Ratio: Public Relations Practitioners : Non PR Practitioners

[admin]

So, what is the snap-shot difference between PR, Marcom, and IMC?   Where do I vote? 

Here is a simple heuristic to measure the difference for the purposes of this poll:

Public Relations:  is predominently indirect communication with the sales market.

Marketing Communications:  is predominently direct communication with the sales market(s).

Integrated Marketing Communications:  is Marketing Communications because of predominent shared marketing objectives.

It is entirely possible that I have missed your occupation.  Please post it and I will amend the poll to reflect the reality of the Forum members.

Thanks.

[Lee Smallwood]

Hi,

Is it possible to create a 'Strategic Planning' response? it would then cover all of us who are involved in the pre-marcoms stages...

Thanks

Lee

----------------------------------
Lee Smallwood
Marketing Director

Raincoat
Design & Marketing

+44 (0)1761 233 200  Tel
+44 (0)1761 233 232  Fax
+44 (0)7917 893 948  Mobile

lee@raincoat.co.uk
http://www.raincoat.co.uk 

Raincoat  The Granary  Manor Courtyard   Stratton on the Fosse  Bath  BA3 4QF  United  Kingdom

[Richard Whipple]

Good point to bring up, Lee. 

Strategic planning would cover PR as well, thereby negating the poll.  The difference between strategic planning PR vs Marketing is in objectives.  The process is much the same.  As PR counsel, my stategic plan includes marketing communications' objectives (and governance issues) within the strategic plan design: tuning the whole instrument to resonate with the overall image.

ComStrat is poor short hand and a misnomer for how deep pro PR can go towards counselling, IMHO.

Thanks for the question.

- R. A.

[Judy Gombita]

Regarding your definition:

Public Relations:  is predominently indirect communication with the sales market

The "sales market" does not play a role in my world. I think you are confusing public relations with marcomm/advertising here.

[Richard Whipple]

Hi Judy,

It is good to see a face from my (old) neighbourhood, and you offer an opportunity to clarify.  Indeed, you would fall into the category of "Public Relations" as a professional whose specialisation(s) encompass any of a variety of areas outside of directly communicating to the sales market. 

Working within an association, your "market" is composed of individual/corporate members.  Sales units are represented in terms of annual memberships and a sale would represent the point of exchange where a value proposition is derived and a transaction concluded in a cash currency (i.e. outside of a barter).  An event could be considered as a membership activitiy (whereby cash gate defers some cost at a reduced rate to members) or as a product sold to attendees (whereby cash gate is intended to create a profit).

This definition, allowing communication with the sales market indirectly, permits a vote for "public relations" by practitioners whose activities encompass the communication of a value proposition to market influencers as well as other functions, such as lobby, which may directly encourage a market while neither being aimed directly at the sales market nor generating results of a direct sale for profit.

It could be argued that the objectives of all communications are, directly or indirectly, to create desired consumer behaviour from a defined sales market.  Of course, I think of image building leading to reputation as one example.  I would categorize image and reputation as functions of public relations rather than marcom; albeit disingenuous image spun by a PR technician I would consider to be serving a marketing objective and its primary concern directly being the sales market. Two examples of these would be, respectively, the PR for Tylenol and Enron.

- R. A.

[marcrapp]

In regards to anything–categorically, most are defined by their end-results. Strategy can be an umbrella that involves PR. Crisis management, event planning, public relations, WOM, first-second-third tier micro marketing in elite segments–all fall within the parameters of Public relations.

This forum is a type of public relations within a niche segment.

 

[marcrapp]

And subsequently, they're divided because of the broad nature of the services, both in execution and as a billable service offering.

[Tiffany Winbush]

I'ce noticed that more practitioners are becoming involved in marketing communications. Marketing and PR duties are certainly overlapping.

[Brian Gaffney]

I definitely agree with Tiffany.  I'm employed at a PR firm but we specialize in MarComm... took me a minute to decide how I should respond to this poll.

[Richard Whipple]

I'ce noticed that more practitioners are becoming involved in marketing communications. Marketing and PR duties are certainly overlapping.

Hello Tiffany,

There are two directions to interpret that movement.  Is it a trend indicating PR is moving towards marketing communications or is it an indication that marcomms are becoming more PR-oriented in their approach?  It is an interesting dynamic to observe for sure as it foreshadows the next corporate hierarchical structure in communications, IMH-but-biasedO.

Is PR technically improving at conveying the marketing message or is marketing communications waking up to a new reality that puts PR above it in the organisation?

What do you think?  Brian, Marc, any thoughts? 

- R. A.

[Katie Simpson]

It took me a minute to decide also.  I head up the Business Development aspect, but we are definitely a Public Relations Firm.

[Lisa Emrich]

Actually I am a musician who maintains a healthcare blog.  Perhaps there should be an option for non-professional, or new media writer, or general public.

[Richard Whipple]

Actually I am a musician who maintains a healthcare blog.  Perhaps there should be an option for non-professional, or new media writer, or general public.

Hi Lisa,

You have made an excellent point.  Where go the journalists!    My bad. I know 50 is the new 30  but may I blame it on a senior moment anyway?  I am not even fifty....

You are also right that it would be inclusive to have a category of "non-communicators" category beyond company ownership. ( , Would musicians fit into non-communicators - probably not.  We even have a Duke Ellington quote circulating on the top banner about communications.)  To attract a broad inter-disciplinary cross-industry conversation while remaining top heavy with PRs, and increasing the field of categorization here, is a balancing act I will have to give a little more thought to - and I welcome ideas. (A new Poll for non-communicators only?) 

This forum is definitely an open forum rather than the closed forums currently available with a guild membership.  The message should clearly be a category devised to differentiate non-communication staff from “others” without either devolving into a SIC listing or diluting the purpose of highlighting the differences between PR and Marcomm.

Lisa, because of your respected weBlog, I would think Journalism is your category, which is the history of traveling bards in medieval Europe anyway.  You’re not into "Mainstream Journalism" so what category will differentiate between you and the myriad of less respected Bloggers? 

Should I even care about making the distinction, in as much as I care about making the differentiation between marcomm and PR staff? What is the general consensus here?

- R. A.

[mosborn]

I notice that many members here have titles that include both PR and marketing, or work in departments with names that include both of those functions.  That seems to indicate that the PR function and the marketing function are really considered to be the same thing.  I seem to vaguely remember something from school a long time ago, some echo of a voice from the podium, saying that PR is not a function of the sales department.  That attitude must have changed since those ancient times.

Would it be fair to say that the current attitude of management with regard to PR is that it is just another way to increase sales?

Not that I have anything against sales, mind you.

[Michael Wangbickler]

I notice that many members here have titles that include both PR and marketing, or work in departments with names that include both of those functions.  That seems to indicate that the PR function and the marketing function are really considered to be the same thing.  I seem to vaguely remember something from school a long time ago, some echo of a voice from the podium, saying that PR is not a function of the sales department.  That attitude must have changed since those ancient times.

I would argue that PR is a sub-set or function of a traditional marketing department.  I've noticed that they are often separated into different "divisions" within a company, but they are closely tied. This is probably because PR requires a slightly different, but highly specialized set of skills that most PR professionals have developed over years.

If we look at the 4 Ps of marketing, I often find it interesting that the "marketing department" in most companies deals almost exclusively with the 4th P (Promotion). They often have no say in Price or Place, which are often sales functions, and Product is the purview of product development which often does NOT report to the VP of marketing.  Of course, this is going to vary dramatically from one industry or company to the next, but that has been my experience. Regardless, PR usually falls almost exclusively in Promotion.

Mike.

[jsacavem]

Hi all,

I have only my personal experience to share with you from my home country point of view.
In Portugal PR is looked down as a profession. That is not to say that there are not PR professionals working here. The problem is that in some European countries such as mine, PR has a negative public association, and so these professionals prefer being named Corporate or Business Communication specialists, advisors or consultants, adding to blurry frontier (if there is one) with Marketing Communications.

Around here PR practitioners are associated mainly with nightlife and clubs that call their party planners and VIP hosts/hostesses PR’s. So you see why PR around has got not that positive reputation.

PS
Not to say that I have something against clubbing or going to parties, please do not misunderstand me. And apologies for any grammar mistake as I have only a basic command of the English language.

[Denis Ryabov]

Hi all,
I have only my personal experience to share with you from my home country point of view.
In Portugal PR is looked down as a profession. That is not to say that there are not PR professionals working here. The problem is that in some European countries such as mine, PR has a negative public association

In Russia PR is associated with something way worse than going to night clubs, - it's associated with Black PR. People don't really like politics here, so they regard PR-pros as people who by any means try to promote politicians. Not educated enough people don't even know that PR has something to do with image, reputation or promotion - they think PR is painting walls with graffiti saying that some politician is a loser.
As a matter of fact, PR first appeared in Russia as political PR. And this is exactly why I can't help writing here a little about the brought up problem. 

The thing is, that PR can exist not only as a practice: a practice of managing the flow of information between an organization and its publics, a practice of managing public opinion, not only as a set of management, supervisory, and technical functions... or  management function which tabulates public attitudes... which are also practice, - being engaged in some activity again and again.
Our Russian theorists (particularly Shishkina) say that PR can exist as a social institution. Like family, law and stuff like that. She proved this fact and came to a conclusion that PR is a social institution which is destined to provide effective public communications of a social subject.

This social subject could be government as well. Anyways, what I was trying to explain is that being a social institution, PR is a "bigger thing" than PR as some methods and techniques of doing something. From this point of view it has much more functions. Socialization, adaptation e t. c.  Consequently, we can never regard PR as a part of marketing, or, even part of IMC. They all have their own essence and entity. I'd say IMC can sometimes have some totally different goal than PR has on its own. That's my humble opinion, right you are. Sorry if the thought is obvious, but sometimes it's good to be reminded of, I think 

[Sharon Bond]

I really struggled with my answer, because I do it all for the clients I work with -- both marketing and PR -- and there wasn't an option for that, so I chose marketing communications, since that can encompass PR. But it looks like I'm the only one who voted that way!

Sharon Bond

So, what is the snap-shot difference between PR, Marcom, and IMC?   Where do I vote? 

Here is a simple heuristic to measure the difference for the purposes of this poll:

Public Relations:  is predominently indirect communication with the sales market.

Marketing Communications:  is predominently direct communication with the sales market(s).

Integrated Marketing Communications:  is Marketing Communications because of predominent shared marketing objectives.

It is entirely possible that I have missed your occupation.  Please post it and I will amend the poll to reflect the reality of the Forum members.

Thanks.

[Susan Stevens]

This conversation has been happening in various blogs and forums lately and no one individual or group has come to a consensus yet. Here's my take....

To say that PR is part of marketing is to eliminate the need for crisis comm, issue comm, government comm, etc. These are all part of the mix and all areas that marketing has not traditionally been interested in handling, since they have nothing to do with the goals of a marketing organization.

To say that PR is completely separate from marketing misses the multiple opportunities to use PR strengths to communicate about your company/product/service/etc. PR and marketing working together makes the company stronger and the messaging clearer for all publics.

In many countries, politics seems to tarnish the image of PR. By taking 5% fact and 95% biased opinion and distortion, they manipulate the truth rather than communicate the truth. This is true in the U.S. and from what Denis says it's also true in Russia. I've heard stories from several countries that indicate the same trend. Politicos tend to practice propaganda, spin and promotion more than truth. I'm not sure that should be called PR. But my experience with politics has been pretty sour.

If the PR industry could agree on principles to guide our function, we would do a great deal to clarify our function and define ourselves in any organization. PRSA has a code of ethics. The Arthur Page Society has the Page Principles. Those are a start. But, until we become more united as to defining PR, we are going to remain confusing to the general public and the corporate executives.

[Jill (Sawdon) Smith]

I was once hired by a company to be their "Corporate Communications Director."  During the entire interview process, the discussion revolved around media and investors as the audiences I was experienced in dealing with.

Day 1 of my new job, what did I get asked about?  Brochures.  Marketing copy.  Advertising.  I did manage to do some PR while I was there (my tenure was brief - the bait-and-switch aspect of my hire was only the tip of the iceberg); however, it was clear that that company execs didn't know a thing about different communications disciplines (nor did they have a clue that PR and IR and MarCom and Trade Show Support for a 2,500-person multinational company are usually staffed with multiple departments, not just one Director and her 2-person staff, one of whom hasn't been hired yet!) and weren't about to get educated on it.

[Jan Porter]

This is an interesting dialogue,  as many marketing directors in the current economic situation are directed by the CFO’s to utilize the PR functions of marketing as “free advertising”.  This is a very limited viewpoint, which does not take into consideration, governance or crisis communications, which many CEOs deem as their realm.