Search results

This paper explores the integration of corporate and marketing communication in tomorrow’s company, and discusses a model of the corporate communication system of managing. It defines the need for a total stakeholder perspective and to integrate communication activities around constituent‐constituent relationships. Marketing is described as a special case of human communication, in which all elements of the marketing mix are seen as communicative in action. The paper agrees with the Tomorrow’s Company study that inclusion is a necessity, and argues that new management involves a form of economic democracy, which in turn creates a need for new forms of corporate governance, monitoring, and management. This will require managers to re‐evaluate the appropriateness of their thinking. The corporate communication model of systemic managing is forwarded for this purpose

Describes changes and developments taking place in public relations in the UK. Such description is predicated on change in the external environment facing business organizations, increased expenditure on staffing and public relations activities, and teaching developments in this innovative management field. But the main causatory factors are fuzzy market boundaries, changing publics, and short‐lived competitive advantages. A hypothetical company example is used to illustrate how public relations might be used to build relations with key target audiences.

This paper examines the arrangements made for innovation, research and development in professional service firms, particularly management and public relations consultancies. The paper compares arrangements made in management and public relations consultancies, drawing on the experience of international management consultancies and public relations consultancies in the UK. The paper outlines some of the principles by which the processes of innovation, research and development are managed in professional service firms, and draws conclusions relating to practice development in public relations.

Public relations practitioners continue to lament the fact that their contribution to management is not taken seriously nor given sufficient weight. This paper examines some of the obstacles to management acceptance of public relations’ contribution to important management tasks. The paper focuses on the possibility that managers may not value public relations’ contribution because their preparation for the management role does not give them the perspective that would enable them to see its value. The paper suggests that this perspective is one which enables the complexity of the external world, the world external to the organisation and in which the organisation functions, to be imagined and incorporated into decision making. This perspective has not been developed in the present generation of senior and middle managers. The paper reviews literature relating to this suggestion, before going on to examine programmes aimed at preparing managers for their roles at business and management schools in the USA and Europe. The paper concludes that unless changes are made to the ways in which managers are prepared for their roles, they are unlikely to develop an appreciation of the perspective which underlies public relations practice, or to make full use of the potential contribution of public relations.

Debate on evaluation of public relations has moved on to questions of value. How can value be placed on public relations services, and – practically – how can realistic fee levels be established for these services? These questions led to the study by the UK’s Public Relations Consultants Association reported in this paper. The study, of consultancy fee‐setting practices, and of client understanding of these practices, found that – in the UK – fee setting is imprecise. Fees are set according to a variety of rules. Rules may be set aside to win the opportunity to provide service, and overservicing – providing more service than budgeted for – is widespread. The study makes recommendations for introducing more order into fee setting, and suggests approaches to answering questions about the value of public relations services.

On 9th July, 1998, the Journal of Communication Management organised a seminar on innovation in public relations practice with the Institute of Public Relations special interest group, Mindlink, and City University Business School in the City of London. This paper summarises the thinking which led to the seminar, and some of the discussions which took place at the seminar.

This paper summarises the findings arising from a series of extended qualitative interviews with 14 CEOs and chairmen from leading UK corporations and international organisations. The purpose of the interviews was to try to establish the value that CEOs attach to public relations, and to get a sense of how they would assess its value and contribution to overall business and organisational performance. The study also tried to determine the role CEOs play in reputation management. The findings conclude that CEOs do not expect or look for a simple return on investment (ROI) for public relations expenditure; that public relations is used regularly to enhance and protect reputation; that public relations has become mission critical for businesses and the management of reputation; that CEOs themselves take overall responsibility for the management of corporate reputation; that the CEO's personal reputation is closely linked to that of the corporation; that CEOs' profiles and the media demands made of them have never been higher; that public relations can influence organisational strategy; and that high calibre people working in public relations are highly sought after and valued by CEOs. There are many lessons and implications for public relations practitioners.