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
2
2
Background

J. Swerling



3
3
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
GAP VII: Professional Partnerships
4
4
IABC OC: Approach
 Synthesis of:
5
5

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
IABC OC: Key Takeaways
1. PR/COM no longer a seat of the pants business
2. “Seat at the table” no longer the issue; it’s what you do in the seat
3. Profound shift from “Old School” to “New School”
4. Pace of change is accelerating
5. Trends and signs are generally very positive for the discipline
6. Practice is expanding in terms of responsibilities…if not budgets
7. Two-way direct engagement with audiences increasingly the norm

Traditional intermediaries becoming less important
8. PR/COM increasingly at the center of the organization

Organizational savvy, accountability, metrics
9. Are we ready for the professional and ethical challenges???
6
6
Budgets
7
7
Budgets: Public Companies, 2009 vs. 2011
$30
$28.00
$26.20
$ Millions
$25
$20
$14.60
$15
$9.50
$10
$5
$1.70
$4.80
$2.60
$12.60
$8.80
$6.50
$3.10
$0
2009
2011
• GAPs I – VII: Budgets generally trending up…but not like the
boom years
8
8
Budgets, Anticipated: Corporate Respondents,
2012 vs. 2011
100%
80%
57%
60%
40%
20%
20%
53%
27%
21%
14%
0%
Expect an Increase
Expect No Change
Public


9
9
Expect a Decrease
Private
More than 50% expected flat budgets in 2012; prediction confirmed by
anecdotal data
2013 hypothesis: greater % expecting increases
Budget, All Respondents: Allocations
100%
80%
60%
48.3%
40%
20%
18.0%
8.5%
25.3%
0%
Staff Salaries and Related
Costs

10
10
PR/Communication
Management & Evaluation
Outside Agency Fees
GAPs I – VII: % for agency fees has decreased
PR/Communication Program
Execution
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
11
11
Responsibilities and
Functions
12
12
Responsibilities, Corporate: Core*
13
13
GAP 2009
GAP 2011
Corporate communication
87%
88%
Executive communications
74%
80%
Internal communications
67%
80%
Crisis management
73%
72%
Social media monitoring
53%
70%
Social media participation
53%
66%
Issues management
47%
58%
Community relations
56%
57%
Corporate external website
54%
55%
Corporate intranet
49%
54%
Marketing/Product PR
61%
50%
 Is Marketing,
Product PR
transitioning to
social?
* Defined as more
than 50% reporting
budgetary responsibility in
2011.
Responsibilities, Corporate: On the Rise
Budgetary Responsibility
2009
2011
Increase
Social media monitoring & participation*
53%
70%,
66%
17%,
13%
Search engine optimization
18%
31%
13%
Internal communications
47%
58%
13%
Issues management
47%
58%
11%
Customer relations
6%
15%
9%
new item
40%
--
Multimedia production
*In 2011, monitoring and participation asked as two questions
14
14
Budgetary Responsibilities, Corporate:
On the Decline
Budgetary Responsibility
Marketing/Product PR
2009
2011
Decrease
61%
50%
-11%
Is traditional product promotion giving way to social?
15
15
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:
•
•
•
•
16
16
Ongoing evaluation of all activities
Objective (ruthless?) prioritization relative to contribution, cost
No sacred cows
Retraining /reallocation of staff
Management and Use of
Social Media
17
17
Digital/Social Tools: Budgetary Control
Department
18
18
70% Budgetary Control or Higher
PR/Communication
50%
Marketing
41%
Customer Service
6%
Information Systems
8%
Other
9%
Digital/Social Tools: Strategic Control
Department
19
19
70% Strategic Control or Better
PR/Communication
54%
Marketing
37%
Customer Service
7%
Information Systems
7%
Other
11%
Digital/Social Tools, Usage: Core*
Digital/Social Practice
GAP VI
GAP VII
Social Networking Sites
3.44
4.75
Sharing Online Videos
4.32
4.48
NA
4.48
3.34
4.33
NA
4.19
SEO
Twitter
Producing Online Videos
*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
20
20
Digital/Social Tools, Usage: Has Beens
Digital/Social Practice
GAP VI
GAP VII
Decrease
Wikis
1.96
1.80
-.16
Virtual Worlds (e.g., Second Life)
1.40
1.26
-.14
1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly
21
21
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
22
22
Measurement and Evaluation
23
23
Measurement and Evaluation: Budget
Allocations
25%
% Percent
20%
15%
GAP 2004
10%
8.4%
8.0%
3.9%
4.6%
3.9%
4.0%
3.7%
2.2%
3.6%
3.4%
GAP 2009
9.6%
GAP 2011
6.8%
6.3%
5%
9.5%
9.0%
3.8%
2.7%
6.9%
6.6%
5.1%
4.5%
2.3%
2.9%
2.5%
0%
Public <$1B
Public $1B4.99B
Public $5B9.99B
Public $1019.99B
Public $20-40B Public $40B+ Private <$2.5B Private $2.5B+
Budget allocation for research, measurement and evaluation
has increased sharply
24
24
Measurement and Evaluation: Top Ten Tools
Influence on Corporate
Reputation
5.1
Crisis Mitigation
4.2
Influence on Employee Attitudes
4.8
Content Analysis of Clips
4.1
Metrics for Digital/Social
4.6
Influence on Share of Voice
4.0
Influence on Stakeholder
Awareness
4.6
Total Impressions
4.0
Influence on Corporate Culture
4.5
Total Clips in Top-Tier Media
4.0
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
25
25
Measurement and Evaluation: On the Rise
Measurement/Eval Approach
GAP VI
GAP VII
Increase
Metrics for Digital/Social
3.1
4.6
+1.5
Primary Research, Pre-Campaign
2.4
3.4
+1.0
Primary Research, Post-Campaign
2.6
3.5
+.9
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
26
26
Measurement and Evaluation: Categories (Factor
Analysis)
Stakeholder outcomes
Strategic outcomes
Bottom line
outcomes
PR outputs
Infl. on corporate
culture
Metrics for digital
and social media
Contribution to
market share
AVEs
Infl. on corporate
reputation
Primary researchpre-campaign
Contribution to
sales
Content
analysis of
clips
Infl. on employee
attitudes
Primary researchpost campaign
Influence on stock
performance
Clip counts
Infl. on stakeholder
awareness
Total
circulation
Crisis mitigation
Impressions
*Factor analyses conducted using the full sample.
27
27
Measurement and Evaluation: Insights
 Outcomes measures (Stakeholder, Strategic and
Bottom Line) linked to success factors? YES
 PR Outputs measures linked to success factors?
NO
28
28
Agency Relationships
29
29
Agency Relationships: Fee Allocations as
% of Total Budget
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
30.3%
24.9%
18.0%
GAP 2002
GAP 2004
* Question changed in 2011
30
30
23.6%
GAP 2009
GAP 2011
Agency Relationships, Public Companies:
Types, 2002 - 2011
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
47.2%
30.2%
24.6%
14.9%
53.1%
43.6%
39.9%
13.0%
36.1%
3.7% 5.6% 6.2%
9.6%
20.6%
16.1%16.0%
0%
Single agency of record
Multiple ongoing
GAP 2002
GAP 2007
• AOR continues downward trend
31
31
Pre-approved, Projects
GAP 2009
GAP 2011
Ad hoc, Projects
Agency Relationships, Corporate: Number of
Agencies Used, 2002 - 2011
5
4
3.2
3
2.5
2.4
GAP 2002
GAP 2004
3.6
2
1
0
Number continues to increase.
32
32
GAP 2009
GAP 2011
Agency Relationships: Reasons
Additional Arms and Legs
6.0
Help Quantify Results
4.4
Unique Perspective
5.7
Digital/Social Media
4.3
Marketing Insight
5.6
Limited Headcount
4.2
Strategic Point of View
5.3
Cheaper
4.1
Geographic Reach
4.5
1=Not important; 7=Very important;
Among those reporting use of agencies.


33
33
Arms and legs #1 since GAP I
18% more dependent on agencies for strategic insight in
the last two years
Agency Relationships: Categories (Factor
Analysis)
Strategic
Tactical
Unique expertise
Cheaper than hiring staff
Market insights
For arms and legs
To quantify results
Because we have limited headcount
For their strategic point of view
*Factor analyses conducted using the full sample.
34
34
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.
35
35
Organization/Reporting
36
36
Organization/Reporting: Reporting Lines
100%
80%
60%
56.8%
40%
27%
26.5%
20%
12.9%
7.6%
0%
Any C-Suite
CEO Only
Marketing only
• Consistent with past GAPs
37
37
HR only
Multiple report
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)
38
38
Reporting Lines and the Perceived Value of
COM/PR
7
6
6.1
5.6
5.7
5.5
4.6
5
4.9
5.7
5.1
5.5
4.8
4
3
2
1
0
Recommendations
taken seriously
Role in strategic
planning
Contributes to share Contributes to financial
value
success
C-Suite Access
Contributes to sales
No C-Suite Access
Significant mean differences, p<.000
39
39
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
40
40
Integration
41
41
Intra-Functional (Among COM Functions)
Integration and Success
7
6
5.8
5.4
5.9
5.6
4.6
5
4.5
4
3
2
1
0
Successful
CEO values contributions PR recommendations are
to bottom line
taken seriously
Integrated functions
Unintegrated functions
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…”
42
42
Inter-Functional (COM and Other Functions)
Integration and Success
7
6
5.8
5.5
6.0
5.7
4.6
5
4.5
4
3
2
1
0
Successful
CEO values contributions to PR recommendations are
bottom line
taken seriously
Integrated departments
Unintegrated departments
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…”
43
43
Organizational Integration and Reporting Line
 Intra-departmental and Inter-departmental integration
strongly related to:
44
44

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.
GAP VII, Section 9
Excellence and Best Practices
45
45
Excellence and Best Practices - Insights
 Causality yet to be proven, but patterns are very compelling and longlived (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; longterm/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.
46
46
Excellence and Best Practices, Key Insight: A Period of
Profound Transition from Old School to New School
OLD SCHOOL
47
47
NEW SCHOOL

Measures media outputs

Measures outcomes

Believes focus is on media
relations

Believes social media belongs in
COM/PR

Does not believe social media
are pervasive, worries about
control

Embraces pervasiveness of social
media, still with modicum of
control

Orientation is short
term/reactive

Orientation is long-term strategic

Recommendations are taken
more seriously
FIN
48
48