Comments on: Public relations is more important for you than marketing

By: Public relations is more important than making money | Public relations and managing reputation

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:11:39 +0000

[...] Increasing the quality of stakeholder relationships, encouraging them to buy into an organisation’s vision, along with getting stakeholders’ perspectives so that an organisation can evolve, are all vitally important elements of public relations. That’s why PR is so much more important to an organisation than marketing. [...]

By: Craig Pearce

Craig Pearce — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:56:00 +0000

Thanks for the passion and logic of your argument Commscoach. Looks like we’re on the same page with this one!

By: Commscoach1

Commscoach1 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:59:00 +0000

As always, this debate could depend on the context of how and where PR is being practised. Marcomms-based PR suggests a role wholly on being part of the so-called marketing mix in which it has an important function. However, it is greater than just being a part of marketing and there for purely promotional value. PR is not a subsidiary discipline. It is far more important than that. It should be at the head of an organisation and be involved as much as every other boardroom role. In every aspect of an organisation’s operations there are communication elements, whether that is associated with finance, production, human resources or even logistics and not just marketing. Communication, and by its association PR, is integral to the well-being of an organisation and the reputation and goodwill that generates can be represented in organisational value far more than the pure assets themselves. Thus, communication is the one of the most important organisational functions, alongside as much the product or service and even the financing of those elements. Many organisations have had a good product, good service or even been sound financially. Yet they have failed simply because they got their communication and PR wrong. The proof is abundant in a myriad of organisational and management case histories. Get the PR wrong as an organisation and as such the operational elements will have a far less than good chance of being successful.4 hours ago · Like

By: Commscoach1

Commscoach1 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:00 +0000

As always, this debate could depend on the context of how and where PR is being practised. Marcomms-based PR suggests a role wholly on being part of the so-called marketing mix in which it is has an important function. However, it is greater than just being a part of marketing and there for purely promotional value. PR is not a subsidiary discipline. It is far more important than that. It should be at the head of an organisation and be involved as much as every other boardroom role. In every aspect of an organisation’s operations there are communication elements, whether that is associated with finance, production, human resources or even logistics and not just marketing. Communication, and by its association PR, is integral to the well-being of an organisation and the reputation and goodwill that generates can be represented in organisational value far more than the pure assets themselves. Thus, communication is the one of the most important organisational functions, alongside as much the product or service and even the financing of those elements. Many organisations have had a good product, good service or even been sound financially. Yet they have failed simply because they got their communication and PR wrong. The proof is abundant in a myriad of organisational and management case histories. Get the PR wrong as an organisation and as such the operational elements will have a far less than good chance of being successful.4 hours ago · Like

By: PR for marketing communication president! | Public relations and managing reputation

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:37:04 +0000

[...] said before that marketing should report to public relations, but maybe PR is too lazy and too short-sighted to actually get off its butt and take this [...]

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:36:02 +0000

Sadly, Guy, my French speaking skills are woeful. My Burgundy and Bordeaux drinking skills, however, are exemplary. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this (in English) if you have the time!

By: Guy Versailles

Guy Versailles — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:26:55 +0000

Do you read French? I have written on the relations between marketing and PR and we obviously share common thoughts on this.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:57:02 +0000

Prudence, Philip, prudence. It’s only a job title after all!

By: Philip Dennett

Philip Dennett — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:08:22 +0000

Craig
As a Marketing Director I agree wholeheartedly with you. In most of my roles I have been responsible for Corporate Communications as well which is probably unusual. In B2B markets, like I’m involved in now success for me as come by developing an integrated communication strategy and then executing it flawlessly (LOL). Marketing/advertising is just a subset of this process.
Maybe I should ask the Board to Change my title to Communication Director? Only problem is they may want to cut my salary as a result!

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:01:04 +0000

The main contributor to brand equity are the relationships an organisation and all that represents it has with organisational stakeholders. The function best qualified to build and maintain relationships is public relations/communications.

This is because they are far more cognisant of and sensitive to the entire set of holistic relationships an organisation has, whether it is with customers, employees (who are the most important brand advocates), regulators and more.

Marketers don’t play the whole game. This is about way more than profits. Marketers can play with the logo. They’re pretty good at that, I’m told…