An interesting thing crossed my desk last week. It was a corporate job description for, basically, what used to be a VP of Public Relations. The word used instead to describe the position? “Communications Lead.”
This copy relayed quite strongly that this company was not looking for a “traditional PR” exec or someone who thought like one. Media relations would be important but this was about something much bigger – customers, thought leadership, partner relations, to name a few.
In short, they want a communications strategist or specialist, which is a term I’ve been playing with lately in my search to find an accurate term for what I do.
I see this as a role that is wholly focused on the act of using communications within/for a company to build brand and grow business. This function crosses every traditionally held departmental boundary such as sales, marketing, business development, financial, product and technology and, yes, the executive suite.
When I started in PR it was using 3rd party mediums to reach a target audience. What started as writing pitches, press releases, backgrounders, audience messaging, award and speaking abstracts evolved over the years into contributed articles, product and corporate messaging, speeches, sales collateral, executive presentations, business development decks, customer service emails, and website copy. It also became about taking a step back and looking at the overall communications flow, internally and externally, the way an operations exec would. It also led to partner relations and corporate marketing opportunities. Most of the listed activities are not what PR is hired to do even though PR is, at its core, about communications. But they’re not equal. It’s subtle but the difference is actually quite big.
At the Rubicon Project, my first full-time in house position, department execs were curious why I wanted to know so much about what was happening in their respective environments. I asked questions PR people didn’t normally ask and wanted to know things they shouldn’t care about. Once they recognized that the more information and insight I had into what was going on the stronger I could make the communication flow throughout the entire company, strengthening the business and supporting their efforts in the short and long term.
PR people, by sheer nature of the industry, are not trained to use their craft to affect change in all these elements but this is what the role of a communications strategist is becoming. This is what companies want and are starting to ask for, as evidenced by the job description. And this is what a lot of PR people want to become associated with doing and are starting to shun the title altogether. Other PR pro’s are perfectly happy with the traditional description and role.
Our industry has gotten so big it’s splitting. I’ve been arguing that PR needed new PR but our true role in business has completely outgrown the term. I see Communications as the umbrella term, similar to Marketing (which is also changing,) and oversees corporate communications (including customers in some aspects,) social media/community relations, investor relations, thought leadership, industry/influencer relations and PR which is focused on media strategy, events, speaking, etc.
What does this mean for PRSA who has hung its hook on public relations? Or all those agencies who aren’t viewed by the media or businesses as communications strategists but as publicity agents? Both entities fighting for respect and recognition for being more than spinners to media and execs. It’s going to be a bumpy next few years and it will be interesting to watch it shake out.
I’m taking a self-enforced sabbatical and plan to examine a number of topics on this front that have been kicking around my head for awhile. In the mean time, I’m demoting PR.
Where do you fall? Have you used the term PR less? Substituted it with something else? Perhaps expanded your title to be more representative of your skill set? If so, all of these point to why PR is in crisis and it might be one that isn’t going to be solved.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
This is a great article Nicole that communicates the many problems present with the current state of the industry. I would argue that the smart communications folks all take an integrated approach, but we often get our start in environments that make it more difficult to take a full look at all of the ins and outs of communicating on behalf of our clients.
In my opinion, the problem is multi-faceted. It is an issue of education both in-house and with-in agencies as well as an issue of money. From an education standpoint, most PR and communications people graduate college with a degree in Journalism or Mass Communication, not degrees in Business, Management, Operations, etc. As a result, right of the bat, they are trained to think in terms of media impressions. They are writers. They are not analysts or problem solvers. The other issue is an education issue within the ranks of organizations. Because communications is not taught as part of business, executives often do not understand the full scope of its purpose. When it comes time for them to think about PR, they are often just looking for publicity.
The next issue is one of money. Agencies need to be able to justify the work they do and organizations are very reticent to let agencies take a full integrated look at the operations of their companies. What happens is agencies become publicity houses, churning out hits because they rarely get a look under the hood and they have to justify their retainers. Second to that, most agencies simply aren’t approached to take an integrated approach. Executives get to a point where they are ready to grow their business and they feel media relations is the tool to accomplish that. This is another big problem.
In my opinion, the issue at hand is that communications is not something that falls under “PR” or “Marketing.” Communications is something that spans the entire breadth of an organization. It is part of the organization’s culture and as such is hard to define in a role, within a silo or as part of an agency.
Brilliant Matt and couldn’t agree more. The education system is a huge part of the problem. Future CEO’s not having exposure or understanding early compounds the problem when it comes time to see budgets and roles and responsibilities. The two core disciplines of Journalism/Communications and Business rarely overlap at any college. This is one of those “root” areas we need to fix now to avoid problems later.
PR people want to change the image of PR but the external view just might make it too big of an effort. We are asking, basically, an entire world and business mind-set to change how they view PR. And your last sentence about communications is key. Businesses are just now starting to grasp how monumental of a role communications plays in every aspect of the business. Even more of a reason to have the talent to fill the roles that are going to start opening opening up en masse as the demand for a “smarter PR” person lands of HR desks everywhere.
I so relate to what you’re saying. To me, the problem is that “PR” over time has come to mean media relations in the mind of many corporate execs. Don’t know the reason why, but that’s just the way most folks, in my experience, think of “PR.”
Which is so unfortunate, because the classical definition of PR back when it was institutionalized around 1940’s is really about taking a 360 degree view of all the “publics” or stakeholders touched by an organization and maximizing the organization’s goal with these publics in mind (by serving them, caring for them, addressing their concerns, seeking their opinion, etc.), even beyond any “sales” or “commercial” purposes. Media is just one category within the publics, and sometimes just a tactic to reach publics.
So, in some twisted way I would argue that the classical notion of PR is all about the broader strategic communications area you discuss.
Nonetheless, there’s a serious “definition identity” issue in the profession that drives me crazy, and I wish I could stop working to figure it out too, but then maybe I would be tempted to pursue something else entirely
Nicole-
You know when you have a realization and then you find another piece of content/talk to someone/see a rainbow and it becomes crystalized. That’s what happened to me when I read this article.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact - WE NEED YOU (or someone like you).
Email me?
yoram@mor.ph
One of the challenges you raise for a marketing operation is the difference between strategic direction and tactical implementation.
A good marketing strategist for a company understands their customers’ needs and motivations — and how to orchestrate the marcom and sales teams so they work together to satisfy customer needs.
Marketing operations have become complex because of the Internet. Marcom people are running online sales, while salespeople are broadcasting the company’s message via social media.
Just as an orchestra leader needs to both choose which music will satisfy the audience and get the musicians to play well together, the head of marketing needs to do the same thing.
As for the term “PR,” I’ve been using “media relations” to include all non-paid media, such as print media, online media, social media, etc. It’s different from all other marcom functions. At the same time, it needs to play well with all other marketing functions.
Leave a Comment