That doesn't mean there was harmony or total cooperation between the two professions. There's always been some degree of tension and competition between public relations and marketing people, especially when it came to questions of which discipline ought to be dominant or which contributed more to their parent organization's well-being. They also competed for sometimes scarce internal resources and for public attention.
Some companies and organizations used only one of these disciplines. Others used both. The degree to which they used them, and the specific ways in which they used them varied from organization to organization based on the organization's purpose, size, and unique organizational history. However, some general observations can be made.
If an organization was not-for-profit --e.g., if it was a government agency, community service organization, non-profit health care facility, etc.-- and it saw its primary goal as serving the public ...
•
• Public relations was the more dominant function because building relationships with its publics was its over-riding concern.
• It probably had some sort of public relations unit or department, even if it was only one person, and that unit may have been called public information, community relations, community affairs, or something other than "public relations."
• It might not have had any marketing department at all since it didn't have anything to sell, or it might have had a relatively small marketing department whose job was to encourage the public to use the organization's services.
If an organization was a business and profit was its over-arching goal ...
• Marketing -- possibly called sales -- was the more dominant function.
• Public relations was of secondary importance and was probably done to support and enhance marketing efforts.
• If it was a small company, it might not have had a separate and identifiable public relations unit at all, or it might have had a public relations person or unit which provided subsidiary support from within the marketing department.
• If it was a medium to large corporation, it probably had separate marketing and public relations departments. Which of them was larger and more influential within the company was almost as likely to be the result of the organization's unique evolution, including its internal politics and staff personalities, as a conscious business decision.
◦
◦ Marketing generated sales of goods and services and directly contributed to the company's profitability.
◦ Public relations coordinated relationships with various publics in order to gain public acceptance and approval of the organization's activities, including its sales activities.
With few exceptions these patterns remained fairly constant through the post-World War II boom years of the 1950s and `60s. Businesses and non-profits alike increased their public relations and marketing efforts. Existing public relations and marketing departments expanded, and new ones were created. More people were hired to fill these new positions and salaries began an upward spiral. Both disciplines experienced explosive growth but, for the most part, it was a matter of doing more of the same in same old ways. In most organizations the two disciplines continued to be separate well into the 1970s or even later.
Things aren't quite so clear today.
Even though lexicographers assert that the definitions of marketing and public relations remain the same and theorists say their underlying premises and goals haven't changed, the practical reality is that the working relationship between marketing and public relations has changed dramatically. So have their relative scope and influence within organizations and even the names they call themselves. A number of these changes are addressed in the linked readings listed below.
This is the beginning of the "footer" section Layout assumes 3 specifically linked and changing readings plus fixed links to readings directory and class web page
No comments:
Post a Comment