Posts Tagged ‘PR’

There’s been a lot of buzz around measuring the ROI of social media here and other places and it seems to come up a lot during the #pr20chats (PR 2.0 chats on Twitter). Sometimes measurement is a deadly sin (lack thereof) and sometimes it’s seen as a holy grail (can’t get there). Whichever it is, it’s not limited to social media…measuring ROI is also a huge issue for marketers and PR folks too.

Measuring marketing, PR and social media can be relatively simple if you have a plan. And the plan is probably the hardest part, especially getting consensus (management and co-workers), being able to implement it and-most importantly-being agile enough to change on a dime when an element of the plan isn’t working.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, I didn’t learn how to write objectives (the part of the plan that makes it measurable) in college or on the job. Nope! In fact, I learned how to write measureable objectives from the PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) when I took their weekend APR (Accreditation in Public Relations) course about 8-9 years ago. Because understanding how to write a plan with measureable objectives is a large part of achieving the APR, it was also a large part of the weekend course. Since then, I have used what I learned for marketing and PR campaign plans throughout the years and it’s really been helpful to show management if campaigns have been successful (or not) and how I’ve been a contributing member of the marketing team.

I’ve heard a lot of people say that there isn’t standardization when it comes to measurement. I’d say what I am about to share is as standard as it gets… And if you haven’t already picked up a copy of Katie Paine’s ‘Measuring Public Relationships,’ you better rush on over to Amazon.

Some of this you might know, some maybe not. In any case, feel free to share your best practices.

Writing a Plan: The Basic Elements

A basic plan should have:

• A goal (One. If you find yourself writing “and” in your goal, you’ll probably need two plans)
• Measurable objectives (as many as needed)
• Strategies (every objective gets its own strategies)
• Tactics (every strategy gets its own tactics)
• A way to measure

A plan could essentially look like this:

• Goal
• Objective 1.1
• Strategy 1.1
• Tactic 1.1
• Strategy 1.2
• Tactic 1.2
• Objective 2.1
• Strategy 2.1
• Tactic 2.1
• Strategy 2.2
• Tactic2.2

[This basic plan assumes you know your or your client know their challenge, audience, budget, etc.]

Basic example:

Goal: I want to lose weight.

Objective: I want to lose 10 pounds by July 15th

Strategy 1.1: I will go to the gym 5 times a week

Tactic: I will use the elliptical machine, weights and the pool at the gym

Strategy 1.2: I will watch what I eat

Tactic: I will write down everything I eat

Measurement: I lost 8 pounds by July 15th (I didn’t achieve my goal)

Knowing the difference between goals and objectives

When I ask marketing/PR folks what’s their measureable objective is I often hear “to generate more sales” or “to get our key message out.” These are not objectives…they are goals. And because goals and objectives are often confused, it leads people thinking that they can’t be measured in a truly impactful way.

Outputs, Outtakes and Outcomes: Three types of objectives

For objectives to be measureable they must include (no exceptions):

1. A specific desire communication or behavioral effect;
2. A designated public (or publics) among whom the effect is to be achieved;
3. The expected level of attainment; and
4. The timeframe in which those attainments
   are to occur.

Basic Example: To increase number of presentation downloads by online public #1 by 20% within 3 months. (Pretty easy, right?)

Once you understand what is required for a measureable objective, then you need to understand what type of objective makes sense: output, outtake or outcome.

• Output: Physical products (i.e. whitepapers, tweets, blog posts, articles, etc.)
• Outtake: What will the publics take away? (i.e. messages, perceptions, understandings)
• Outcome: What quantifiable changes in attitudes, behaviors, or opinions (i.e. did they buy something?)

Here’s the catch:

Outputs are easy and it’s apparent whether or not you did what you said you would in your plan (was that whitepaper written and tweeted out?). Outtakes require bench marketing and monitoring (how do you know where you ended up, if you didn’t know where you started). And Outcomes require heavy lifting. Because, and this is VERY important, Outcome objectives are usually where ROI ties in, and an organization will need to track all efforts and follow them, most likely, through a CRM system, which isn’t always easy to do.

So what’s the point to this post? Well, people are losing patience when it comes to conversations around social media (as well as marketing and PR) not being measureable. Everything is measurable; you just need to make the time to plan for it. And trust me, as I have said in the past, I have never worked for an organization that enforced or required a plan. That said, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have one. A plan is a great way to show, whether you’re client or agency side, your value as a marketing, PR or social media pro. That said, no one ever said it was easy…

What do you think? Too basic? (That was the point.) Not real-world enough? If so, why are we trying to complicate it?

As always, I am interested in your thoughts, experiences and where this is all heading.

Even More Goodness! Related Posts:

• Where have all the references gone?
• Are you stuck in a box?
• Is Personal Social Media Experience A Negative For Job Seekers?
• For Hire! Searching for My Next Career Opportunity

Tonight on our weekly #pr20chat we discussed the seven deadly sins of public relations 2.0, a topic suggested by Rodney Rumford and Kat Calbes.

I had no doubt that we’d identify some sins that are keeping PR pros from harnessing the power of social media to engage ALL of their publics. Without further ado: 

Deadly Sin #1: Becoming too involved in relationships

Deadly Sin #2: Only focusing on media and blogger relations

Deadly Sin #3: Not understanding technology [Christopher Pollock]

Deadly Sin #4: Thinking you can still control the message [Christopher Pollock, Susan Getgood]

Deadly Sin #5: Approaching social media as a channel [Jason Kintzler]

Deadly Sin #6: Not understanding group dynamics, sociology, anthropology [Giles Crouch, Brian Solis]

Deadly Sin #7: Not Integrating communications efforts

Other Deadly Sins…

• Setting unrealistic, over promising expectations [Lauren Vargas]
• Cramming traditional “push” PR tactics into conversational social media [Jason Kintzler]
• Your client’s brand has no friends, fans or followers [Jason Kintzler]

I hope I didn’t miss anyone or any other sins! What other sins would you add when it comes to PR 2.0?

[Image: iStock]

Even More Goodness! Related Posts:

• Who Has More Power Over Your Organization: Stakeholders or Publics?
• Do Public Relations Professionals Even Know What PR Is?
• Where have all the references gone?
• Outputs, Outtakes, Outcomes…Oh, my!

Tonight was the first PR 2.0 chat on Twitter. Thanks to everyone who participated and shared their thoughts, experiences, expertise.

What I love best about chats is that they bring people together who may not know each other and the sub-chats that take place, both really show the value of the community and the encouragement to explore other topics as part of a whole conversation.

A few questions were asked during the 1.5 hour long chat. I know Twitter is a bear to follow conversations (threads would be ideal, but you know how that goes), so I have tried to capture the highlights here. You can also take a look at #pr20chat (start at the beginning) or within Twitter, search on #pr20chat.  

I hope I captured the comments properly in response to the questions asked… If not, let me know.

To you, what is Public Relations 2.0 and do you need to be in PR to utilize PR 2.0?

• rockstarjen: the beauty of pr 2.0 is anyone can speak to their audience. you don’t need to be in PR
• rockstarjen: you have the tools right there, but you will need to learn fundamental comm skills, of course.
• wvpmc: PR 2.0 is just one component of the broader SM 2.0, as trad PR is part of broader marketing communications – need to sync
• smrus: Don’t think you need to be in PR 2 enjoy the more open, accessible form of PR; however, do think that a baseline understand is key
• JMaultasch: No, you do not need to work in PR to utilize PR 2.0 Advertising, marketing and PR are all blending together in this opt-in world
• lindsaymallen: Don’t have 2 B PR 2 engage in PR 2.0. Customers can B biggest PR assets or nightmares. Every1 is a “brand rep.”
• tamera: PR 2.0 shld be abt adapting what wrks in 1.0 to new digi realities. Redefine PR if u must after uv figured out how 1st integrates
• jonnew: PR 2.0 is also about content creation and sharing that content across all PR and SM platforms.
• CMM_PR: I think the PR industry is among the leaders in the new SM ecosystem. Biz clients are looking to PR for expertise.
• davidweiner: PR 2.0 = giving EVERYONE everything they could possibly want from an announcement THEN having a conversation with them about it
• julielandry: Don’t hv 2b in PR to engage in PR 2.0. Customers can be your biggest PR assets … Everyone is a “brand rep.”

So, then…how do we get all other areas of marketing or business to feel comfortable with PR 2.0?

• rockstarjen: i think it’s also important the SM discussion is held with all groups together. all should be involved
• lindsaymallen: Social media policies and strategies are key … and their creation must involve people who understand the technologies/services.
• wvpmc: Establish goals, measurable objectives, understand how each piece of the marketing mix fits into the whole – 2.0= new dimension
• rockstarjen: good way to break down the silos is to create an SM “task force” w/reps from all groups
• wvpmc: That “it depends” uncertainty is what is making so many companies, and PR people, hesitant to jump in the water

I find that companies are comfortable standing behind a PR agency rather than engaging 1:1 with customers, media, etc.

• rockstarjen: you’re probably right. comfort is one, but time commitment is another factor in my experience.
• smrus: Many companies still count on the “PR person” to handle interactions for them for reasons of comfort or time as @rockstarjen said.
• nrohrbach: @lindsaymallen I agree, PR isn’t always the ball in your court, PR can just as easily be “Word of Mouth”
• lindsaymallen: @DaphneLeigh “I don’t understand” or “I don’t want to change” or “I don’t want to do this w/o a 10-part plan”

How do we sync/integrate PR 2.0 with marcom? What are some guidelines?

• Tbeffs: might be worth adding sycn/integrate w MarCom/Adv agencies also (battle of the agencies also)
• lindsaymallen: C-suite also needs to understand that not everything is going to be measurable in the traditional sense.
• smrus: It’s about integrated marketing communications… with new rules and new engagement from PR to advertising and Web.
• lindsaymallen: And sometimes mktg people are writing comm plans that incl media rel w/o understanding what media rel does & what is possible!

Has anyone successfully integrated the marcom functions with social media to achieve PR 2.0? Any case studies?

• Stuartcfoster: An integrated communications strategy outlined for each employee. Focus on engagement, transparency and humanity.
• lindsaymallen: And it’s even harder in an environment where there are legal concerns, resistance to experimenting w/new methods, etc.
• lindsaymallen: Orgs are having a hard time getting on board b/c “no one has time” to learn/strategize, & no one wants to leap w/o strategy

Okay, back to the original question…what is PR 2.0? How would you explain it to clients/management?

• wvpmc: Exciting opportunity of 2.0 is ongoing dialogue with publics- builds on foundation of trad market research
• lindsaymallen: Using tech strategies to reach out to customers (or prospects), media, etc. & also monitoring what’s being said about your brand.
• CMM_PR: An entire new look at the business or enterprise is needed, from the inside out. Transparency & authenticity r the new values.
• DavidSpinks: PR 2.0 is less about talking at people, and more about talking with people.
• smrus: PR 2.0 is a more “engaged” PR, leveraging new emerging marketing technologies & social media vehicles to talk w/ targets
• lindsaymallen: Sometimes you just have to test the waters — wisely — on your own time & take a strategy to the C-suite based on what you learn.
• CMM_PR: In the new PR 2.0 model there is a shift from talking “through” media to our audience, instead “to” media and our audience.
• DaphneLeigh: @CMM_PR Don’t you think it’s more talking “with” and not “to” (or should be). Talking “to” is one-sided.

Where do you think we are, as professionals, when it comes to PR 2.0? Skill & implementation wise? Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced?

• smrus: Unfortunately, I hink that many PR pros haven’t even begun. Too much focus on getting that traditional release out the door…
• DavidSpinks: Intermed. Profs are finally starting to get it, but it takes time to relearn how to be human and prof at same time.
• rockstarjen: re: skill/implementation. i feel like we’re still beginners, for sure. so much to learn.
• JMaultasch: Beginner! We are all looking for case studies and best practices. We are trying diff techniques and technologies.
• gbender26: I think we’re beginners again every time we start working with a new client or biz. It takes time to get it right.

Talking to “publics” is nothing new, but I think we’ve been focusing on too much media relations (impressions). How do we redirect?

• jonnew: Need to “retrain” clients and C-level folks on the eventual value. This comes through consistency and time.
• KatrinaHollmann:  Impressions are measurable results, sometimes the only things clients get. Otherwise they maybe feel they can’t justify
• KatrinaHollmann: Think maybe a lack of understanding on how to be relevant to audience and how to set time boundaries/manage SM “spend”.
• lindsaymallen:  Mgrs are not allowing staff time to learn, so it’s DIY for many. I took time to learn it myself, then made suggestions.
• wvpmc: I think that “I don’t have time” and concern with ghosting set up conflict- clients want PR people to take the reins

The biggest fallacy in PR is that impressions are accurate numbers. They aren’t and never were. We need to stop selling that lie.

• KatrinaHollmann: Don’t think most clients believe the # of impressions are valid, but they aren’t given anything else to use as measure.
• gbender26: Agreed on impression #s not telling the story; clients want metrics and we need to identify more meaningful ones
• davidweiner: @KatrinaHollmann Trouble with measurement = PR competing against all the other Comms disciplines who are not using the same metrx
• wvpmc: A lot of what is measured is useless – great post Vanity Metrics vs. Actionable Metrics by @EricRies http://bit.ly/KlQMq
• smrus: Worry it will Bcome not impressions, but #s followers on TW, fans on FB. Can we truly measure SM ROI? Not certain we can.
• DavidSpinks: The best way I’ve heard to show value/ROI of SM is to tie to corp goals.
• dustinrowley: @MackCollier its about coming to the realization that ROI is immeasurable. 2 many intangibles. evolotion of SM wont change that
• thebrandbuilder: @MackCollier @dustinrowley Start with your objectives, then determine what metrics make sense. What are you trying to impact?
• MackCollier: @davidweiner And that’s a measureable outcome of SM. Ex: Track how online mentions change after you start blogging

So if we step back and were to reposition away from impressions to engagement, how would you explain it to mgmt provide assurance?

• lindsaymallen: If msgs include call to action (esp. 1 that req. investment/purchase), success is extremely measurable.
• gbender26: Show what’s going on w/o your participation. Getting involved is better than not when ppl are talking about your brand
• davidweiner: If you step back and try to explain it, they’ll step back and lower the budget again…
• andrewmueller: PR is known as being extremely risk adverse can they shed that image and enbrace authenticity and transparency? I’m not sure
• davidweiner: PR has the impressions, eyeballs and engagement. Problem is we don’t have the guts to use the same #s Ad and Marketing peeps do
• CMM_PR: Focus is still on the tone of coverage, targeted media channels, prominence of key messages and buzz about your brand or client.
• davidweiner: Show a difference in the bottom line. Increase in sales, in traffic, in positive coverage/conversations
• JMaultasch: @BethHarte You undersell mgmt. Demonstrate the value you are building, even if it’s brand equity and you will find support.
• smrus: @CMM_PR – Agreed, but how do we hold off mgmt’s request 4 the dreaded “proof” until then?

Last question to ponder. If PR 2.0 is about engagement/ relationships, how does it turn the Pareto Principle on it’s head (80/20 rule)?

• DavidSpinks: I don’t see how it effects the 80/20 rule. I guess the 20 will equate to even more loyal customers.
• lindsaymallen: I think PR 2.0 creates a wider audience to draw that 20 percent from, which mathematically should mean better btm line!
• jeremymeyers: @BethHarte it may not and may just be that its 80/20 of a whole lot more people
• smrus: The 80% will not allow themselves 2 B ignored. Must account 4 the fact that they may seek U out if you do. Dontcha think?
• alextanPR: @BethHarte it gives the 80% a voice but resources will still be a challenge when attempting to make the impact as a super brand
• wvpmc: Not sure how 2.0 impacts 80/20 rule, but interesting to see how it plays in the long tail vs. trad big brands
• kamichat: I personally think the 80/20 rule still applies, it speaks to human nature. Now there is just another set of groupings
• lalunablanca: thinking the longtail will reshape Pareto and classic market consolidation.
• MaikelvandeMort: @BethHarte It’s a challenge for brands to put small budgets against 100% of their market. This will pose a challenge as SM grows
• MackCollier: @BethHarte The 80% is still creating content/conversations that affect behavior of the 20%. Smart cos know this & engage.
• ginakay: will jump in..I think choosing to listen for specifics applies no matter how many are in mix. 80/20 rule now abitrary?
• ginakay: If 80% =vocal, they must be responded to, particularly if negative (per #ibms) However if a troll, can ignore based on patterns
• mktgdouchebag: Good advertisers are all about the 20%. PR has a harder time w/ forgetting 80% b/c industry preached reputation mgmt. so long.
• w2scott: 80 % can get mighty squeaky RT @BethHarte: @amandachapel So what happens when the 80% start kvetching online & are ignored?
• katrinamsage: Found interesting article concerning the 80/20 rule and PR, thought I would share it. http://tinyurl.com/q2euxg
• amandachapel: @BethHarte “So what happens when the 80% start kvetching online & are ignored?” Crisis communications. Manage it!
• rachelakay: @BethHarte I think it’s reasonable to assume that if they’re kvetching they’re more likely part of that 20 % Do the rest bother?
• davidweiner: @ginakay Eventually, will 100% of the audience be vocal and online? Isn’t that a central eventuality?
• kamichat: @BethHarte Here is the thing, usually the kvetchers are also just a small fraction, it’s the 80/20 rule in motion
• kamichat: RT: I think the whole point of 80/20 is that you work with the 20 to reach the 80
• davidweiner: @BethHarte If 1% of the audience was online, we should be too
• BethHarte: @kamichat Get the 20% to speak to the 80%…thereby keeping an ongoing revenue stream with less marketing/PR effort, yes?
• artrox: @MackCollier 80/20 has been debunked, it has been taken out of context and run with, will try find interview
• wvpmc: Trouble brews when the noisy 1% get the rest of the crowd riled up – SM makes them harder/riskier to ignore
• dustinrowley: @BethHarte yes but by definition you need to spend 80% of your time working on that 20% you want to be actionable.
• BethHarte: @dustinrowley But the 20% is already actionable…they are buying & prob. being upsold/cross-sold. It’s the 80% that rotates
• jonnew: @BethHarte Maybe you only need the 20 percent as the rest are communicated to through other channels?
• BethHarte: @wvpmc Here’s the prob. w/cultivating influencers-they tend to ignore. The weakest links provide the greatest strength (the 80%).

Extra Highlights:

• lindsaymallen: Oddly, I’ve found that writing (my strongest skill, IMO) has become an undervalued skill. Why is it a lost art, yet so vital?
• DavidSpinks: @lindsaymallen Writing is far from a lost art. It’s changing, but becoming more important with the growth of this social mindset.
• lindsaymallen: The best thing I did was allow personal and professional to merge — in a professional way — on Twitter. Has been helpful.
• lindsaymallen: The smartest companies/orgs are the ones that are out there inviting customers to engage & making it right when there’s an issue.
• lindsaymallen: Good customer service should improve the bottom line. And in PR 2.0, good CS can lead to good word-of-mouth (& help contain bad).
• MackCollier: Attempting to manipulate interactions in a social space is a recipe for disaster.
• andrewmueller: Perhaps it is an opportune time for PR as an industry to rebrand itself to emphasize interaction
• MackCollier: @BethHarte This is the prob of ppl that dont understand SM, they say any interaction that doesnt end in sale is meaningless
• MaikelvandeMort: Although growing fast, the social media community still dwarfs in comparison to the real world. The C suite just starts to notice
• MackCollier: @BethHarte It extends even further. I have never bought a Masi or Graco product, but evangelize the SM efforts of both cos
• mktgdouchebag: @rachelakay Yes! PR needs to stop thinking about tactics & instead think where’s my audience & what comm. channel will reach them.
• SashaHalima: @rachelakay I had a talk w/ someone today about Twitter being a fad, he thinks it is & didn’t want to hear otherwise.
• wvpmc: @BethHarte @kamichat SM provides opportunity to identify rising influencers early-on
• mktgdouchebag: @rachelakay The best PR pros *personally* evaluate lots of comm. channels & then deploy according to client’s audience/culture.
• BethHarte: @wvpmc What I mean by broken is that the metrics used were never valid. So, now SM seems unreliable or unmeasurable, not the case.
• davidweiner: RT @MackCollier @lbbinc Biggest mistake most cos make is get upset about neg comments, HUGE opportunity if handled correctly

Suggested Topics for next week:

• mktgdouchebag: How about how to convince clients to try social media–*when* it’s appropriate–as a topic?
• w2scott: Topic idea: Talking clients OUT OF social media (unless they’ll commit to rigorous planning)
• kamichat: Topic Idea for next #pr20chat Bad pitching and need for speed – invite @prblog and @sgetgood to the party
• Rumford: #pr20chat can you put together a best practices list or 7 deadly sins for the new PR? repository for content is where?
• katcalbes: @Rumford Wow, I was just thinking ’7 deadly sins’ would be a great topic for #pr20chat. @BethHarte I second that request!

[Image: iStock]

Even More Goodness! Related Posts:

• The Seven Holy Grails of Public Relations 2.0
• Does accreditation have value for PR pros?
• Who Has More Power Over Your Organization: Stakeholders or Publics?
• Do Public Relations Professionals Even Know What PR Is?

I’ve found as a blogger sometimes when I let something swim around in my head for a while, all the pieces I need to make a point or share my thoughts seem to come together like a puzzle. I’ve been pondering this post since early September, but yesterday and today it finally solidified (for me anyway).

I have said more than a few times that I am not a fan of the term “Social Media Marketing.” Maybe it’s just semantics. Maybe I am just being staunch in applying the marketing and communications definitions and principals that I learned long ago and have implemented for ages.

Here’s the reason why the term social media marketing is not working for me: social media is about sharing and discussing information. It’s communications, not marketing. And yes, of course, companies can indirectly market themselves through communications; we’ve been doing it for eons (at least one-way). But a good communicator does not always make a good marketer nor does a good marketer always make a good communicator. They are two different disciplines.

After all these months, what is cementing this notion for me? Well, for one it was the comment that Eric Brown (@eric_urbane) left yesterday. He, and rightly so, is very upset about ‘social media marketers’ not delivering. Eric commented:

“… Social Media 101 tells us, as business owners we need to be transparent, we need to participate in the conversation and allow what we do right and do wrong to hang out there on rating sites, blogs, and forums for the whole world to evaluate, yet very few Social Media consultants or agencies are willing or have done the same, at least I don’t think so. So, after running around in my underwear for the last three years while practicing Social Media for all to see, I would like to see the same from the Social Media firm or consultant I am contemplating to hire.” He goes on to comment “…our small business paid out a lot of money to folks who didn’t know what they were doing, but claimed to. I see this forthcoming as a huge issue in our industry, and think a lot of money will be spent on the carpetbagger side of the fence, giving this Social Media space a black eye.”

The issue at hand, as I see it, is that a lot of people are adding Social Media Marketing as part of their service offerings, but they haven’t spent a day doing the marketing part and because of that they struggle with implementing social media as part of an overall marketing strategy. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t consider a company being advised to set up a LinkedIn or Facebook group or to have a Twitter account marketing (and in some cases, it’s not social media either). There’s much more to marketing (like product, distribution, pricing).

The second thing was this video from Ogilvy PR Worldwide that I came across today (via Shel Holtz/Social Media Today):

Yes, I know. The video is about PR, not marketing (or is it?). But, last time I checked, PR fell under the ‘P’ in marketing that is ‘Promotion.’ Shel also included a link to John Bell’s (Ogilvy) post on The 13 Skills of the Public Relations Pro of the Future, which includes a link to a post discussing how PR folks need to understand Creating Integrated Marketing and Communications Strategy. (Integrated marketing communications [IMC] was introduced in the late 90s by Don Schultz, Clarke L. Caywood, et al–it’s not a new concept. It may be new to some or it could be, in some cases, that social media is finally forcing the implementation of it).

John writes:

“The walls between marketing and communications are dissolving. A new marcom organizational standard is already appearing where multiple disciplines, most notably public relations and advertising are rolling up to the same leader inside brands.”

Really. Huh. Really? I guess I am fortunate enough to have always had marketing (including product development/management/branding), communications and PR in one department (very small and very large companies). That said, I have heard from marketing friends who work for large companies and agencies that the brand managers don’t always report into marketing and that PR sometimes reports into the CEO, or horror…HR. No doubt these types of reporting structures always present communications challenges.

I am not beating up on Ogilvy or John Bell…not at all. It’s a great series that John has and given my recent rant about the PR industry, I think A LOT of PR folks need to listen to what John has to say.  But, what all of this says to me is that this mashup of social media, communications (advertising, PR, WOM) and marketing is going to cause a lot of issues and people like Eric Brown (and his budget) will experience the brunt of it.

Why? Because the mashup will allow for people to offer services like Social Media Marketing or PR Communications or Marketing Relations or… (really, you don’t want me to go on right?) without having a firm grasp on any of the disciplines that they are trying to deliver or implement.

Trust me, I agree with John, the walls need to come down and the need for two-way communications is forcing a sledge hammer through the walls.

But at what cost?

Even More Goodness! Related Posts:

• Is Personal Social Media Experience A Negative For Job Seekers?
• Your “Industry Experience Only” Requirement Is Hurting Customers, Employees and Shareholders
• For Hire! Searching for My Next Career Opportunity
• Saturday Morning Reads (Late Edition): What Were They Thinking?

In the latest issue of PRSA’s The Strategist there is an article “Driving Public Relations” that discusses Chrysler’s corporate decision to put PR under their HR department.

Nancy Rae, Chrysler’s human resource and corporate communications executive is now handling PR. According to the article, this move is “part of the cultural transformation—and the search for “synergies and efficiencies”—that Chrysler began in 2007. This new role also gives her additional oversight of employee relations.

I, obviously, can’t site the entire article for you, but the gist is that there were PR professionals like Jason Vines (Chrysler’s former PR VP of corporate communications), John Guiniven, APR, Fellow PRSA (Chrysler’s former director of corporate PR), and Janine Turner (Mandrake Executive Search Consultants) chiming in how this move is wrong for many reasons.

Some of the debate includes: where PR should fit within an organization (and they don’t think it’s under HR); the argument that PR should report to the CEO (and have a seat at the executive table) to ensure that they are part of decision-making and corporate strategy; and the fact that HR and PR are completely different disciplines.

Here are my quick, off-the-cuff thoughts:

1. HR has a tendency to keep corporate information close to the vest, you can’t do that with reporters or your publics—especially during a crisis;
2. PR is not an “anyone can do this” job. It is a degreed discipline;
3. HR typically isn’t involved with product development, marketing and customers; and
4. HR focuses internally, not externally—employees relations does not equate to public/external relations.

As you probably can guess, I believe that PR needs to be a function of Marketing. PR folks can debate me (note: I also am a PR practitioner) on this, but PR is promotion. You ARE promoting the company and it’s strategy in one way or another. Whether it’s product promotion, thought leadership, or community relations, the end game is the same—two-way communications and acceptance.

Also, I found it interesting that the article notes that the PR team at Chrysler works 24/7—whether there’s a crisis or not. 24/7? Is that necessary? Perhaps it’s an exaggeration to squelch the perception that being a private company will equate to lack of communication.

I apologize for not having a link to the article for you to read and react to, but there isn’t one available.

Smart PR and marketing folks, in general, what do you think? Should PR fall under HR? What are the ramifications of doing so? And, feel free to provide opinions on PR falling under marketing too.

[Image: goswm.com]

Even More Goodness! Related Posts:

• Where have all the references gone?
• Outputs, Outtakes, Outcomes…Oh, my!
• Are you stuck in a box?
• Who Has More Power Over Your Organization: Stakeholders or Publics?