The Buzz Bin

Last week’s post on Strategic Marketers See PR as a Function caused quite a contested conversation, particularly amongst PR types (and even caused one commenter to get banned). The responses on other blogs varied greatly. Here’s a sample:

Chris Brown: So, at the risk of annoying some, my vote today: Marketing leads, PR follows. Just my opinion… I really wish that someone had told me this when I was in school…

Jennifer Mattern: …watching that same certain blogger resort to censorship instead of accepting criticism and participating more actively in that lovely “conversation” on the Web PR bloggers are always talking about; watching people debate the never-ending issue of marketing vs. PR….

Perhaps the most sophisticated responses opposing “marketing’s yoke over PR” came from Heather Yaxley, both on and off this blog. So we decided to ask her back to the Buzz Bin for more discussion. Ms. Yaxley teaches the CIPR qualifications, lectures part-time at Bournemouth University and runs the Motor Industry Public Affairs Association (MIPAA) Limited. She is passionate about PR, and as well as consultancy work, and blogs at Greenbanana.

BB: What are the core differences between PR in the United Kingdom vs. the United States?

HY: As PR is affected by societal factors influencing how organisations and publics relate, differences are mainly cultural, including the impact of our legal and political systems.  In the UK, PR’s history derives from public campaigns from local government, plus the legacy of wartime propaganda, rather than the more commercial heritage of PR in the US. 

Today public engagement is still evident in the UK, with issues of corporate social responsibility high on the agenda of all organisations.  Of course, there’s plenty of PR used for product promotion and one-sided press agentry – although we have a very aggressive tabloid media which has a love-hate relationship with PR practitioners, especially those who aren’t professional.

BB: Why is investor relations different than marketing PR?  Isn’t it shilling for shares instead of products/services?

HY: There’s definitely a sales-oriented – or persuasive – imperative with all stakeholders to ensure corporations are financially viable in the short-term.  But the support of customers, investors and other stakeholders needs to be maintained in the long-term too. 

This is true from a commercial or economic perspective, but also in looking at expectations on corporations beyond Milton Friedman’s classic: “the business of business is business”. 

For example, firms now need to report to the market on intangible assets alongside financial measures and PR plays a key role in helping organisations to manage intangibles, such as responsibility, relationships and reputational risks, and communicate credibly in these areas.

BB: In our discussion last week, you mentioned employee communications as a non-marketing form of PR.  But most companies don’t let their PR departments handle this, instead letting HR run employee communications.  What are your thoughts on this?

HY: I’m more familiar with PR, or corporate communications, functions being responsible for internal comms (IC), although specialists increasingly argue this should be an entirely distinct discipline.  Regardless of the title or reporting structure, it is important that employees are actively engaged through internal communications, rather than simply being expected to process information about corporate policies, procedures and passively accept the management perspective, or seen as just a marketing channel.

BB: We often use big companies as examples for ideal PR structures.  But what about small and medium enterprises?  What’s the likelihood of them using PR for anything other than marketing?

HY: Large corporations are generally cited as case studies in all areas of management, because they are well-known and their size enables specialist functions to be researched. Studies, such as those by Danny Moss at Manchester Metropolitan University, show small and medium enterprises generally have little management understanding of any form of professional communications. 

They focus on tactics: placing adverts, creating brochures or issuing press releases.  However, increasingly start-ups recognise the need to build a good reputation – not just a corporate identity or brand – and I frequently come across PR being used for more than marketing purposes, especially when getting good staff, securing financing or building local community relations are key business requirements.

BB: Do you think companies misappropriate their PR funds on marketing instead of using it for other purposes? And for what other purposes?

HY: I wouldn’t say companies misappropriate PR funds on marketing as I believe PR can help achieve a wide range of commercial objectives.  Indeed, I’ve seen a lot of redirection of budget to PR departments from marketing in the last couple of years. 

Where increased budget would be beneficial for PR is in research and evaluation, helping substantiate its contribution towards tangible and intangible assets.  It is also increasingly important to devote PR resources to building long-term, sustainable relationships, especially as part of issues monitoring and risk management.

BB: A recent questionable report shows the UK lagging behind U.S. adoption of social media.  What are your insights?

HY: In respect of social media, there is a lot of cautious interest evident in the UK.  Of course, it took some time for companies to understand the benefits initially of websites and learn that customers, and other stakeholders, actively seek out information.  So the next stage is for companies to engage in two-way discussions online.  There is definitely interest in using social media, but a fear about the need to listen and participate openly in resulting dialogues. 

BB: What’s the greatest challenge you see for the PR profession?

HY: I had an interesting conversation this week with a class of journalist students about the future of PR.  We discussed the impact of increased commercialisation of the media and journalists’ reliance on PR-originated information.  They argued for trusted “gate-keepers” to report on products and organisations – and how puff and fluff will increasingly be rejected in favour of more genuine information. 

I believe that as publics become active around issues they care about, organisations will be under pressure in respect of those vital intangibles – which offers an opportunity for strategic PR.  Such expertise in issues management should be valued by senior executives, including colleagues in marketing, as it has an increasing impact on all areas of the business, especially across the traditional marketing mix.  Any company determining its product design, for example, needs to understand public attitudes to issues such as the environment, safety, security and labour rights.   So here, even in seeing a role for PR within marketing, it has to be senior and strategic, not a tactical technician function.

Geoff Livingston authored the introduction.