Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

European Communication Monitor 2009 - ECM 2009 - Results

1,096

Published on

Annual empirical study on status quo and trends in communication management and public relations in Europe. Conducted by 11 renowned European universities, led by Prof Ansgar Zerfass, U of Leipzig, …

Annual empirical study on status quo and trends in communication management and public relations in Europe. Conducted by 11 renowned European universities, led by Prof Ansgar Zerfass, U of Leipzig, Germany. Download the PDF and other editions of this annual survey at http://www.communicationmonitor.eu

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,096
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CHART VERSION
  • 2. 2 Content _ Overview 04 _ Research design and socio-demographic analysis 09 _ Professional roles and contribution to organisational objectives 20 _ Public relations and management decisions 30 _ Impact of the recession and media crisis 37 _ Development of disciplines and communication channels 46 _ Interactive communication: overall trends and online communities 56 _ Strategic issues 64 _ Evaluation and communication performance 69 _ Trends in internal communication 77 _ Salary and qualification needs 82 _ Annex (references, authors and advisory board, imprint) 95
  • 3. 3 Copyright and reproduction of results Quotation _ The material presented in this document represents empirical insights and interpretation by the research team. It is intellectual property subject to international copyright. You are welcome to quote from the content of this survey and reproduce any graphics, subject to the condition that the source including the internet address is clearly quoted and depicted on every chart. See the imprint for more information. _ Suggested quotation for this document (APA style): Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2009): European Communication Monitor 2009. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results of a Survey in 34 Countries (Chart Version). Brussels: Euprera (available at: www.communicationmonitor.eu), September 2009 _ Short quotation to be used in legends (charts/graphics) Source: European Communication Monitor 2009 Official report _ The full report with text and charts has been published as a book by Helios Media: Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2009): European Communication Monitor 2009. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results of a Survey in 34 Countries. Brussels: EACD, Euprera; ISBN: 978-3-9811316-2-8
  • 4. 4 Overview
  • 5. 5 Key facts European Communication Monitor 2009 _ Most comprehensive analysis of communication management and public relations in Europe up to now; more than 1,850 participating professionals from 34 countries _ Annual research project conducted since 2007 by a group of professors from 11 renowned universities across Europe, led by Prof. Dr. Ansgar Zerfass, University of Leipzig _ Organised by the European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA) _ Partners: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), Communication Director Magazine; Sponsor: Cision The research highlights: _ Challenges for communication management in the recession and media crisis _ Strategic issues, development of the discipline and communication instruments _ Trends in internal communication, measurement/evaluation and interactive communication _ Communication executives‘ roles and influence on management decisions _ Salaries and qualification needs
  • 6. 6 Academic task force Research team _ Ansgar Zerfass, Prof. Dr., University of Leipzig (GE) – Lead Researcher _ Angeles Moreno, Prof. Ph.D., University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid (ES) _ Ralph Tench, Prof. Dr., Leeds Metropolitan University (UK) _ Dejan Verčič, Prof. Ph.D., University of Ljubljana (SI) _ Piet Verhoeven, Ass. Prof. Dr., University of Amsterdam (NL) Advisory board _ Emanuele Invernizzi, Prof. Dr., IULM University, Milano (IT) _ Valerie Carayol, Prof. Dr., University of Bordeaux (FR) _ Francesco Lurati, Ass. Prof. Dr., University of Lugano (CH) _ Sven Hamrefors, Prof. Dr., Mälardalen University (SE) _ Øyvind Ihlen, Prof. Dr., BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo (NO) _ Ryszard Lawniczak, Prof. Dr., Poznan University of Economics (PL) Statistical analysis and organisational support _ Stephanie Krahl, B.A. & Peter Schmiedgen, B.A., University of Leipzig (GE)
  • 7. 7 Partners European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA) _ The European Public Relations Education and Research Association is an autonomous organisation that aims at stimulating and promoting innovative knowledge and practices of public relations education and research in Europe. Its membership comprises the leading universities and scholars in communication management as well as practitioners interested in academic research from more than 30 countries. _ www.euprera.org European Communication Directors (EACD) _ The European Association of Communication Directors is the leading network for communication professionals from all fields across Europe with over 1,000 members. The non-partisan Association lobbies for the profession, establishes common quality standards and promotes the advancement of professional qualification by organising events and providing services and material. _ www.eacd-online.eu
  • 8. 8 Communication Director Magazine (Partner) _ Communication Director is a quarterly magazine dedicated to European Corporate Communications and Public Relations. It explores contemporary communications strategies, discusses European trends, examines and analyses different case studies and discusses the relevance of global communication strategies from a European perspective. The magazine is published by Helios Media, a specialist publishing house based in Berlin and Brussels. _ www.communication-director.eu Cision (Sponsor) _ Cision delivers relevant media information, targeted distribution, media monitoring, and precise analyses. Working across cultures and borders, the company serves leading multinational companies and fast-growing enterprises of all sizes. It is a force that drives its clients business forward through the ability to make better decisions based on superior media intelligence. Cision is working for nearly 30,000 clients around the world, has offices in Europe, North America and Asia, and partners in another 125 countries. _ www.cision.com
  • 9. 9 Research design and socio-demographic analysis
  • 10. 10 Outline of the survey Aims and focus _ to monitor trends in communication management _ to analyze the changing framework for the profession in Europe _ to evaluate specific topics like internal communication and measurement/evaluation, interactive channels and online communities, influence on management decisions, strategic issues, communications disciplines, salaries and training and qualification requirements _ to identify the development of communication management in different types of organisations, countries and regions Target group _ Communication executives and PR professionals working in organisations and consultancies throughout Europe
  • 11. 11 Research framework and questions Self perception Education Job status Demo- graphics Person (Communication Manager) CountryCultureStructure Organisation Present Situation Future Perception B C D E Age, Q17 Gender, Q17 Association Member, Q17 Social Network Member, Q17 Experience, Q17 Hierarchy, Q17 Academic, Q17 Communicative, Q17 Professional role, Q7 Optimism, Q16 Type of organisation/ agency, Q17 Characteristics of organisational culture, Q15 European homebase, Q17 Communication objectives, Q8 Evaluation practice, Q9 Economic recession, Q1 Disciplines and fields of practice, Q4 Communication channels, Q5 Strategic issues, Q6 Impact of the media crisis, Q2 Emerging interactive channels, Q10 Online communities, Q11 Internal communication, Q12, Q13 Needs for training and qualification, Q14 Position Advisory/executive influence, Q3 Personal income, Q17 E A
  • 12. 12 Methodology Survey method and sampling _ online survey in May 2009 (4 weeks), English language _ questionnaire with 17 sections; design based on hypotheses and instruments derived from previous research and literature; pre-test with 50 practitioners in 10 European countries _ personal invitation to 20,000+ professionals throughout Europe via e-mail based on a database provided by EACD; additional invitations to participate via national branch associations and networks (partly self-recruiting); 2,846 respondents and 1,975 fully completed replies _ 1,863 fully completed replies by participants identified as part of the population (communication professionals in Europe) were evaluated Analysis _ methods of empirical research, descriptive and analytical (using SPSS tools)
  • 13. 13 Demographic background of participants (1,863 communication professionals from 34 European countries) 41.7 yrsAge (on average)58.3%More than 10 years 49.3%Male26,9%6 to 10 years 50.7%Female14.8%Up to 5 years Gender / AgeJob experience 3.7%Other 27.8%Communication consultancy, PR Agency, Freelance Consultant 12.7%Team member, Consultant 29.8%Responsible for single communication discipline, Unit leader 72.2%Communication department, Press office - Joint stock company 29.7% - Private company 18.4% - Government-owned/Political org. 12.7% - Non profit org./Association 11.5% 53.8%Head of communication, Agency CEO OrganisationPosition www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17
  • 14. 14 Gender: Within the whole sample, women and men are equally divided – but higher positions are still male-dominated www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European Countries; Q 17 Head of communication, Agency CEO Responsible for a single communication discipline / Unit leader Team member, Consultant Position 45.8% 55.2% 44.8% 58.1% 41.9% 54.2%45.8% 54.2%45.8% 49.3%All respondents50.7%Female Male
  • 15. 15 Geographical distribution and affiliation Full sample _ 1,863 professionals working in communication management / PR Geographical distribution _ participants from 34 European states _ Northern Europe (e.g. Norway, United Kingdom, Latvia) 31.1% _ Western Europe (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, France) 41.4% _ Southern Europe (e.g. Italy, Slovenia, Croatia) 19.0% _ Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria) 8.5% Membership in a professional organisation _ EACD 12.7% _ Other international communication association 16.2% _ National PR or communication association 55.4% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17 Regions are classified according to United Nations Standards; see page 90 for a detailed list of countries
  • 16. 16 Personal background: knowledge and education Communication qualifications _ Academic degree in communication (Bachelor, Master, Doctorate) 41.4% _ Professional certificate in public relations / communication management 26.4% _ Professional certificate in other communication discipline 17.3% Highest academic educational qualification _ Doctorate (Ph.D., Dr.) 7.4% _ Master (M.A., M.Sc., Mag., M.B.A.), Diploma 60.2% _ Bachelor (B.A.) 25.1% _ No academic degree 7.4% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17
  • 17. 17 Organisational cultures: Most participants work in people-oriented and responsive environments www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 782 PR Professionals; Q 15: How would you perceive your organisation regarding the following dimensions? participative/non participative, proactive/reactive; considered scale points 1-2 and 4-5; scale derived from Ernest (1985) Interactive culture 13.9% Entrepreneurial culture 4.1% Systematized culture 15.6% Integrated culture 66.4% proactive non-participative PEOPLE ORIENTATION PEOPLE ORIENTATION participative reactive RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENT RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
  • 18. 18 Types of culture in different types of organisation Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations 64.5% 67.8% 58.8% Non profit organisations 76.4% 11.5% 10.4% 24.4% 15.0% 4.5% 4.7% 3.1% 3.1% 19.5% 17.1% 13.7% 5.5% Interactive culture (participative – reactive) Entrepreneurial culture (non-participative – proactive) Systematized culture (non-participative – reactive) Integrated culture (participative – proactive) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 782 PR Professionals; Q 15: How would you perceive your organisation regarding the following dimensions? participative/non participative, proactive/reactive; considered scale points 1-2 and 4-5; scale derived from Ernest (1985)
  • 19. 19 Interpretation Valuable insights into the evolution of strategic communication in Europe _ Based on a sample of more than 1,850 professionals from 34 European countries, this research is one of the most comprehensive transnational studies ever conducted in the field of public relations wordwide. _ With respondents characterised by a high level of experience (average age 42 years, almost 60% have more than 10 years of experience in the field), the survey lays a solid ground for identifying major developments in strategic communication. _ However, as there is no knowledge about the population of communication departments and agencies in Europe, the findings presented here can not claim representativeness. It is also necessary to note that economies, communication landscapes and PR professions are in rather different stages of development throughout Europe. Consequently, this survey is especially useful to identify relevant patterns and trends in the field, which may stimulate qualitative discussions. _ The analysis is based on thorough empirical research and analysis. For example replies from participants not currently working in communication management (academics, students) and from non-European countries have been removed. Only fully completed questionnaires have been taken into account.
  • 20. 20 Professional roles and contribution to organisational objectives
  • 21. 21 Strategic orientation: A clear majority execute communication based on business strategies, but only 6 out of 10 try to define them 60.7% feel responsible for helping to define business strategies 84.8% focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 7: In your daily work, how much do you focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) / … how much do you feel responsible for helping to define business strategies? (1 = never; 7 = always); considered scale points 5-7
  • 22. 22 Role-taking: PR professionals enact different roles − this shapes and reflects their relationship with business strategies Scale: 1-4 Scale: 5-7 Scale:5-7Scale:1-4 Operational Supporters 29.1% NOT AT ALL SUPPORTING BUSINESS GOALS BY MANAGING COMMUNICATION VERY MUCH SUPPORTING BUSINESS GOALS BY MANAGING COMMUNICATION ALWAYS HELPING TO DEFINE BUSINESS STRATEGIES NEVER HELPING TO DEFINE BUSINESS STRATEGIES Strategic Facilitators 55.7% Business Advisers 5.0% Isolated Experts 10.2% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 7: In your daily work, how much do you focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) / … how much do you feel responsible for helping to define business strategies? (1 = never; 7 = always)
  • 23. 23 Strategic facilitators concentrate on listening and reflecting, as well as on dissemination, to contribute to organisational objectives Strategic Facilitators Operational Supporters 63.2% 36.8% Help top management to adjust the organisation to demands from stakeholders and society Educate members of the organisation to behave more communicatively 59.0% 44.8% 68.9% 53.4% Listen systematically to voices outside of the organisation Inform stakeholders about the opinions of the organisation 62.6% 58.2% Develop communication plans that support the strategy of the organisation 84.8% 76.6% Shape the public image of the organisation 83.0% 78.3% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 7, Q 8 Business Advisors 43.0% 54.8% 53.8% 36.6% 61.3% 67.7% Isolated Experts 24.2% 30.5% 44.2% 38.9% 48.9% 64.2%
  • 24. 24 64% of top level communicators are strategic facilitators, but 6% are not linked to business strategies in any way www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 countries; Q 7; Q 17 19.1% 16.9% 13.1% 6.4% 13.2% 3.4% 5.2% 4.7% 27.9% 37.3% 33.9% 24.7% 42.4% 39.8% 47.8% 64.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Team member Unit leader Head of communication Agency CEO Isolated Experts Business Advisors Operational Supporters Strategic Facilitators
  • 25. 25 Strategic facilitators are more optimistic than any other role when thinking about the future of their function or agency Strategic Facilitators Operational Supporters 87.3% 82.5% Optimistic for 2010 Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 17.5% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 7; Q 16: Thinking of the communication function within your organisation or of your consultancy, are you optimistic or pessimistic for the next year? Business Advisors 82.8% 17.2% Isolated Experts 75.8% 24.2% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 17.2%17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 24.2%17.2%17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 17.2%17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7% 24.2%17.2%17.5% Pessimistic for 2010 12.7%
  • 26. 26 Private companies show a strong combination of role sets 15.0% 16.5% 8.2% 9.8% 4.2% 7.2% 6.7% 3.1% 23.8% 25.7% 30.1% 39.0% 57.0% 50.6% 55.0% 48.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Non profit organisations Governmental organisations Private company Joint stock company Isolated Experts Business Advisors Operational Supporters Strategic Facilitators www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,346 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q7
  • 27. 27 Distribution of professional roles in European regions Northern Europe Strategic Facilitators Operational Supporters 57.5% 54.5% 25.7% Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe 29.7% 55.2% 29.9% 31.0% 53.8% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals; Q 7 Business Advisors 8.5%3.6% 4.3% 5.7% Isolated Experts 11.3%9.2% 10.6% 9.5%
  • 28. 28 Overall, practitioners in Europe still rely on outbound activities to reach organisational goals – speaking dominates listening www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 8: How do you and your department/agency help to reach overall goals of (internal) clients and the organisation at large? (1 = rarely; 5 = very often; considered scale points 4 and 5) 79.0% 77.6% 61.1% 57.6% 51.7% 50.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Help top management to adjust the organisation to demands from stakeholders and society Educate members of the organisation to behave more communicatively Inform stakeholders about the opinions of the organisation Listen systematically to voices outside of the organisation Develop communication plans that support the strategy of the organisation Shape the public image of the organisation
  • 29. 29 Interpretation Many practitioners do not exploit the full potential of strategic communication _ The survey empirically proves insights from theory (Van Ruler & Vercic, 2002, 2005; Lurati & Eppler 2006; Zerfass 2008) that PR professionals can foster business goals basically in two distinct ways: a) by solving problems deriving from business or functional strategies that can (probably) be solved by communication activities, i.e. selling goods by marketing communication, motivating employees through internal communication etc.; b) by helping to define organisational objectives by adding the communicative dimension to strategy formulation, i.e. by reporting results from issues management and stakeholder research, by managing reputation risks etc. This combines either with dissemination or with listening and reflecting activities. _ Overall, a 85% majority of practitioners in Europe focus on supporting organisational goals by addressing stakeholders; only 61% feel responsible for shaping the strategy. _ 56% declare that they use both ways to contribute to overall goals, thus enacting the “strategic facilitator” role. This auspicious role is prevalent among heads of communica- tion; in private companies; in NGOs; as well as in Northern Europe. Another 30% are “operational supporters” concentrating on addressing stakeholders, whereas a minority of 5% primarily sees themselves as “business advisers” helping to adjust organisational strategies. A surprising number (10%) of respondents are “isolated experts” who do not seem to believe in a clear link between what they are doing and what their organisation wants to achieve.
  • 30. 30 Public relations and management decisions
  • 31. 31 Influence and status of the profession: PR practitioners are trusted advisors, but only two-thirds are involved in management decision 73.0%are taken seriously by senior management. 64.4%are involved in decision making and planning. Appraisal of the profession has risen slightly (+2% since 2008), yet executive influence is still as low as the year before (+0.4%). www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,267 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 3: In your organisation, how seriously are PR recommendations taken by senior management? (1-7); To what extent are PR and reputational considerations factored into strategic decision making and planning in your organisation? (1-7); considered scale points 5-7
  • 32. 32 Professionals in private and non profit organisations report a rise of influence since 2008, though US practitioners are still ahead www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,267 PR Professionals in communication departments, Q 3; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,027; Q 1; USA: Swerling et al. 2008 / n = 518, Q 8, Q 10 (scale 1-7; average results). Arrow symbols indicate changes compared to ECM 2008 results. USAEurope (2009) 5,675,21 4,77 Advisory influence PR recommendations taken seriously by senior management Executive influence PR involved in decision making Joint stock companies Governmental organisations Non profit organisations Total 5.21 5.04 5.13 4.974.754.84 4.73 5.07 Private companies 0,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,48 0,30 0,37 0,44 5,675,21 4,77 0,44 4,77 0,44 4,77 5,21 4,77 0,44 5.13 4.82 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 0,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,480,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,300,480,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,370,300,480,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,440,370,300,480,51 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) 0,44-0.16-0.29-0.34-0.37 Status discrepancy (difference between advisory & executive) -0.31 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 USA 5,67 -0.34 5.33 USA (2007) 5.67
  • 33. 33 On average, professionals acting as strategic facilitators and those working in Northern Europe are more influential 34.7% 46.9% Isolated Experts 57.4% 52.5% Business Advisors 52.8% 68.6% Operational Supporters 79.0% 83.5% Strategic Facilitators Advisory influence Executive influence 60.9% 67.8%63.0% Southern Europe Eastern Europe 59.3%63.4% 74.6% Western Europe 68.9% 76.4% Northern Europe Advisory influence Executive influence www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,267 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 3; Q 16; Q 17
  • 34. 34 Influence correlates significantly with the hierarchical position 51.1% 52.1% 58.3% 72.0% 64.4% 64.1% 67.6% 79.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Other Team member Unit leader Head of corporate or organisational communication Involved in decision making and planning Taken seriously by senior management www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,267 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 3: In your organisation, how seriously are PR recommendations taken by senior management? (1-7); To what extent are PR and reputational considerations factored into strategic decision making and planning in your organisation? (1-7); considered scale points 5-7.
  • 35. 35 With more years of experience in the field, the gap between advisory influence and executive influence becomes smaller 50.4% 59.7% 71.4% 62.9% 71.5% 77.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years Involved in decision making and planning Taken seriously by senior management www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,267 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 3: In your organisation, how seriously are PR recommendations taken by senior management? (1-7); To what extent are PR and reputational considerations factored into strategic decision making and planning in your organisation? (1-7); considered scale points 5-7.
  • 36. 36 Interpretation Influence depends on role-taking, hierarchical position and years of practice _ All over Europe, PR professionals are trusted advisors, with 73% reporting that their recommendations are taken seriously by senior management. This is a small 2% increase within the last 12 months. However, still only 64% say that their considerations are factored into strategic decision making and planning processes. In both dimensions European professionals fall behind their counterparts in the United States. _ Communication executives enacting the “strategic facilitator” role are significantly more influential than the average. A majority of those working as “isolated experts” are not taken seriously and only one third of this group reports executive influence. This underlines the coherence of the roles empirically identified by this research. _ In general, statistical analysis shows that influence depends on the geographical location of the organisation as well as on practitioners’ experience and position, but not on their age and professional or academic education. Moreover, practitioners with a solid track record in the field report a smaller status discrepancy – they are not only able to catch the eye of senior management, but also to affect business decisions.
  • 37. 37 Impact of the recession and media crisis
  • 38. 38 How the global downturn influences PR practice in Europe “Less big contracts, but more small ones“ www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 1: How has the global downturn influenced your daily work? (open question) “Harder to convince management to replace staff leaving” “Move to digital” “Reduce travel costs” “Projects delayed till things get better” “In no way” ”Delaying important decisions” “Budget shift from image to marketing” “More quality for less money” “Focus on value to the core mission” “Enforced focus on internal communication” “PR has to be more a tool – more sell than tell” “Costs”
  • 39. 39 PR practitioners face serious budget cuts; focusing activities and evaluating results becomes more important 3.9% 15.1% 21.9% 30.0% 40.4% 46.9% 59.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Other Budgets shift from marketing communications to public relations Staff reduction Motivation to invest into new instruments/tools Stronger demand for evaluation of results Buget cuts Need to focus on most relevant issues/stakeholders www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 1: How has the global downturn influenced your daily work? (1 = not at all; 5 = significantly); considered scale points 4-5
  • 40. 40 Impact of the recession in different European regions Northern Europe 41.8% 57.9% 22.6% 18.9% 56.5% 67.5% Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe 22.6% 16.9% 34.7% 52.8% 45.2% 11.7% 22.0% 35.4% 58.9% 63.3% 49.4% 15.8% 17.1% 48.7% 41.5%23.8% 28.1% 35.4% Budget cuts Budgets shift from marketing communications to PR Staff reduction Stronger demand for evaluation of results Need to focus on most relevant issues/stakeholders Motivation to invest into new instruments/tools www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 1: How has the global downturn influenced your daily work? (1 = not at all; 5 = significantly; considered scale points 4-5
  • 41. 41 Impact of the recession in different organisations 57.1% 29.1% 13.1% 11.8% 30.4% 39.2% 27.8% 13.6% 41.0% 65.5% 50.6% 17.3% 26.3% 46.2% 63.7% 61.7% 38.8% 11.2% 14.0% 35.0% Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non profit organisations 27.0%28.2% 31.0% 31.8% Budget cuts Budgets shift from marketing communications to PR Staff reduction Stronger demand for evaluation of results Need to focus on most relevant issues/stakeholders Motivation to invest into new instruments/tools www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 1: How has the global downturn influenced your daily work? (1 = not at all; 5 = significantly); considered scale points 4-5
  • 42. 42 PR professionals face the media crisis and try to adapt − believe in the power of journalism and the mass media is still strong 72.2% 41.8% 33.2% 24.5% 18.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Being reported in the media will be less relevant It will be more difficult to get messages in the media Communication professionals will help media to survive The mass media surviving the crisis will be more influential than ever Communication professionals will adapt to new routines in journalism www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 2: Publishers and broad- casters face serious difficulties: While commercial revenues are declining due to recession, audiences are switching to internet news and online communities. What does this mean for comm. management? (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree); agreement = scale points 4-5
  • 43. 43 PR professionals working in participative, people-oriented cultures are more willing to adapt to the new rules of the game 68.8% 46.9% 74.8% 36.3% 78.0% 43.1% 35.3% 67.2% Interactive organisation al culture Entrepreneuria l organisational culture Systematized organisational culture Communication professionals will adapt to new routines in journalism (i.e. crossmedia newsrooms) Interactive organisation al culture Entrepreneurial organisational culture Interactive organisation al culture Integrated organisational culture Interactive organisational culture Communication professionals will help media to survive (i.e. through free content) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 2: Publishers and broad- casters face serious difficulties: While commercial revenues are declining due to recession, audiences are switching to internet news and online communities. What does this mean for comm. management? (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree); agreement = scale points 4-5
  • 44. 44 In spite of the recession and media crisis, European PR professionals are rather optimistic for 2010 www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 16 “Thinking of the communication function within your organisation or of your consultancy, are you optimistic or pessimistic for the next year?” 85.1% „optimistic!“ Professionals working in communication departments 83.0% „optimistic!“ Professionals working in agencies/consultancies
  • 45. 45 Interpretation PR practitioners face the recession and media crisis with defensive strategies _ Both the economic recession and the crisis of the mass media sector have changed the framework for communication management in Europe. The long-term upswing of the occupational field has come to an end. 47% report budget cuts and 22% report that staff numbers have been reduced. This is especially true for joint stock and private companies, whereas governmental and non-profit organisations are less under pressure. Anecdotal evidence claiming budget shifts from marketing communications to public relations could not be verified on a large scale. Nevertheless, more than 80% of the respondents are optimistic for the next year. _ A clear 60% majority claim they will respond to the recession by focusing on the “most relevant issues and stakeholders”. Another 40% see a stronger demand for evaluation. This means that PR strategies have not been managed up to the highest standards until now – strategic priorities and transparent measures should be a part of communication management anyway. Only one third of the respondents say that they will take a proactive approach by investing in new instruments or tools. _ Following this approach, three out of four practitioners think that communication management will adapt to new routines evolving in journalism in times of the media crisis. 33% state that communication professionals will help the media to survive, i.e. by providing free content. Speaking in terms of the intereffication theory (Bentele/ Nothhaft 2008), media relations shows strong adaptations to journalism, compared to significantly less inductions.
  • 46. 46 Development of disciplines and communication channels
  • 47. 47 Most important disciplines in communication management www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 4: How important are the following fields of practice in your organisation or consultancy? Will they gain more or less importance within the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important discipline = scale points 4-5. Arrow symbols indicate changes within the ranking of most important disciplines; in general, all disciplines are ascending. Today In 2012 1 Corporate Communication 2 Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication 3 Crisis Communication 4 Internal Communication and Change Management 5 Public Affairs / Lobbying 1 Corporate Communication 2 Internal Communication and Change Management 3 Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication 4 CSR and Sustainability 5 Public Affairs / Lobbying
  • 48. 48 Expected development of disciplines and fields of practice 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % Personal Coaching, Training Communication Skills International Communication Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Investor Relations, Financial Communication Issues Management Public Affairs, Lobbying Internal Communication and Change Management Crisis Communication Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication Corporate Communication Important discipline 2012: compared to average increase www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 4: How important are the following fields of practice in your organisation or consultancy? Will they gain more or less importance within the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important discipline = scale points 4-5. All disciplines are considered more important in 2012; comparison shows difference to the average increase (23.6%). -1.7 Importance today Importance in 2012 -7.6 -8.1 +9.0 -0.5 -3.3 -12.1 +11.0 +4.5 +8.9
  • 49. 49 Long-term development of communication disciplines: Internal may overtake marketing/consumer in 2012 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Corporate Communication Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication Internal Communication Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Crisis Communication www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 4; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,524 PR Professionals from 37 countries; Q 2; Zerfass et al. 2007 / n = 1,087 from 22 countries; Q 3
  • 50. 50 Important channels and instruments Today In 2012 1 Press and media relations: print media 2 Online communication 3 Face to face communication 4 Press and media relations: TV/radio 5 Press and media relations: Online media 1 Online communication 2 Press and media relations: online media 3 Face to face communication 4 Social media 5 Press and media relations: print media www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 5: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences? Will this change within the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important channel = scale points 4-5. Arrow symbols indicate changes within the ranking of instruments.
  • 51. 51 Expected development of communication channels 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % Social media Sponsoring Non-verbal communication Paid information Corporate publishing/media Events Press and media relations: online media Press and media relations: TV/radio Face to face communication Online communication Press and media relations: print media www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 5: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences? Will this change within the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important instrument = scale points 4-5. Important instrument 2012: compared to average increase -34.7 -1.7 -12.0 +34.6 -11.3 -13.8 -5.4 +20.2 +2.2 -9.2 +31.5 Importance today Importance in 2012
  • 52. 52 In line with previous surveys, online channels are expected to increase significantly – but the actual level is quite stable www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 5; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,524; Q 3; Zerfass et al. 2007 / n = 1,087; Q 3: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences? Will this change within the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important = scale points 4-5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 (prediction from 2007) 2011 (prediction from 2008) 2012 (prediction from 2009) Press and media relations: print media Press and media relations: online media Online communication Social media Important instrument today and in three years’ time
  • 53. 53 The relevance of social media has almost doubled during the last 24 months, but other online instruments are way ahead 11,5% 38,4% 54,4% 12,4% 44,0% 58,1% 19,5% 43,8% 58,6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Social media (blogs, podcasts, communities) Press and media relations: online media Online communication (websites, e-mail, intranet) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 5; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n= 1,524; Q 3; Zerfass et al. 2007, n = 1,087; Q 4 : How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important = scale points 4-5 Important instruments for addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences 2009 2008 2007
  • 54. 54 Valuation of communication instruments is influenced by the overall organisational culture 22.5% 9.4% 43.8% 12.9% 62.5% 47.4% 19.2% 65.0% 24.6% 13.8% 22.4% 19.6% 52.3% 62.0% 23.3% 40.0% 20.0% 36.7% 10.0% 13.3% Inte grated Social media Sponsoring Events Face-to-face communication Non-verbal communication - addressing print media - addressing TV/radio - addressing online media Corporate publishing/media Online communication Paid information 18.8%20.0% 27.5% 21.5% 84.4% 37.5% 53.1% 80.2% 49.5% 56.2% 40.4% 36.7% 29.4% 75.2% 45.9% 12.5% 33.3% 30.6% 71.1% 34.4% 43.8%66.3% 57.8% 51.6% Integrated culture - participative towards people - proactive towards environment Interactive culture - participative towards people - reactive towards environment Entrepreneurial culture - non-participative towards people - proactive towards environment Systematized culture - non-participative towards people - reactive towards environment Press and media relations Inter active Entrepre neurial Syste matized 32519 109 122n = www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 782 PR Professionals in communication departments which clearly identified their organisational culture; Q 5: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders, gatekeepers and audiences? (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important = scale points 4-5 Important instruments
  • 55. 55 Interpretation Internal communication and CSR are steadily growing _ Respondents expect a changing relevance of the various disciplines within the broad range of strategic communication. For the first time in the monitor survey, corporate communication has taken the lead, followed by long-time forerunner marketing/brand and consumer communication. _ Internal communication and corporate social responsibility / sustainability have grown. They are predicted to be the fastest-growing fields of practice until 2012. This is consistent with results of previous surveys in this research series. In the long term, internal communication may even become more important than the marketing/consumer field. Social media takes off, relations with print media reduced in importance _ Regarding communication instruments, social media like blogs, podcasts and online communities and addressing online journalists are on a clear upswing. Predicted growth is 35% (32%) over the average, compared to 26% each last year. _ Press relations addressing print media is expected to decline by 35% below the average, even more dramatically than last year (25% below the average).
  • 56. 56 Interactive communication: overall trends and online communities
  • 57. 57 Social media in communication management: online communities are leading the field – but web videos and blogs are growing fast 32.8% 24.6% 19.9% 17.7% 13.5% n.a. 15.5% 10.3% 7.7% 12.2% 14.0% 14.0% 20.0% 24.8% 28.9% 32.8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Virtual worlds Wikis Microblogs (Twitter) Podcasts (Audio) RSS feeds Weblogs Online videos Online Communities (Social Networks) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 10; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,524 PR professionals; Q 7: Can you indicate the level of importance for public relations today and in the next year of the following communication tools (1= not important; 5= very important); important = scale points 4-5 Interactive channels important for public relations 2009 2008
  • 58. 58 PR professionals predict a tremendous yet unlikely boost for all social media until 2010, but variances are most interesting 32.8% 28.9% 24.8% 20.0% 14.0% 14.0% 12.2% 7.7% 21.8% 43.9% 38.7% 40.5% 49.4% 55.4% 69.8% 69.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Virtual worlds Wikis Microblogs (Twitter) Podcasts (Audio) RSS feeds Weblogs Online videos Online Communities (Social Networks) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 10: Can you indicate the level of importance for public relations today and in the next year of the following communication tools (1= not important; 5= very impor- tant); important = scale points 4-5. All are considered more important in 2010; comparison shows difference to avg. increase (29.28%). +7.0 +11.6 -15.2 -4.6 +2.4 -2.8 +1.3 Interactive channels relevant for public relations Increase compared to average Importance 2009 Importance predicted for 2010 +0.1
  • 59. 59 Social networks and web videos are inspiring the profession; on average nearly 70% think they will be important in 2010 82.4% 76.2% 62.4% 67.0%66.0% 67.9% 68.9% 73.5% 70.6% 66.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non profit organisations PR agencies / consultants www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 10: Can you indicate the level of importance for public relations today and in the next year of the following communication tools (1 = not important; 5 = very important); important tool = scale points 4-5 Online communities Online videos
  • 60. 60 Social networks are utilized within communication strategies for a variety of reasons www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 11: How will your organisation use social networks within its online communication strategy within the next 12 month? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use extensively; methods used = scale points 4-5) 31.9% 37.5% 41.0% 44.1% 45.0% 47.8% 48.4% 48.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Running viral campaigns Exploring digital communication cultures Monitoring opinion building Establishing new relationships/partnerships Initiating dialogue with stakeholders Stimulating new ideas Targeting specific stakeholders/consumers Demonstrate innovation and openness
  • 61. 61 85% of European communication professionals are members of online communities like LinkedIn, Facebook and XING Professional and private profile (41.3%) Professional profile only (27.3%) Private profile only (16.5%) No member (15.0%) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals; Q 17: Are you a member of one of those social networks? Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Plaxo, XING, Other (With my professional profile/With a private profile)
  • 62. 62 LinkedIn is the most popular social network among communication professionals in Europe PR practitioners with a professional profile PR professionals with a private profile 12.2% 48.5%Facebook LinkedIn 55.4% 11.2% MySpace 1.1% 6.0% Plaxo 14.8% 4.3% XING 19.8% 4.7% Other 11.3% 14.8% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals; Q 17: Are you a member of one of those social networks? Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Plaxo, XING, Other (With my professional profile/With a private profile)
  • 63. 63 Interpretation Strong growth of online channels, but sceptical view on Twitter _ Only three out of ten professionals in Europe think that online communities (social networks) and online videos are important for public relations today. 25% say that weblogs – a much-discussed platform in the field – are relevant. However, this changes dramatically: 70% say that videos and online communities will be important in 2010. Nearly every social media platform is judged this way. _ Despite strong reports in the media, microblogging with Twitter is only considered important by 14% of communication professionals in Europe until now, and 39% state that it will be important next year. The platform is a long way from being well-known or accepted, and is still lagging behind podcasts and wikis. Social networks are used as communication tools, less for monitoring _ Factor analysis provides no specific patterns of motives for using online communities in communication management. Professionals state a variety of reasons ranging from demonstrating openness to establishing new relationships. Monitoring opinion building and exploring digital cultures is less prevalent. This reinforces that most participants are sticking to outbound activities; inbound strategies are less important. _ 85% of PR professionals in Europe are themselves members of social networks, with LinkedIn heading the number of professional profiles and Facebook the private realm.
  • 64. 64 Strategic issues
  • 65. 65 Challenges for communication management in Europe www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 6: Here are some issues that might become relevant for public relations and communication management within the next three years. Please pick those 3 items which are most important from your point of view. Most important issues within the next three years 1 Linking business strategy and communication 2 Coping with the digital evolution and the social web 3 Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility 4 Building and maintaining trust 5 Dealing with the demand of new transparency and active audiences 47.3% 45.0% 38.0% 34.6% 30.5%
  • 66. 66 The most important issues in detail 47.3% 45.0% 38.0% 34.6% 30.5% 19.9% 18.8% 17.3% 17.0% 14.8% 11.0% 5.7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Supporting intercultural integration Developing CEO positioning and communication Advancing issue management and corporate foresight Advancing public affairs and political communication Globalisation of communication Establishing new methods to evaluate communication Supporting organisational change Dealing with the demand for new transparency and active audiences Building and maintaining trust Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility Coping with the digital evolution and the social web Linking business strategy and communication www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 6: Here are some issues that might become relevant for public relations and communication management within the next three years. Please pick those 3 items which are most important from your point of view.
  • 67. 67 Relevance of strategic issues compared to previous surveys www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 6; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,524 PR Professionals from 37 countries; Q 6; Zerfass et al. 2007 / n = 1,087 PR Professionals from 24 countries; Q 5: Here are some issues that might become relevant for public relations and communication management within the next three years. Please pick those 3 items which are most important from your point of view. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Building and maintaining trust Dealing with sustainable development and social resonsibility Coping with digital evolution and the social media Linking business strategy and communication 2007 2008 2009
  • 68. 68 Interpretation Clear priorities for communication management in Europe _ The survey identifies two main issues of major importantance for communication professionals throughout Europe. Half of the respondents state either that linking business strategy and communication and/or coping with the digital evolution and the social web are most relevant for themselves within the near future. Whereas the business link is the number one issue for the past three years with a 2% rise since 2008, questions regarding the social web have been intensified (+7%). _ Social responsibility and sustainable development is still important, but has lost ground (-3%), whereas more professionals state that building and maintaining trust is a major issue (+4%). This may resemble the crisis in business and society. Companies and senior management have lost credibility, reputation and trust. At the same time, many CSR activities still have to prove that they are really linked to the core activities and legitimacy of the organisation. It is also plausible that budget cuts affect voluntary activities in this area.
  • 69. 69 Evaluation and communication performance
  • 70. 70 How PR professionals in Europe measure their activities 84.0% 63.7% 56.1% 53.9% 46.9% 38.8% 34.4% 31.7% 29.7% 26.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Clippingsand mediaresponse Internet/intranet usage Satisfactionof (internal) clients Understanding ofkeymessages Financialcosts forprojects Stakeholder attitudesand behaviour change Businessgoals (i.e.with scorecards) Reputation index,brand value Personnelcosts forprojects Processquality (internal workflow) Input Output Outcome Outflow www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously); methods used = scale points 4-5
  • 71. 71 Evaluation practice: 84% measure their impact on the media, but only one third tracks effects on their own organisation www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously); methods used = scale points 4-5 Most popular measures on different levels of evaluation Outflow (effects on the own organisation) Business goals (i.e. with scorecards) Outcome (effects on stakeholders) Understanding of key messages Output (availability of messages/offerings) Clippings and media response Input (initiation of communication) Financial costs for projects 34.4% 53.9% 84.0% 46.9%
  • 72. 72 Results of Communication Processes Output Outcome Internal Output Process Efficiency Quality External Output Coverage Content Direct Outcome Perception Utilization Knowledge Indirect Outcome Opinion Attitudes Emotion Behavioral Disposition Behavior Resources Personnel Costs Outsourcing Costs Input Value Creation Impact on Strategic and/or Financial Targets (Value Chain) Impact on Tangible and/or Intangible Ressources (Capital Accumulation) Outflow ORGANISATION Communication ProcessesInitiation of Communication Processes MEDIA/CHANNELS STAKEHOLDERS ORGANISATION 38.3% 41.4% 73.9% 53.9% 38.8% 33.1% 57.6% 46.4% When measuring their activities, communication professionals focus on a small part of the overall process www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously; methods used = scale points 4-5) Figures depicted within the DPRG/ICV (2009) framework for communication measurement, www.communicationcontrolling.com
  • 73. 73 Joint-stock and private companies are forerunners in monitoring costs and measuring the business impact www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,346 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously); methods used = scale points 4-5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Financialcosts (input) Personnelcosts (input) Processquality (output) Clippingsand mediaresponse (output) Internet/intranet usage(output) Satisfactionof (internal)clients (output) Understanding ofkeymessages (outcome) Stakeholder attitudes, behaviour change Reputation index,brand value(outflow) Businessgoals (outflow) Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non profit organisations
  • 74. 74 Communication measurement in different organisations 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non profit organisations Outflow Outcome Output Input www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,346 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously); methods used = scale points 4-5
  • 75. 75 Methods used in different organisations Joint stock Satisfaction of (internal) clients Clippings and media response Process quality Internet/intranet usage Understanding of key messages 53.5% % % % % Stakeholder attitudes, behaviour change % Reputation index, brand value Business goals Private Govern- mental Non profit 30.4% 87.0% 65.5% 51.0% 38.3% 41.6% 44.3% 62.3% 42.6% 80.1% 33.0% 30.4% 37.1% 64.0% 50.6% 36.3% 18.1% 87.3% 73.4% % % % 43.0% 28.7% 22.4% 24.5% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,346 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 9: Which items do you monitor or measure to assess the effectiveness of public relations / communication management? (1 = do not use at all; 5 = use continuously); methods used = scale points 4-5 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 22.9% 19.6% 41.1% 50.5% 77.1% 79.4% 22.0% 52.8% Joint stock Private Joint stock Private Govern- mental Joint stock Private Non profit Govern- mental Joint stock Private Overall 26.8% 29.8% 83.0% 62.0% 44.9% 32.4% 28.5% 35.1% Overall 26.8% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 83.0% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 62.0% 83.0% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 44.9% 62.0% 83.0% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 32.4% 44.9% 62.0% 83.0% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 28.5% 32.4% 44.9% 62.0% 83.0% 29.8% Overall 26.8% 35.6% 32.5% 36.6% 49.4% 68.4% 84.1% 26.9% Overall 53.7% Financial costs for projects 52.3% 50.3% %31.2% 37.9% 35.1%45.8% Personnel costs for projects 29.1% 30.7% %19.0% 23.8% 35.1%26.9%
  • 76. 76 Interpretation Large parts of the field are still dominated by a narrow view on measurement _ In accordance with last year‘s results, communication managers in Europe mainly rely on monitoring clippings and media response (84%) and internet/intranet usage (64%) when evaluating their activities. Only one third states that tracking business goals and reputation or brand value plays a role. Taking into account that self-reporting in this much-discussed area tends to be rather optimistic, this is a strong hint that measurement practice is far behind the ideal. _ Comparing the empirical data with the up-to-date framework for communication measurement issued by PR associations and controller associations (DPRG/ICV 2009), a predominance of external output evaluation is obvious, followed by exploring the direct outcome on stakeholder‘s perception or knowledge. Measures that catch the far ends of the overall process, i.e. evaluating resources invested by the organisation and value creation that pays off for the organisation, are utilized at a significantly lower rate. _ The narrow view and the lack of measures on the outflow level is coherent with the strong search for clear links between communication and organisational goals identified in this survey.
  • 77. 77 Trends in internal communication
  • 78. 78 Main challenges in internal communication over the next twelve months www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 12: What are the main challenges when communicating to employees within the next 12 months? Please pick those three which are most important from your point of view (1 = not important; 5 = very important); considered scale points 1-2 Coping with the digital evolution and the social web Internationalisation of internal communication Re-establishing lost credibility in management Avoiding reputation risks through online word-of-mouth 34.1% 19.5% 28.7% 28.4% Linking internal communication to corporate strategies 68.8% Dealing with information overload 54.7% Supporting organisational change and restructuring 66.1%
  • 79. 79 Different priorities in internal communication depending on the type of organisation 62.9% 65.8% 33.8% 70.3% 53.9% 27.8% 25.5% 48.5% 68.1% 29.8% 30.7% 22.4% 22.0% 40.2% 64.0% 64.0% Joint stock Private Govern- mental Non profit Dealing with information overload Supporting organisational change and restructuring Coping with the digital evolution and the social web Avoiding reputation risks through online word-of-mouth www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,346 PR Professionals in communication departments; Q 12: What are the main challenges when communicating to employees within the next 12 months? Please pick those three which are most important from your point of view (1 = not important; 5 = very important); considered scale points 1-2
  • 80. 80 Important future action in internal communication 28.2% 37.1% 39.4% 53.8% 65.0% 74.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Reducing information channels Replacing text with videos Separating hard facts from comments Using online communities for internal dialogue Spreading authentic content instead of polished messages Training managers to act as communicators www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals form 34 European countries; Q 13: In implementing internal communication, do you think some of the following aspects will be relevant in the next three years? (1 = not important; 5 = very important), considered scale points 1-2
  • 81. 81 Interpretation Two strong priorities for internal communication _ In times of crisis, internal communication is a driver of organisational change and restructuring, demonstrating a clear link to corporate strategy. A clear two-third majority of the communication professionals interviewed picked those as the prevalent issues in internal communication for the next 12 months. _ At the same time, 55% of respondents realize that information overload is a main problem within organisations, and put a priority on dealing with this. _ Somewhat surprisingly, one third or even less says that dealing with the social web both proactively and defensively (avoiding reputation risks through online word-of- mouth) is one of the top issues in internal communication today. At the same time, 54% think that using online communities for internal dialogue will be important within the next three years. _ According to an overwhelming 74% of respondents, training managers to act as communicators is the most relevant future action in internal communication, followed by spreading authentic content instead of polished messages. Both aspects are a sharp contrast to everyday practice of most communication departments and agencies, who rely on communicating themselves with an ever expanding arsenal of tools and channels.
  • 82. 82 Salary and qualification needs
  • 83. 83 Basic annual salary of European PR practitioners (in Euros) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? 9.2% 10.6% 11.1% 10.6% 8.8% 9.4% 6.8% 7.4% 14.3% 6.7% 2.7% 2.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Less than 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 60,000 60,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 90,000 90,001 - 100,000 100,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 200,000 200,001 - 300,000 More than 300,000
  • 84. 84 Annual salaries of male and female PR practitioners www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall?; What is your gender? 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Less than €30,000 €30,001- €40,000 €40,001- €50,000 €50,001- €60,000 €60,001- €70,000 €70,001- €80,000 €80,001- €90,000 €90,001- €100,000 €100,001- €150,000 €150,001- €200,000 €200,001- €300,000 More than €300,000 female male
  • 85. 85 Annual salary and membership in communication associations www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? Are you a member of a professional organisation? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Less than €30,000 €30,001- €40,000 €40,001- €50,000 €50,001- €60,000 €60,001- €70,000 €70,001- €80,000 €80,001- €90,000 €90,001- €100,000 €100,001- €150,000 €150,001- €200,000 €200,001- €300,000 More than €300,000 National PR or communication association Other international communication association EACD
  • 86. 86 60% of EACD members earn more than 90.000 Euros annually www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall?; Are you a member of a professional organisation? 10.1% 11.0% 12.1% 11.0% 9.0% 9.9% 7.0% 6.9% 12.8% 5.8% 2.3% 2.3% 3.1% 8.0% 4.9% 8.4% 7.5% 6.2% 5.3% 11.1% 24.3% 12.8% 5.3% 3.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Less than €30,000 €30,001- €40,000 €40,001- €50,000 €50,001- €60,000 €60,001- €70,000 €70,001- €80,000 €80,001- €90,000 €90,001- €100,000 €100,001- €150,000 €150,001- €200,000 €200,001- €300,000 More than €300,000 Other professionals EACD members
  • 87. 87 Annual salaries in Western Europe are significantly higher www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Less than €30,000 €30,001- €40,000 €40,001- €50,000 €50,001- €60,000 €60,001- €70,000 €70,001- €80,000 €80,001- €90,000 €90,001- €100,000 €100,001- €150,000 €150,001- €200,000 €200,001- €300,000 More than €300,000 Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe
  • 88. 88 Annual salary of top level communicators in different regions (Head of communication/Agency CEO) www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 951 PR Professionals from European countries; Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Less than €30,000 €30,001- €40,000 €40,001- €50,000 €50,001- €60,000 €60,001- €70,000 €70,001- €80,000 €80,001- €90,000 €90,001- €100,000 €100,001- €150,000 €150,001- €200,000 €200,001- €300,000 More than €300,000 Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe
  • 89. 89 Corresponding with their hierarchical status and role, professionals acting as strategic facilitators report a higher salary 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Less than 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 60,000 60,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 90,000 90,001 - 100,000 100,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 200,000 200,001 - 300,000 M ore than 300,000 Isolated Experts Business Advisors Operational Supporters Strategic Facilitators www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,768 PR Professionals from 34 countries; Q 7, Q 17
  • 90. 90 Training and qualification needs of PR professionals in Europe 1.7% 3.7% 11.0% 16.5% 20.1% 21.0% 26.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% I have no development needs Budgeting and resource allocation Research and measurement methods Leadership skills Coaching peers and consulting top management Developing communication plans linked to business strategies Dealing with online channels www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 14: Thinking of your own skills: if you have the right to choose one area of personal development next year, which of the following would you select?
  • 91. 91 Qualification needs related to the hierarchical position Head of comm./ Agency CEO Unit leader 28.2% 22.5%Dealing with online channels Developing comm. plans linked to business strategies 18.3% 24.5% 22.3% 16.8% Coaching peers and consulting top management Leadership skills 13.9% 20.0% Research and measurement methods 11.3% 12.1% Budgeting and resource allocation 3.8% 3.4% Team member 24.6% 24.2% 19.5% 18.6% 7.6% 4.2% I have no development needs 2.2% 0.7% 1.3% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 14: Thinking of your own skills: if you have the right to choose one area of personal development next year, which of the following would you select?
  • 92. 92 Qualification needs related to job experience 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Leadership skills Coaching peers and consulting top management Developing communication plans linked to business strategies Dealing with online channels Less than 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 14: Thinking of your own skills: if you have the right to choose one area of personal development next year, which of the following would you select?
  • 93. 93 Training requirements of various roles Strategic Facilitators Operational Supporters 26.9% 26.2%Dealing with online channels Developing communication plans linked to business strategies 19.1% 23.4% 20.8% 17.9% Coaching peers and consulting top management Leadership skills 17.7% 16.8% Research and measurement methods 11.1% 10.9% Business Advisors 20.4% 17.2% 30.1% 12.9% 8.6% Isolated Experts 24.2% 26.3% 17.4% 11.1% 12.1% www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2009 / n = 1,863 PR Professionals from 34 European countries; Q 14: Thinking of your own skills: if you have the right to choose one area of personal development next year, which of the following would you select?
  • 94. 94 Interpretation Salary correlates with hierarchy and strategic role _ The survey supports previous findings (EACD 2008) that salaries of communication professionals differ widely throughout Europe. Countries with a well-established occupational field in Western and Northern Europe lead the field. At the same time, women are under-represented in the higher bands of annual income, which points out that a glass ceiling still exists. Membership in international communication associations including the EACD correlates positively with a basic salary of 100.000 Euro and more. _ Professionals enacting the „strategic facilitator“ role tend to be in the top of the salary ranks, whereas a large portion of the „isolated experts“ are badly paid. However, there are also some respondents with a tremendous income reporting that they neither support organisational goals by executing communication nor by advising the strategy process. _ Consistent with data presented in other sections of this survey, three main needs for qualification have been identified: dealing with online channels (referred to by 26%), developing communication plans linked to business strategies (21%) and coaching peers and consulting top managers (20%).
  • 95. 95 Annex
  • 96. 96 European countries and regions Respondents are based in 34 European countries Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom Regions (United Nations Standard Classification) Croatia Cyprus Greece Italy Macedonia Malta Portugal Serbia Slovenia Spain Turkey Bulgaria Czech Republic Hungary Poland Romania Russia Slovakia Austria Belgium France Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Switzerland Denmark Estonia Finland Ireland Latvia Lithuania Norway Sweden United Kingdom Southern Europe (n=354) Eastern Europe (n=158) Western Europe (n=772) Northern Europe (n=579) Classification according to United Nations Statistics Division (2008)
  • 97. 97 Authors Prof. Dr. Ansgar Zerfass _ Professor of Communication Management, University of Leipzig, Germany E-Mail: zerfass@uni-leipzig.de Prof. Angeles Moreno, PhD _ Professor of Public Relations and Communication Management University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain E-Mail: mariaangeles.moreno@urjc.es Prof. Ralph Tench, PhD _ Professor of Public Relations, Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom. E-Mail: r.tench@leedsmet.ac.uk Prof. Dejan Verčič, PhD _ Professor of Public Relations and Communication Management, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia E-Mail: dejan.vercic@pristop.si Ass. Prof. Dr. Piet Verhoeven _ Associate Professor of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands E-Mail: p.verhoeven@uva.nl
  • 98. 98 Advisory board Prof. Dr. Emanuele Invernizzi _ IULM University, Milano, Italy E-Mail: emanuele.invernizzi@iulm.it Prof. Dr. Valerie Carayol _ University of Bordeaux 3, France E-Mail: valerie.carayol@u-bordeaux3.fr Ass. Prof. Dr. Francesco Lurati _ University of Lugano, Switzerland E-Mail: francesco.lurati@lu.unisi.ch Prof. Dr. Sven Hamrefors _ Mälardalen University, Sweden E-Mail: sven.hamrefors@mdh.se Prof. Dr. Øyvind Ihlen _ BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo (NO), Norway E-Mail: oyvind.ihlen@bi.no Prof. Dr. Ryszard Lawniczak _ Poznan University of Economics, Poland E-Mail: r.lawniczak@ae.poznan.pl
  • 99. 99 References _ Bentele, G., & Nothhaft, H. (2008). The Intereffication Model: Theoretical Discussions and Empirical Research. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research. European and International Perspectives and Innovations (pp. 33-47). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. _ DPRG/ICV Deutsche Public Relations Gesellschaft/Internationaler Controller Verein (2009). DPRG/ICV framework for communication measurement, Berlin: DPRG. Available at www.communicationcontrolling.com _ EACD European Association of Communication Directors(2008). European Communication Report 2008. Brussels: Helios Media. _ Ernest, R.C. (1985). Corporate cultures and effective planning. Personnel Administrator, Vol. 30 (3), 49-60. _ Lurati, F., & Eppler, M. (2006). Communication and Management: Researching Corporate Communication and Knowledge Communication in Organizational Settings. Studies in Communication Sciences, Vol. 6 (2), 75-98. _ Moreno, A., Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Vercic, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2009). European Communication Monitor. Current developments, issues and tendencies of the professional practice of public relations in Europe. Public Relations Review, Vol. 35, 79-82. _ Swerling, J., Gregory, J., Schuh, J., Goff, T., Gould, J, Gu, X.C., Palmer, K., Mchargue, A. (2008). Fifth Annnual Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices (G.A.P.) Study (2007 Data) GAP V. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Available at: http://annenberg.usc.edu/CentersandPrograms/ResearchCenters/SPRC.aspx _ Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Institutionalizing Strategic Communication in Europe – An Ideal Home or a Mad House? Evidence from a Survey in 37 Countries. International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3 (2), 147-164. _ United Nations Statistics Division (2008). Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical subregions, and selected economic and other groupings (revised 31 January 2008). New York: United Nations. Available at: http://unstats. un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe _ Van Ruler, B., & Verčič, D. (2002). 21st Century communication management – the people, the organization. In P. Simcic Bronn & R. Wiig (Eds.), Corporate Communication: A strategic approach to building reputation (pp. 277-294). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. _ Van Ruler, B., & Verčič, D. (2005). Reflective communication management. Future ways for public relations research. In International Communication Association (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 29 (pp. 239-273). New Brunswick, NJ: Translation. _ Zerfass, A. (2008). Corporate Communication Revisited: Integrating Business Strategy and Strategic Communication. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research. European and International Perspectives and Innovations (pp. 65-96). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. _ Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2008). European Communication Monitor 2008. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications. Brussels, Leipzig: Euprera, University of Leipzig. Available at: www.communicationmonitor.eu _ Zerfass, A., Van Ruler, B., Rogojinaru, A., Vercic, D., & Hamrefors, S. (2007). European Communication Monitor 2007. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications. Leipzig, Brussels: University of Leipzig, Euprera. Available at: www.communicationmonitor.eu
  • 100. 100 Imprint Publication Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. European Communication Monitor 2009. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results of a Survey in 34 Countries (Chart Version) Brussels: Euprera, September 2009 This set of charts is available as a free PDF document at www.communicationmonitor.eu The full report (text and charts) is available as a book published by Helios Media. ISBN: 978-3-9811316-2-8. See www.eacd-online.eu for details. Publisher EUPRERA European Public Relations Education and Research Association, www.euprera.org Copyright © 2009 by Ansgar Zerfass and the research team for the whole document and all parts, charts and data. The material presented in this document represents empirical insights and interpretation by the research team. It is intellectual property subject to international copyright. Illustration licensed by istockphoto.com. Title graphic provided by EACD. Permission is gained to quote from the content of this survey and reproduce any graphics, subject to the condition that the source including the internet address is clearly quoted and depicted on every chart. It is not allowed to use this data to illustrate promotional material for commercial services. Publishing this PDF document on websites run by third parties and storing this document in databases or on platforms which are only open to subscribers/members or charge payments for assessing information is not allowed. Please use a link to the official website www.communicationmonitor.eu Acknowledgements Special thanks to Stephanie Krahl B.A. and Peter Schmiedgen B.A. (University of Leipzig) for their most valuable statistical and organisational support and to Grit Fiedler (EACD, Brussels) for helpful suggestions. Contact Please contact any member of the research team or the advisory board in your country/region if you are interested in discussing the insights of this survey or in joint research projects. Questions regarding the overall research, including sponsorship opportunities for future surveys, may be directed to the lead researcher, Prof. Dr. Ansgar Zerfass, zerfass@uni-leipzig.de

×