Dr Jon White
Honorary Professor, Public Affairs
University of Birmingham
Visiting Professor
University of Central Lancashire
University of Lugano
Titlul lucrarii: Public Communication at European Level: The Contribution of Public Relations
Sustinere in sectiunea:
Scurta descriere a lucrarii:
Public relations play a part in public communication at national level, and increasingly across national borders. Its role is controversial, and opinions vary as to whether or not its contribution is constructive.
As a practice, it is at differing levels of development country by country in Europe, and those involved in studying the practice have attempted to describe how it differs in terms of development, country by country. It is possible to point to differences in development and approach in countries across Europe and claims will be made as to which country has seen most development in the practice. For examples, claims will often be made by practitioners in the UK that the practice is at its most developed in the UK in Europe, with developments placing the country in second place in the development of the practice after the US. However, strong advances in the practice can also be seen in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Slovenia.
Public relations’ contribution to public communication can be ranged along a continuum from strong facilitation to obstruction. At one end of the continuum, public relations enables public communication, involves groups in communication, and contributes to the quality of communication (in the use and accuracy of information, and in skilful use of techniques of transmission).
At the other end of the continuum, public relations diminishes public communication, producing misinformation and restricting the flow of information, while failing to involve groups in communication, or – worse, setting out to mislead them. Examples of public relations practice spread along this continuum will be found country by country.
Approaches to practice may be idealistic or pragmatic. Idealism sees the practice as making a social contribution and following principles in practice. Pragmatism is concerned with what will be work, and what is acceptable in a given situation.
Statements made about practice by national and international groups concerned with the development of the practice, such as, for example, the national Chartered Institute of Public Relations in the UK, or the International Public Relations Association, tend to be idealistic. Organisation leaders, however, when asked about their expectations of public relations, see the practice as pragmatic. Public relations are a problem-solving practice, an aid to managing complexity, and as a means of creating value.
Studying public relations’ contribution to public communication, we can fit its contribution into a matrix that locates the example of practice that we are interested in studying along a continuum from facilitative to obstructive, and along a continuum from idealism to pragmatism. Judgements might also be made about the degree of development of the practice studied.
Using this approach, conclusions could be reached regarding practice internationally, at European level and country by country. At European level – I would suggest for discussion -- the practice is at an early stage in its development, neutral in effect on public communication (neither facilitative nor obstructive), and idealistic in aspiration.
Titlul lucrarii: Valuing public relations in the future
Sustinere in sectiunea:
Scurta descriere a lucrarii:
This presentation outlines the results of a series of research studies that Kevin Murray, Chairman, Public Relations Division, Chime Communications, and I have been pursuing for the past two years. (These notes are based on a presentation made to the national conference of the Public Relations Consultants Association in the UK, May 10, 2006, by Kevin and myself).
What we are trying to do in this series of studies is – simply –
to understand how public relations is valued, and how it can realise its value, now and in future. We started into the studies partly to add to research already completed or commissioned by the UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations.
In 2003, the Institute collaborated with the Department of Trade and Industry to examine the contribution of public relations to business performance. It followed this with a study the following year on public relations and the use of return on investment as a measure of public relations value.
We set out to complement the second study, by going directly to clients for public relations practice to ask them questions about how they perceived, valued and measured the contribution of public relations[1].
Our study[1] involved interviews with fourteen chief executives or chairmen of major organisations, such as Sainsbury’s, the Hilton group, British Nuclear Fuels, Oxfam, Ofcom, and Vauxhall Motors.
The study was unusual among studies of public relations practice, in that it questioned clients for public relations services, at the highest level -- and it produced some surprising results, of which more in a moment.
We drew on this study of CEO opinion of the value of the practice, to carry out what seemed to us a logical follow-on to ask senior communication practitioners to set out their views of the future of the practice – which we could then match with the views expressed by the CEOs and chairmen.[1]
In the second study, we talked to senior practitioners with organisations that included BAA, Serco, Abbey, McDonalds, Vodafone, Pearson, IPC, Unisys, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange and the Cabinet Office.
What did we find? I’ll provide more detail in a moment, but we were surprised by some of the answers we got to questions we didn’t ask.
Public relations is valued highly – “mission critical” according to one CEO, but putting a precise value on the practice is a problem for the sellers of public relations services rather than buyers for those same services, according to another.
We were most surprised by the emphasis, in both sets of interviews, on the requirements for qualifications and capability among practitioners – one CEO said explicitly that he would place more value on public relations if practitioners were of a calibre that merited close attention to advice given.
Findings
The more we listened to our interviewees, the more we came to the view we were in the middle of a ‘Perfect Storm’ for communicators.
A ‘Perfect Storm’ is when several elements come together at the same time to create a kind of super storm with the power to sweep everything in its path aside.
The elements of our storm are:
1. The staggering increase in channels of communication, especially digital
2. Shifting patterns of influence, and the rise of citizen reporting and blogging.
3. The elevated expectations of all stakeholders, and the rise of consumer power.
4. New and rapidly changing communities of interest, enable by digital technologies and a new sense of empowerment.
5. The sheer speed of communication on a global scale.
6. Increased regulation and the consequent communications requirements.
7. The aggressive pursuit of information by journalist, and the ‘tabloidisation’ of business reporting.
8. Declining levels of trust.
There were 8 main strands to what our interviewees were saying: -
First: Public relations practise has become more important and is increasingly at the heart of strategy making, but significant progress still needs to be made.
· The function is increasingly at the centre of strategic decision-making, providing foresight, ‘outsight’ and insight to influence the decision-making process and support to build, maintain or create good relationships.
· Instead of simply being the “doer” of communications, increasingly, the role of is about facilitating good organisational communications and reputation building practices across the organisations represented.
Second: Companies must get better at engaging their employees; communicators need to get better at helping management to achieve this.
· Internal communications is the “sleeping giant” of reputation management and is not yet sufficiently well understood or sufficiently well deployed within most companies and organisations.
· Most Heads of Public Relations functions come from backgrounds where experience has been gained in external affairs rather than internal communications. Yet, they realise employee engagement is crucial and not optional in effective brand and reputation management.
· Employees – as part of a more media-savvy world – have increasing expectations of management when it comes to communications, and are often even inclined to believe external media. This places a huge demand on the function of internal communications.
Third: The public relations role has increasingly become about managing and interpreting relationships, encouraging listening and engaging in dialogue in order to protect and maintain reputations.
· The public relations function is now concerned with owning the processes that forge, manage and create positive stakeholder relationships. This involves the nurturing of better organisational listening within and without, increased responsiveness to what is being heard, and even more effective communications with all stakeholder groups.
· By identifying potential risks and giving analysis to the decision-making process, practitioners will help management make better quality decisions.
· Establishing cohesive corporate listening and managing strategic relationships is not easy, particularly, in the current environment where organisations are less trusted, and more aggressively scrutinised, than ever before.
· Equally challenging are risks posed by stakeholders who potentially can quickly generate communities of opposition because they have such easy access to digitally enabled communications and networking. Controlling or even just monitoring such dialogue is a major, if not impossible, task.
Fourth: Legislative changes, social pressure and media fragmentation are making the job more complex and demanding.
· Many factors are contributing to making the management of strategic relationships ever more difficult.
· The traditional media – television, radio and print – are fragmenting rapidly, and with this fragmentation, the accepted patterns of influence are changing.
· The power of the National newspapers is waning.
· The rise of more hostile and widespread business reporting make the use of the traditional media more difficult and forces organisations to find more direct means of communication with their stakeholders to ensure their messages are getting through.
· Digital communications, through the Internet, mobile telephones, and a variety of handheld portable devices, means that information (both correct and incorrect) can be far more rapidly and much more widely disseminated than ever before. This requires far more sophisticated monitoring of these channels and much more rapid response, often using exactly the same channels.
· These channels allow for much greater interactivity with audiences, who are increasingly information hungry and have increased expectations of having greater interaction with organisations.
· In many communications functions, the heads and their CEOs are not technologically literate and need support in understanding how to use the new media.
· The new technologies enable people to make contact with others who share the same views and form alliances very quickly. Often it can be conversations among these communities of interest that force corporations into reacting, when traditional media had not yet publicised the issue.
Fifth: Practitioners will have to improve awareness of where specific audience groups get their information, become more targeted in their approach, and more integrated in their delivery.
· With the rise of so many new channels of communications, many practitioners feel there is too little understanding about where people are really getting their information from today.
· All of this is causing a much greater need for clearer and insightful segmentation of audiences.
· Yet, challengingly, simultaneously they have to deliver more consistency of messaging and much more effective integration of communications.
Sixth: Regulation is driving the requirements for more (and more effective) communications, but some regulation is creating more opaque messaging.
· The burden of increased regulation is forcing organisations to conduct much more frequent and improved communication campaigns.
· Regulations affecting those industries or markets within which organisations operate, are fast translating into a key communication risk that can make or break them.
· Sadly, owing to lack of trust in business, the likelihood of more regulation is only greater.
Seventh: Practitioners have to raise their game, become more commercially aware, and better able to argue the value of their views.
· There is a need for higher calibre communications people who need to be more commercially minded, more strategic, more charismatic and influential and able to earn an maintain their right to stay at the decision-making table.
· This will require them to have a much better grasp of business disciplines other than just communications – they will need to be commercially aware and more business-like. Indeed, not being commercially minded was seen as one of the greatest barriers to the future success of practitioners.
· Increasingly, the teams these people lead are likely to be smaller but with a wider remit, as they will need to be well-versed in a multi-disciplinary approach to communications.
· Also, they will need to be skilled facilitators of better organisational communications, harnessing the ability of all employees and managers to deliver a good reputation for the company.
Eighth: With new recruits moving into public relations from other disciplines, the need for training and development has never been greater, but where is this to come from?
· As the demand for high calibre advisers grows, the talent pool is widening with more people crossing over from legal, management consultancy, marketing and other disciplines. This trend is only likely to accelerate.
· This influx of talent delivers new perspectives to the communications function, but is accompanied by inexperience with communications channels.
· Unfortunately most interviewees think that the training available from public relations professional bodies and academics is not up to the mark.
Key conclusions
The reports were done a year apart, but together raise a number of key issues which emerged from the interviews with senior communication practitioners and the CEOs and Chairmen we saw in 2004.
Practitioners: new and upgraded versions needed
· Both CEOs and senior practitioners say that the profession needs to become much better at explaining its case and articulating how reputation management works. CEOs find dealing with higher calibre practitioners raised their perception of public relations value.
· When CEOs and senior practitioners talk of top level communications advisors, they describe a professional with an acute understanding of stakeholder needs and desires, awareness of the organisation’s business model, key performance drivers, the operating environment and the confidence to challenge the leaders of the organisation if necessary. They also have to act as coach and facilitator to help company leaders become more effective communicators.
· Communications professionals need a wider range of leadership and management skills so they can facilitate colleagues to deliver more integrated communications programmes across the organisation.
· Both senior practitioners and CEOs are concerned as to whether the industry can provide enough high-calibre people.
In general, Public Relations – “on the up”
§ The outcome of our combined interviews with CEOs and communications practitioners on the role and future of public relations is at once reassuring, disturbing and exciting. There is clearly a high degree of harmony between CEOs and their communications directors on the increasing value and upward trajectory of public relations. And if CEOs and their senior practitioners agree on the value of public relations, it is not at all clear that all board members share their view. CEOs must work with their communication leaders to drive this point home to directors and senior managers in companies.
Operational complexity
§ Public relations, however, is also becoming much more difficult at an operational level for a number of important reasons which are likely to remain with us. In general, whilst it is true to say that public relations has ‘come of age’ as a strategic force and is now considered a board-level discipline, it also represents a much more demanding – perhaps impossible - range of tasks for practitioners.
§ New technology, the fragmentation of delivery through complex digital media channels, the problems of knowing who is saying what – and where they are getting it from - and the increased reputational risks created by speed and ease of access to public audiences, make it extremely difficult for communications directors to keep on top of what is “out there.” Who is claiming ownership of this problem and what are they doing about it?
Mismatch of investment
§ And if the operating environment is more complex, practically impossible to control and much more demanding in terms of reaction times, it is also evident that there is a clear mismatch between how senior management has chosen to diagnose these difficulties and what it is actually doing about it. Are they going to accept that the world has become more complex and demanding for communications, and live with it, or is there going to be a strategic, co-ordinated and fully resourced response?
A brave new world for PR
· This is a brave new world for the powerful strategic communications discipline that began life as simple Public Relations. A new and exciting dynamic has been created through the conjunction of digital technology, raised psychological expectations across the range of stakeholders and consumer know-how that is forcing communications right to the centre of corporate and organisational affairs – indeed placing it at the heart of corporate value itself. As a discipline and a career it has a bright commercial future and much will be asked of it. In our view, communications will begin to attract the very brightest and best candidates across all disciplines. The problem is, how to get the best out of them, and how and where to train them. We need to give this serious consideration, now.
Conclusion
In our view, public relations will go from strength-to-strength both in terms of its importance to the organisations and in the calibre of people who are attracted to it as a career. The likely future of public relations is that is stands every chance of playing the pivotal role in the success of the company of the future. Not least because it is increasingly the case that successful business organisations are those that demonstrate that they are in relationships which themselves are a source of strength and value for the future.
We see the studies that we have completed as a contribution to practice development, pointing, with the CIPR studies, to the future development of the practice. The two studies and their findings also point to a third study that will bring together providers of public relations services, their clients (again, represented at the highest level), representatives of organisations like the CIPR and PRCA and those involved in developing current and future practitioners to talk over the requirements of practice development that we have outlined.