Public relations is more important than making money

A perfect storm has erupted over the issue of whether PR should, partially at least, be measured on its ability to drive sales and/or generate profits. Public relations is about building mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders. Its contribution to business-related outcomes is significant. Better: stakeholder relationships, organisational reputation, awareness of and trust towards or of the organisation and/or its products/services.

What outcomes should public relations firms and in-house be measured on?

But I’ve posed this question: are public relations’ firms and their in-house sisters’ fixation with this approach hindering their ability to generate credibility for itself and not sufficiently pragmatic when being used by profit-driven organisations?

Well, through numerous public relations marketing LinkedIn groups, and in personal emails to me, the differences and caveats and justifications have been coming in thick and fast. Some of the fallout has been generated by me asking why isn’t making money a KPI for public relations jobs?

This question was prompted by insights from The Annual Insight Into The Communication Profession 2011, undertaken by the only Australian recruitment consultancy specialising in corporate affairs and communication executives, Salt & Shein. The survey identifies that profit-related KPIs are barely visible for those in Australian public relations jobs.

Why PR is should not be measured on turning a buck

Professor Jim Macnamara*, Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology, Sydney, leads the teaching of PR at Australia’s leading public relations education university. He is virulently opposed to the notion of PR being measured on its profit or sales-generating outcomes.

“While some marketing PR likes to, or would like to, show how it drives sales and profits, and it is important to have objectives related to the overall goals and objectives of the organisation, the reality is that sales/profits are the outcome of multiple influences and activities,” says Professor Macnamara.

“This includes distribution strategy and effectiveness; the sales channel and its work; pricing; competition, product/service quality etc. And this is even before you get to marketing comms.

Any one of these factors, or a combination of them, can significantly affect and determine sales and profits. Then within communication, there are the influences of advertising, promotions, online, etc that are all intermingled and combined in consumers’ minds.

“It is very difficult to show direct causation by PR in sales and/or profits because of this fusion of multiple influences, information sources and experiences.

“The same is true of advertising – although the advertising industry typically has failed to acknowledge this and misled management. The high cost and lack of proof of advertising’s impact has come home to roost and resulted in many organisations turning away from big budget advertising.

“I don’t get why PR is obsessed by, or is expected to generate, sales and show direct correlations to profits. Many other specialist functions in organisations are not judged this way. For example, we don’t expect HR, or the legal department, or the production department, or even the CEO to generate sales and profits. We recognise that they contribute to ultimate success – but they do so through specialised functions.”

But then again, who’s paying the PR bills?

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.

But can we balance these seeming potentially oppositional, or certainly tension-rife, dimensions? Can we undertake best practice (and some may say, idealistic) public relations whilst still doing what some organisations say we must do – undertake activity to help make money?

  • “I teach this to students at Notre Dame. PR is about the triple bottom line, sure. But when it boils down to business, it’s about making money and keeping shareholders satisfied (just the bottom line).” – Dr. Greg Smith, Senior Media and Communications Officer, Department of Training and Workforce Development, Western Australia
  • Not having a profit or sales-generating focus is one of the reasons why PR is relegated to a back row in business says an  an international branding and communications expert from Germany
  • “I think we’re deficient if we don’t include a financial component in any plan we propose. [The difficulty] should not deter us from reflecting or having an explicit financial objective as part of that program.” – Alan Smith, corporate communication consultant
  •  Another PR and marketing professional says that good PR should drive sales as that is what the client wants.

These are just a few recent perspectives taking a divergent approach to Professor Macnamara. Clearly some head clearing dialogue going on here.

Professor Macnamara wonders, however, in response to those who say PR can and should be measured in terms of sales and profits – how do they actually measure and prove that?

“I would be very surprised if they have any rigorous valid method of proving what they claim,” says Professor Macnamara. “The reality is that most marketing PRs who claim to deliver to the bottom line measure their efforts in terms of advertising value equivalents – a totally invalid correlation of hypothetical cost and value that bears no relationship to sales or profits or even effectiveness.”

If we are putting out a media release, or holding a launch event which thousands attend or initiating a Facebook promotion – all about a product or service…surely we are trying to make a sale, turn a buck et al. If this is the case, and despite PR at a higher level being more important than making money (maybe don’t’ tell your CFO this, though, okay?), then why the hell don’t we have financial KPIs as part of this program?

And if we have them as part of this program, why not embedded into certain PR roles at a deeper level?

Public relations is about building relationships

“A further key factor is that public relations is largely directed at other [non-profit relevant] objectives,” takes up Professor Macnamara again. “In most conceptualisations and models, the primary raison d’être of PR is building and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders such as employees, shareholders, investors, communities, etc. Thus, PR has a longer-term focus and a different strategy in most cases.

“Turning all relationship building and maintenance activities into money-making opportunities, or making this a key objective of public relations, is not authentic (we don’t really care or want to support communities, etc, we just want to make money) and is effectively a retreat to the early industrial era of Vanderbilt and Friedman. They said the only objective of business was making money and the only loyalty was to shareholders.”

Let’s define public relations

“As long as PR people think they can be sales and marketing people, they will struggle,” points out Professor Macnamara.  “Publicity creates awareness, but it does not sell things. Nor do events, newsletters, community sponsorships etc. You need distribution channels, good pricing strategies, quality products and services and sales people to sell. Sales and profits are their KPIs.

“I actually think it is quite dangerous for PR to try to tie itself to sales KPIs. It will inevitably fail to show clear evidence of direct causation and, thus, will be seen as failing, relegating us to being a second or distant third or fourth cousin to advertising, sales promotion and marketing.

“KPIs and objectives have to be functionally relevant and directly causal. That’s not to say that PR cannot CONTRIBUTE to sales and profits. What does it contribute?

  • Relationships
  • Reputation
  • Awareness
  • Trust.

“Then let’s measure those.”

Public relations theories, practices, critiques

What did you think of the perspectives in this post? Do you support PR sticking to its predominantly relationship management and reputation enhancement imperatives? Or are there other aspects that you think PR should strive to achieve? What is your professional experience in the context of these dimensions?

*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. His most recently published text is ‘Public Relations; theories, practices, critiques’. Jim can be networked with on his LinkedIn profile and on Twitter @jimmacnamara. 

Related posts



  • Alan Smith

    I don’t think we said that PR can sell things (although, in fact it certainly used to, and I used to do it).  Nor did we (I) say that PR should be justified by a return on a spend. I agree with Jim on that point. But a financial element, or implication, is always implicit: does a charity want more members? Does a political party want more votes? Does a commercial organization want more sales? And so on. Jim is right about influencing those who have a say in all of these “transactions”, and public relations techniques drive these conversations. But otherwise they’re conversations without (commercial) purpose, interesting but essentially philosophical, Socratic in their pursuit of a better-understood essential truth. But I don’t think that’s what Bernays or Lee, or Lazar or White (or even McNamara?) had in mind when they formed their consultancies, and provide their clients with counsel.

    In fact, sales promotion (bribes) and advertising (shouting and interrupting) are failing. Public relations, because it is already about engaging, about telling stories, about creating value and then helping people find it, will grow in importance, in my view. The new channels of today, and tomorrow, will change how we do much of this, and the channels and intermediaries in particular will change or similarly disappear. But I believe public relations will prevail, and we have work to do in contextualizing the discipline in ways that those we seek to influence first – CEOs (not marketing directors) – will understand and trust. And as Jim says, PR is nothing if not about building understanding and trust.

  • Ralu

    Hi again, great article!

    My question today is: if PR is mostly about sales and money, does a cultural nonprofit organization need PR? And if the answer is yes, then what else besides reputation and networking can PR provide?

    Thanks,

    Raluca

  • Versailles

    We buy things… and we buy them from a person or a company we trust.   The danger with marketing PR is not that it is not effective; I beleive it is and that it has its place. The danger is that PR can easily become nothing more than a convenient tool for marketing people which care only about the bottom line and will tend to neglect other aspects of doing business that can produce adverse effecrts on the bottom line.  PR can and should certainly be used to promote products.  But never at the expense of what it does best, something that advertising cannot do: promote the SELLER.  By creating and maintaining relationships based not only on the commercial exchange of value between buyer and seller, which is the province of marketing, but by promoting trust through undeerstanding and communication. 

  • http://craigpearce.info/ Craig Pearce

    Alan, one of the critically important points you make is, “we have work to do in contextualizing the discipline” with those we want to influence. I couldn’t agree more. And we want to influence the dominant coalition. Call me an idealist, but I do think part of our role is to help change organisations and business so they are part of the solution to society’s travails, not a consistent cause of its problems. To acquire this power and influence, we need to show how we can help generate a buck. Anything else, I tend to think, id delusional.

    Ralu, there is a lot of value in reputation,. Huge amounts. So don’t underestimate its value. For cultural non-profits specifically, it can help generate support for their existence, in turn helping generate funding. And one specific way of doing this is by impressing politicians with the number or sorts of people who care about the non-profits. If it equals votes, you are half-way there.

    Guy, your riff on trust is on the money and a welcome reminder of what PR can helop to generate. But that trust will not last unless the organisation deserves it. This is where really strategic PR comes into play. It influences organisational culture, not just the way that culture is communicated.
     
    Thanks for your comments everyone.

  • http://soulati.com/blog Soulati

    I came here to get ammo for my next series on PR, and voila, you’ve got a hot bed of debate and wonderful thought on the value of public relations and how we instill it. In the States among a core group of PR influencers I follow (who also are Ad Age Power bloggers), we are diving deeply into how we alter the impression among business that all we offer is publicity.

    This issue is buoyed by young practitioners who do nothing but pitch media and bloggers. When a pitch goes awry, it’s called out and we all suffer the outcome — further positioning of poor behavior, value, and credibility.

    The post here references PR as a direct factor in sales. We can’t lift that heavy weight alone, as was suggested; it’s an integration of disciplines looking toward and influencing the bottom line. PR influences the bottom line; we don’t sell per se, yet we’ll begin to see more commingling of sales and PR.

  • http://craigpearce.info/ Craig Pearce

    Thanks for your thoughts Jayme. Integration sounds fair to me. Let’s see where the journey takes us.

  • Paul Seaman

    There’s something missing in this discussion. The real problem is that PR pros denigrate the importance of profit and misrepresent what firms do and what makes them thrive. So we communicate instead nonsense such as “people before profit” and that employees have two jobs: “one to do their day job” and the other to “save the world” or some such waffle. Of course, employees only pick up one wage. When the profits stop coming they get fired. I say profit and loss need better PR. In truth, insecure PRs skirt around the harsh realities of the real world of business and government spending. This probably explains why cynicism and skepticism are so rife in society today. It is time we spoke straight, otherwise we don’t deserve to be trusted.

  • http://craigpearce.info/ Craig Pearce

    I agree we need to speak straight, Paul, or at least a lot straighter than we do. But is the current situation the fault of management or PR specifically? I’d say, if anything, PR folk have helped moderate excessively self-oriented (e.g. profit and the rest of you be damned) corporate behaviour. Why? Because a poor reputation can and will (probably…) eventually negatively impact on profit/meeting organisational objectives.

    So there is room for the aspirational (i.e. people before profit) dimension of PR as much is there is for PR folk to respect the reality of who exactly is paying them for their multi-hued advocacy. As for skirting,  you’re right, a little bit of frock goes a long way.

  • http://craigpearce.info/public-relations/communication-marketing-public-relations/ This is communication: not marketing or public relations | Public relations and managing reputation

    [...] 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 [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes