I was at lunch with Matthew (face pictured to the left) with Eyegate Media the other day when he said public relations is marketing. After chocking on my Chipotle, I emphatically said that I 150% disagreed. That might have been a brash, in-the-moment overstatement, but I at least mostly disagreed - or I did.
Part of our discussion stemmed from a book called Church Marketing 101 - I know, horrible title and most of you (not naming names) will think it sounds totally lame. In the book, Richard Reising outlines the well-known ’4 P’s of Marketing’ with the last being promotion, which is where he places PR.
After digging into the book a bit and mulling over my conversation with Matthew, convsations with myself, and conversations with others, I decided that marketing folks see PR as an arm of marketing with marketing being the umbrella that all things fit under. Therefore marketing is superior and PR is just a means to an end or a tool in the marketing tool box (Isn’t everything promotional a means to an end? For another post perhaps.).
On the other hand, PR professionals are taught that marketing squanders money on campaigns that rarely yield results and lack credibility since the brand is representing themselves instead of someone else talking about them (a.k.a. PR). PR claims, as I did and as I was told to do, that PR is not marketing - 150 percent not marketing. In most colleges marketing is in the business college and PR is in the journalism school. Separate buildings, professors, etc. Unless you intentionally try, they rarely intersect except for a few classes. This is ridiculous to me.
In our increasingly collaborative communications society the lines between advertising, marketing and PR are not just blurry, they’ve bled so far into each other that the original color is difficult to detect. I have worked for companies where the departments argue about what fits within their domain and what does not. Throw social media into this 4-year-old’s birthday party and the parents just throw up their arms. Should I be jumping on the bouncy castle with marketing? Hanging out with PR at the swanky bar down the street (whoa, this kid’s party is getting crazy)?
What is most interesting to me is all the talks of marcom and collaboration. This, my online sparse reader friends, is where I reside. I believe in marcom. This fusion of communications and marketing where the two actually work together instead of competeing for budget dollars, company resepect, university buildings, who has the higher ROI, etc.
This is an old discussion, but one I think always deserves a revisit if for no other reason than it causes me to question these different entities again, how they bring value and where they should *gasp* work together. I suspect many people have ideas on this subject, please leave them in the comment section. I might or might not approve them. 
JK, I probably will.
More on this in later posts.. “Marcom :: The Wave of the Future That’s Been Around/Talked About Forever Yet Still Seems Rarely Practiced Effectively”
The end goal of both marketing and PR are to sell something — be it a product or service, directly or a company or person or whatever, indirectly. The reason is always money. Because the entities serve the same goal, my logic says they’re the same thing, but ah, our semantics. So, I like to refer to Marketing and Advertising and Promotion and Social Media and Public Relation as nothing more than tactics to achieve our goal, the paycheck. So miss Wambaugh, I think I disagree with you.
Just because something has the same end goal does not make it the same thing. The goal of customer service is to solve customers problems so that they continue to use the service so the company continues to make money. So customer service = marketing? The goal of scheduling is to arrange the routes so that the buses are full and customers get to where they want to go so that the company continues to be as profitable as possible. So scheduling = marketing? The goal of a bus driver is to safely and on-time get each customer from point A to point B so that they are satisfied with the service so they will come back and continue to spend money. So drivers = marketing?
Being a professional technologist and an avocational marcom enthusiast (perhaps the only one of the later) I have a unique perspective.
My professional field is often seen by non-technology folks as a single indivisible amalgam: technology. These well intending folks struggle to see the nuances of software, hardware, support, development, databases, infrastructure, testing, security, networking, servers, desktops, etc. “Oh, you’re a database administrator? Can you help me with the graphics on my web page?”
This myopia frustrates most technologists. Everyone wants to believe that their particular craft is unique and uniquely valuable. This is understandable. It’s aggravating when a PhD working in statistical natural language processing gets asked to help install Microsoft Word.
Truth be known, this happens with lots of fields: healthcare, engineering, military, government, accounting, etc.
The reality is that those folks who transcend their specific job function and have a holistic view of the system within which they work are simply more effective. This is as true within the shades of gray of technology as it is across disciplines like technology, marketing, accounting, and manufacturing. It also helps to realize and accept that from your self-absorbed perspective you are unique, but to the outside world you are just another marketing smooze, computer geek, number crunchers, whatever.
For all their study of connecting with the public, marcom people suck at understanding how they are perceived by the outside world. The average consumer makes no distinction between PR and marketing. For that matter they make no distinction between the customer support call center or a salesperson and PR or marketing.
Unfortunately, from my perspective, it seems too many PR and marketing folks don’t recognize this because they are too busy talking about how each other are completely ineffective. Ironically, it’s this infighting that usually makes them both right.
This is not to say that there is no difference in PR and marketing. There is, of course, but they are shades of gray. When folks try too hard to force a clear division between these two disciplines, you have discontinuity in the spectrum… and your customers will see this and potentially skewer you for it.
Kudos to you Abby for recognizing what us simple non-marcom peeps have known all along. I think it will make you a better marketer AND a better PR practitioner.
-M.
I always appreciate your perspective as a marketing/marcom enthusiast, but one not caught up professionally in the trade. And I think you are right (yes, I said it), this confusion transcends the marketing/PR field and can be applied to many professional fields.
FYI: I’m ashamed to say I had to look up multiple words in your comment at dictionary.com.
I firmly believe that one hand washes the other. I’ve been in marketing and communications for 12 years - always wearing dual hats as a marketing manager and organization spokesperson. Working with my current employer is the first time I have ever seen such segregation between marketing and communications/PR.
Both “entities” have to work together toward the same strategic goal. Marketing may focus moreso on the aesthetic creative, print and radio ads, campaigns, etc. But communications/PR is just as strategic - outlining the right people to target with a message or product. Nevertheless, it is the same vital point that both marketing and communications professionals are trying to impress.
It’s a shame when companies look at each entity separately instead of two integral necessities that can increase business, brand perception and opportunities. When marketing and communications play nice together, it’s a wonderful thing.
Simply put, Public Relations is earned. Marketing is paid for. Kind of like the difference between a wife and a… never mind.
As a previous Director of MarCom, it was my experience that MarCom often resided at the product level, and that PR resided at the organizational level.
But the distinctions between MarCom, straight-up marketing, and PR are often grayed, especially in smaller orgs. It’s my opinion that the way orgs display these differences is less important than effective communication and product experience.
I add product experience, because I believe that your product is also the marketing. Take the Dyson vacuum for example. You don’t buy it because some old guy can lift it (thank you Oreck), you buy it because it’s the best damn vacuum out there.
Thanks for posting Abby. Keep up the good work.
[...] What the Eff is Marcom? » Marcom - The Space Between Marketing and PR Background: If I’m being honest, nearly [...]
[...] may remember that I previously wrote a post titled “What the Eff is Marcom” a while back, which Andrew Swenson then kindly followed with a guest post describing his [...]