This is communication: not marketing or public relations

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

Collaboration and negotiation for PR and marketing

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

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

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

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

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

So where’s PR in the mix?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it’s about buying, then marketing leads?

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing is one of the means to that end.

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

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

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

This is public relations: one tent, many occupants.

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

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

What public relations is trying to achieve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts



  • http://twitter.com/CSweetPR Catherine Sweet

    This post is very timely- I’ve just been counselling two PR
    agency teams staffed by MA students who are struggling with clients who come at
    their problems from a marketing background. 
    Their clients just don’t get “PR”. They want an “SOS” campaign (“send
    out stuff”), and my teams are shaking their heads and saying it isn’t about
    getting more awareness; it’s getting people to think differently and then
    actually do something different.  Marketing
    is obsessed with promotion- advertising, gimmicks, websites, social media
    likes, competitions, etc-  and don’t
    understand that it is all about changing behaviour.  They count the wrong things- opportunities to
    see, column inches, clicks, likes.  They
    think more outputs is the way to change something, and get grumpy when my PR
    trained teams want to do research about what would actually influence someone
    to change their behaviour- buy more, participate more, recommend more, care
    more.

    I agree with the quote above PR- one tent, many occupants (I’ve
    already stolen it for a slide).  Today
    however, I am annoyed that there are too many marketers in that tent, and they
    are crowding out the Communication Professionals who actually know how to
    achieve strategic business outcomes. 

  • Craig Badings

    Helen, great article.  Having been in the PR business for 22 years, I believe that the issue is not defining what PR is and what it does – a lot of navel gazing and valuable time has been wasted on this – but rather the second part of what you advocate, sell itself better. 

    Actions speak louder than words.  To this end its not about selling what we do but rather selling some of the great outcomes we have delivered.  It’s the show rather than the tell.

    If we show enough marketers and CEOs the power of what great PR strategy can deliver it becomes a lot easier to claim some of that precious marketing budget.  

  • http://www.stratacomm.co.nz Helen Slater

    Thanks Craig.I agree, it is all about what we deliver, though we still do deliver, but our results tend to be buried in the success of the organisation, because we operate across the whole organisation, within every aspect of it. BTW – never mind claiming some of the marketing budget, we need to have our own PR budget and leave the marketers to theirs. When that happens, we will know we have demonstrated our worth and value and the sale made.

  • http://www.stratacomm.co.nz Helen Slater

    Hi Catherine – influencing behaviour does take a concerted, long-term effort by all. Working as a team works, and marketing and PR need to work as a team. Marketing and PR both influence behaviour – PR from a brand-trust, reputation perspective, shaping perception for the long term, marketing reinforcing that brand-trust perspective to influence the product buying decision. We’ve seen many examples of how poor PR can affect reputation and trust (Toyota’s poor handling of the Prius recall in 2010. This affected a company that has great marketing). It’s when we see poorly handled crises that the need for excellent PR and communication comes into sharp focus. But it’s the every-day work we in PR put in that shapes that reputation in the first place. Marketing builds on that.

  • Keith Critchett

    Agree with Helen about having own budget and have worked for organisations that recognise PR’s worth. However, it was because the CEO/CFO were educated about PR prior to having justify my existence, made life a whole lot easier.

  • Keith Critchett

    A really good article and great conversation piece, thanks again Craig. I will link this to my students site as a point of both topic and open discussion.
    As for the ‘eternal argument’ those enlightened and education business people will see there is no seniority in the mix, but that each have there own areas of accountability and responsibility to an organisations strategic direction.
    However, their paths will and do cross over when pushing or launching a product/service and key to a successful outcome of any campaign is a major requirement and necessity to work alongside each other. I suppose a bit like the army vs navy argument…
    Again, great articles and thanks for providing open discussions on great topics.

  • Craig Badings

    Helen in the ideal world I agree, in the real world as you well know PR is viewed as one of the arms of marketing and as such is often lumped under the marketing budget.

  • http://www.stratacomm.co.nz Helen Slater

    Hey Craig – yes, in many places it is. However, in other organisations, PR is not lumped with marketing, and does have its own budget. I have worked in those places and have colleagues who do. It does depend on how it’s recognised/perceived, as Keith has commented. The world isn’t ideal, but that just gives us a challenge to make it more ideal than now.  And of course, our ideal isn’t necessarily another’s ideal.

  • http://www.stratacomm.co.nz Helen Slater

    Hi Keith – Yes, each complements the other. I like your army vs navy analogy (is advertising the air force?)

  • NinjaPR

    As a PR student in my third year, it took me a couple of months and a few lectures to figure out the differences between these disciplines when I started my studies. They are quite obvious now: PR is to change behaviour, change the way people think, their approach to something, and this is usually done to ensure long-term results. I would say that marketing or advertising are to raise awareness or encourage people to buy, increase their interest for a particular product, in the short term. However, I strongly believe that all the disciplines can work together and deliver even better results. 
    If you want to see into the mind of PR professionals of the future, me and some of my fellow students have been writing a blog on PR and ethical issues. http://ninjapr.wordpress.com/

  • http://twitter.com/SmartWoman Vicki Flaugher

    Great article about a hot topic. I would assert that the hybrid communication model – in regards to who “leads” – is what is developing.

    To be bold, Social should be the head of the table. It’s hard to imagine yet since the field is relatively new and there aren’t as many established high level experts in it than PR or Marketing but this is where I think it’s going.

    Social media has caused a seismic shift in how brands and their publics interact. For the impact Social is having on how we do business, the entire company culture has to shift to allow and support it. It’s a huge opportunity but it does requires us to move past disciplinary silos and work together more than we ever have before. Our definitions will morph.

    At this point, every single employee has the ability (and are often doing it whether we like it or not) to be a brand ambassador, do PR, sell, and market. Our employees, our fans, our frenemies, and our competitors now contribute more than ever to our ability to survive/thrive. Driving social ethos throughout an organization is what needs to happen in order for this opening of influence to not implode our company reputations.

    We need the specialty skills of everyone to make it work and work well. NO, not to drive talking points and shut down communication sharing but rather to create an atmosphere that leverages the new social behaviors to our advantage as much as we are able.

    To me, it’s an exciting time and I can hardly wait to see what comes! Thanks for a great article.

    Vicki Smartwoman Flaugher

  • http://craigpearce.info/ Craig Pearce

    I’d say some marketing, with social marketing being a particularly relevant sub-set, does actually have a long term focus as much as a short term one, Ninja. And good luck with that blog!

  • http://craigpearce.info/ Craig Pearce

    Proposing that social media should be the head of a table that includes marketing and PR (and it had better include customer service, too and HR or whoever is responsible for employee engagement) is a bold statement, Vicki. But to me that is a tactic driving the strategy, when it should be the other way around. using social media exemplifies a cultural approach from an organisation, but this approach (engagement, evolving based on stakeholder perspectives) means more than social media – it is a mindset.

    Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. Food for thought.

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