Are PR and marketing the same thing?

I've been hearing some debate on Twitter about what PR is and isn't.

A few years ago, The Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) brought some of its leaders together to produce a definition of PR. Here's what they said:

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.

(Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
 
Some of the conversations I catch online revolve around the notion that PR and marketing are the same thing. As many industry "outsiders" seem to see it, PR is about getting attention for a company or its product, or apologizing for problems, to facilitate sales.

And it is that -- but not only that.

The "PR is a function of marketing" definition only addresses the "realize organizational goals" part of our professional objective and commitment, where the organizational goal we're talking about is generating sales. While marketing may achieve mutual understanding between a company and its audiences in the pursuit of that, marketing isn't focused on the public interest: its job is to create and promote products people will want to buy. 
 
So PR isn't about money, it's about the public interest?
 
It's not a one-or-the-other situation.

It's a fact: companies exist to make money. And PR functions in for-profit companies play a major role in supporting marketing (through publicity, customer advocacy, employee communications, etc.). But our focus is a bit different: in PR, it's not primarily about selling the benefits of the product, it's about creating and nurturing relationships that will make customers want to buy from the company. That's why mutual understanding and the public interest are central to the practice of PR: people prefer to do business with companies that treat them with respect.
 
For example, I'm aware of a business that sells what many consider an excellent product, but whose founder and CEO is widely reputed to be a terrible person.
 
Let's call this company Bob's Danishes, and the founder/CEO, Mr. Bob. Bob's Danishes produces what many people consider excellent danishes: they are tasty, they are appealing-looking, and they are made of high-quality ingredients. Mr. Bob's marketing folks work hard to get the message out about Bob's Danishes, and talk all about their high quality and appetizing characteristics. They create great advertising, promotional and merchandising campaigns, which target the audiences most likely to enjoy Bob's Danishes with exactly the right messaging to draw them to Bob's Danishes stores.

But while they have been very successful, there's also a significant segment of their ideal target market that won't go near a Bob's Danish store, and will tell anyone who'll listen why not: because from what they understand from media reports and the grapevine, Mr. Bob is a first-class jerk, who treats employees and anyone he feels "beneath" him like garbage.
 
Marketing can pound that hold-out segment of the target population with brilliant product advertising and deep discounts all it likes: this public won't budge, because they don't want to support Mr. Bob.
 
That's where PR comes in.
 
PR's role in the for-profit environment does support the ultimate goal of achieving sales, but not by flogging the product: our role is to give the customer reasons to want to do business with us.
 
Now, if Mr. Bob is actually the jerk he is reputed to be, the PR challenge is huge. PR practitioners who practice professionally and who adhere to codes of standards like those of The Canadian Public Relations Society and the International Association of Business Communicators won't lie about him, and (if they're willing to work for him at all) will have to focus on creating goodwill in the community through initiatives like a generous community relations program, hoping that the good done in the community will help people look beyond their boss' personal failings.
 
If Mr. Bob is misunderstood, the PR person has the opportunity to change that, so the company's publics feel good about buying from Bob's Danishes.
 
Even in for-profit companies, PR is about relationships before sales.
 
More than once in my career, I intervened in organizational activities that I felt could damage the company's goodwill in the community.  To be clear, these planned activities were never dishonest or dangerous or anything like that -- but they were geared at generating sales with one segment of the customer base in a way I felt would damage the company's relationship with another.
 
PR practitioners in for-profit companies do this all the time. Sometimes it's simply a matter of killing an initiative that is too potentially damaging; others, it's about getting together with the publics we think might have a problem with the initiative, to seek and address their input before moving forward.  
 
I don't want to make it sound like I'm saying PR is altruistic and not economically-motivated: in for-profit companies, it is about making money. If we don't make sales, we don't exist, period. But if our customers don't want to buy from us because they think our company does bad things for the community or the environment or its employees, no marketing campaign will make the sale.
 
The PR function is about creating and maintaining healthy, two-way relationships with a company's publics; we work toward mutual understanding and the public interest, because doing that will help us meet our organizational goals, whatever they may be -- including sales.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Choosing which hairs to split

I was honoured to receive a teaching award from my PR students at their convocation this week - and as it turned out, the award provided a "teachable moment."

Red River College's College Relations department interviewed me for a short bio in the convocation program, which said that I had joined the faculty in 2008, "after serving 10 years at MTS Allstream, where she was Director of Corporate Communications." This is correct - I did serve as Director of Corporate Communications at MTS Allstream; and between MTS Allstream and its holding company, I did serve there for 10 years.

But I didn't serve as Director of Corporate Communications at MTS Allstream for 10 years, which is how that statement was understood by some. The College Relations writer and I actually discussed this specific sentence before it was printed, because I wanted to ensure it was accurate.

I started out as a Public Affairs Coordinator at Manitoba Telephone System in 1996; in the decade that followed, I was promoted, my title changed, and the company's name changed, too. All that detail, though, doesn't really matter to most people, we figured - so we gave the length of my tenure, and my title when I left.

My first call upon realizing how the sentence had been understood was to June Kirby, who was the Director of Corporate Communications at MTS from 1996-2000, and my boss at the time - I didn't want her thinking I had tried to take credit for her accomplishments. 

Her reaction? "Oh come on, kiddo, even I didn't read it that way! No-one will care!" (I love it that she still calls me "kiddo.")

Of course, I hope she's right - but I wanted to set the record straight regardless.

Finding the balance between efficiency and clarity in your writing

I spoke with the writer in College Relations this morning before writing this blog post, and we laughed a bit about how we had tried to make the sentence accurate while still straightforward... and obviously didn't do it well enough. 

He said he had considered adding something like "where she held a number of positions ending with..." but in the end, felt it over-complicated the sentence - and likely wouldn't matter. I had entertained the same thought, and had come up with the same conclusion. After all, the sentence was accurate as written... as long as you understood what we meant.

And that's the key. Whose fault is it, usually, if someone misunderstands what I meant? Mine. As writers, it's our job to ensure our messages are communicated clearly, with as little room as possible for misunderstanding.  

In the end, I don't know that anyone but me cares - but it's a good lesson just the same.  If you split hairs too much, your writing may be lumpy - but if you don't split them enough, you risk inaccuracy. Find the right balance, and your writing will be at its most effective.

On Burson-Marsteller, Facebook, and ethics in PR

News broke this week about global PR giant Burson-Marsteller pitching untrue stories about how Google's Gmail Social Circle feature breaks FTC rules on users' privacy. 

According to various reports, two Burson-Marsteller account executives, one a former CNBC reporter and the other a former political columnist, attempted to persuade influential bloggers and mainstream media to report on (ultimately false) allegations of Google's violations of privacy rules -- and refused to name their client. (The emails between Burson-Marsteller's John Mercurio and blogger Christopher Soghoian, whom Mercurio was trying to persuade to write an Op-Ed on the topic, are posted here.)

Honesty and transparency in PR: the rules are clear

PR has been fighting its own bad PR for at least a generation. An article on the story in AdWeek included the following infuriating (to me) statement: "While sleazy PR firms trying to spread scandalous stories is old hat..."

Ethical, moral, honest practitioners of public relations face this kind of slag on a regular basis, thanks to unethical, immoral, dishonest practitioners of backroom dealings who've come before them and branded their work "PR."

I've heard it myself from former journalists, in the context of joking around. I'm in PR, so I must be all about spin, right? I'm likely a very good liar, right? I must be, I'm in PR!

No, not right. (And on my cranky days, not even funny.) But what can we do about it? It's not as though those impressions are baseless; PR has gotten that reputation because people speaking on behalf of organizations, in the role of "public relations," have taken actions that have brought that reputation on us all.

Here's what we can do: prove that reputation wrong. 

The best thing PR people can do to combat PR's bad rep is to work honestly and ethically. Nothing is more persuasive than personal experience: most journalists, whether or not they buy into the "PR people are liars" storyline overall, have worked with PR people who deal in good faith, and whom they trust. The more above-board PR people they deal with, the less they'll be inclined to believe the old story.

Many PR professionals like me join professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society, the International Association of Business Communicators, and the Public Relations Society of America, among others. Each of these associations has a code of ethics or of professional business conduct that details the requirements for its members to conduct business ethically, honestly and transparently.  You don't need to belong to one of these associations to perform ethically, of course -- but by actively participating in them, you make a commitment to your clients that your work will follow their publicly-stated standards.

The more real PR people consistently deal openly and ethically with their audiences, the less that "sleazy PR firm" image will endure.

At least, I hope.

A point worth making

As I followed this story on Twitter yesterday, I saw a Tweet from British PR educator Heather Yaxley that said something I had been thinking.

(Thank you to @jgombita for re-tweeting it to her followers, including me.)

It's not lost on me that the PR practitioners in question are both former journalists. I wonder whether they also joked about how sleazy PR people are, in their journalism days. 

Even the big guys have to follow the rules.

Here is Burson-Marsteller's statement, posted earlier today on its website.

"Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client.

The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media.  Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources.

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle."

Without its reputation, the product of integrity and ethical dealings, a PR firm can't be successful in building relationships with any of its audiences. Professional PR people almost have to be more honest than everyone else -- or they'll be out of work.

Burson-Marsteller has a big job to do. 

GolinHarris gives CreComm a warm welcome and great advice

This morning, 35 CreComm students (and two instructors!) were welcomed at the global headquarters of PRWEEK's 2010 Large PR Agency of the Year, GolinHarris.

Alyssa and Alexandra:
"There's no such thing as a typical day in PR."

Assistant Account Executives Alyssa Bronikowski and Alexandra Kassel gave us a quick tour of GolinHarris' Chicago headquarters at the corner of The Magnificant Mile and the Chicago River, gave us a great overview of the agency's work, and then discussed some recent campaigns they've worked on for clients including Magnum Ice Cream, Breyers, and the Dow Live Earth Run for Water, among others.

They walked us through GolinHarris' different practice areas, and talked about the various activities account staff will often undertake over the course of a day.

Advice for aspiring PR professionals

Alyssa and Alexandra shared some excellent advice for PR students wanting to approach their internships and first jobs with the right mindset for success.

1) Always be looking for solutions.
In PR, you always have to be finding ways to make things work. If you're a "well, I tried but it didn't work out... and now I'm just going to wait for someone to tell me what else to do" kind of person, PR probably isn't for you. A lot of success in PR depends on your ability (and willingness) to dig until you find the information you really need -- whether it's the best vendor for chocolate jewellery, the right media monitoring solution, or the audience profiles that will ensure you reach the right people with the right messages for your campaign.

2) Be organized.  
In a PR agency (just like in the corporate world), PR people face different tasks and challenges, with different factors always changing, and oftentimes for multiple clients, every day. If you don't have your act together, you won't last long.

3) Write, write, write.
So much of what we do in PR depends on strong writing. We write materials for our clients; we write plans that must persuasively outline our strategies; we write proposals to win our clients' business in the first place. The more you write, the better you'll be.

4) Stay on top of new ideas in your profession.
Our hosts recommended our students sign up for The Skinny on PR (click to sign up), a free e-newsletter from PR News that focuses on the PR profession; subscribe to PRWEEK; and always be watching what other organizations are doing. Your education in PR never ends.

At the end of the session, Alyssa and Alexandra gave out their business cards and generously invited our students to contact them if they had any questions about internships, launching their careers, or even projects they might have in school next year. They were excellent hosts, and we were very thankful for the opportunity to learn from them.

Thank you so much, Alyssa, Alexandra, and everyone at GolinHarris -- and to Gini Dietrich of Arment Dietrich, who helped set us up for our visit there. It was a fantastic experience!

How to take PR advice

This week, I've been having an interesting discussion with a fellow professional communicator about the value of a blog post (written by yet another professional communicator) we both read on corporate use of Twitter.

In a nutshell, I felt it contained valuable information; she disagreed, for a range of reasons, one of which being that it could lead readers to make decisions about using Twitter "carte blanche" in certain situations.


In PR, other than "be honest," don't use any advice "carte blanche"

While we weren't on the same page about the blog post we were discussing, I'm certain my colleague and I completely agree about this: don't follow anyone else's advice about whether you should use any tool or tactic "carte blanche."  Effective PR isn't achieved using templates -- though many, unfortunately, think that's the case.

There isn't a proven, right way to do anything every time; simply copying what some other organization did in a similar situation to yours won't necessarily work. And while we're at it, simply copying what you did the last time you were in a similar situation with the same audiences won't necessarily work, either.

The field is always changing.

The foundation of any good strategy in communications is knowing your audience. But that doesn't mean knowing their ages, genders, income levels, geography, etc. etc. -- it means knowing what makes them tick, what they care about, whom they're listening to and why. And those things are constantly changing.

Think about your own behaviour. Do you do the same thing every day, watch the same TV shows every night, visit the same websites on a scheduled basis? Do the people you follow in social media say the same things, time and time again?

Or do your behaviours and the external factors that influence them change over time?

Of course, they change. Which means the best way to reach you changes, too.

This makes the PR manager's job tougher - but is also why the PR manager has a job.

If people ran on predictable equations, "template" communication plans would be all you'd ever need. You would find out what your key audiences' habits and preferences are, and apply the appropriate plan for the situation.

But people don't run on predictable equations -- which means you need to always be interacting with your audiences to have a sense of where they're coming from (and where they're going) at any point in time. You can of course learn from what has and hasn't worked for you in the past, but you need to identify what's changed at your audiences' end to be able to address them properly.

Similarly, you can learn from what others have done in the past (hence the value of reading textbooks, blog posts, and presentations about their experiences); evidence of what has and hasn't worked for others can help steer us in the right direction, and can help us show why we're recommending what we're recommending.

But not because the tactic or tool will deliver exactly in our case what it did in the example: because it's one example that can give us a sense of what we might expect. Even more important than the results others have delivered using certain tactics, for our purposes, is how our situation is different from theirs. Only when we evaluate the two together can we really have a fair sense of what might work for us.


Take it under advisement

The only way to identify the best approach for your audiences in any given situation is to know the options, and know your audiences.

There are gazillions of textbooks, articles, presentations, and blogs out there that will give you advice -- including this one! -- but you shouldn't ever just implement someone else's plan with your audiences. Unless their plan worked with your audiences, in your situation, and at this particular point in time (which is impossible!), it won't be as strategic as it could be... and it won't give you your best shot at success.

From the archive: Writing an effective cover letter for PR

I wrote this post just about a year ago, for my graduating students. Having received kind words from a number of them about its usefulness, I'm re-posting it this year for our 2011 grads.

___________________


If you’re applying for a job in PR, your prospective employer may be evaluating your cover letter and résumé in more ways than you realize.

There are many different approaches to résumé writing; two of the most popular are the “chronological” approach, which is self-explanatory, and the “functional” approach, which organizes experience according to the skills or accomplishments it demonstrates.

While proponents of the “functional” résumé will tell you that presenting your material this way will help you play down gaps in your work experience or, even, your youth (?!), any potential employer who is on the ball will be asking the right questions either way.

So, what’s the right résumé for a PR job?

Over the course of my corporate career, I posted a number of PR jobs and likely reviewed a couple thousand applications. Here are a few things that, for me at least, were red flags:

1. Typos or grammatical errors – If you can’t get your own cover letter or résumé right, I have no confidence you’ll write well in my shop, no matter what your previous experience might be. Red flag.
2. “To Whom It May Concern” – Take the time to find out to whom your application should be addressed; or, at the very least, say “To the hiring committee.” (On a related note: why do people capitalize each word in that phrase? See red flag #1.)
3. “Objective: anything that isn’t the job I’m advertising” – Personally, I think providing an objective at the top of a résumé is a waste of your time and mine – I’d rather see you take the time and space to show me why you’re the right person to help me meet my objectives. (If your objective isn’t to get the job I’ve posted, why did you apply?) If you must, fine… but if you list a generic objective or even worse, an unrelated objective, it tells me you’re too lazy to revise your document. Red flag.

As anyone who works in or even has studied PR knows, the key to success in any strategic communication is a focus on what the audience wants.

We carefully craft articles, news releases, event plans, presentations, and everything else we do, to make them as persuasive as possible to our intended audience. We structure our communications to make them easy to receive, accept and act on. We answer that all-important question “what’s in it for me?” because we know that’s what people respond to.

So why would you send out a résumé and cover letter that don’t do the exact same thing? Especially if your target audience is a communicator, who wants to hire someone who can show they’re able to put theory into practice?

What a hiring PR manager wants

Your cover letter and résumé will be the first test your prospective employer puts you through; (s)he wants to see whether you “get it.” If your application materials show that you do, and can apply the principles of good strategic communication, your application will be far less likely to hit what a former boss of mine called the “circular file” (i.e., the recycling can).

So, let’s do a little audience analysis. Your target audience in this case is likely:

• reading many applications from people who aren’t qualified at all (“All my job experience is in retail, but people tell me I’m a people person, and I’m a good speller, so I think I’d be great for PR!”)
• reviewing a large number of applications, so doesn’t have a lot of time to hunt for the relevant information in each one
• wanting to see evidence of strategic communication and technical accuracy (that means proofreading!)
• hoping against all hope that the right applicant is in this pile, so (s)he doesn’t have to go through this process again anytime soon.

That’s a good start. But how do we find out what this target audience wants to hear?

Between the job ad, the employer’s website, and your friendly Google machine, you have all you need – though knowing someone on the inside never hurts.

First, the job ad.

In the job ad, the employer has likely told you what (s)he will be looking for – so structure your letter and résumé accordingly. Open your letter with an expression of interest in the position because of what you can bring to the employer (not what the job will do for you), and then match up what you bring with what they’re asking for. You can even use bullets, or put it in a table format if you want; believe me, the employer will appreciate a straight-to-the-point, easy-to-follow demonstration of how you meet their requirements.

"Experience working with the media: I acted as the media liaison for ACME Clothespins Inc. for two years; in that role, I wrote media advisories, news releases, and backgrounders and developed media kits which led to significant positive coverage. I also organized and ran successful news conferences, and acted as the company’s media spokesperson."

If you clearly show how you meet each of the criteria listed, the time-strapped employer doesn’t have to go looking for it – and knows that you know how to tailor communications to meet your audience’s needs. Check, and check.

As for your résumé, again, let the employer’s needs tell you how to structure it. I never cared that much whether the information was provided by function or by chronology – what mattered to me was whether it showed abilities and aptitudes to do what I’d need an employee to do. So organize your information in whatever way makes the most sense to you; just make sure the information you choose is related/appropriate/helpful in showing you meet the employer's needs.

If you're just graduating from college and all your paid jobs have been in retail or food service, that’s fine – everyone in this industry once had a first job. Just make sure your application materials focus on the communications-related volunteer work you’ve done and education you've had. As a hiring employer, I’m less concerned with whether an applicant got paid to do PR work than the fact that they’ve done it and been successful at it.

Secondly, the Web.

You have my advice on how to write your cover letter and résumé. But what should you include other than your clearly-organized, well-written evidence that you meet the employer’s minimum requirements?

This is where you have another chance to shine: do some research on the organization. Look at its own website, and look at what its competitors/opponents/mainstream media and bloggers are saying about it (and its industry, if applicable).

By researching what’s going on with that employer, you’re in a better position to understand its overall PR objectives – and then to show how you can help meet them. For example, the job ad may not have asked for experience dealing with environmental issues; but if a scan of the media coverage on your employer shows it's been the target of some activism and you have experience that could help them build bridges with the activist group, you may be able to set yourself apart from your competitors. At the very least, the employer will know you’re the type to scratch below the surface of an assignment – never a bad thing.

Final advice?

Don’t lie, and don’t stretch the facts.

Ever.

You may fool an employer in the short term – you may even get the job. But if you’re not qualified for a job, you won’t do well at it, and your reputation will pay for it in the long run.

There are lots of PR jobs out there; find the one that’s right for you, and make your best case.

Good luck!

"We are excited" to bring you this news release



Credit: Design Thinking Blog

PR pros write news releases respecting a number of conventions which make them easier for journalists to use.

• We write them in Canadian Press style (American Press in the U.S.), so journalists can use our content without having to do too much copy-editing.
• We give them straight-forward titles that explain the news - not expecting busy journalists to take the time to decipher cutesy headlines (chances are, they won't have time to).
• We write them in an "inverted pyramid" format, with the most important information provided first, in the lead paragraph, and further information provided in order of decreasing importance - so no matter when a journalist stops reading, we know (s)he's gotten the most important details.
• We finish with a "boilerplate" paragraph describing our organization.
• We signal the end of the release with the notation " -30- " though no-one knows exactly why... but both PR folks and journalists know that means "the end."

Another tradition in news release writing is the inclusion of attributed quotations, which should provide perspective on the news from the issuer's point of view.

While the rest of the news release should be written in as objective a voice as possible (for maximum usability at the media end), the quote is an organization's opportunity to throw in its official opinion on the news. It's OK, because it's attributed to someone - just like opinions should be in journalism.

The wasted quote: a common rookie mistake

If I had a nickel for every news release I'd read with a quote that said simply "We are excited," "We are proud," or "We are delighted" to announce whatever the news is, I'd be rich. (I'd also likely have earned a couple of bucks thanks to some of my own early news releases.)

It's a comfortable place to begin, and it somehow seems personable to say the company is excited or proud or delighted about its own news. The problem is that no-one really cares how the company feels (or, alternately, would expect the company to feel that way about its own news, making the pronouncement irrelevant and decidedly not newsworthy).

Good news release writers understand that the quote is our shot at positioning the news in the light in which we want it to be considered. If the rest of the news release has to be "just the facts," the attributed quote is our opportunity to provide some context and colour, to help move our communication objectives forward, whatever they might be.

I took a quick scan of the newswire a couple of minutes ago, and found a couple of examples that make my point.

1) A news release announcing the agreement to renew AMC's Mad Men.

This is news many Mad Men fans like me have been waiting for; in fact, we are excited and delighted by the news. And while AMC does admit to being "thrilled," it's in the context of good news many in recent days had begun doubting would ever come -- and it's after AMC's key messaging.

"AMC's original programming began with a mission to create bold storytelling of the highest quality, and 'Mad Men' was the perfect expression of that commitment. We've been proud to support this show from the day we read Matt's ground-breaking pilot script and have loved building it with Matt and Lionsgate into the cultural phenomenon it has become," said Collier. "For everyone involved in the show and its passionate fans, we are thrilled to announce that the series will continue on AMC under the exceptional vision of Matt Weiner."

2) A release about a celebration of foreign-trained doctors being accepted into a residency program

The hook for this news release is actually that a celebration of this achievement took place tonight. Of course, everyone there is excited and delighted, and probably proud too. But the quote in the news release is wisely used to communicate key messaging aimed at persuading readers to agree with the decision.

"International medical graduates are extremely valuable members of our health-care system's team of care providers. These international medical graduates are working extremely hard to earn their certification in Ontario and I'm happy to join them as they celebrate this tremendous achievement," said Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Make every sentence matter

In today's by-the-minute media industry, we don't have the luxury of assuming journalists are reading every release from top to bottom, or having the time to figure out why our news will be important for our audiences.

It's our job in PR to connect the dots, and the attributed quote is the one place in the news release we can provide subjective opinions that help our audiences interpret the news the way we think they should.

So don't waste your quotes on niceities that are either irrelevant or assumed; take advantage of the opportunity to position the news the way you want audiences to see it.