer, more relationship-based communications. We all know that people trust their peers for recommendations before they trust the brand, so the community that one belongs to becomes that much more important.
After all, people are being bombarded with so much media on a minute-by-minute basis that they have become expert filterers. Everything that doesn’t mean something to them personally gets filtered out.
With all the clutter and hype, those who speak authentically, in a human voice and back their words with good deeds will prevail. On the reference to Cluetrain Manifesto, a classic, here’s a post from the Gable PR blog with excerpts from Cluetrain on the occasion of its tenth anniversary.
http://bit.ly/4oRyHC
And another excerpt on solutions becoming a problem.
http://bit.ly/7EA3Lu
Happy reading!
As you point out, it’ the “relations” part of public relations that has often lost out to the “being public” part (often by any means necessary). It’s a rare person, and an even rarer company, that can see that relationship building as a balanced effort. So often it’s about “what can you do for me?” rather than” what can I do for you?” (or, even better: “What can we do *together*?”)
So, while the tools will continue to change, the challenge will, I think, remain the same:
How do we keep relationships, in all their varied forms and purposes, at the forefront?
Beth, as always, your post has really got me thinking. In the past couple of years, I’ve come to think of my job as a PR pro being defined completely by conversation and relationships. After reading your post, I think my definition sounds catchy, but I could dig a little deeper.
I spend most of my time on publicity, press agentry, public affairs and issues management. But I also had trouble figuring where you would place managing relationships with your publics — everyday people, influencers and brand fans — outside of the media. Would you consider that publicity too?
The “How PR Can Work For You In Today’s Online World” list is a great one, and No. 3 — Be Found Online – stands out to me the most. People talk about, and with, the brands that are easily accessible online. I am continually surprised by the number of organizations I’ve come in contact with that have yet to move beyond the Web site and maybe a Facebook page.
There is something far worse than people talking about your brand in a negative light — people not talking about your brand at all.
Thanks for the perspective.
Justin Goldsborough
@JGoldsborough
Never once do you mention ethics. And regrettably, you gloss over that fact that even the authors of Cluetrain regret how PR has corrupted the almighty “conversation.”
@AmandaChapel
Beth, thanks for the post.
I see a merging of PR & Marketing, expedited by social media.
@RamiroRoman
What is the source of your list of seven PR activities?
This is most certainly not comprehensive as you state. Where is there any mention of employee relations, or crisis management (different to issues management)?
What about opinion former relations (partciularly those that are outside the other areas – eg celebrities or academics) – or reputation management?
Financial relations is broader than investor relations. PR’s role in respect of consumer or marketing relations is more than publicity. Press agentry is an out-dated term – surely it should be media relations (although that is perhaps a tactic)?
In the UK, we would define public affairs as encompassing government and NGO relations (which is broader than lobbying which is one tactic).
Community relations is one element of corporate (or organisational) responsibility.
Your reference to PR’s role in advertising might be better termed corporate (or organisational) advertising.
Sorry to be picky, but if we are clarifying the wider role of PR – which you relate to a management function, it is important to reflect the broader strategic perspective and not focus on limited scope or tactics.
Beth, great presentation. I think it’s important for people to remember that incorporating online communication should be just one part of the strategy. As companies incorporate “online PR” into their communication toolbox, they shouldn’t lose sight of traditional PR and marketing tactics. As you say, what’s old is new — and some of these “tried and true” tactics remain viable in today’s environment. And, you already know my thoughts on the integration of online and offline PR, marketing, etc. For me, integration is a key element of the future of public relations.
Heather
@prtini
Hi, Beth. It’s been a good while since I’ve dropped by to disagree
I do so in the spirit of expanding the conversation, and knowing you’re a good sport about it.
First, I want to endorse the comments of my colleague from the UK, Heather Yaxley. PR does, indeed, go beyond the items on your list. Yes, it involves all of those things, but there’s more to the story.
As to Ramiro’s point forecasting a merger of PR and marketing, that merger happened long ago in areas where PR’s marketing communication skills are called for — product launches, branding campaigns, etc. And we have all benefited from that integration.
But through it all, PR and marketing remain distinct disciplines. Consider again the areas of practice that Heather points to: public affairs, employee relations, financial relations, etc. Each of these areas focuses on relationships and communication that have little to do with marketing products and brands.
The bullet points you list under “How PR Can Work For You In Today’s Online World” are spot on. But they have all been espoused by the thought leaders in PR since the early 80s, sparked by Grunig & Hunt’s symmetrical model. Those same ideas if symmetry were later reflected in the Cluetrain Manifesto. Useful information, to be sure, but hardly new concepts to the PR world.
For more of my thoughts on Cluetrain and symmetrical PR: http://bit.ly/7B18h1
Amanda raises an important point about ethics. (And I’m hoping we can focus on the idea, not on Amanda.) While ethics isn’t specifically mentioned in the Cutlip and Center definition you cite, ethics is very much a part of the discussion in that chapter. Cutlip and Center both believed “responsible action” to be the foundation of effective public relations. And thanks to social media, many in the marketing community have embraced that same concept. Social media have sparked a lot of cross-disciplinary “conversation” between PR and marketing. We have all benefited from that.
Thanks for hosting the discussion. And thanks to my friend Judi Gombita for linking me to the post.
I really enjoyed the article, Beth. I agree with your points, but believe that it is our clients (or the company we’re working for) that have forgotten (or never knew) what the role of public relations is. Some of the companies I have worked with just want coverage, and aren’t interested in “partnering” or “listening.” A lesson in PR 101 should be required reading for those looking to do PR.
@laceyhaines
Wow! I didn’t know that PR entailed all of that!
I think your presentation and this post (woot!), much like dialogue and debates with you in person (I heard a lot of your dinner table discussions at SXSW ‘09) really break down a discipline into its various concentrations and focal areas. That may sound elementary, but I think that helps illustrate the true complexities of PR, reinforcing the risks with generalizing plans and dismissing real strategic planning involving integration and measurement.
Wish I could have seen you, and heard your preso.
40Deuce, great point about character limits our PR points, thoughts, conversation and messaging needs to be concise and clear. Personally, I don’t buy into the slang that I see a lot of times in text messaging, Twitter and Facebook…I think we can speak without sounding like a 12-year old. If anything, Twitter has really sharpened my writing skills and it has helped with being verbose.
What can I say but… Yep! Agree! And Ditto!
Michael, why thank you. Given that community relations is a part of PR, I’d somewhat agree. I say only somewhat because I think we need to be very careful about trying to replace what we know to be effective or theory with trends or buzz words. For example, I’ve heard “social media replaces marketing,” which we know isn’t true at all. As for trust, I think more organizations would be trusted if they had proper PR efforts in place. Hopefully that’s what the future will bring.
Tom, thanks for popping by and sharing some of your posts! Authenticity is key… and ethics too.
Tamsen, totally agree. I think social media is for the most part forcing us back to our roots for the better. Somewhere along the way we forgot to ask our markets/publics what they wanted/needed and taking that feedback internally. Personally, I think for most organizations it’s going to take a C-Suite that believes in relationships in the first place to move any of this to the forefront.
Justin, I consider that public relations.
Publicity is getting into the media (newspaper, radio interview, TV interview, etc.). As for organizations moving online beyond a website, I don’t think a lot of folks are there just yet. And let’s not kid ourselves, the notion of putting themselves out there isn’t as easy as people make it out to be. There are a lot of internal, corporate politics, legal, HR, and regulation issues to deal with. The other BIG hurdle is for organizations to understand that PR doesn’t equate to publicity alone (why I wrote the post). Once they get that, they’ll broaden their views…
‘Amanda,’ I am with you 1000% on the ethics. You know that. This was a 10 minute presentation and ethics didn’t make the cut. Here’s my rhetorical question for you… Who determines the ethics? Is it PR or C-Level Management? People running the PRSA? PR Practitioners? And what determines good ethics? Who’s philosophy? What is the greater influencer morals? values? religion? culture? What if my ethics are stronger than my management’s? Who is right? Who succumbs?
As for the Cluetrain, with the exception of Doc Searles, I don’t believe the other authors are even PR folks (and I don’t include being a journalist as PR), which, perhaps, underscores my point that most people don’t get what “real” PR is. As for it being a wreck, not sure I agree. Is it a book that is still ahead of its time? Yes, I think so.
Ramiro, yep! I’ve been doing integrated marketing communications since 1994…I don’t know any other way. I think 2010 will be the year for more folks doing IMC and breaking down silos. Social media is definitely helping to point out the weaknesses that silos create.
Heather Y, the source is the book I mention in the post and it’s the one I use for my Intro. to PR class. I also believe it’s the ’study guide’ for the PRSA’s APR… I hope that helps to clarify things.
Crisis management is indeed a part of Issues Management (i.e. mitigation of consequences after the fact). As for press agentry, to me that’s more about celebrity publicity than corporate publicity. I think we do need to separate them a tad, just my personal opinon. As for public affairs, it can be separated into government/public relations and organizational/local community affairs. But for sake of argument, let’s relist what you listed:
Employee relations
Crisis Management
Opinion Former Relations (i.e. influencer relations)
Reputation Management
Financial Relations
Consumer Relations
Marketing Relations
Government Affairs/Relations
Community Relations
And that’s the exact point of my post… PR is NOT Media alone. There are many facets to PR and they aren’t JUST about getting print. That’s why I said what is old is new. I think social media is forcing some organizations to look, hopefully, beyond the media to the people that really matter more…their publics.
As for advertising, I wouldn’t want my PR ads bucketed in with corporate/marketing promotional ads. One, because they aren’t used for selling and two, I’d want to be sure that they fall under my PR plan and budget so that I can track their effectiveness and, of course the ROI.
Thanks for the great addition to the conversation Heather and for the international perspective. Not picky at all! Ever comment will help folks to get beyond what they know and consider other alternatives/opinions/experiences.
Heather W, totally agree…integrated online PR is going to be important in 2010. And being found isn’t about just “pitching” stories, but creating them for online purposes. I know we’re both looking forward to where things head in the next year or two!
Bill, you know me, I love a good debate…especially with you!
I have been doing integrated marketing communications for a long time, and I agree with you…marketing and PR are distinct disciplines. That said, I do believe that doesn’t mean they can’t be integrated in some situations (well, except I wouldn’t want HR folks in marketing… I jest!). My question is why does the word “marketing” leave such a bad taste in PR traditionalist’s mouths? I am in marketing*, but could surely provide some decent council to the HR, Internal Comm, and Financial teams about properly handling messaging and public outreach. Then again, I am not a marketer who thinks marketing is ‘just’ about products and brands.
Totally agree with ‘Amanda’ on the ethics. But like I said, this was a 10 minute presentation, not a semester’s worth.
Lacey, thanks! I couldn’t agree more. I have been the internal PR person who has worked with many a PR agency and management only wanted media. It’s a very rough and lonely road to be the sole voice for ‘real’ PR. For that matter ‘real’ marketing (i.e. marketing 101, ask customers what THEY want/will buy before you build/sell). I think it’s still a long way off before organizations make the realization that PR is necessary, but we’ll get there.
Creative Marketing, now you know!
To your question: “…why does the word ‘marketing’ leave such a bad taste in PR traditionalist’s mouths?” It does not. PR professionals (I can’t speak for “traditionalists,” as most of them I know are out of the business or dead!) are pleased to work with marketing, promotion and branding to help the organization reach its goals marketing goals. We do it all the time.
What rubs me the wrong ways are folks who routinely place PR and marketing under the same umbrella. It’s wrong for all the reasons Heather has outlined.
I’m pleased that marketing has finally discovered the core value of relationship building, as it sets the tone for greater cooperation between the disciplines. Relationships have been part of the PR literature and practice for a good long time, which is why Cluetrain offered me no revelations.
In the end, it’s not a “turf” thing with me. But I do fear that public relations activities may someday be measured ONLY by how many widgets they sell. Like it or not, PR activities can’t always be quantified with unit counts. Our measures have always been a little squishy.
Beth, perhaps the term “public” relations needs to change to reflect a more targeted approach. As we move away from one-sided, publicly broadcast messaging to dialogging with our different market segments, we are fostering relationships according to their interests and needs.
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
Hey Beth – nice post and PPT. You’re right – the P in PR needs to be ‘Public’ again… and the skill sets need to change.
It’s an interesting mix. One of the main things to overcome I find is that *everyone* has become hardwired to make PR purely ‘media relations’ – including corporates/brands and their marketing depts (…and agencies have in many respects adapted to fit – in terms of budgets, teams, etc.)
This is an issue. All of the disciplines you list require integration… so it’s not just PR folks who need to change up…
I see another year or more of education ahead before the dots get joined….
As of now, they should really consider a name change because ‘Public’ is not what it was meant to be a few years back.
Bill, to me a ‘traditionalist’ is someone who thinks marketing & PR isn’t integrated…that would be you my friend.
So, I guess we’ll continue to ‘rub’ each other the wrong way. Should make for some interesting conversations in 2010! Also, marketing, promotion, advertising, digital, branding, etc. etc. are also integrated (under IMC). Silos and inside out-thinking (for both PR and marketing) haven’t worked for years.
Valeria Maltoni (Conversation Agent) said it best when it comes to integration: “Apparently, there’s a new generation that can do people relations integrated with marketing… Your arms work well with your legs, with your eyes… people don’t split attention neatly according to artificial categories.”
Regarding marketers, they are another lot that has forgotten their roots. Core relationships with their markets (i.e. people) should always be at the forefront, but alas the “if we build it they will come mentality still lives on.”
As for measurement, I agree with you…public relations can’t always be measured by ‘widgets sold,’ (although I like the word ’squishy’ better) but it takes a marketer who understands that to show management why. A smart integrated marketer knows where the line in the sand is when it comes to a) when/when not to promote, b) how to build a plan that allows for integration and measurement (and what kind of measurement!) c) and how to actively place content that is for certain publics, but not necessarily the media.
For sake of argument, I’d offer this example of smart integration or marketing & PR:
Say I work for a large global chemical company in a small town and our plant is situated on the local river that’s used as a water supply for the town. If I were the VP of Marketing (with PR under my umbrella), I would have quarterly ‘town hall’ meetings with my local community, which includes residents, politicians, employees, environmentalists, firefighters/paramedics, hospital employees, local water authority, etc. etc. I would get to know them all, listen to their concerns and answer their questions (to the best of my ability). So, let’s pretend that one of their obvious concerns is a toxic spill accident of my chemicals into the local river that would affect the drinking water and the land. I’d work with them by having my safety management speak to them and even to take them on tours to show our safety mechanisms. Now, say after a year we keep talking and the suggestion keeps coming up of my company developing a way to ‘chemically’ clean up any spills. I take that information back to our chemists and within another year they design a first of its kind chemical agent that ‘bonds’ to other chemicals in water and dirt to neutralize them. (With me here? NO selling, promoting or branding is going on…). After another year of testing with the local water authority and park authority (i.e. soil) and sharing our results with our local community, we then do some wider market testing. After positive market findings, we release the new product globally with the tagline “Designed by the community to keep all communities safe.” (Just made that up to make a point). At that time I can market a product and generate revenue that came out of a mutually beneficial relationship.
Now, all of this said… do I think investor relations should fall under marketing? No, that’s probably best served under the finance department with a dotted line to marketing (for branding/messaging). Just like I would think IR shouldn’t fall under a PR dept. though… I do think that internal comm or employee communications should fall under marketing, not HR.
Looks like we’ll have a lot to talk about in 2010…because I don’t think the ‘future’ is quite here yet.
Elaine, Albert, not sure I understand your point in changing the word “Public.” What’s happened is people have mistakenly equated “public” to “media” and the media was just one vehicle to get your story out to mass publics. Public relations as an overarching umbrella has always had many segments, but they all work with publics. Just curious, what would you consider as a name change?
Roger, exactly…the skill set (or at least basic understanding of PR) needs to change for both corporations and agencies. Bill mentioned equating PR to ‘widgets sold.’ In this case the widgets have been media placements. Corporate management can say, “we had 100 stories placed equating to saving $500,000 in ad placement, aren’t we brilliant?!” (UGH!) They forget to mention that 50% of the placements are negative and people are chatting negatively online which is leading to their direct mail being thrown out, email marketing ignored and their sales declining. From what I’ve heard from my PR agency buddies is that they are being forced by their clients to solely focus on media relations and placements.
A year or two would be nice, but it might be more like five…
Hi Beth, I like your slideshare presentation.
Agree with you also that broadcasting or rather talking/yelling without listening is and has not been the answer. I love “Don’t rely on Tools, Rely on People” too. That one seems more applicable to today’s online climate where people push technology over people.
Enjoyed the article!
Beth,
Thanks for clarifying over reference to the Cutlip et al text. I haven’t seen the latest 10th edition of this book, but there is a lot of classic information in the earlier texts. However, many others have since developed these further, so we tend to use a range of texts, including the UK book by Tench & Yeomans which is a really great University undergraduate text that supports the discussion here.
I think your chemical company example is interesting, but wass a bit surprised that you suggested a quarterly townhall meeting, which implies talking at a mass audience (as you’d indicated a large mix of attendees). A relationship approach would suggest to me primarily ensuring ongoing discussion with individuals, small groups and, where appropriate, larger gatherings. I also support such relationships being built by relevant people throughout the organisation, with PR as facilitator not gatekeeper.
I wonder also why a marketing objective of launching a new product was seen as the ultimate outcome of your proposed integrated approach – other than that it was used to demonstrate integrated MARKETING communications. I could see a range of corporate outcomes from your example, including the most basic of securing ongoing licence to operate. Most significantly, perhaps, avoiding legislation which could impact on future products.
Of course, all communications should be integrated – in terms of supporting the ultimate objectives of an organisation. I don’t see this as needing to be termed IMC – or should that be IMR (integrated marketing relations)?
The idea really is like the example of a person, that everything an organisation does and says should be consistent. Does that require an “integrated” approach? Not necessarily if that means all part of one function, but it is appropriate if it means ensuring everyone in an organisation is able to communicate consistently and build positive relationships with relevant publics.
Beth,
You have some great stuff in here. I really enjoyed the article. I didn’t give the ethics thing any thought until Amanda raised it in the comments, she may have a point after another review of the post…
I thought it was pretty good overall. thanks
Benin & Promotional Products, Thanks! And yes, ethics are very important… Looks like that should be a post for another day.
Heather, as you know the Cutlip text is older…perhaps it’s time to select another one? Personally, it would be interesting to see PR from a European/UK perspective (i.e. textbook).
The townhall wasn’t meant to be “talking” to a mass audience…it’s a vehicle to bring different people together as a vehicle to “listen” and like you mentioned “facilitate.” I thought that was implied, but will clarify now if it wasn’t. As well, it’s not limited to marketing/PR people. If employees are there, perhaps HR should be too. If local environmentalist groups are there, perhaps chemists should be invited, etc. etc.
Your outcomes would ALL be of importance too… It was just a simple example to make a point. As well, there wasn’t a marketing objective, that was my point. It was an unintended outcome from being involved with publics…it wasn’t a goal or objective (which could be entirely different than the outcome that occurred). Also, I would have also added giving proceeds of sales to local environmental groups or for chemical studies scholarships as another way to give back AND support the local community…I think that’s an aspect that’s really important for local organizations to consider.
I used the term IMC because that’s what I have followed for years [based out of Northwestern University's The Medill School of Journalism and School of Communication -- Don Schultz, Clarke Caywood, et. al.]. I have always done IMC for all the companies I’ve worked for in the past 15 years. Meaning, I’ve never done “just PR” or “just marketing.”
I really like the term “Integrated Marketing Relations.” Because that’s where both marketing and PR should really focus — for the continued reasons you listed …. – and many more I am sure we could think of. Is it time for a new term?
The one thing this conversation points out is the GLOBAL nature of social media and why it’s important to always keep our expanding beyond our own views and experiences.
Speaking of books, a good book to check out, if you haven’t is “Communicating Globally: An Integrated Marketing Approach” by Don Schultz (US) and Phillip J. Kitchen (UK). It’s from 2000, but still applicable, I think, in 2010.
Hmmm, I think if an organization is to be consistent, there does need to be integration (at least internally) because with all the silos and politics that exist, it’s very easy for mixed messages to escape the four walls based on a department’s agenda if someone isn’t ultimately managing it. But, that is based on my personal experience…I haven’t seen it work otherwise.
There has been some nice talk about working together, eliminating silos, integrating, etc., but it is missing a few key underpinnings.
Beth’s assumption seems to be that public relations is in a safe and cosy place under the direction of marketing. In my experience (I know that phrase is overused but it has been 35 years), we are not talking about a marriage of two equivalent partners.
In the vast majority of organizations, there is confusion about the different (yes, different) purposes of PR and marketing — confusion that could lead to losing the increasingly essential elements that public relations has to offer.
Marketing is better known (if not completely understood) in the C-suite: it is taught with more frequency than PR in management schools; it deals with more concrete and shorter-term results that are measured by long-established and easily understood means (sales figures, profit margins)to which PR contributes in a less direct and obvious way. Also, there remains the equation, made by many marketing people, of public relations with publicity exclusively, and (thanks to an added boost from journalists) with a slightly sleazy, “spin” approach.
Nor is this confusion limited to senior executives: most of our stakeholders (e.g. consumers, taxpayers, donors, students, neighbours, patients, shareholders, regulating agencies) are more familiar with marketing than public relations because consumer-product issues have such high visibility and everyday associations.
As a result, when an organization integratess marketing and public relations, the other elements of PR — those listed by Heather Yaxley and the better textbooks — tend to get lost in the shuffle. People focus on what they know, what seems to answer their most immediate needs and what they understand.
For this reason, I see the social media-driven integration as a new challenge in giving those essential elements the attention they need in organizations. In other words, I see it as a risk to any aspects of our profession that do not have to do with publicity. (As an aside: PRSA should consider expanding its list in the APR study guide.)
Unfortunately, a small minority of marketing people have Beth’s attitude. In most cases, having PR under the marketing umbrella is a disaster waiting to happen. Taking the example of the chemical company, most of the relationship building Beth describes is taught in PR more than marketing courses, covered at PR, not marketing conferences, highlighted in PR texts and carried out by PR consultancies. They are relationship management.
The reason PR and not marketing people usually look after this area of activity is hinted at in Heather’s last comment which was inadequately addressed by Beth: public relations people understand and apply communications strategy. For instance, in the chemical company example, all stakeholders — employees, chemists, interest groups, residents, media, etc. — should NOT be in a Town Hall meeting, or any meeting, together. Each should be dealt with separately, privately, on a different timetable, according to their interests and communication habits. Imagine the damage misinformation and hidden agendas from one group could do to relations with any of the others, all publicly, with media watching! And the company’s actions and statements need to be adjusted to the outcomes, not pre-ordained. Let’s not assume the environmental groups would want anything to do with the company’s donations. And how will the “community” feel about being used in a slogan? I am not nit-picking here — these are major, basic issues.
Sorry, Beth: while integrated marketing communications is a wider lens through which to view the corporate-stakeholder world than “just marketing” it is still not wide enough. But I do agree with you that “it’s important to always keep our expanding beyond our own views and experiences”.
Beth – thanks for starting an excellent discussion. I, too, quail at the thought of PR within the purview of marketing.
Marketing has expanded its reach into reputation communication through use of brand/image advertising — Boeing’s TV ads aren’t attempting to drive sales of airliners, but to support some kind of effort to make people feel good about the company (to what end, I’m not sure; investors? Trade unions?)
If marketing fails to drive sales, the CMO gets sacked, and rightly.
PR (or corporate communication, if you will) is, as you aver, more holistic than marketing. It’s multiple segments, each with different objectives. Marketing struggles with internal communication, especially, as it tends to see employees as just another passive receptor of messaging.
The communication functions need to be coordinated — not necessarily integrated formally — and the values and characteristics of the organization cannot war with one another.
There is a fair amount of education that’s needed regarding PR process and potential — I’d like to see PR moved out of Journalism schools and into business schools, but failing that, how about requiring MBAs to take mass communication and public relations coursework.
I often say that marketing would be better served by a chief communication officer — after all, all marketing is communication, but not all communication is marketing.
Elizabeth, Sean, thanks for sharing your thoughts here, it’s appreciated.
As I said above, I have never worked for a company that has ever understood “real” PR (i.e. it’s not just about publicity) and I have always handled PR within a marketing capacity and it’s always worked. While I agree that there are few marketers that “get” PR (let alone integrated marketing), I still stand by integration. Why? Because I have met way too many PR people who don’t understand that PR is more than publicity — just read PR blogs, talk to PR agencies or read PR articles — a lot cycle around publicity. And I haven’t met many PR people that understand the management of business (sorry, but PR SHOULD be held accountable for revenues too …. i.e. turning negative sentiment into positive to effect sales). I also think PR folks need to understand digital/Internet/online communications and marketing…specifically SEO.
Sean, I agree…PR & Communications should be moved out of J-Schools. When my students get to Intro. to PR and Writing for PR they don’t know what a public/private company is, they don’t know what investors are, they don’t know what marketing is, they don’t know how to segment publics, they don’t know what makes people buy, they don’t understand consumer behavior, etc. How can you effectively message or relate to publics without understanding that basic ‘marketing’ information?
I have often heard PR folks say that they are behind their marketing counterparts when it comes to research… Would you agree or disagree?
I also think there is a lot of misunderstanding by PR folks as to what marketing is. Yes, it’s about getting people to buy…but it’s not soley about “internal comm” or “branding.” There’s a heck of a lot more to marketing than that!
The other main reason why I think it should be integrated is because marketers need to learn from true PR pros that marketing needs to start with publics (that’s marketing 101). Marketers have lost touch with the fact that markets won’t buy if you aren’t selling what meets their needs…and there isn’t a fancy, glossy ad in the world that will change that fact. Marketers can also learn the art of two-way communications from PR folks.
“Imagine the damage misinformation and hidden agendas from one group could do to relations with any of the others, all publicly, with media watching!”
Sorry Elizabeth, but this made me chuckle… We are WELL beyond this! The media is bias & shares misinformation daily with the public, people share their opinions online daily (which could be totally misinformed), corporations have been hiding from their publics for decades and thereby make misinformed decisions daily, etc., etc. There is already SO much misinformation floating around I just don’t see a justified reason to NOT bring the publics together and to STOP hiding, spinning, misinforming, etc.
Well, I think there’s a lot of insight here that could lead to 20 more posts!
Happy New Year to you both…you’ve definitely given me even more food for thought here! You’ve even pumped me up even more to really focus on the benefits of integration in 2010.
Beth, I’m guessing the fact that you’ve never worked for a company that “understood real PR” may account for the fact that putting PR under marketing has “always worked”. I don’t see this as neceaarily a good thing.
I’ve been lucky enough to have worked for organizations that did understand, and you might be surprised by what can be accomplished that has a demonstrable positive effect on the bottom line.
I agree with you and Sean that public relations should be moved out of J-schools, because future PR practitioners should be learning more about the language of CFOs, reading financial statements and dealing with investor publics (even if they don’t end up specializing in that area).
However, it doesn’t bother me that they don’t know much about corporate and business affairs or marketing when get into the Intro to PR or Writing for PR courses — but it bothers me greatly if they don’t know it when they graduate!
Marketing started sooner than public relations in research — correct. And PR people are still struggling to convince clients and employers of its importance. Marketing research is better known. I’ve even been asked here at McGill University why we don’t just teach our PR students market research and leave it at that. I’ve explained (and I paraphrase Sean) that while all consumers are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are consumers. That said, the two programs here are working more closely together so we can expose our students to information they all may be missing. The problem is, the marketers don’t seem to know what it is they are missing (for all the reasons I mentioned in my last comment).
Which brings me to your statement that marketers can learn two-way communications from PR folks. This was never more clearly illustrated than in your next point: that my fears about putting all the chemical company’s stakeholders into the same room “made you chuckle”. That scares me. Big time.
I’m not sure what you mean by “well beyond that”, but if it refers to the need to handle touchy public communication issues with care, it sounds analogous to “The planet’s such a mess anyway, why not clean it up by increasing the pollution?”
All the points you make about misinformation are accurate, but there is no way bringing all the publics together will stop it, only make it much worse. Just because the s**t may hit the fan is no reason to throw it there. To continue the metaphor with one example, there are ways of turning the fan down or off long enough to reduce the excrement or detoxify it. I’ve seen it done with very successful outcomes for the organization’s reputation (with consequences for share price, legal costs, etc.) and have participated in projects like that. You may not have read about them because the successful cases don’t get much press — which is the point.
All of which long-windedness brings to me support your point once again: marketing and public relations have a lot to learn from each other; but the learning needs to come before the integration or it will get lost.
Beth,
Excellent post – I particularly like was the difference between PR and publicity. One observation I’d like to make is the most important thing that I have recognized over the past couple years is the importance of crowd sourcing through social networks. News and the topical importance to consumers is now sourced through Twitter… This is an ideal environment to breed the next generation of public relations where the consumer will have greater control over the popularity of products, services and brands based on their overall credibility.
Elizabeth,
Yes, you’d be right. It’s a mighty challenge to educate management that PR doesn’t always equate to media relations (including crisis management!). That said, as a PR practitioner I believe in the integration of marketing & PR and practiced ‘real’ PR as part of integration when approved by management. And education always played a part because some just don’t know that PR is more than media relations. That said, I know of a few jobs where implementing ‘real’ PR landed me at the top of the lay off list. Unfortunately, that’s just reality…or was my reality.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on putting all stakeholders together (yep, I know that all markets are not stakeholders). And that ‘town hall meeting’ where I think people should come together… well by another name, it would be called the Internet. A place where crap does hit the fan — and sometimes often! And a place that has no barriers, walls or silos to help PR folks keep their stakeholders and their messaging to them separate.
*****
Mary,
Great points! Consumers, customers, investors, stakeholders, etc. are all coming together and discussing — in some cases — products, services, brands etc. It’s important for PR folks to be there too!
Today public relations is everywhere you look. When you watch the news, the footage you see while the newscaster speaks is sent from the public relations department of the company.Public relations magazines like the ones distributed to AAA members have become popular tools.Technology means more to public relations than websites and email.
Beth, thanks for the post.
I see a merging of PR & Marketing, expedited by social media.
Sorry to be so late responding to this good post. I’d make a few changes in your list of 7 PR functions. See http://bit.ly/8MJtLg
Public relations (PR) is all about maintaining relations with public. It’s a profession with varying definitions because of its many functions!