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.

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 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 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?

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).]

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 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.

However, what’s unfortunately more often the case is marketing being rather clueless about what the business or brand story (competitive differentiation) should be. Then it becomes a case of the tail wagging the dog, where PR needs to lead marketing to effective strategies for being heard in the market place and help drive brand awareness and credibility.

[This is a guest post by Ford Kanzler.*]

If marketing is only focused on “turning a buck”, it’s not being undertaken by very good marketers. They probably ought to move over to working in finance. Those are the ones who just look at numbers and typically have no sense of connecting with customers or any other constituencies, except perhaps for stockholders, who are also quite often just trying to turn a buck as well.

Marketing leads

If an organization is set up to deliver goods and services, then frankly marketing ought to be at the helm. Consider what PR would be doing if there were no Marketing…finding and delivering something for an interested group.

What organizations exist without an aspect of Marketing? What organizations exist that exist solely for the purpose of public relations?

• PR is a service to the organization: it’s the “voice of business”
• An election campaign is marketing a candidate
• A benevolent cause is marketing to potential donors
• Manufacturers are marketing a product.

Consider that reputation, community relations, issues management, internal communication, investor relations and much more are all supporting and sustaining the organization’s or business’ purpose of delivering a goods and services to “customers” or whatever you want to call the recipients.

Cooperation is key

Certainly, I agree that marketing and public relations must work together effectively. PR doesn’t exist in isolation.

However, PR serves the purposes of the organization whose essential reason for being is marketing. I suggest getting upset about who’s directing the show is quite pointless. What’s true is that PR quite often needs to provide communications direction when marketing fails in that area.

Skilled marketers know what needs to be transmitted to their market. Lack of marketing direction doesn’t automatically make PR necessarily ‘in charge’. We’re merely filling an often occurring leadership vacuum.

PR pros shouldn’t get too full of themselves about doing that, even if it’s often a very necessary and valuable role. After all, what are you promoting or communicating about if there’s not a marketing objective?

Effective marketers, now and historically, have a clear vision of what customers want and why and provide PR (and/or marcomms) with the insight and direction needed for communicating well about the organization, products and services.

If PR is also “dedicated to the holistic organization-stakeholder set of relationships, including marketing imperatives,” so much the better. Then both functions are on the same page and things will likely work out a lot better.

Bringing a focus

I prove my value to clients by helping them understand what, how and when they should be communicating about their business. Then I help execute appropriate campaign tactics that carry their story to receptive prospects.

Am I doing PR when I move back up the chain of events to create communications strategy? I don’t think so. I’m doing the work of the marketer who should have figured out how to tell their story before I showed up. Thankfully, lots of businesses haven’t figured that out, so I and other PR pros can help marketers that way. We’re doing marketing so we can do effective PR.

The mind directing the voice

If public relations isn’t a service to marketing, then apparently most companies have it all wrong.

Everywhere I’ve been PR reports to the Marketing VP or Director. If it reports to someone lower on the totem pole than that, it sure isn’t going to be very strategic to the company’s business.

What also enters into today’s PR practice has been labeled corporate social responsibility (CSR).

I suggest strategic-thinking PR pros have long focused on their organizations’ or clients’ social or public responsibilities as critical to protecting the brand’s overall, long-term perceived value.

Were they always listened to? Certainly not and often to the detriment of the business they were counseling. Now we have a name for this traditional aspect of PR, specialists practicing it and books written on it.

However, CSR also must connect with the business objectives and either temper or enhance what the business is planning, doing or not doing. It’s here where there certainly may be potential conflicts between marketing, other groups and PR.

CSR, or PR pros working in that vein, have the opportunity to act as a corporate conscience. When PR pros want to separate their work from marketing and seem to consider PR a higher or loftier calling there’s going to be trouble. Corporate and marketing management will be quickly turned off by PR pros who are not well connected with Marketing’s objectives and strategies.

To Craig’s point that, “organisations are driven by their vision, values and business objectives,” I agree. The last time I checked “business objectives” are definitely about communicating and selling goods, services or an idea, typically to earn revenue. Creating awareness, credibility, preference, willingness to engage and purchase or adopt something from the organization sponsoring the communicating drives revenue.

This is at the heart of PR’s support of the organization’s marketing and sales effort. Creating good will or positive regard or reputation are all intimately connected to business growth or maintenance.

Even organized religions are marketing and publicizing in a range of ways to raise funds or gather members.

I’ve done PR for the Boy Scouts to help grow membership, community support and involvement. It’s all the same game. Yes, the scouts are driven by their ‘vision and values’. However, bringing new scouts and their parents into the fold to grow and maintain the organization is what the organization’s survival is all about.

Not tying PR efforts (objectives, strategies and tactics) to business objectives is, frankly, a sure way of losing your job or your client. Do marketing and public relations need to play well together for best effect? Certainly! Their working hand-in-hand is key.

What did you think of Ford’s assertions? Should public relations always be a service to marketing? Are those PR pros working in a CSR vein taking the opportunity to act as an organisation’s conscience? Even if PR is not working in a CSR-specific (or branded) area, should it still be acting to some degree as an organisation’s conscience?

*Ford Kanzler is a Managing Partner at Marketing/PR Savvy and has extensive experience in both marketing and public relations. His just-published book, Connecting the Mind and Voice of Business, illuminates the ups and downs, and pros and cons, in each discipline cooperating and understanding each area.

Why do you think a well-known global PR firm recently appointed an ex BBC journalist as Chief Content Officer?

[This is a guest post from experienced corporate communicator, Craig Badings.*]

We all know content’s not new. It’s what we’ve been doing for years.  In fact when PR first started in the US, companies employed journalists to write content that looked and sounded the way the company wanted.  So why would I flag something that has been around the PR world forever as one of the biggest changes facing our industry?

Because the rules of the content game have changed dramatically.  First, traditional content development and production required a significant process, budget and distribution, but nowadays you can do it from your mobile phone and include sound, image and video if needed.

Second, the gap between the customer and the company has closed.  Not only is the time of content to market almost immediate but clients and customers can interact with the company in real time with real people – except of course for those wretched voice response calls when you call your telecom provider!

Three words come to mind:  strategic, authentic, storytelling.

Companies can no longer interact with their audiences the way they have in the past.  The days of controlling and owning brand messages are gone.

Today, brands need to engage and interact with their audiences in different ways.

We no longer live in the world of top-down story telling.  Instead we have entered a world where entertaining, authentic and engaging story-telling is what our customers want.

Our content should connect with an audience so they feel inclined to interact, share, comment and most importantly own and believe it.

The PR person of today and tomorrow needs to be a great story teller.  No more corporate speak, no more messaging cow clods, no more, “We’ll tell you what you need to know and don’t ask us questions.”

The way customers search for information these days means we need to deliver a fantastic content experience.  Instead of pitching products and services, our role is to deliver customers knowledge in an entertaining, timely, informative and non-promotional way that helps them make decisions and that enables them to share the content with their consumer friends or B2B colleagues.

First we need to know the customer

But to get this right and in order to deliver great content that hits the right spot we better be sure we clearly define the audience.  We should understand their needs and their issues as well as know where and how they consume content.

Only then can we truly develop a content asset and distribution strategy to reach, educate and inspire them.

Content strategy is long-term

The key is to engage the customer for the long-term.  To do this, as PR practitioners, we will need to measure the impact of our content across various stages of the buying cycle.  Finding and understanding your audience in the first place takes time, effort and resources so why do it if you aren’t in the content game for the long haul.

Our clients must become publishers

Most companies, whether they are consumer or B2B oriented, will need to become publishers.  If not they are missing not only a huge opportunity to engage with their customers but they will lose ground to their competitors.

When someone like Seth Godin says that content marketing is “all the marketing that is left” as PR practitioners we should sit up and take note.

Craig Badings is a director of Sydney-based Cannings Corporate Communications and has his own blog on thought leadership and is the author of the thought leadership guide the experts refer to, Brand Stand: seven steps to thought leadership. He can be networked with via LinkedIn or Twitter.

[This is a guest post by public relations and communication management specialist, Judy Gombita.***]

Helping to flow stakeholders to relevant and useful pools of information about our companies or clients is definitely a worthwhile investment of resources. When monitoring what stakeholders self-select – particularly when they land on and dive into organizational reservoirs of core offerings or knowledge and expertise – opportunities exist to refine and shape the direction and current of corporate story telling (from both a mediated and disintermediated standpoint).

The sustenance and water analogies aren’t a prescriptive diet to abandon traditional PR practices; rather, think of it as adding new dimensions and value as an internal journalist and SEO pro. It’s a natural progression, as the 21^st century PR regime really needs to be looking to the internet as a legitimate outlet for ‘earned media,’ particularly via our own ‘media’ sites. (See my interview with Ira Basen about Engineering Search: The story of the algorithm that changed the world.)

By examining subject choices and phraseology, the focus of PR pros can move from a ‘how’ to attract attention, to a ‘why’ (and about ‘what’) search perspective. And, in assuming the role of internal chronicler, the organizational narrative can then be framed and shaped accordingly.

Support from research

From a strategic PR and marketing perspective, lending credibility to these supplementary-role suggestions are two recent studies:

• Pew Internet ‘Generations Online’ research, succinctly summarized by MarketingProfs
• (In particular) the annual Edelman Trust Barometer (Executive Findings 2011 PDF page numbers referenced below).

Top-line takeaways

What do both studies tell us? No matter what their age, increasingly people[ii] are using the internet to search for information, verified and/or analyzed by subject experts (both externally and internally) and, to a less significant extent (in terms of generations and numbers), to connect directly with organizations.

They are searching for organizational collateral beyond products and services offered. People want to determine if a business is a ‘good’ and humanized one, which can be trusted in the way it treats a variety of stakeholders (e.g. its employees – Trust Barometer, page 26).

Although companies continue to funnel resources into social media, results of the 2011 Trust Barometer suggests the self-collecting of desired information (much of it by way of search engines) remains more prevalent than the ‘two-way symmetrical communications’ (beloved by many in PR) afforded through new media channels (corporate blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc).

And yet, I see some tremendous opportunities to build on early social media efforts (partly by using search), based on the data provided.

Edelman Trust Barometer 2011 news release (January 25, 2010)

“Trust in business may have stabilized globally, but it is different and conditional, premised on what a company does and how it communicates…. Search engines rank No. 1 as the place people go first for information about a company, followed by online news sources and print/broadcast media. Traditional news, in one form or another, rank as the most trusted sources in major markets… (business magazines, radio, television, and newspapers, respectively).” Richard Edelman

Working with the Trust Barometer data

From an organizational PR perspective, following are 2011 data extracts that I see as significant in terms of areas for consideration and future focus.

PR-perspective mashup: internal experts

1. From a strategic corporate perspective, what’s particularly significant in the 2011 findings is that the highest ranked (and new) trusted internal source is ‘Technical expert within the company.’ This information is important, as likely internal experts (e.g. engineering, HR or financial staff) were hitherto under-used in ongoing organizational narratives.

Suggestion: don the internal journalist’s workout gear and start sourcing internal experts and information that might be of interest to stakeholders. (Use existing ‘search’ information gleaned from corporate websites and/or social media channels to influence the nature of the experts and information used.)

2. Given how often PR practitioners make use of the head honcho as the organization’s public face, it’s encouraging to see that the CEO position has increased in perceived trust (by 19 per cent, globally) over two years, regarding credibility.

Perhaps now is the time to push for implementation of (and real commitment to) a corporate blog and/or Twitter account, with at least some of the postings (or tweets) coming from the CEO. The organization’s various ‘technical experts’ could contribute posts, too….

Corporate blogs allow for both disintermediation (i.e. a nimble platform of wholly owned real estate – versus some third-party social media sites, such as Facebook, where your organization is really a sharecropper[iii]) and the humanizing of the organization (from the top down).

It’s prudent to implement disintermediated social media platforms prior to an unforeseen crisis or even before monitoring efforts unearth information searches from stakeholders that use negative terminology. Both potential circumstances should move the ‘do-we-need-a-blog?’ debate onto the critical-priority list, with lightening speed.

3. Although trust in the ‘Regular employee’ rose two per cent, overall the rank-and-file descended to the bottom of the ‘trust’ (or ‘interest’) heap. This undercuts declarations by social media gurus who believe the focus of organizational digital channels should be on ‘regular’ employees.

Rather than rejecting participation in corporate social media channels entirely, involve employees in figuring out what information and stories might be of the greatest interest and through which channels, particularly in regards to age preferences (as per the Pew Internet ‘Generations Online’ research).

Being platform-SEO savvy

As discussed, increasingly the success of organizations being heard or seen in the important online sphere, is dependent upon SEO earned media, whether it be through online news sources (i.e. mediated ‘pick-up’ of your organization’s stories or spokespeople, products or events) or via your corporate real estate (i.e. disintermediated corporate information and narratives).

Note that external journalists use search engines to find the same corporate stories perceived to be of interest (‘Why should this matter to me?’ and ‘How does this impact on our readers/viewers/listeners and what would they find of use and interest?’). Don that same (internal) journalist perspective during the ‘research’ and ‘subject-expert sourcing’ stages, in addition to the actual writing (for website, blog or Twitter) or telling (podcast or video) phases.

Original and valued information, whether on your corporate website (‘11 per cent trusted’), blog or other social media channels, can serve as resources to a traditional journalist researching a story. Third-party endorsement of corporate information (‘earned media’) and online (news) links only adds to your SEO clout.

Case studies of digital communication

Check out PR Conversations interviews with:

• Tom Murphy, of Microsoft, who focuses on the company’s CSR narrative
• Mike Spear*, of Genome Alberta – learn about the GenOmics site, a highly customized Facebook page that serves as a 24-hour science newsroom, collecting stories from around the world and laying them out like a digital magazine
• Andrew Arnold*, of LEGO, who makes use of social media, both for education purposes and to discover ‘brand champion’ communities around the world
• Avril Benoît*, of MSF Canada, who branches out the international NGO’s work onto a variety of platforms, whilst fiercely protecting a correct and sensitive portrayal of both its medical volunteers and the countries and victims served
• James Topham, of War Child Canada, who partners with musicians and pushes the boundaries of social media ‘games’ and depictions in the NGO’s fight for attention.

Is it a coincidence that three* out of five of these remarkably nutritious, fat-free ‘storytelling’ PR practitioners are former journalists? All five appear to have ‘worked up’ a pretty good handle on SEO, too.

***With more than 20 years of experience, primarily in the financial and lifelong learning non-profit sectors (employment, board member or committee), Toronto-based Judy Gombita is an accomplished, internationally well-networked and creative public relations and communication management specialist. In-depth experience includes initiating, planning, budgeting and maintaining integrated communication programs. Her skill set includes resource development, relationship building and reputation management. She values collaborative working environments, where strategy and ingenuity are valued. Judy can be networked with through the PR Conversations blog she co-edits, her LinkedIn profile or on Twitter @jgombita.

[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).]

Thank you to quality graphic design consultant, Pennington & Co, for its assistance with graphic elements of this post – CP.

[ii] Edelman Trust Barometer: 5,075 informed publics in two age groups (25-34 and 35-64) in 23 countries.

[iii]‘Sharecropper’ analogy courtesy of Valeria Maltoni, a prolific and articulate blogger who champions the necessity for ‘business transformation.’