1 / 48

For More Information

GAP VII: Seventh Communication and Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices Study (Q3,4 2011 data). For More Information. Email: sprc@usc.edu Website: www.annenberg.usc.edu/scprc. Background. J. Swerling 40 + years, majority in agency senior management

Download Presentation

For More Information

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. GAP VII: Seventh Communication and Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices Study (Q3,4 2011 data)

  2. For More Information • Email: sprc@usc.edu • Website: www.annenberg.usc.edu/scprc

  3. Background • J. Swerling • 40+ years, majority in agency senior management • USC Annenberg (14 years): Prof. and Director of PR Studies (BA, MA, SCPRC) • Management consultant : agency search, organization (Toshiba, Cisco, GM, HD, State Farm, CSC, Intuit, Symantec, Remy Cointreau, Toyota ++ ) • SCPRC • Launched 2002: Advance the study, practice and value of the public relations/communications function by means of practical, applied research • Bridge academic/practitioner gap • Generally Accepted Practices (GAP) Study • Provide the profession with actionable guidance on mission critical decisions • Track trends, issues, emerging best practices • GAP VII: 620 decision-maker participants; Now “the largest, most comprehensive study of the PR/Communication field.” • GAP VIII: Fall, 2013

  4. GAP VII: Professional Partnerships

  5. IABC OC: Approach • Synthesis of: • GAPs I – VII (The whole is far greater than the sum of its parts) • Ongoing anecdotal data • Input from multiple sources (Page, IPR, media, etc.) • Personal experience and observation

  6. IABC OC: Key Takeaways • PR/COM no longer a seat of the pants business • “Seat at the table” no longer the issue; it’s what you do in the seat • Profound shift from “Old School” to “New School” • Pace of change is accelerating • Trends and signs are generally very positive for the discipline • Practice is expanding in terms of responsibilities…if not budgets • Two-way direct engagement with audiences increasingly the norm • Traditional intermediaries becoming less important • PR/COM increasingly at the center of the organization • Organizational savvy, accountability, metrics • Are we ready for the professional and ethical challenges???

  7. Budgets

  8. Budgets: Public Companies, 2009 vs. 2011 • GAPs I – VII: Budgets generally trending up…but not like the boom years

  9. Budgets, Anticipated: Corporate Respondents, 2012 vs. 2011 • More than 50% expected flat budgets in 2012; prediction confirmed by anecdotal data • 2013 hypothesis: greater % expecting increases

  10. Budget, All Respondents: Allocations • GAPs I – VII: % for agency fees has decreased

  11. Budget: Insights • Those with budget increases were no more likely to score higher on success, reputation  • Those with budget decreases were less likely to score higher on success, reputation  • Success not necessarily a function of budget • In lean times when efficiency and productivity are the watchwords, our ability to achieve much with relatively little can be a huge advantage

  12. Responsibilities and Functions

  13. Responsibilities, Corporate: Core* • Is Marketing, • Product PR transitioning to social? • * Defined as more than 50% reporting budgetary re-sponsibilityin 2011.

  14. Responsibilities, Corporate: On the Rise *In 2011, monitoring and participation asked as two questions

  15. Budgetary Responsibilities, Corporate: On the Decline Is traditional product promotion giving way to social?

  16. Responsibilities, Functions: Insights • Added responsibilities (i.e. social) without added budget • Relationship between the number of core responsibilities and total PR budget size? YES • Relationship between number of digital activities and budget increase? NO • Relationship between overall number or kind of responsibilities and budget increase? NO • Doing digital or “non core” activities hasn’t led to budget increases • The key to budgetary effectiveness: • Ongoing evaluation of all activities • Objective (ruthless?) prioritization relative to contribution, cost • No sacred cows • Retraining /reallocation of staff

  17. Management and Use of Social Media

  18. Digital/Social Tools: Budgetary Control

  19. Digital/Social Tools: Strategic Control

  20. Digital/Social Tools, Usage: Core* *Defined as above 4.0 average use 1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly • Observation: all continue to trend up • Increasing demand for engaging multimedia content (we now teach all forms of production • Increasing experimentation

  21. Digital/Social Tools, Usage: Has Beens 1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly

  22. Digital/Social Tools: Insights • 70% control by COM or Marketing = Higher score on Success factor • Multimedia - especially video – increasingly crucial • Don’t fall in love with any single platform; rapid change the norm • Anecdotal: College students making less use of Facebook • New social market environment is permanent • The norm for younger generations: two way, social, audience of one, peer influencers • Co-ownership of brands • Not just B to C; B to B and B to G moving that way, too • “Social organizations” *Scored above 4 on 7-point scale

  23. Measurement and Evaluation

  24. Measurement and Evaluation: Budget Allocations Budget allocation for research, measurement and evaluation has increased sharply

  25. Measurement and Evaluation: Top Ten Tools 1=Don’t use; 7=Use significantly • Core tools: Greater than 4.1 • None higher than 5.1 (consistent with past GAPs) • Ad equivalency nowhere to be seen

  26. Measurement and Evaluation: On the Rise 1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly • Growth concentrated in more sophisticated, objective, quantitative techniques • GAP VIII Hypothesis: Digital/Social: 5.5; Pre/Post: 4.0

  27. Measurement and Evaluation: Categories (Factor Analysis) *Factor analyses conducted using the full sample.

  28. Measurement and Evaluation: Insights • Outcomes measures (Stakeholder, Strategic and Bottom Line) linked to success factors? YES • PR Outputs measures linked to success factors? NO

  29. Agency Relationships

  30. Agency Relationships: Fee Allocations as % of Total Budget * Question changed in 2011

  31. Agency Relationships, Public Companies: Types, 2002 - 2011 • AOR continues downward trend

  32. Agency Relationships, Corporate: Number of Agencies Used, 2002 - 2011 Number continues to increase.

  33. Agency Relationships: Reasons 1=Not important; 7=Very important; Among those reporting use of agencies. • Arms and legs #1 since GAP I • 18% more dependent on agencies for strategic insight in the last two years

  34. Agency Relationships: Categories (Factor Analysis) *Factor analyses conducted using the full sample.

  35. Agency Relationships: Insights • Significant relationship between Strategic agency use and (1) recommendations taken seriously, and (2) positive CEO perceptions • Descriptively*, high strategic use, low tactical use, associated with strongest scores on multiple success factors • Descriptively*, low strategic use, high tactical use, associated with weakest scores on multiple success factors • Challenge/Opportunity for agencies: Grow business by providing Strategic added value on even labor-centric assignments • Challenge/Opportunity for clients: Optimize relationships by seeking/being open to Strategic added value on even labor-centric assignments * Not statistically valid, but high confidence level.

  36. Organization/Reporting

  37. Organization/Reporting: Reporting Lines • Consistent with past GAPs

  38. Satisfaction with Reporting Lines • Is your reporting line effective? • 60% strongly agree, 16% strongly disagree • No difference in perceived effectiveness between single (5.20 on 7 point scale) and multiple reports (5.24). Why? • 88% of multiple reports have a line to the C-Suite; only 44% of single reports • Those with C-Suite access are more satisfied (5.87) than those without (4.33)

  39. Reporting Lines and the Perceived Value of COM/PR Significant mean differences, p<.000

  40. Organization/Reporting: Insights • Reporting line may sometimes be situational (i.e. marketing-driven companies), but broader conclusions are inescapable • To achieve its full potential PR/COM must be included in the Dominant Coalition, i.e. report to the C-Suite • Reasons for non-inclusion: • Organizational limitations • Professional limitations • Both

  41. Integration

  42. Intra-Functional (Among COM Functions) Integration and Success Higher levels of integration/ coordination among COM functions are associated with multiple success factors. *Coordinated functions=Top 3 box; CEO values contributions=average agreement with “My CEO/top exec. believes PR contributes to… stock valuation, financial success, sales; PR recommendations=average agreement with “PR recs taken seriously…” and “PR generally invited to senior-level meetings…”

  43. Inter-Functional (COM and Other Functions) Integration and Success Higher levels of integration/ coordination between PR/COM and non-COM functions are associated with multiple success factors. *Coordinated departments=Top 3 box; CEO values contributions=average agreement with “My CEO/top exec. believes PR contributes to… stock valuation, financial success, sales; PR recommendations=average agreement with “PR recs taken seriously…” and “PR generally invited to senior-level meetings…”

  44. Organizational Integration and Reporting Line • Intra-departmental and Inter-departmental integration strongly related to: • Success factors • Reporting line • Intra-functional integration: 5.5 with C-suite access, 5.1 without. • Inter-functional integration: 5.5 with C-suite access, 4.9 without.

  45. GAP VII, Section 9 Excellence and Best Practices

  46. Excellence and Best Practices - Insights • Causality yet to be proven, but patterns are very compelling and long-lived (over multiple GAPs) • Integration: Champion intra-functional and inter-functional integration and coordination.* • Measurement/Evaluation: Invest at least the average % of total budget in evaluation; Invest in metrics other than, and/or in addition to, media outputs.* • Culture/Character: Beginning within the PR/Communication function, champion the adoption of a culture/character that is: proactive; long-term/strategic; flexible; ethical, and people-first.* • Agency relationships: Optimize strategic value, not just tactical.* • Optimal Reporting Line: Usually a direct line to the C-Suite. Be part of the Dominant Coalition.* *Strongly associated with success variables.

  47. Excellence and Best Practices, Key Insight: A Period of Profound Transition from Old School to New School OLD SCHOOL • Measures media outputs • Believes focus is on media relations • Does not believe social media are pervasive, worries about control • Orientation is short term/reactive NEW SCHOOL • Measures outcomes • Believes social media belongs in COM/PR • Embraces pervasiveness of social media, still with modicum of control • Orientation is long-term strategic • Recommendations are taken more seriously

  48. FIN

More Related