Infrastructure (roads, rail, parks, amenities etc) provides extensive benefits for communities. But infrastructure development is not without its sensitivities. Local communities and businesses, politicians and government departments are chief amongst entities with a stake in them. So a great upside in working in a public relations role on infrastructure initiatives is that not only do they leave a valuable legacy with longevity, they also provide an opportunity to apply best practice communication, integrating stakeholder needs and wants and engaging, through communication, large numbers of people.

A further upside of being involved in them is that a job well done engenders increased respect for the public relations discipline. Clearly, this is an intensely rewarding sector to work within.

In this and following posts, I outline a range of public relations strategic, tactical and process delivery elements relevant to a hypothetical infrastructure project, one that is publicly/taxpayer funded and, therefore, overseen by government. In essence, it is a case study, which this blog doesn’t feature anywhere near enough of. Whilst it is an infrastructure-based case study, however, most of the discussion is relevant to any wide-ranging communication strategy.

Approaches to public relations in infrastructure development

There are three approaches that communication regarding the delivery of a public infrastructure project will need to take to achieve the best possible outcome. These are each based on discussions by Grunig and collaborators:

• Information sharing – ‘public information’
• Seeking feedback to help communicate on hot topics – ‘one-way symmetrical’
• Seeking opinions and information that actually contributes to evolving/shaping the project – ‘two-way symmetrical’.

Two-way symmetrical is the best approach to take if securing engagement to gain the best possible outcome for the project is an objective. True engagement will not come purely from ‘telling’ stakeholders what is going to occur, no matter how proactive and transparent this ‘telling’ is. True engagement comes from a conversation that leads to change – no public relations or marketing can camouflage organisational activity that does not include these dimensions, nor position the organisation in the best possible light without it occurring.

There are shades of grey, of course – delivering infrastructure has its engineering, political and funding challenges, after all.

Because of this, and because of other factors, there will also frequently be a need to simply broadcast (public information) content (e.g. safety-related news) and seek feedback and discussion on issues, but the information generated will not lead to change on the organisation’s part (one-way symmetrical). Community forums can be one manifestation of this, whereby no change of infrastructure aspects will be possible, but dialogue can lead to enhanced mutual understanding, empathy and trust.

Certainly, if outcomes like organisational and project advocacy, and the minimisation of barriers to project development, are sought, then two-way symmetrical is the approach most likely to be successful.

Yes, it amounts to short-term pain for long-term gain, but when that long-term gain is based on contributing to a ‘social environment’ in which the project will meet timeline objectives, thus minimising cost blow-outs and also help ensure patronage of the project’s infrastructure outcome – then we are talking a very big gain here.

Steps for communication strategy

The fundamental elements of a communication strategy are determining the following:

• Executive summary
• Situation analysis (including SWOT)
• Research
• Target audiences
• Goal (overarching) and objectives (specific and measurable)
• Key messages
• Strategy
• Tactics
• Budget
• Evaluation

Research as a public relations bedrock

The research will include formal, original market research commissioned by the project. The primary purpose of this research is two-fold:

• Determine the most effective mediums through which to communicate to stakeholders and to deepen understanding of any issues they may have (and/or identify unanticipated issues) in regard to the project
• Test concepts and approaches it is anticipated the strategy might include.

Prior to the formal market research program occurring, however, three further research steps should be undertaken that will inform not just formal research design, but also communication strategy:

• Desktop research (i.e. what is on the internet of use; what can be learnt from any communication literature etc?)
• As it is a government organisation that is managing the project’s implementation, there are sure to be other government entities that have market research relevant to this project’s needs that should be looked out – including post-project analysis that will contribute to the SWOT
• Talking to organisational leadership – especially the leader him or herself – and key stakeholders (e.g. political, media, community) to get their take on the project and its potential opportunities and pitfalls. As one of the key stakeholder groups, the imperatives of relevant political stakeholders will be primary among perspectives considered.

Target audiences for communication ROI

This is a critically important step to take and not as obvious as it may seem. Identifying and prioritising target audiences (which I generally refer to as stakeholders in this discussion), facilitates business objectives being achieved and minimising, if not entirely avoiding, resource waste.

For this sort of initiative, primary target audiences might look like this

• Local community members where the infrastructure is being built
• Relevant politicians from the portfolios/departments from which funding is coming
• Local councils and state/federal politicians based in the local area
• Influencers such as local NGOs, bloggers, union leaders.

Secondary target audiences might look like this:

• Employees
• Local and state/national urban affairs and transport journalists (print and broadcast)
• Relevant union rank and file members.

Market research would assist in refining and prioritising target audiences. I generally view media as a facilitating target audience, rather than a primary one. They are important, but they don’t make decisions and I tend to think there is a fatigue from all sides of the community-political dialectic towards media, which often take a deliberately provocative perspective, inspired by a love of conflict, rather than wishing to provide a balanced view.

The identification of influencers has taken on an added dimension and hence importance in recent times with the emergence of social media. Employees are secondary because whilst they should be an organisation’s most active brand advocates, this is an essentially external facing strategy.

How do you think two-way symmetrical communication can be applied to help organisations achieve best possible communication and stakeholder engagement outcomes? What is your experience in gaining value from market research for communication – have you gained value from it or is it over-rated?

The next post in this six-part series talks about putting the ‘strategy’ into stakeholder interaction.

Whilst I strongly believe that marketing plays a central role in business and that PR can and must support the brand, I also believe that PR and marketing must remain two distinct responsibility centers: PR must not answer to marketing, period. They must work closely together – marketing centered on the brand, PR centered on the relationships. Or, put another way, marketing centered on the consumer and PR centered on the citizen.

These thoughts were initially prompted by Ford Kanzler’s contribution to this blog. To gain a better understanding of his thinking I read his Connecting the Mind and Voice of Business book, from first page to last. I found it interesting, full of practical knowledge and useful for any PR professional.

But I also found what really annoys me at the very start, in these few sentences: «The whole purpose of business is marketing… marketing is, or ought to be, the brains of the outfit…Public relations, an aspect of promotion, is a sophisticated and highly effective way for marketing to express its brand and products’ values to the market.» Clearly, PR is «the voice» behind «the brain».

I’ll come back to the book in a moment but I must now share some of my views.

[This is a guest post by Guy Versailles.*]

PR is NOT marketing

I’ve been in PR-related positions for many decades. There was a time not so long ago when most businesses were entirely focussed on financial profit and did not believe they had to address environmental or social issues. This is not because they were heartless or cynical; most business persons were then, as they are today, respectable citizens; at the time, it was simply the dominant world-view.

Accordingly, marketing was entirely focused on the commercial aspects of business.

The growing concerns about the environmental and social impacts of business, fuelled notably by the spread of the concept of sustainable development, brought about a remarkable change. Today, business people understand the importance for small and large businesses alike to behave as responsible corporate citizens.

During the same period, advertising gradually fell out of favor, becoming more expensive and less effective. Al and Laura Ries have describes this in their seminal book, «The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR». What they suggest is quite simple: advertising does not work any longer but PR does, so let’s use PR to sell our wares.

On a very personal basis, this angered me for two reasons. First, PR has been there all along, going back many decades with a theory and body of knowledge centered on the building of relationships with stakeholders. It has never enjoyed the same favour as marketing has with the C-suite, being seen more often than not as a necessary expense rather than as an investment. But now that the marketing people see value in it, they simply «re-brand» PR as marketing and whatever influence we might have enjoyed before, we now risk losing entirely to their benefit.

Second, the Ries’ 2002 book really got me riled up when they took direct aim at what has always been the central focus of true public relations: to establish and maintain mutual lines of communication between an organization and its publics.

They quote an eminent PR pro: «Public relations is the art of earning and leveraging the trust of an organization’s key stakeholders» and they answer the following: «Come on, guys, you’re not trying out for the part of the in-house guru. You have a job to do, perhaps the most important job in any organization. Building the brand.»

Reading this book, I had the distinct impression that what they had in mind was to roll us back to before the 1950s, when PR in fact could be summarized as «publicity» in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. unpaid advertising). If this is the case, then PR is in jeopardy.

If its primary focus becomes «the brand» instead «the relationship» and if it is under the control of the same people who assume the all-important role of selling the product, then PR in danger of losing its credibility and of being seen as just another sales tool. In other words, if the marketing people simply decide to use PR to replace advertising, then PR will go the same route advertising has and lose credibility.

I have read other books that are more nuanced and that recognize a specific role for PR, if for no other reason that the social media today requires genuine engagement that goes way beyond any traditional means of «pushing the product». Nonetheless, there is always this nagging idea which is presented almost as a self-evident truth: marketing is everything, the rest is accessory.

Acknowledged, this can be considered «radical» but in no way do I intend to be disrespectful of the marketing people. Many exchanges are required to help us better understand how to efficiently work together.

Connecting the mind and voice of business: commenting on the book

I totally agree that businesses exist to sell products and services, that good marketing is essential and that PR can contribute greatly to supporting the brand and to push the product.

But PR is not only «an aspect of promotion». It is not even primarily that, in my mind at least. It is focused primarily on relationships, on understanding the socio-political, as well as the market environments the company – or any other type of organization – must contend with. Marketing PR is a branch of PR, not all of it.

I have great respect with PR people who support the marketing effort, but I have developed other interests in my own career. I have worked in strategic planning, communications management, media relations and crisis communications, in the public affairs, or corporate affairs divisions of many large organizations, tackling problems that have nothing to do with marketing but that can put a company out of business. For instance, securing the «licence to operate» in a world where using natural resources, generating pollution and constructing any kind of new installation are subjected to public approval.

Perhaps it is a question of perspective and culture. Just as in the human brain, rational intelligence, intuition, emotions, must work together well to produce a well-balanced individual, «the brains» of a company is its management team, not any single corporate function, however important it may be. Profitability and sales are paramount, but must be rounded out with proper consideration for everything else that makes a company efficient, from good management of its employees, production and finances, to government and community relations.

This reservation put aside, Ford’s book provides very valuable insight and practical knowledge for marketing people who should understand how PR can work for the brand and for PR people who choose to work in marketing PR. Indeed, much of the advice applies to all types or PR situations and I enjoyed the refresher course:

• identify the defining characteristics of your organization (or product)
• define strategy before choosing tactics
• find the specific media and journalists that are interested and tailor your approach according to their interests.

The book also argues convincingly on the importance for all of management to understand the importance of PR and to get involved personally, as well as on the importance of sustaining the PR effort over time: «Consistency, continuity, credibility.»

As well, Ford’s advice on client-agency relationships is right on and it applies to any type of PR. And, finally, I share with him the importance of putting «PR 2.0» in perspective: technology changes much more rapidly than the human brain. We should not believe we are reinventing the discipline because the social media provides us with new ways of communicating.

Despite the general statements quoted above, Ford often argues convincingly that PR must have a brain of its own, for instance when he argues that PR must «avoid drinking marketing’s Kool-Aid…PR pros have a responsibility to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and ask hard questions.»

As I read on into the book, my original misgivings were overcome by the recognition that we indeed do share the same craft: public relations. But we need to further explore our relationship with marketing.

What is your reaction to Guy’s thoughts and his critique of Ford’s book? Does PR have more importance to commercial organisations than being simply a sales tool? How much does PR actually build up reputation and how important is this in your experience? Is public relations at risk of losing what credibility it has established for itself due to marketing trying to claim its ‘territory’?

*Guy Versailles, APR, has expertise in communications strategy and planning, with a special emphasis on press relations, public affairs, internal communication and crisis management. He has worked in high profile government positions (including the Office of the Premier of Québec), Hydro-Québec and the Solidarity Fund QFL, a major investment fund based in Montreal. He holds a Bachelor of Arts with major in Journalism, has completed a graduate course in «Management and Sustainable Development» and is a past director of Quebec’s foremost association of public relations professionals. He was recently awarded the Yves Saint-Amand Award for Excellence, in recognition for his contribution to the advancement of professional public relations. He is President of strategic communication consultancy, Versailles Communication.

The primary code of ethics I refer to is my own moral compass. In most cases there is a clear right or wrong way to go about business activity. But, of course, that is subjective and dependant on each individual’s own moral perspectives, which will of course (and thankfully) vary.

PR as an industry is not legally bound to a code of ethics, though industry associations such as the Public Relations Institute of Australia, of which I am both a member and supporter, has one and requires its members to apply its principles. The PRIA can’t do much about practitioners that don’t apply it, however, except boot them out of the association.

The ethics of balancing organisational and stakeholder interests

In regard to balancing the interests of all organisational stakeholders, in the real world of business and PR, sometimes there are times when it is appropriate (and there is an opportunity) to look at stakeholders’ interests and sometimes there isn’t.

I always, however, consider if there is, or is likely to be, a need to consider stakeholder needs and wants. And if there is, I definitely counsel an organisation on what these perspectives might be, potentially recommend proactive engagement or market research and, dependant on the results, design appropriate communication and engagement strategies.

This includes prompting the organisation to change the way it goes about its business and/or operations, as well as the way it communicates and engages with its stakeholders.

But getting organisations to consider the interests of others is a long-term game. It doesn’t happen overnight and it almost always involves short-term pain. Motivating organisations to embrace multiple perspectives is one of our profession’s greatest challenges and, as a result, one of our greatest rewards.

PR has a responsibility, and the ability, to incorporate the views of all relevant stakeholders into the way an organisation operates. And as corporations run the world, not governments, it is imperative they take on the broadest possible modes of operating that benefit society as a whole, not just narrowly segmented elements of it.

Where does PR’s loyalty lie?

Because a communicator is employed by an organisation, he or she has first and, arguably, overriding responsibility to them. However, we all live in society and have a broader responsibility, as well. So it’s not a simplistic equation.

Truth and honesty are values I hold in high esteem.

I don’t support the transmission of false messages, though often it is not black and white. If you focus on the positives and not the negatives, to a large degree that is acceptable. But approach life-threatening areas such as cigarette smoking and speeding cars with a gung ho focus on positive messaging and the woods get very murky indeed.

I once worked for an organisation that, whilst it didn’t support cigarettes per se, supported the sale of them because they are a legal product. Now, in many ways this is fair enough. If they are legal, why shouldn’t you be allowed to sell them (bearing in mind the issue of underage smokers etc)?

But, as someone with strong anti-smoking industry views, I never felt comfortable about this specific moral positioning, so I was relieved to stop working for the client. I’ve also refused to work for a gambling organisation and have knocked back opportunities to work directly for a cigarette manufacturer.

I’ve not been asked by an employer to work on an account I considered to be ethically dubious, thank goodness. I have found my personal stances on issues such as gambling to be respected.

On the other hand, I have proudly worked for a nuclear science and technology organisation that, yes, produced nuclear waste that is a danger to the environment. And I’ve worked with organisations that produce coal-fired electricity and have found that morally justifiable as well.

Like I said, we each have our own moral compass and perspectives.

Whether it’s PR or any other industry, if you are asked to work in a field you are not ethically comfortable with, then you really need to get out of there ASAP, financial considerations notwithstanding. If it comes to a choice of earning money whilst detesting yourself for the choice you have made, or the opposite, to me the correct choice is clear.

I have actually left an organisation where I felt the culture was wrong and the reason I felt the culture was wrong was based on ethical issues. I just didn’t like the way the owner of the company treated people and as that person wasn’t going to change, I felt I had no choice but to move on as, by staying there, I would have been implicitly supporting a way of dealing with people I found unacceptable.

What have been your ethical challenges as a public relations professional? Have you been in situations similar to the ones I recount above? Do you consider the ethics of an organisation before and whilst you worked for it? Have you had any successes or frustrations in influencing what you consider the ethical dimensions for organisations you have worked for?

It’s hideous to countenance the possibility that corporate social responsibility has been a passing fashion for public relations, for its diminishing profile in business communication has struck me as both mystifying and disappointing. A new study underlining the impact that CSR has on perceptions of the reliability of a company’s products will hopefully contribute to getting the discipline back on PR’s agenda.

One of the study’s key findings, however, was that organisations that produce high risk-involved products might not experience the benefits of strong CSR associations that organisations with low risk-involved products do. For me, that means resources and energy companies, among others, need to question their assumption that CSR is a reputation ‘cure-all’. This isn’t a reason not to operate in a socially responsible manner, of course, but it could certainly influence organisational strategy.

I mention resources and energy specifically because CSR is a main player in these areas, doubtlessly due to their potential contentiousness. The sectors either feel the need to earn ‘brownie points’ with stakeholders, or they genuinely believe their organisational interests are aligned with societal interests. In either case, they lead the way in the application of CSR and are dragging the broader business sector forward.

This is a wonderful thing, as organisations have a huge influence on society and social well-being, far more than governments in my view. They have, therefore, a responsibility to more than just their shareholders.

Public relations as CSR central

CSR will never be effective if it is bolt-on and not built-in, which is possibly why PR has become sidelined in its evolution. CSR is a culture and operational process; it isn’t a ‘program’ or ‘promotion’, no matter how well meaning, that PR and marketing can spin out into a high profile media campaign or an engaging social media drive.

Of course, PR should very much be an organisational culture-centred discipline, counselling an organisation on how to evolve to meet stakeholder needs. But in some ways it is possible the CSR ‘centre’ within an organisation could be usurping PR in this sense. No doubt studies will materialise that examine this issue.

CSR, relationships and sales

The study this post refers to – Transferring Effects of CSR Strategy on Consumer Responses: The Synergistic Model of Corporate Communications Strategy – was written by Sora Kim and published in the Journal of Public Relations Research (2; 2011).

It examines consumer perceptions towards corporations (using Motorola and Kellogg as case studies) and three corporate communication strategies:

• Corporate ability
• CSR
• What Kim calls a ‘hybrid’ strategy’.

The corporate ability strategy focuses on building awareness of an organisation’s expertise in terms of their products and services. A CSR strategy is, I hope, self-evident (but just in case, it emphasises an organisation’s socially responsible credentials). Kim’s hybrid strategy means both strategies exist and are applied by an organisation in a conscious, intended manner.

Interestingly, but perhaps predictably, Kim notes that despite extensive research on the topic, “research has not reached consensus regarding the consequences of CSR”.

CSR and communication: reputation impact

Some of the study’s key findings include:

• When companies are well known amongst consumers, “a CSR strategy may be more effective in influencing” consumers, positively impacting on perceptions of CSR and corporate ability
• Employing a hybrid strategy is a “safe”, feasible and effective means of undertaking corporate communication
• The above finding should be understood in the context, however, that “a CSR strategy seems to be much more effective” in creating positive consumer sentiment towards an organisation
• Just because an organisation is perceived to have a strong corporate ability (i.e. achieve positive commercial/business outcomes) doesn’t mean stakeholders associate it with a CSR positioning
• When an organisation goes beyond a consumer’s commercial expectations in undertaking CSR activities, consumers are more likely to be satisfied with the organisations, “resulting in positive evaluation” of the organisations.

Kim makes the assertion that, “consumers may feel that a company that is socially responsible and helps society using its own profit would also have a strong ability to make good products…this suggests that there are transferring effects” of perceptions of CSR associations onto the ability to make corporate ability associations – the caveat to this being that both the companies in the study being well known and this could impact on the findings.

Reputation more important than relationships in PR?

In closing a discussion, Kim refers to the interesting notion that PR practitioners may be abandoning what was once the more prevalent commitment to relationship management, practicing instead reputation management. This is an interesting and not so subtle differentiation that is worth exploring. If, indeed, this is the case, then our profession needs to do a serious stocktake of the direction in which we are heading.

Reputation is about, essentially, the surface of an organisation. Relationship goes directly to how organisations and stakeholders interact, how they work with each other. It is very much a behavioural dimension, whereas reputation is more closely aligned with perceptions.

Perceptions don’t buy products. They don’t advocate organisations. They don’t make a difference. Behaviour, on the other hand, can achieve all three of these outcomes.

Which leads to a concluding question. Kim’s study is all about perceptions. Does a stronger perceived CSR capability, I wonder, encourage consumers to buy more of an organisation’s products?

What is your experience, possibly through research your organisation has undertaken or that you are aware of, in CSR influencing reputation, stakeholder relationships and sales? Does your organisation undertake research to help shape its CSR strategy? How much of a role does PR have in CSR in your organisation? Do you think CSR was a PR fad that has now, gulp, had its place taken by social media?

In responding to industry calls for more emphasis on practical skills rather than academic education which I discussed in a previous post, the public relations industry and professional bodies need to be careful that there is not an over-emphasis on practical vocational skills and too little emphasis on producing graduates who know how to think ‘outside the square’, how to question, how to challenge current practices and envision the future, and how to participate in the wider debates and discussions of society.

In addition to two key points I made in my previous post, several further key issues are raised here to show why this broader perspective is important.

[This is a guest post written by Professor Jim Macnamara, an experienced public relations professional and educator.*]

Future-proofing

A key requirement of universities is enabling productive citizens and leaders for the future, not simply churning out entry-level practitioners to satisfy specific industry needs over the next few years. Universities are not in the business of producing industrial cannon-fodder.

The role of universities is not simply to produce commercially productive workers for the industries and professions of today; universities seek to produce graduates who will create the industries and professions of the future.

This requires universities to create learning environments in which graduates gain much more than practical vocational skills in current fields of practice. While giving graduates an applied perspective and incorporating practical skills in all they do, a dedicated focus on practical skills is the province of TAFE and technical courses, on-the-job training, and continuing professional development.

Is a futuristic, broader approach necessary and beneficial? As with the previous questions I have raised and discussed, the answer is ‘you betcha’. Let me give at least three reasons why.

Producing managers, not just technicians

US academic David Dozier and a number of other thinkers have identified a need for public relations practitioners to rise above the communication technician role in organisations to become communication managers and strategists. To gain entry to the ‘boardroom’ and the ‘dominant coalition’, which PR practitioners have long aspired to, they need much more than practical skills at writing, event management and other day-to-day tasks.

Tactics is about practice, strategy requires knowledge

Management and strategy require high-level and broad knowledge, not just practical skills. Peter Drucker famously identified that “doing the right thing is more important than doing the thing right”. In this and numerous similar aphorisms for management, Drucker was not suggesting that doing things well at a practical level is unimportant – clearly it is essential. But he was pointing to the even more fundamental prerequisite for practitioners to know the right thing to do before they set about doing it.

In a related piece of advice, Drucker noted that “there is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all”.

‘Doing things right’ requires practical skills. But ‘doing the right thing’ requires knowledge of the broader social, cultural, political and strategic context of communication and relationships. It requires knowledge based on research, not just practice.

Critical thinking and alternatives

Theoretical knowledge also fosters critical thinking which is a vital element of advancing a field. While critical thinking is often perceived pejoratively as an exercise in negativity or undermining of the field, critical perspectives and alternatives proposed in various competing theories are important for many reasons including:

• They offer alternative ways of thinking and acting
• They help us think ‘outside the square’
• They reduce trial and error which is a downside of practice-based learning
• They help us see things the way others see them, even if we don’t agree
• They identify weakness, contradictions, and areas for improvement and advocate praxis – action to change and improve, to do PR differently.

No industry or profession can claim that it does not need to improve, and certainly not public relations, which faces continuing challenges to its legitimacy and a chorus of criticism in media, politics, and among social reformers.

Critical thinking about public relations is essential to build a better body of public relations knowledge and practices for the future. Critical thinking and exploring alternative ideas are how we challenge ourselves, rethink, reinvent, and re-envision.

Theories allow us to consider alternatives. Even if we do not agree with all of them, theories can be used as lenses to examine issues and extend our minds in the same way that telephoto and macro camera lenses and telescopes extend our eyes.

Just as optical lenses allow us to see things that we cannot see with the naked eye, theories allow us to see things that we cannot see with the naked mind.

Increasing knowledge is the future of PR

Looking ahead, a 2005 study by William Hatherell and Jennifer Bartlett calls for PR academics and practitioners to be “less preoccupied with defensive rhetoric and disciplinary demarcation” and repeating and reinforcing existing practices. Instead, they need to combine the best of today with new ideas and thinking in the social sciences and humanities. That means engaging with a range of theories – let’s just call it knowledge that is advancing every day and shaping our futures.

Where have you found the value of theory in practicing public relations? Has it been of greater value on a strategic or practical/tactical level? Has theory helped shape the way you practice public relations? Are there any theories in particular that come to mind that you have found to be particularly valuable?

*Jim Macnamara, PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media research, which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific media analysis firm which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. Jim can be networked with on his LinkedIn profile and on Twitter @jimmacnamara.

[This post is included, with many other posts, in a free strategic PR report that can be downloaded from this blog by email subscribing to it. The report – Public relations 2011: insights ideas issues – features professional practice-adding value from 10 global PR leaders (and me).]

There is a clear choice in how the team that runs the reputational dimension a crisis is comprised: communication and reputation management can be run either as a stand-alone process or integrated into a team that addresses the crisis’s logistics/operations side making it, therefore, a more holistic approach.

There are benefits to both approaches, but embedding communication/public relations with the logistical/operational side of the crisis wins out according to two leading Australian corporate communication and issues and crisis management professionals.

Integrating communication into holistic crisis management

“My preference is to have a ‘combined’ team dealing with both crisis response and crisis comms,” says Tony Jaques , owner and director of Issue Outcomes.  “The reason is that I feel the alternative sets up a differentiation which is unhelpful.

“I have given this issue quite a lot of thought over time and I feel that a combined team serves to very strongly emphasise that crisis management is a truly cross-functional activity, of which comms is an important part, but not really more important than others.

“I was running an issue management workshop for a client recently on a very strongly legal issue and the question was asked whether there should be a separate legal issues management plan developed. I think the answer to this question is the same.

“There is sometimes value in establishing a ‘sub-team’ for specific purposes, but the core crisis team must retain overall responsibility.

“Does having a separate comms team mean the spokesperson would necessarily be part of the comms team, or would that person be a member of the ‘core’ team? Thinking in terms of responsibility and accountability, I believe best practice becomes almost self-evident.  It is the crisis management team which must be seen to be in charge, including the most senior managers, with a comms sub-group acting only on delegated authority.”

Craig Badings, a director at Cannings, agrees with Tony.  “Definitely merge the two together,” says Craig.

“Why?  Because I have seen too many crises when it becomes clear that the planning was done separately and as a result the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing. This puts the business under enormous pressure.

“The danger of planning them apart is that the operations’ crisis plan focuses on what it thinks is most important – business continuity, with little thought given to the external communication pressures and demands this will place on them and senior management.

“The two have to work seamlessly with very clear responsibilities (e.g. the CEO will likely spend a lot of his/her time dealing with various stakeholders almost in a full-time communications role with little time available for operational issues).  These are the sorts of things that need to be taken into account in the planning so when it does happen the business doesn’t crumble under the pressure.”

The importance of public relations for permission to operate

An operations/business continuity/logistical-focused management of a crisis needs communication for its objectives to be realised to the best possible effect. For instance, when it comes to business continuity it may be necessary to liaise with stakeholders such as industry associations, regulators and business partners (e.g. suppliers, customers etc).

Even if it is not these stakeholders’ communication professionals that business continuity needs to liaise with to ‘fix’ the issue and retain/gain permission to operate, the communication professionals in these organisations will frequently be called upon to handle activities in regard to their own reputation. In this case, clearly there needs to be multiple layers of communication that occur between different stakeholders and it will be a smoother process if public relations is at the heart of the crisis management process.

Permission to operate is important both as a logistical reality with many crises as well as a fairly vivid sub-text when it comes to reputation management.

There may be organisational stakeholders that don’t actually decide if an organisation should be allowed to continue to operate in a official capacity, but they sure as hell influence whether this will actually occur (not to mention influence share price impact, an ability to expand operations, make new acquisitions, attract new and quality employees etc).

You only have to look at the recent (and ongoing) example of chemical company Orica’s PR crisis and the issues it is having with local residents and councils – not to mention the NSW state government that has been giving them a pounding.

Crisis communication: an opportunity for public relations credibility

Enhancing the credibility of public relations may not be a sufficient reason for integrating communication/public relations into a sole crisis management team, but it is certainly a corollary of doing so.

In a crisis situation the importance of communication and reputation management becomes very apparent, even to those most averse to recognising the power of public relations. No CEO is fond of having the organisation he or she runs hammered by the media, politicians and 3^rd party analysts.

Because of this reliance that different vocational disciplines have on public relations, it should help the latter become a stronger part of organisational culture. And to fully leverage both the opportunity that a crisis presents and the power of public relations, a review of what occurred in the crisis is the perfect time for the public relations team to present rationales why it might just be that the organisation needs to evolve for two reasons:

• To better meet the needs of its stakeholders
• To enable the organisation to meet its long-term business objectives.

Do you think that communication/public relations should be incorporated into the core crisis team responsibilities, or be a separate entity? Has the credibility, stature and impact of public relations increased in organisations you have worked in after a crisis? In your experience, has applying a public relations two-way symmetrical communication mindset post-crisis helped your organisation meaningfully evolve?

There is widespread if not universal agreement that education and training are important to advancing a field and helping it gain legitimacy and recognition as a profession. But what is not agreed, and often controversial, is the balance between theory and practical skills. Public relations is no different, with theory often being thought of as esoteric, remote from practice and, even, dangerous.

From 30 years working in public communication practice, I am very familiar with frequent calls for educational institutions to produce graduates with relevant practical skills. My ears resonate with the regular lament that young practitioners “can’t write” and don’t understand day-to-day business practices.

[This is a guest post written by Professor Jim Macnamara, an experienced public relations professional and educator.*]

As Kate Byrne from the University of Canberra reported in a review of the value of academia, a number of research studies confirm perceptions of a theory-practice gap. For instance, studies by Cheng and de Gregario, Okay and Okay, and several others, suggest that both practitioners and academics believe that what is taught and researched in universities does not adequately reflect and meet the needs of professional practice.

In 2010, Brooke Liu and Abbey Levenshus concluded from a study that public relations academics “should be mindful of closing the gap between theory and practice”.

From my many years in practice, I am sympathetic to these demands. But here’s where I am likely to stir up debate and even provoke calls for my public lynching. In recent articles and in a comprehensive 600-page PR text just published (Public Relations Theory, Practices, Critiques, Pearson Australia), I argue that PR practitioners need to know MORE THEORY.

More theory? Macnamara’s lost the plot, sold out – I can hear the disbelieving mumbles.

But let me explain. There are a number of points that need to be made and considered in relation to the alleged theory-practice gap. Here’s two key ones.

What’s theory?

First, we need to understand theory. There is widespread confusion in the community and in even among professionals between theory and the hypothetical. In daily discussion, theories are confused with hypotheses – that is, ideas, hunches, conjecture and unproven notions. The exact opposite is the case. Theories are proven explanations of concepts and processes based on rigorous research and usually testing.

Theory is one of the major forms of knowledge we acquire as humans. Other sources of knowledge include practical experience and tradition – ideas and understandings handed down from generation to generation. Theory does not compete with or replace practical experience and other forms of knowledge – it supplements them.

Do we need theoretical knowledge? You betcha. Let me prove this.

If you were going into hospital for brain surgery, you would want the surgeon to have practical experience – learning from trial and error over many years. But would you want the surgeon to only have practical knowledge? What happens when the surgeon encounters something that he or she has not personally experienced before? You would hope that they have read numerous medical books and journal articles and can draw on the vast knowledge of others that has been documented over many decades. That’s theory.

Theory is not hypotheses, or abstract esoteric notions on little consequence to daily life. It is a body of knowledge discovered by others through rigorous research and testing and documented so it is available for us to draw on. Centuries of knowledge about how humans communicate – or don’t – is documented in texts and courses on psychology, sociology, rhetoric, semiotics, cultural studies, media studies, and so on.

PR practitioners will regularly encounter situations that they have not personally experienced before – particularly younger practitioners. Having practical knowledge of every possible circumstance is simply not possible in today’s fast-changing world – not even for the grey-heads among us. To not avail ourselves of such knowledge is short-sighted and even foolhardy. Lack of respect for and engagement with theoretical knowledge results in practitioners with a limited and sometimes narrow range of knowledge in communication and management.

Debunking myths about PR academia

Second, the claim that PR academics are out of touch with practice is just plain wrong – a myth. Here’s why:

1. Kate Byrne’s 2008 study found that 81% of academics teaching PR in Australia have previously worked as practitioners.
2. At the beginning of 2011, 45 undergraduate and postgraduate courses in public relations at 17 universities in Australia were accredited by the Public Relations Institute of Australia which requires them to meet standards set by the industry.
3. Most of those PR courses include internships as part of their subjects and assessment.
4. A content analysis of 14 widely-used PR texts and reference books conducted in 2010 found that each contained 30-60 pages of case studies – more than the content devoted to theory.
5. Byrne’s study based on interviews with both practitioners and academics found close alignment between the practices and activities most discussed in academic texts and those that practitioners rated as most important.

So much for academics with their heads in the clouds and no clue about practice.

The alleged theory-practice gap in PR education is, to a significant extent, ‘anti-intellectualism’ that raises its heads in all industries and fields and presents a challenge to their professionalisation. For instance:

Anti-intellectualism has been identified in management studies (e.g. a study by Porter & McKibbin, 1988), in management research (e.g. a report by Starkey & Madan, 2001) and in public administration (see Bolton & Stolcis, 2003).

Significantly, all of these fields – as well as law, accountancy and other recognised professions – have progressively accepted the importance of developing and teaching theory as well as practical skills and integrating theory with practice.

In my next and concluding post on this topic, I will give some specific examples of how theoretical knowledge can contribute to strategic thinking and planning and propel PR to the next level.

What do you think of Jim’s primary assertion – that there should be more theory in PR, not less? Do you think there is a culture of anti-intellectualism within public relations practice? Is it any different in public relations to other business disciplines in this regard?

*Jim Macnamara, PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media research, which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific media analysis firm which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. Jim can be networked with on his LinkedIn profile, on Facebook and on Twitter @jimmacnamara.

[This post is included, with many other posts, in a free strategic PR report that can be downloaded from this blog by email subscribing to it. The report – Public relations 2011: insights ideas issues – features professional practice-adding value from 10 global PR leaders (and me).]

There’s a never-ending debate about who’s the leader – PR or marketing – when it comes to getting an organisation on the map. Ford Kanzler argues that marketing is the ‘brains’ of the outfit’. That it provides the direction for all communication. PR is the helpmeet providing the support. If there was no marketing, there would be no organisation. Ford takes this further in saying an organisation’s “essential reason for being is marketing.”

Let’s examine this a little closer: Honda’s essential reason for being is to make cars, Nokia’s to make mobiles, Microsoft’s to make software, Sanitarium’s to make Weetbix … and of course, they don’t want to just make them, they want to sell them.

These companies weren’t set up with their raison d’être being marketing. They were set up to make stuff. Marketing is their tool to sell their stuff and marketing is essential to this end – in fact, it leads when it comes to getting those products on the shelves in the marketplace. And so it should, it’s no coincidence it’s called marketing.

[This is a guest post from New Zealand-based strategic communicator, Helen Slater.*]

But I am skipping forward just a little. Let’s look at what it is we all do. I’ve seen the LinkedIn discussions about public relations and marketing, who does what and their place in the hierarchy. I deliberately use the term communication, because public relations is such a maligned term and many people don’t understand what it is we do.

But while I don’t term myself as a marketer, I do use marketing within what I do. I use advertising too. And social media. I’m not an advertising exec, or a social media strategist. But I am a public relations specialist and communicator.

So where’s PR in the mix?

Part of the problem and what contributes to the confusion, to my mind, is the PR industry simply hasn’t defined with any exactitude what it is we do (I think of the many times the Public Relations Institute of NZ has talked about ‘PR for PR.’)

I had this conversation just the other day, with a CFO telling me that PR is simply media and key messages, while strategy belongs to business strategists and the two are separate functions. Hmmmm. This was a not-for-profit sector, but the person concerned has a commercial background and was drawing on his past experience.

I asked him where he saw marketing – at the head table? No, because according to him, marketing isn’t about high-end strategy either.

Public relations is about relationships (funnily enough). That’s why it’s called public relations. The difficulty is what this means to our various audiences.

Public relations is about developing strong relationships with our stakeholders – staff, consumers, investors, general public and communities, competition, suppliers etc. That’s where reputation and trust is made and lost.

And it is reputation and trust that influences the relationship and therefore the buying decision. As others have said,  public relations is about the long term relationships and sustainability of the business.

If it’s about buying, then marketing leads?

Whether you’re a producer of products (FMCG, manufacturing etc), a provider of services, or a not-for-profit, you have consumers you rely on to invest in your product, service or to donate to your organisation. So therefore, marketing leads surely?

Well, yes, you could say that if sales were only based on people buying into the sales pitch, rather than the package – which is trust in the brand and reputation of the company.

And who develops that brand and reputation? It’s the PR function that develops the strategy to deliver on the promise – typically the promise of an organisation that is socially responsible, a good corporate citizen, a good equal-opportunity employer and which produces darned good product.

Ford argues this all supports the marketing drive and that an organisation’s business objective is typically to earn revenue. Of course it’s about revenue. But if that’s all it is, it’s not going to have longevity in the market these days.

People expect a lot more than that from business leaders. Better to say, one primary objective is to earn revenue. Others might well be to first make the product to spec or provide the service they were set up for in the first place, or in the case of Ford’s Boy Scouts, to help young people become better citizens .

Marketing is one of the means to that end.

Most CEOs are savvy – they know their customers expect much more from them than the drive for sales. CEOs’ business objectives are these days more geared to a sustainable contribution into the community they rely on for their existence. And that corporate social responsibility is driven by public relations and marketing needs to be connected into that.

(Note: I deliberately mentioned Sanitarium before, as an example of an organisation which relies on reputation and trust, and whose primary business objective is to contribute to those in need through its profits from making healthy food – another business objective.)

When I am developing a strategy with my clients, it’s a core business strategy supporting the business goals, to maintain and build trust and reputation. We look at risks and issues, identify perceptions present and desired, decide our objectives and the business actions (including marketing) required to achieve our objectives.

This is public relations: one tent, many occupants.

Ford asserts that marketing and public relations need to play nicely in the sandpit, working hand in hand. He’s right. They’re also playing in the same sandpit. It’s the communication sandpit. When Ford talks about PR reporting to marketing in every organisation he knows, that’s because there is such little understanding in the wider business world of what PR actually does.

Public relations needs PR. And get its own story out there. Then we won’t have the perennial complaint of not being at the top tier, in the C-suite.

What public relations is trying to achieve

PR and marketing are vital components of communication. Rather than fighting over who is supporter and who is driver, let’s reframe it into public relations and marketing specialists working together within communication, each reliant on the other, and the rest of the organisation as a whole, to ensure the organisation’s business objectives are met.

This includes internal communication, community relations, investor relations, branding, marketing, and the myriad of other persuasions of communication. When they’re all in the one communication tent, working as a team, there’s much greater opportunity for the organisation’s voice to be in harmony (even if there’s still some discordant notes within).

I know Craig has a particular position on this idea – which is we will end up with a hybrid trying to address two different agendas – making money vs reputation. I understand and have sympathy with this position. I also figure if you have a lousy reputation, you’re not going to make money.

I’m not necessarily saying public relations, or marketing for that matter, should die and a communication ‘hybrid’ take over their roles. Public relations and marketing are good descriptors.

PR has, however, been drowned in the perception of fringe-flicking chicky-babes in high heels quaffing bubbly at the fashion shows.

PR must define itself properly in a business context and get that message out there (practice what it preaches?). In the process it needs to work alongside and align with marketing – and yes, we all do come under the communication umbrella.

What do you think of the precepts Helen presents? Can’t marketing influence reputation as much as, if not more than, public relations? Is marketing the dominant business discipline in a best-practice organisation, as Ford can be construed as implying?

*Helen Slater is the owner of Strata Communications, a consultancy that provides public relations, marketing and, yes, business communication services. Helen has 25 years’ experience in public sector and corporate communications, radio and print, in a wide variety of sectors including local government, property and real estate, financial services, ports and shipping and health

The glut of information that all of us in western (and many other) societies encounter is making this information on the way to being close to meaningless, with meaning for people have most resonance through behaviour and tangible outcomes, such as products and services. An outcome of this is that unless PR practitioners focus more on outcomes of communication, not communication processes themselves, then we are on the way to making ourselves redundant.

I don’t think when Jim Grunig and colleagues thought up two-way symmetrical communication they would have conceptualised the internet and social media, for instance, nor:

• electronically changing signage at sporting arenas
• signage on bus shelters
• in elevators with further messaging
• incredibly integrated manner in which sponsorship, marketing, public relations and other business disciplines have become so enmeshed.

The opportunities for information provision have accelerated and become more dynamic as technology has advanced. It would be nice to see more of the law of the jungle applied to this growth in ‘media’, but whilst avenues such as print media have had their influence decline, unfortunately the jungle has primarily fostered growth on growth.

The information thicket is evolving into impenetrability.

Of course, and this is encapsulated by younger people as they are born into this battle zone of media and content, we are evolving to cope with, counter and take advantage of the growth in media and content. But the opportunity to engage with and enrich stakeholders is getting slimmer and more slippery all the time.

And whilst communication will always be necessary to discuss attributes of organisations, products and services, without a customisation of all three to the needs and wants of their stakeholders then they are destined to go the way of dinosaurs. Unless, and this is a big unless, those responsible for these big three take an unethical, entirely self-centred approach and do things like engage in lobbying for their own – and their own alone – interests.

Many of us in public relations preach the thought leadership gospel, seeking a higher content ground on which to engage our stakeholders. And it’s a gospel I subscribe to. But even then, thought leadership is hardly thin on the ground. And this blog is an example of being part of the problem – more information!

Quality not quantity in PR communication

Part of the solution is communicating less and doing it better.

This goes to two of the basic precepts of effective public relations, customisation and targeting (underpinned by a third – knowing your audiences through market research). I think we often talk a grand old talk in this regard but mostly we trip over miserably in the walking of it.

Customisation means refining the content of our communication until is suits, as precisely as can be, our target audience. Too often we are happy with a ‘broad embrace’ of content, one that tries to tick too many boxes. This is an ineffective way to gain ROI. It will actually lead to disenchantment and intellectual and emotional ‘calluses’ being formed – scar tissue that builds up barriers to being affected or influenced.

The ‘broad embrace’ thinking applies equally to target audiences. We say that we have a specific target audience in mind, but really we’re happy for more than this audience to receive the information, in the hope it might generate a sale or pique the interest. It’s a real long shot, guys, and once again doomed to deliver dodgy ROI.

So how do we improve our customisation and targeting? Well, market research is your first port of call. And it should frequently be integrated into the communication to help with speedy feedback and ROI. Social media provides plenty of opportunities for this but so do nearly all other forms of communication:

• Who liked your Facebook post?
• How many click throughs/sales occurred through a Facebook or blog post?
• How many comments did you get on your Facebook post/blog?
• After a speaking engagement what did the attendees say about the presentation?

There’s many more, but undertaking thorough, evidence-based market research is the most reliable way of moving forward.

Moral dimensions of communication overload

There is a moral dimension in regard to information overload, too, as well as its customisation, as Kathy Cripps recently implied. Studies have confirmed the negative impact on health of too much information. It is a psychological burden.

We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. We can help people with quality, customised relevant information or we can essentially ‘junk mail’ their brains with clutter.

We can also use meaningful forms or modes of communication, as Kathy also points out, such as images to help facilitate information flow if, of course, the target audience is receptive to and/or prefers receiving information in this manner.

There is a tension, of course, between the information that people want to receive and the information an organisation wants to supply them with – such as the promotion of a new product, for instance. But such is our lot – balancing commercial/organisational interests with stakeholder well-being.

Changing the focus of public relations

It isn’t really changing the focus of public relations as it is meant to be. It is changing the focus of what we in public relations are trying to achieve, a constant refrain of this blog.

The greatest value in public relations resides in its ability to understand the needs, wants, issues and preferences of both the organisation that employs it, as well as organisational stakeholders. We are the boundary spanners. We are the bridge between an organisation and its stakeholders.

Our role is to provide information and counsel to organisations and their stakeholders to assist all parties in being aligned. The most powerful way of doing this is often prompting an organisation to change the way it operates. If we focus more on this dimension of the discipline and less on generating reams of content – no matter how well intended and customised – then our profession will add more meaning to the organisations we work for and the society in which we exist.

Are you up for the challenge?

Do you ever reflect on the impact the abundance of communication we in PR distribute in the context of information overload? Do you think we have a moral responsibility to reduce the amount of information we are responsible for distributing? How can we solve this issue? Where do you think public relations should focus its effort in organisational business life?

A new study on social media, and its use by public professionals in particular, found, “that organisations need, but most currently lack, a social media strategy – an overall framework of objectives, performance indicators and management processes to achieve these, including training, governance, monitoring and measurement.”

The solution to best practice utilisation of social media by organisations is encapsulated in that summary. All we need to do apply – with rigour, creativity and tenacity – all of those elements articulated.

The new study – Social Media Strategy and Governance – gaps, risks and opportunities* – can be viewed through either a positive or negative prism:

• The negative approach can look at a finding that says only two in ten organisations have a social media strategy and declaim that this is a terrible result and a stain on the reputation of those that are responsible for its application
• The positive approach can point to a large number of steps that organisations have taken since the emergence of social media, supported by the salient observation that it is still a field that has, if anything, increased its acceleration and depth of subtlety since its emergence.

What is PR trying to achieve?

Whether taking a negative of positive approach, it is clear that there is a wealth of opportunity to capitalise further on the discipline(s) of social media. And, yes, whilst a core opportunity is to engage more deeply with stakeholders with effective communication, a more profound opportunity is to utilise the interactive and environmental scanning dimensions of social media.

This will help organisations learn more, so they can effectively evolve to meet their stakeholders’ expectations. But, as the study says:

“…most PR and corporate communication practitioners see social media as ‘another marketing and promotion channel’ with less focus on two-way engagement, listening and collaboration. Thus, the unique benefits of Web 2.0-based social media and networks are not being fully realised.”

This goes to the very crux of what we are committed to achieving in public relations, which may well be the topic of another post, but here are my options:

• Communicate organisational messages and information, sensitively and in a targeted manner etc, but that’s it
• Listen to stakeholders and adapt the communication that occurs according to stakeholder needs (content, mechanisms etc)
• Listen to stakeholders and both persuade them to alter their knowledge/perceptions/behaviour as well as providing information to our organisations to alter their knowledge/perceptions/behaviour.

The latter is where I think public relations offers a truly meaningful value to organisations – and, sure, it means short-term pain for long-term gain – and manifest itself as the most business-relevant discipline possible.

Control and capability in social media

One of the themes of the report is the tension between organisations ceding control of communication to their stakeholders by engaging in social media or, and this is pretty funny in many ways, ceding control of their communication to their own employees!

I always thought employees were meant to be an organisation’s number one brand ambassadors. And yet here are organisations still thinking that it’s okay for their employees to engage in BBQ conversations, yet not participate in online versions of BBQ forums, social media. It’s an attitude verging on censorship and repression. Some organisations, or their power-wielding hierarchy, really do think they can withstand the forces of curiosity and individual self-expression.

I guess it can work for a while, but eventually – Libya etc – the walls come crumbling down.

Lack of strategy in PR’s application of social media

The dearth of organisations taking a comprehensively strategic approach to social media – Brian Solis recently bemoaned the absence of direction in social engagement – was made crystal clear through a number of statistics:

• 65% of private or public sector organisations have no specific policies or guidelines in relation to social media use by employees
• 67% of organisations provide no training for employees using social media in relation to work
• Almost half of organisations do not monitor social media regularly
• 36% of organisations do not analyse social media content at all.

This raises the following questions:

• How are employees meant to be excellent advocates (and hence a marketing asset) for their organisations, or even satisfactory ones, without guidance and training?
• How can excellent reputation and brand building occur without being aware of what is being said about an organisation on the behemoth that is social media?
• Do organisations actually believe that social media content/communication/conversations operate in a siloed manner that does not influence other modes of communication?

I would once again point you back to this post’s opening paragraph. Without taking a comprehensively strategic approach to social media, without giving employees the skills and licence to be effective brand advocates and without recognising the power of social media as one of many potentially relevant communication mechanisms, this social media journey will be one beset by more pitfalls and more pain than is necessary.

How developed is your organisation in the strategic application of social media? Are all social media activities integrated across your organisation? Is your social media activity fully integrated into overarching organisational communication strategy? What are the barriers and frustrations you have in applying social media for your organisation? Do you take a positive or negative view of some of the findings discussed here?

Social Media Strategy and Governance – gaps, risks and opportunities was written by Jim Macnamara, Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology, Sydney and Co-director of the Australian Centre of Public Communication.