Too many public relations folk focus, and rely, on their traditional bread and butter approach to public relations, such as media relations. Even worse, many of us do not think laterally enough about the range of weapons in our arsenal that we can use to achieve objectives.

Marketers are often much better at public relations professionals at getting these dimensions right and do not, to me, seem so precious about what is or is not a better communication mechanism or approach to use. This perception really crystallised for me a couple of years ago at a national Australian industry association public relations conference.

The organisers did what I thought was a really smart thing: they invited a bunch of experts from different marketing fields to speak to us: digital marketing, direct marketing, advertising, branding etc. Perfect, I thought. Something to broaden the mind and challenge public relations assumptions about what is the best way to achieve our objectives.

So what happened? The marketing sessions were virtually empty. The vast majority of conference attendees stuck to the tried and true and, to me, dead boring as I’d heard it many times before, presentations on topics like ‘how to best deal with a journalist’. The marketing sessions, meanwhile, were vibrant, even electrifying, in the information they presented and the rationales on which they based their approaches.

So, public relations advocate that I am, here are some thoughts on where I think PR people should take a leaf out of marketers’ books.

Business relevance

Too much public relations is activity without a driver. You won’t find much marketing that is not implemented without a very specific business-relevance. Marketing is a tighter, tougher and more disciplined game than public relations.

Marketers know where their activity is being directed and why. Public relations can be a rebel without a cause, crying out for funding and resources without being able to present a business case to support its request.

Evaluation

Marketers are great at crunching numbers and providing a transparent reason why a particular communication or stakeholder engagement approach should be taken. They get creative, then undertake research to determine if this is the best approach to take, both in the creation of products and services and the communication that is used to sell them. A similar mindset informs their brand-focused communication.

Measuring ROI is a critically important issue for them, whilst public relations is still agonising over how best to evaluate its effectiveness. This is despite market research experts like Adrian Goldsmith purporting that reputation can be evaluated and measured.

I also think (and maybe it’s because they have bigger budgets to play with, but they probably only got these budgets because they proved they came up with the goods) marketers make better use of market research than public relations practitioners.

Sure, they use it to test ideas/products/services and to measure their success, but they also use it to come up with target audience insights that help the business relevance of their activities and to stimulate and profitably direct creativity. And we are talking creativity which engages here.

Database and direct communication

One of my favourite areas. There is much to be said for 3^rd party endorsement (i.e. through media editorial placement and strategic alliances) and the credibility/brand enhancement it generates, but surely it is a no brainer that any half-decent holistic (really, a tautological application of the word in this context, but…) communication strategy will feature means of communicating with target audiences that are unmediated.

Unmediated communication allows an organisation to frame its communication in the precise terms that it wants its target audiences to hear:

• Customised to target audience needs, wants, culture and point of view
• No compromise in articulating the information an organisation wants its target audiences to hear, which might otherwise occur if there are the delicate sensibilities of the media, for instance, to be considered.

Having a database of target audiences and those that influence target audiences is a fundamental resource to enable this to occur. Tools that can then be used include hard copy and electronic newsletters, direct mail and even phone calls.

Brand vs sales

Marketers tend to be much clearer when defining whether their communication is brand/reputation or product/sales related. Public relations is much more nebulous in this regard, flaky even. This is related to the points above about business relevance and evaluation. I think this is something of a forgotten topic in the public relations dialectic. It doesn’t rate highly in my recall of academic discussions on the issue.

KPIs/objectives

You’re flat out finding a public relations practitioner that understands that objectives are KPIs (i.e. set, measure, go!), let alone one that is willing to actually set meaningful, business-relevant ones before implementing communication strategies/activities.

[Here’s a scoop (irony dripping...): some PR practitioners will set objectives retrospectively when entering industry awards to do two things – make their work look more effective than it may have been and to make it seem that evaluation was an important part of their thinking...when, plainly, it wasn’t.]

Marketing lives and dies by the KPIs it sets. Whether it’s a clear linkage to sales generation, brand awareness, hits to websites etc. It’s one likely reason why you’re more likely to find a marketer around the C-suite decision making table than a public relations professional.

Also, and this is an area where I would personally like to get a lot better, public relations really struggles with determining what are meaningful objectives to set in the first place. It’s not just stories placed in the media, it’s not just the amount of speaking engagements that are procured for the CEO – it must be more related to genuine business outcomes. Perhaps the topic for deeper discussion on another day.

Integrated communication

Dare I posit that marketers are better multi-taskers than PR folk? Well, considering marketers often design and implement integrated marketing campaigns that might use an array of tools simultaneously in concert with each other, it is tempting to think so. Examples of tactics include:

• Advertising (through multiple mediums)
• Competitions (as above)
• Media relations
• Digital communication (social media, website, e-newsletter)
• Database and direct communication
• Point of sale
• Sponsorship.

Of more import is that public relations professionals can learn a lot from the way marketers employ a diversity of tools to achieve a singular outcome.

Upshot?

Look at all of the above and you will get some idea of why marketers have more access to the C-suite than public relations practitioners. Marketers make sure their work is business relevant and they can provide proof into the effectiveness of their work. PR professionals would be wise to take a similar approach more often than they currently do.

Tweet This Post