Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 1 1
GAP VII: Seventh Communication and Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices Study (Q3,4 2011 data)
4 4 4
About SCPRC
● Launched 2002
● Mission: Advance the study, practice and value of the public relations/communications function
● PR Think Tank
● Conduct applied, actionable research
● Bridge the academic/practitioner gap
● Provide guidance for curriculum content
● BA: 245 enrolled
● MSPR: 140 enrolled
5 5 5
About GAP ● Provide organizations with actionable guidance
● Staff size, organization, functions, budgeting, evaluation, use of agencies, etc.
● Provide agencies with actionable guidance
● Client needs, perceptions , relationship models, compensation trends, etc.
● Provide academy/researchers with data, analysis, food for thought
● Track perceptions, issues, etc.
● Identify Indicators of Excellence, Best Practices, etc.
● Inform curricula
6 6 6
About GAP VII: Professional Partnerships
7 7 7
About GAP VII: Research Team
Jerry Swerling, M.A.
Director, PR Studies
Director SCPRC
University of Southern California
USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
Strategic Communication and Public Relations Center (SCPRC)
Kjerstin Thorson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Research Director, SCPRC
Burghardt Tenderich, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Associate Director SCPRC
Niku Ward
Brenna Clairr O’Tierney
Mia Becker
Jessica Wang
Yueheng Li
M.A. Candidates 2013
Strategic Public
Relations, USC
In consultation with:
David Michaelson, Ph.D.,
Managing Director, Teneo Strategy
Forrest Anderson, MBA, Independent
Communications Research and Strategy Consultant
8 8 8
About GAP VII: Methodology/Sample
● Online survey of top PR/communication practitioners
● Collected Qs 3 & 4, 2011
● Received more than 1,000 responses
● Participants selected for inclusion had to pass a rigorous screening process. Final sample=620
● Scoring more than 50 points based on responses to a list of decision-making responsibilities
● Must be the top or report directly to the top communicator in the organization
9 9 9
About GAP VII: Methodology/Sample
● Largest and most comprehensive study to date of senior-level communication practitioners
● Sampled from comprehensive list of senior-level practitioners, each of whom received multiple invitations to participate
● GAP VII is believed to be representative of the broad population of senior-level practitioners.
● Next steps: deeper analysis, possible panel
10 10 10
GAP VII Respondents: Screened for Role in Organization
Most sr
communication
professional in
organization
53%
Report directly to most
sr communication prof
27%
Sr comunication prof
responsible for unit
17%
Most sr internal
communication prof
3%
11 11 11
GAP VII Respondents Corporate, Government and Non-profit
Public company
30%
Private company
25%
Government
agency/Military
17%
Non-profit
21%
Other
7%
12 12 12 12
GAP VII Corporate Respondents: Size
Public Companies Private Companies
<$1B,
17.3%
$1B -
$4.99B,
25.3%
$5B -
$9.99B,
15.3%
$10B -
$19.99B,
18.7%
$20B -
$40B,
9.3%
$40B +,
14.0%
<$2.5B,
81.6%
>$2.5B,
18.4%
13 13 13
GAP VII Respondents: Geographic Scope
U.S. local or regional
42%
U.S. national
21%
Multi-national (home
country and one or
two others)
10%
Global (more than
four countries)
27%
14 14 14
GAP VII Respondents: Academic Degrees
Public Relations,
16.0%
Journalism,
29.7%
Communication,
31.9%
Business Administration,
11.3%
N/A,
15.0%
More than 75% of respondents have an academic
degree in either Journalism, PR or Communication
15 15 15
Key Narratives
1. Budgets
2. Functions and Responsibilities
3. “Ownership” of Social Media
4. Agency Relationships
5. Measurement and Evaluation
6. Organization and Reporting
7. C-Suite Perceptions
8. Organizational Culture, Character and Integration
9. Excellence/Best practices
16 16 16 16
Budgets
GAP VII, Section 1
17 17 17
Key Findings/Headlines: Budgets
● Budgets up in 2011 vs. 2009, flat in 2012
● Budget allocation:
● Measurement/Evaluation: 8.5% (up from 4%)
● Salaries: 48%
● Agency fees: 18 – 20%
● Execution: 25%
● PR/GR Ratio steady among large public companies
18 18 18
Budgets: Public Companies, 2009 vs. 2011
$2.60
$6.50
$9.50 $8.80
$26.20
$1.70
$4.80 $3.10
$14.60 $12.60
$28.00
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$ M
illio
ns
2009 2011
Budgets generally up over two years
19 19 19
Budgets, All Companies, Anticipated: 2011 vs. 2012
20%
57%
21% 27%
53%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Expect an Increase Expect No Change Expect a Decrease
Public Private
More than 50% expect flat budgets for 2012.
20 20 20
Budgets, Nonprofits, 2009 vs. 2011
$1.1
$0.8
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
2009 2011
$ m
illio
ns
21 21 21
Budgets, Nonprofit, Anticipated: 2011 vs. 2012
18.0%
64.0%
16.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Expect an Increase Expect no Change Expect a Decrease
22 22 22 22
Functions and Responsibilities
GAP VII, Section 2
23 23 23
Key Findings/Headlines: Functions and Responsibilities ● Social media monitoring, participation, now among 6 most
common (core) functions…and growing fast
● No corresponding budget increase
● 40% have multimedia content production
● 15% have customer relations (up from 6%)
● 30% have SEO; (up from 18%)
● PR/COM shares responsibility for “Corporate Character” with C-Suite, HR (Board?)
● The field is expanding!!!
24 24 24
Budgetary Responsibilities, Corporate: Top 12
Corp. communication/reputation 88% Issues management 58%
Internal communications 80% Community relations 57%
Executive communications 80% Corporate image (logo, etc) 56%
Crisis management 72% Corporate intranet 54%
Social media monitoring 70% Marketing/Product PR 50%
Participation in social media 66% CSR 44%
25 25 25
Budgetary 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%
Multimedia production new item 40% --
*In 2011, monitoring and participation asked as two questions
26 26 26
Budgetary Responsibilities, Corporate: Core*
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%
*Defined as
more than 50%
reporting
responsibility
in 2011.
27 27 27
Budgetary Responsibilities, Corporate: On the Decline
Budgetary Responsibility 2009 2011 Decrease
Marketing/Product PR 61% 50% -11%
Is traditional product promotion giving way to social?
28 28 28
Responsibility: Corporate Character
82.4% 80.9% 80.3%
55.3% 54.8%
43.6%
35.6% 34.6%
25.5%
6.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q: Which of the following departments or functions in your organization share
responsibility for assuring the organization adheres to its corporate character--its
stated identity and core values?
29 29 29
Budgetary Responsibilities, Nonprofit: Top 12 Advertising – corporate
image/issue 71.8%
Corporate internal website 71.0%
Monitoring digital/social
media
80.9% Crisis management 71.0%
Corporate
communication/reputation
77.9% Community relations 61.8%
Participation in digital/social
media
77.9%
Executive communications 61.8%
Corporate image 77.1% Public affairs 58.8%
Marketing PR/Product PR 76.3% Employee/Internal
communications
52.7%
30 30 30 30
Use, “Ownership” of Social Media
GAP VII, Section 3
31 31 31
Key Findings/Headlines: Use, “Ownership” of Social Media ● 70% control by COM or Marketing = Greater association with Success
factors
● Frequent users*, by organization type
36% of public companies
40% of government agencies
47% of private companies
66% of non-profits
● Among all, 44% scored in the bottom 3 box (1, 2 or 3) on use of mainstream social.
● PR/COM has both strategic and budgetary control significantly more often than Marketing….but is it really about control???
32 32 32
Digital/Social Tools, Companies: Budgetary Control
Department 70% Budgetary Control or Higher
PR/Communication 50%
Marketing 41%
Customer Service 6%
Information Systems 8%
Other 9%
33 33 33
Digital/Social Tools, Companies: Strategic Control
Department 70% Strategic Control or Better
PR/Communication 54%
Marketing 37%
Customer Service 7%
Information Systems 7%
Other 11%
34 34 34
Top 10 Digital/Social Tools
Social Networking Sites 4.7 Blogs 3.52
Sharing Online Videos 4.4 RSS 3.25
SEO 4.4 Tagging 3.00
Twitter 4.3 Co-creation of Content 2.83
Producing Online Videos 4.19 Online Audio 2.64
None higher than 4.7; still much variation in use of
digital/social media.
Multimedia!
*1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly
35 35 35
Digital/Social Tools: On the Rise
Digital/Social Practice 2009 2011 Increase
Facebook 3.44 4.75 +1.31
Twitter 3.34 4.33 +.99
Blogs 2.72 3.52 +.80
*1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly
36 36 36
Digital/Social Tools: Core*
Digital/Social Practice GAP 2009 GAP 2011
Social Networking Sites 3.44 4.75
Sharing Online Videos 4.32 4.48
SEO NA 4.48
Twitter 3.34 4.33
Producing Online Videos NA 4.19
*Defined as
above 4.0
average use
1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly
Multimedia!
37 37 37
Digital/Social Tools: On the Decline
Digital/Social Practice 2009 2011 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
38 38 38
Digital/Social Tools: Use by Non-profits
Social networking sites 5.9 Blogs 3.9
Sharing of online videos 5.2 RSS 3.8
Microblogging 5.2 Tagging 3.5
SEO 5.2 Co-creation of content 3.4
Production of online videos 4.9 Online Audio 3.0
39 39 39 39
Agency Relationships
GAP VII, Section 4
40 40 40
Headlines: Agency Relationships ● AOR relationships increasingly rare 15% - 18% of corporations
● % of budget allocated to fees deceasing over time; now 18 – 24%
● % using agencies very high (95% among large companies)
● Companies using more agencies (4)…often on special project basis
● Opportunities for specialists, geo-centric firms, etc.
● 18% indicate they have become more dependent on agencies for strategic insight in the last two years.
● Relationships fall into two groups: Strategic, Tactical
● Strategic associated with strongest success scores
● Tactical associated with weakest success scores
41 41 41
Agency Relationships, Corporate: Fee Allocations as % of Total Budget
* Question changed in 2011
30.3%
24.9% 23.6%
18.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
GAP 2002 GAP 2004 GAP 2009 GAP 2011
42 42 42
Agency Relationships, Corporate: % Using Agencies
49%
79%
72%
95%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Small Private Large Private Small Public Large Public
Use of agencies among large public companies
remains almost universal
43 43 43
Agency Relationships, Public Companies: Types, 2002 - 2011
AOR continues downward trend.
47.2%
13.0%
3.7%
36.1% 30.2%
43.6%
5.6%
20.6% 24.6%
53.1%
6.2%
16.1% 14.9%
39.9%
9.6% 16.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Single agency of record Multiple ongoing Pre-approved, Projects Ad hoc, Projects
GAP 2002 GAP 2007 GAP 2009 GAP 2011
44 44 44
Agency Relationships, Corporate: Number of Agencies Used, 2002 - 2011
2.5 2.4
3.2 3.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
GAP 2002 GAP 2004 GAP 2009 GAP 2011
Number continues to increase.
45 45 45
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
Arms and legs #1 since GAP I
1=Not important; 7=Very important;
Among those reporting use of agencies.
46 46 46
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.
47 47 47
Agency Relationships: Insights Reliance on agencies for labor
+
Increase in # of agencies used (Projects and Ongoing, vs. AOR]
+
Decrease in % of budget allocated to fees
+
Recent shift(?) toward more Strategic reliance
+
Merits of Strategic vs. Tactical Relationships
=
Challenge/Opportunity for agencies: Optimize relationships and grow business by providing Strategic added value on even labor-centric assignments.
Challenge/Opportunity for clients: Optimize relationships and value by seeking/being open to Strategic added value on even labor-centric assignments.
48 48 48 48
Measurement and Evaluation
GAP VII, Section 5
49 49 49
Key Findings/Headlines: Measurement and Evaluation ● Budget allocation way up: 9% vs. 4%
● Tools on the rise:
● Metrics for digital/social
● Primary, pre- and post-campaign
● Outcomes measures (Stakeholder, Strategic and Bottom Line) linked to success factors? Yes
● Outputs measures (“clips,” “hits,” “circulation,” “impressions,” etc.) linked to success factors? No
50 50 50
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 research-
pre-campaign
Contribution to
sales
Content
analysis of
clips
Infl. on employee
attitudes
Primary research-
post campaign
Influence on stock
performance Clip counts
Infl. on stakeholder
awareness
Total
circulation
Crisis mitigation Impressions
*Factor analyses conducted using the full sample.
51 51 51
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
None higher than 5.1 (consistent with past GAPs)
1=Don’t use; 7=Use significantly
52 52 52
Measurement and Evaluation: On the Rise
Measurement/Eval Approach 2009 2011 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…BUT none higher
than 4.6
53 53 53
Measurement and Evaluation: Core*
Measurement/Eval Approach GAP 2009 GAP 2011
Influence on Corporate Reputation 5.1 5.1
Influence on Employee Attitudes 4.4 4.8
Metrics for Digital/Social 3.1 4.6
Influence on Stakeholder Awareness 4.3 4.6
Influence on Corporate Culture 4.2 4.5
Crisis Mitigation 4.2 4.2
Content Analysis of Clips 4.6 4.1
*Above 4.0
average
use
1=Didn’t use; 7=Used significantly
None higher than 5.1
54 54 54
Measurement and Evaluation, Non-Profits: Top 10
Influence on corporate
reputation 5.1 Total number of clips 4.4
Metrics for digital/social media 5 Total number of clips in top
tier media 4.3
Influence on stakeholder
awareness/opinions 4.9 Influence on corporate culture 4.2
Total impressions 4.5 Content analysis of clips 4.1
Crisis mitigation 4.4 Influence on employee
attitudes/morale 4.1
55 55 55 55
Organization/Reporting
GAP VII, Section 6
56 56 56
Key Findings/Headlines: Organization and Reporting ● 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)
● 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 (though not necessarily exclusively)
57 57 57 57
Organization/Reporting: Reporting Lines
Consistent with past GAPs
56.8%
26.5%
12.9% 7.6%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Any C-Suite CEO Only Marketing only HR only Multiple report
58 58 58
Organization/Reporting: Reporting Lines and Perceived Value of PR
6.1 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.6
4.6 4.9 5.1 4.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Recommendations
taken seriously
Role in strategic
planning
Contributes to share
value
Contributes to financial
success
Contributes to sales
C-Suite Access No C-Suite Access
Significant mean differences, p<.000
59 59 59 59
C-Suite Perceptions
GAP VII, Section 7
60 60 60
Key Findings/Headlines: C-Suite Perceptions ● 56% strongly agree that CEO believes PR/COM
contributes to financial success.
● 60% strongly agree that PR/COM participates in organizational strategic planning.
● 70% strongly agree that PR/COM’s recommendations are taken seriously by senior management.
● If not, why?
● Organizational issue
● Practitioner issue
61 61 61 61
C-Suite Perceptions: The Role of PR/COM
11.0%
29.2%
59.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PR/Communications
Attends Senior-Level
Strategic Planning
Meetings
Strongly Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
4.4%
26.5%
69.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perceived
Recommendations Are
Take Seriously
Strongly Agree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
62 62 62
C-Suite Perceptions: Contributions to Financial Success
5.10%
39%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PR/Communications’ Perceived Contribution to Financial Success:
Corporate Respondents
Strongly Agreed with Perceived
Contribution
Neutral
Strongly Disagreed with
Perceived Contribution to
Financial Success
Agreement with “My
CEO/top executive
believes that
PR/Communication
contributes to our
organization’s
financial success”
63 63 63 63
Organizational Culture, Character and Integration
GAP VII, Section 8
64 64 64
Key Findings/Headlines: Organizational Culture, Character, Collaboration
● Higher levels of integration/coordination among COM functions,
and
● Higher levels of integration/coordination between PR/COM and non-COM functions
are both
● Associated with multiple success factors (reputation, org. success, etc.)
65 65 65
Intra-Functional (Among COM Functions) Integration and Success
5.8 5.6
5.9
5.4
4.6 4.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Successful CEO values contributions
to bottom line
PR recommendations are
taken seriously
Integrated functions Unintegrated functions
*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…”
Higher levels
of integration/
coordination
among COM
functions are
associated
with multiple
success
factors.
66 66 66
Inter-Functional (COM and Other Functions) Integration and Success
5.8 5.7 6.0
5.5
4.6 4.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Successful CEO values contributions to
bottom line
PR recommendations are
taken seriously
Integrated departments Unintegrated departments
*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…”
Higher levels of
integration/
coordination
between
PR/COM and
non-COM
functions are
associated with
multiple success
factors.
67 67 67
Organizational Integration: Insights A Culture of Integration
Two types of integration are highly correlated (r=.68);
nearly 70% of corporations are high on both; 17%
are low on both.
67.2%
16.9%
7.7% 8.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Culture of
integration
No culture of
integration
Coordinated
functions, not
depts
Coordinated
depts, not
functions
Culture of
integration defined
as Top 3 Box on
both integration
measures.
68 68 68
Organizational Integration: Insights
● Organizations with a culture of integration are significantly more likely to report that PR/COM is highly valued.
6.1
4.2 5.0 5.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Culture of
integration
No culture of
integration
Coordinated
functions,
not depts
Coordinated
depts, not
functions
PR is taken seriously
5.7
4.4 4.9 5.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Culture of
integration
No culture
of
integration
Coordinated
functions,
not depts
Coordinated
depts, not
functions
Contributions to the bottom line
Analysis is for all respondents. Significant multiple comparison tests with Bonferroni correction.
69 69 69 69
Excellence and Best Practices
GAP VII, Section 9
70 70 70
Key Findings/Headlines: Excellence and Best Practices ● 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.*
71 71 71
Key Findings/Headlines: Excellence and Best Practices
● Agency relationships: Optimize strategic value, not just tactical.*
● Reporting Line: Assure that PR/Communication has the most effective reporting line, given the nature and structure of the entire organization; in most cases this will be a direct reporting line to the C-Suite. Be part of the Dominant Coalition.*
● SCPRC considering deeper research on all
72 72 72 72
Excellence and Best Practices, Key Insight: A Period of Profound Transition from Old School to New School
OLD SCHOOL
● Measurement of media outputs
● Believe PR focus is on media relations
● Does not believe social media are pervasive
● Reactive/Short-term
● Worried about control
NEW SCHOOL
• Measurement of outcomes
• Believe social media belongs within PR
• Long-term strategic
• Embrace multiplying touchpoints, pervasiveness of social media – still with modicum of control
• More likely to believe recommendations are taken seriously
73 73 73
FINIS
74 74 74
![Prsa philly 1.0[1]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/54c0420b4a795954368b458e/prsa-philly-101.jpg)
