A white paper could be on issues such as the the way government funds are distributed to schools, urban planning (specifically on transport infrastructure, for instance), the roll out of broadband and its implications, telecommunications in rural areas etc.

Organisations that sponsor the round table/white paper are relevant to these topics. They might supply products or services to them. It is a way to raise their profile in these industries (I go into more detail about the communication mechanisms that can do this in the third of this series) and, hopefully, generate increased business or create stronger relationships.

The motivation for high profile CEOs and their ilk to participate in another organisation’s round table (and hence white paper) is that by associating with others of similar high profile they enhance their own credibility/standing. To be frank, part of this is an ‘ego thing’ as well.

Also, it allows their profile to be raised (and that of their organisation’s) courtesy of the efforts of another organisation – free publicity, if you like. If the process is being undertaken effectively, that means very targeted communication to very relevant stakeholders.

A final rationale for participating is contained in the biblical maxim…’do unto other as you would have them do unto you.’ Another, more rational, articulation of this notion is the theory of reciprocity. If you want your peers to help you out on occasion, then you’d better give it up for others! Really, if done well, it is a win-win situation for all involved.

We might not be starting from the same page on connecting marketing and PR if we don’t agree on how the two (very much interconnected) disciplines should work together, but I’ll give it a shot re ‘issues based campaigns’.

Issues-based campaigns, because they are about ‘issues’, and hence about holistic organisation-stakeholder relationships, and are not solely about sales (marketing’s main concern), are very much the remit of, or are generally led by, public relations.

In the context of this discussion (round tables/white papers etc) we are talking both branding and tactical sales generation. Having complicated my response enough now with qualifiers, I think the rather bland answer to your question is looking at each situation on a case by case scenario, underpinned by the essential necessity of working together to achieve mutually relevant outcomes for both professional communication disciplines.

There are subtle and there are obvious ways to link white paper content to sales (a link to branding is pretty easy, I think, because it is pretty much encapsulated in the notion of thought leadership), but I don’t think it is an easy methodology through which to generate sales.

I would certainly love to hear your thoughts, or anyone else’s thoughts, on linking white papers to sales or tactical campaigns. Perhaps one of the mysteries is how to create a link between ‘issues’ and sales. How do we make issues relevant to sales? How do we get thought leadership to generate sales? Where is the strategic-tactical link?

Is it as simple as being progressive, ‘different’, challenging or putting forward a solution on an issue which the white paper ’sponsoring organistion’ just happens to sell?

And is another answer the simple equation that quality thinking on an issues opens dialogue with a potential customer. The dialogue leads to a connection between customer and organisation and that organic, human dimension leads to the organisation getting a shot at providing a product or service.

After that, it’s really up to the marketers (in the full holistic product/service development etc sense of the profession) to come up with the goods.

Despite the emergence of social media, organisations still love their control. And the white papers and their attendant communication mechanisms (which I go into further in the third of this series) can frame the leadership in a pretty controlled manner and generate high quality coverage. This has been proven again and again, especially when one takes the op-ed approach with media (but even when it doesn’t).

I think I’m going to have to update the third post based on your insights!

Also, interesting that you seem to be drawing a line between issues management and marketing communication. I guess that is fair enough in the context of the tools and the thinking behind the two niches of PR, but I also think that both are about proactive communication and proactive positioning, so I think they are both driven by the same essential needs and mindset.

Mark, apologies if my grammar isn’t up to scratch. You might have to help me out a bit more here as I’m not quite sure what you are after re your predicate – help me!

I thought I would mention white papers early on as they are the main quantative element that comes out of a round table, then get stuck into the round table in some more detail. The next part of this series goes further into some of the more, I guess, hands on elements.

Must run now, but I’ll come back to address your excellent question re working with overall marketing strategy.

I guess I would add from a B2B marketers viewpoint, I always try to link PR’s work to the overall marketing strategy. Could you comment on how you work with the VP of Marketing on issues based campaigns? Also, could you elaborate on your second sentence? It seems to missing a predicate. Thanks, Mark

I agree with all your points, Sean. We PR folk can but try, emphasising as soon as the participants agree to get on the train that we need sign off pronto. Be a proactive as possible. But, yes, one bane of our existence.

The issues I refer to in an issues-driven campaign, Peter, do not necessarily relate to ‘bad’ issues, or potentially bad issues. They can be positive ones, too.

I don’t think a white paper has to offer all the answers, though that is great. It is more about new thinking on a particular topic. This thinking, or perspective, may be the spark that leads to solutions.

In this instance, i am talking purely about a marketing communication white paper. That might be a translation of a government policy paper or technical paper, so there is grey in this paradigm.

You are spot on re your need for effective facilitation to make sure all participants get a chance to actually participate and the agenda is not high-jacked. In fact, a future post in this series discusses that very topic – how prescient of us both!