Ecm2015 Results Chartversion (2) (1) [608377]

Licență

Ecm2015 Results Chartversion (2) (1) [608377]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

EUROPEAN

COMMUNICATION

MONITOR
2015

CREATING
COMMUNICATION
VALUE
THROUGH
LISTENING,
MESSAGING

AND
MEASUREMENT.
RESULTS
OF
A
SURVEY
IN
41
COUNTRIES.

Ansgar
Zerfass,
Dejan
Verčič,
Piet
Verhoeven,
Angeles
Moreno
&
Ralph
Tench

A
study
conducted
by
the
European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon
and
Research
AssociaPon
(EUPRERA)
and
the

European
AssociaPon
of
CommunicaPon
Directors
(EACD)
supported
by
partner
PRIME
Research
InternaPonal

and
media
partner
CommunicaPon
Director
magazine

4
Imprint

Published
by:

EACD
European
AssociaPon
of
CommunicaPon
Directors,
Brussels,
www.eacd-‐online.eu

EUPRERA
European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon
and
Research
AssociaPon,
Brussels,
www.euprera.org

Cita=on
of
this
publica=on
(APA
style):
Zerfass,
A.,
Verčič,
D.,
Verhoeven ,
P.,
Moreno,
A.,
&
Tench,
R.
(2015).

European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
2015.
CreaPng
communicaPon
value
through
listening,
messaging
and
measurement.

Results
of
a
Survey
in
41
Countries.
Brussels:
EACD/EUPRERA,
Helios
Media.

Short
quotaPon
to
be
used
in
legends
(charts/graphics):
Source:
European
Communica0on
Monitor
2015.
June
2015.
All
rights
reserved.

©
Prof.
Dr.
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
interpretaPon
by
the
research
team.
It
is
intellectual
property
subject
to
internaPonal
copyright.
IllustraPon

licensed
by
istockphoto.com.
Title
graphic
provided
by
Helios
Media.
Permission
is
gained
to
quote
from
the
content
of
this
survey
and
reproduce

any
graphics,
subject
to
the
condiPon
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
promoPonal
material
for
commercial
services.
Publishing
this
PDF
document
on
websites
run
by
third
parPes
and
storing
this
document
in
databases
or
on
plaaorms
which
are
only
open
to
subscribers/members
or
charge
payments
for
assessing
informaPon
is
prohibited.
Please
use
a
link
to
the
oﬃcial
website
www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
instead.

This
report
(chart
version)
is
available
as
a
free
PDF
document
at
www.communicaPonmonitor.eu

The
report
is
also
available
as
a
booklet
published
by
Helios
Media,
ISBN
978-‐3-‐942263-‐34-‐4.

Contact:

Please
contact
naPonal
EUPRERA
researchers
at
universiPes
in
your
country
listed
on
page
132,
lead
researcher
Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass,

zerfass@uni-‐leipzig.de,
or
EACD
coordinator
Vanessa
Eggert,
vanessa.eggert@eacd-‐online.eu,
if
your
are
interested
in
presentaPons,

workshops,
interviews,
or
further
analyses
of
the
insights
presented
here.

5
Content

Foreword
and
IntroducPon
6

Research
design
8

Methodology
and
demographics
10

Future
relevance
of
mass
media
16

IntegraPng
communicaPon
and
content
strategies
26

Strategic
issues
and
value
contribuPon
38

CommunicaPon
strategies
and
organisaPonal
listening
52

Measurement
and
evaluaPon
70

RelaPonship
between
agencies
and
clients
82

Salaries
96

CharacterisPcs
of
excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
106

References
126

Survey
organisers
and
partners
129

NaPonal
contacts
132

Authors
and
research
team
133

6
The
2015
ediPon
of
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
provides
a
direct
line
into
the
mindset
of

communicators
across
Europe,
revealing
the
trends,
challenges
and
new
ideas
that
are
prevalent
in
European
communicaPons
management
today.

As
with
previous
years,
linking
communicaPons
and
business
strategy
remains
the
key
management

issue
idenPﬁed
by
communicators
in
Europe.
For
this
link
to
occur,
communicators
must
demonstrate
the

value
of
the
funcPon
to
organisaPonal
execuPves.
The
survey
results
suggest
communicators
are
likely
to

highlight
the
posiPve
eﬀects
on
reputaPon,
brand
and
organisaPonal
culture
as
evidence
of
this
value.
CiPng
posiPve
impacts
on
economic
value
and
tangible
and
intangible
resources
is
used
to
a
lesser
extent.

The
dynamic
development
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
during
the
digital
age
has
opened
up
many

new
channels
for
reaching
stakeholders.
The
majority
of
communicators
surveyed
in
the
European

CommunicaPon
Monitor
believe
the
integraPon
of
these
channels
with
those
already
in
existence
is
crucial

for
a
successful
communicaPons
strategy.
Digital
channels
have
also
led
to
the
opportunity
for
data
analysis
to
be
incorporated
into

the
assessment
of
communicaPons
campaigns.
Yet,
according
to
this
year’s
Monitor,
more
than
half
of
all
communicaPons

departments
uPlise
tradiPonal
measurement
and
evaluaPon
acPviPes
without
leveraging
the
value
of
data
for
managing

communicaPons.

The
European
AssociaPon
of
CommunicaPon
Directors
(EACD)
is
commimed
to
supporPng
communicators
in
their
goal
to

execute
successful
communicaPons
management
strategies.
Through
a
conPnuous
exchange
with
our
members
we
hope
to
assist

communicators
in
implemenPng
innovaPve
content
strategies
and
data
analyPcs.
The
results
of
the
survey
illustrate
ambiPon
for

further
progress
and
we
at
the
EACD
are
moPvated
to
display
how
the
communicaPon
funcPon
contributes
value
to
every

organisaPon.
I
invite
you
to
explore
the
ﬁndings
of
this
year’s
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
in-‐depth
on
the
following
pages.

Dr.
Herbert
Heitmann

President,
European
Associa0on
of
Communica0on
Directors
(EACD)
Foreword

7
Rapid
changes
in
the
communicaPon
environment
challenge
organisaPons
around
the
globe.
Many
claim

that
mass
media
are
losing
their
leading
role
in
shaping
public
opinion
and
new
approaches
like
content
markePng
are
propagated.
However,
there
is
limle
evidence
that
this
helps
to
support
organisaPonal
goals.

Looking
further,
there
is
no
compelling
answer
at
all
to
the
overarching
quesPon
of
how
communicaPon

creates
value
for
organisaPons
–
instead,
various
raPonales
like
building
reputaPon,
managing
relaPon-‐
ships,
avoiding
crises,
securing
legiPmacy,
idenPfying
opportuniPes
or
supporPng
sales
compete
with
each

other
both
in
theory
and
pracPce.

The
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
2015
explores
these
quesPons
as
well
as
a
number
of
other

important
topics
in
the
ﬁeld.
With
2,253
communicaPon
professionals
from
41
countries
parPcipaPng
and

detailed
analyses
for
20
countries,
it
is
the
largest
annual
survey
of
its
kind
worldwide.
The
study
reveals
that
there
is
a
vast

discrepancy
between
the
ambiPon
of
communicaPon
professionals
to
build
immaterial
assets,
which
they
also
claim
as
being

valuable
to
top
execuPves,
and
their
pracPces
of
evaluaPng
such
impacts.
The
study
also
shows
that
organisaPonal
listening
is

a
premier,
but
open
neglected,
goal
for
strategic
communicaPon.

On
behalf
of
the
research
team,
I
would
like
to
thank
all
professionals
who
spent
some
of
their
valuable
Pme
to
parPcipate
in

the
survey.
Our
naPonal
partners
from
many
renowned
universiPes,
assistant
researchers
Markus
Wiesenberg
and
Ronny
Fechner,
and
Stefanie
Schwerdaeger
and
Grit
Fiedler
at
the
EACD
did
a
great
job.
Many
thanks
to
our
partners
CommunicaPon
Director

magazine
and
PRIME
Research
InternaPonal
–
they
enabled
us
to
deliver
this
report
to
you.

Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass

Lead
researcher;
Professor
and
Chair
in
Strategic
Communica0on,
University
of
Leipzig,
Germany
&

President,
European
Public
Rela0ons
Educa0on
and
Research
Associa0on
(EUPRERA)

IntroducPon

Research
design

9
Research
design

The
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
(ECM)
is
a
unique,
longitudinal
transnaPonal
survey
in
strategic
communicaPon.
It
has
been

organised
annually
since
2007
and
similar
studies
have
been
iniPated
by
the
research
team
on
other
conPnents
(LaPn
America,
since
2014,
and
Asia-‐Paciﬁc,
starPng
2015).
All
surveys
focus
on
current
pracPces
and
future
developments
of
communicaPon
management

and
public
relaPons
in
corporaPons,
non-‐proﬁts,
governmental
organisaPons
and
communicaPon
agencies.
Owing
to
its
depth,
long-‐term
consistency
of
quesPons
and
structure,
the
ECM
is
known
as
the
most
comprehensive
research
in
the
ﬁeld
worldwide.
The
ninth
ediPon
presented
in
this
report
is
based
on
responses
from
2,253
communicaPon
professionals
from
41
countries.

A
joint
study
by
academia
and
pracPce,
the
ECM
is
organised
by
the
European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon
and
Research
AssociaPon

(EUPRERA)
and
the
European
AssociaPon
of
CommunicaPon
Directors
(EACD),
supported
by
partner
PRIME
Research
InternaPonal,
a
global
leader
in
strategic
communicaPon
research,
and
media
partner
CommunicaPon
Director
magazine.
Authors
of
the
study
are
ﬁve
university
professors
represenPng
leading
academic
insPtuPons
in
the
ﬁeld,
led
by
Professor
Ansgar
Zerfass
from
the
University
of
Leipzig.

A
wider
board
of
professors
and
naPonal
research
collaborators
ensure
that
the
survey
reﬂects
the
diversity
of
the
ﬁeld
across
Europe.

The
research
framework
for
the
survey
has
been
modiﬁed
and
expanded
in
2015.
The
survey
quesPonnaire
includes
a
large
number
of

independent
and
dependent
variables
along
ﬁve
key
factors:
personal
characterisPcs
of
communicaPon
professionals
(demographics,

educaPon,
job
status,
experience);
features
of
the
organisaPon
(structure,
country);
amributes
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon;
the
current
situaPon
as
well
as
percepPons
on
key
developments
relevant
for
the
profession.

The
study
explores
three
constructs.
Firstly,
dynamics
in
the
ﬁeld
are
idenPﬁed
by
longitudinal
comparisons,
i.e.
on
strategic
issues,

collaboraPon
between
communicaPon
funcPons,
measurement,
and
salaries.
To
this
end,
quesPons
from
previous
ECM
surveys
(Zerfass

et
al.,
2014,
2011,
2010)
have
been
repeated.
Secondly,
recent
developments
in
pracPce
and
academic
theories
are
empirically
tested
by

using
a
set
of
quesPonnaire
instruments
derived
from
literature.
The
conceptual
background
of
the
ECM
2015
includes
debates
on
the
future
role
of
mass
media
for
opinion
building
and
strategic
communicaPon
(Macnamara,
2014b;
Supa ,
2014),
new
concepts
like
content

markePng,
brand
journalism
and
naPve
adverPsing
(Hallahan,
2014),
integraPon
of
communicaPon
acPviPes
(Smith,
2012),
alternaPve
ways
to
explain
the
value
of
communicaPon
(Kiesenbauer
&
Zerfass,
2015),
organisaPonal
listening
(Macnamara,
2014c),
measurement
and
evaluaPon
(Watson
&
Noble,
2014),
as
well
as
collaboraPon
and
conﬂict
between
communicaPon
departments
and
agencies
(Eagle

et
al.,
2015:
123-‐138).
Last
but
not
least,
this
study
applies
staPsPcal
methods
to
idenPfy
outperforming
communicaPon
departments
in

the
sample.
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
diﬀer
from
others
in
various
aspects,
and
the
ECM
explains
these
diﬀerences.
The
mulP-‐tude
of
insights
based
on
research
instead
of
aspiraPons
and
promises
enables
the
profession
to
strengthen
or
reject
concepts
in
the

ﬁeld
and
take
informed
decisions.

Methodology
and

demographics

11
Methology
and
demographics

The
quesPonnaire
used
for
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
2015
consisted
of
33
quesPons
arranged
in
19
secPons.
Three

quesPons
were
used
in
two
diﬀerent
versions
for
respondents
working
in
communicaPon
departments
and
agencies
respecPvely.

Six
quesPons
were
only
presented
to
professionals
working
in
departments.
All
instruments
were
based
on
research
quesPons
and
hypotheses
derived
from
previous
research
and
literature.

The
online
survey
used
the
English
language
and
was
pre-‐tested
with
51
communicaPon
professionals
in
18
European
countries.

Amendments
were
made
where
appropriate
and
the
ﬁnal
quesPonnaire
was
acPvated
for
four
weeks
in
March
2015.
30,000+
profession-‐
als
throughout
Europe
were
invited
with
personal
e-‐mails
based
on
a
database
provided
by
the
European
AssociaPon
of
CommunicaPon

Directors
(EACD).
AddiPonal
invitaPons
were
sent
via
naPonal
research
collaborators
and
professional
associaPons.
6,415
respondents
started
the
survey
and
2,391
of
them
completed
it.
Answers
from
parPcipants
who
could
not
be
clearly
idenPﬁed
as
part
of
the
popula-‐Pon
were
deleted
from
the
dataset.
This
strict
selecPon
of
respondents
is
a
disPnct
feature
of
the
ECM
and
sets
it
apart
from
many
studies
which
are
based
on
snowball
sampling
or
which
include
students,
academics
and
people
outside
of
the
focused
profession
or

region.
The
evaluaPon
is
then
based
on
2,253
fully
completed
replies
by
communicaPon
professionals
in
Europe.

The
StaPsPcal
Package
for
the
Social
Sciences
(SPSS)
was
used
for
data
analysis.
Results
have
been
tested
staPsPcally
with,

depending
on
the
variable,
Pearson's
chi-‐square
tests
(χ²),
ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
tests,
Cramér’s
V,
one
sample
T-‐Tests,
and

independent
samples
T-‐tests.
In
this
report,
results
are
classiﬁed
as
signiﬁcant
(p
≤
0.05)*
or
highly
signiﬁcant
(p
≤
0.01)**
in
the
graphics

and
tables
or
marked
in
the
footnotes.

The
demographics
show
that
seven
out
of
ten
respondents
are
communicaPon
leaders:
44.0
per
cent
hold
a
top
hierarchical

posiPon
as
head
of
communicaPon
or
as
CEO
of
a
communicaPon
consultancy;
27.2
per
cent
are
unit
leaders
or
in
charge
of
a
single
communicaPon
discipline
in
an
organisaPon.
62.3
per
cent
of
the
professionals
interviewed
have
more
than
ten
years
of
experience
in
communicaPon
management,
59.0
per
cent
of
them
are
female
and
the
average
age
is
41.4
years.
A
vast
majority
(94.8
per
cent)
in
the
sample
has
an
academic
degree,
and
more
than
two
third
hold
a
graduate
degree
or
even
a
doctorate.
Almost
three
out
of
four
respon-‐
dents
work
in
communicaPon
departments
in
organisaPons
(joint
stock
companies,
25.0
per
cent;
private
companies,
17.5
per
cent;
government-‐owned,
public
sector,
poliPcal
organisaPons,
17.4
per
cent;
non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons,
associaPons,
11.1
per
cent),
while
28.9
per
cent
are
communicaPon
consultants
working
freelance
or
for
agencies.
Most
respondents
(30.1
per
cent)
are
based
in
Southern
Europe
(countries
like
Italy,
Spain,
CroaPa),
followed
by
Western
Europe
(28.6
per
cent;
countries
like
Germany,
Netherlands,
France),

Northern
Europe
(24.9
per
cent;
countries
like
Norway,
Sweden,
United
Kingdom),
and
Eastern
Europe
(16.4
per
cent;
countries
like

Poland,
Romania,
Ukraine).
The
universe
of
50
European
countries
is
based
on
an
oﬃcial
list
of
European
Countries
by
the
European
Union.
Countries
are
assigned
to
regions
according
to
the
oﬃcial
classiﬁcaPon
of
the
United
NaPons
StaPsPcs
Division
(2013).

Overall,
41
countries
parPcipated
in
the
survey.
The
dataset
provided
more
detailed
insights
for
20
countries,
including
most
key

markets
in
Europe.

12
Research
framework
and
quesPons

Situa=on

Modes
of
interacPon
with
mass
media,

Q
2

Blurring
boundaries
between

communicaPon
funcPons,
Q
3

Use
of
new
communicaPon
pracPces,
Q
4

Ways
of
explaining
the
value
of

communicaPon,
Q
6

ContribuPon
to
organisaPonal

objecPves,
Q
7
CommunicaPon
strategies,
Q
8
Listening

objecPves/instruments,
Q
10
CommunicaPon
measurement

and
evaluaPon,
Q
12

Use
of
measurement
data/insights,
Q
14

CollaboraPon
with
other
funcPons
in
the

organisaPon ,
Q
17

Nature
of
client/agency
relaPonship(s),

Q
18

Client/agency
collaboraPon,
Q
19

Personal
income,
Q
33
Person
(Communica=on
professional)

Demographics
EducaPon
Job
status
Experience

Age,
Q
27

Gender,
Q
28

Membership
in

associaPon(s),
Q
31
Academic

qualiﬁcaPons,

Q
30
PosiPon
and

hierarchy
level,

Q
16

Dominant
areas
of

work,
Q
26
Overall
job
experience

(years),

Q
29

EvaluaPon
capabiliPes,

Q
13

Communica=on
func=on

Excellence

Inﬂuence
Performance

Advisory
inﬂuence,
Q
22

ExecuPve
inﬂuence,
Q
23
Success,
Q
24
Quality
&
Ability,
Q
25
Organisa=on

Structure
Country

Type
of
organisaPon,
Q
15
Alignment
of
the
CCO
/
top

communicaPon
manager,

Q
21
European
country,
Q
32

European
region,
Q
32

Percep=on

Future
importance
of
mass

media,
Q
1

Relevance
of
new

communicaPon
pracPces,

Q
4

Most
important
strategic

issues,
Q
5

Forerunners
in
organisaPonal

listening,
Q
9

Techniques
and
eﬀects
of

organisaPonal
listening,

Q
11

Source
of
conﬂicts
in
agency/

client
relaPonships,
Q
20

13
Demographic
background
of
parPcipants

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
15:
Where
do
you
work?
Q
16:
What
is
your
posiPon?
Q
29:
How
many

years
of
experience
do
you
have
in
communicaPon
management/PR?
Alignment:
n
=
1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
21:
Within

your
organisaPon,
the
top
communicaPon
manager
or
chief
communicaPon
oﬃcer
/
is
a
member
of
the
execuPve
board
/
reports
directly
to
the
CEO
or
highest
decision-‐maker
on
the
execuPve
board
/
does
not
report
directly
to
the
CEO
or
highest
decision-‐maker.

Posi0on
Organisa0on

Head
of
communicaPon,

agency
CEO
44.0%
CommunicaPon
department

§ joint
stock
company

25.0%

§ private
company

17.5%

§ government-‐owned,
public
sector,

poliPcal
organisaPon
17.4%

§ non-‐proﬁt
organisaPon,
associaPon

11.1%

Responsible
for
single

communicaPon
discipline,

unit
leader
27.2%

71.1%

Team
member,
consultant
22.7%

Other

6.1%
CommunicaPon
consultancy,

PR
agency,
freelance
consultant
28.9%

Job
experience
Alignment
of
the
communica0on
func0on

More
than
10
years
62.3%
Strongly
aligned
communicaPon
department
26.4%

6
to
10
years
23.4%
Aligned
communicaPon
department
59.8%

Up
to
5
years
14.3%
Weakly
aligned
communicaPon
department
13.7%

14
Gender
/
Age

Personal
background
of
respondents

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
27:
How
old
are
you?
Q
28:
What
is
your
gender?
Q
30:
Please
state

the
highest
academic/educaPonal
qualiﬁcaPons
you
hold.
*
No
academic
degree
=
5.2%.
Q
31:
Are
you
a
member
of
a
professional
organisaPon?

Overall

Head
of
communicaPon,

Agency
CEO

Team
leader ,

Unit
leader

Team
member ,

Consultant

Female

Male

Age
(on
average)
59.0%

41.0%

41.4
yrs
54.1%
45.9%

44.5
yrs
57.2%
42.8%

39.9
yrs
67.9%
31.1%

37.5
yrs

Highest
academic
educa0onal
qualiﬁca0on*

Doctorate
(Ph.D.,
Dr.)

7.9%

Master
(M.A.,
M.Sc.,
Mag.,
M.B.A.),
Diploma
60.8%

Bachelor
(B.A.,
B.Sc.)
26.1%
Membership
in
a
professional
associa0on

EACD
11.9%

Other
internaPonal
communicaPon
associaPon
12.3%

NaPonal
PR
or
communicaPon
associaPon
53.9%

15
Countries
and
regions
represented
in
the
study

Respondents
are
based
in
41
European
countries
and
four
regions

Northern
Europe

24.9%

(n
=
561)
Western
Europe
28.6%

(n
=
645)
Eastern
Europe
16.4%

(n
=
369)
Southern
Europe
30.1%

(n
=
678
)

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Iceland

Ireland

Latvia

Lithuania
Norway

Sweden

United
Kingdom
Austria

Belgium

France
Germany

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Switzerland

Armenia
*

Belarus

Bulgaria

Czech
Republic

Hungary

Moldova

Poland
Romania

Russia

Slovakia
Ukraine

Bosnia
and
Herzegovina

CroaPa

Cyprus
*

Greece

Italy

Kosovo
**

Macedonia
Malta

Portugal

Serbia
Slovenia

Spain
Turkey
*

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
32:
In
which
European
state
are
you
normally
based?

In
this
survey,

the
universe
of
50
European
countries
is
based
on
the
oﬃcial
country
list
by
the
European
Union
(hmp://europa.eu/about-‐eu/countries,
2014).
Countries

are
assigned
to
regions
according
to
the
oﬃcial
classiﬁcaPon
of
the
United
NaPons
StaPsPcs
Division
(2013).
Countries
marked
*
are
assigned
to
Western

Asia;
countries
marked
**
are
not
included
in
the
UN
classiﬁcaPon.
These
countries
were
collated
like
adjacent
naPons.
No
respondents
were
registered

for
this
survey
from
Albania,
Andorra,
Azerbaijan*,
Georgia*,
Liechtenstein,
Monaco,
Montenegro,
San
Marino,
VaPcan
City .

Future
relevance

of
mass
media

17
Chapter
overview

Developments
and
changes
of
mass
media
signiﬁcantly
aﬀect
strategic
communicaPon
pracPce.
TradiPonal
media
like
press,
radio
and

television
were
divided
between
editorial
(news)
and
adverPsing
content,
while
today
we
are
witnessing
the
evoluPon
into
the
PESO

(=
paid,
earned,
social
and
owned)
media
environment
(Hallahan,
2014;
Verčič
&
Tkalac
Verčič,
2015).
CommunicaPon
professionals
in

Europe
predict
a
tectonic
ship
from
the
predominance
of
mass
media
to
owned
media
(which
used
to
be
called
“corporate
publishing”)

for
shaping
public
opinion.
More
than
half
the
respondents
predict
an
increasing
importance
of
owned
media
in
the
next
three
years
(50.3
per
cent).
This
might
diminish
the
societal
role
of
specialised
media
organisaPons
and
facilitate
the
transformaPon
of
all
organisaPons
into

(also)
media
organisaPons
(Ihlen
&
Pallas,
2014).
Mass
media
are
predicted
to
be
more
relevant
in
the
future
in
Eastern
and
Southern

Europe
in
comparison
to
Western
and
Northern
Europe.

Strategic
communicators
intend
to
spend
less
on
adverPsing
(paid
interacPons
with
the
mass
media),
while
they
see
a
strong
rise
in

the
use
of
unpaid
interacPons
with
the
mass
media
(e.g.
through
media
relaPons
programs,
57.1
per
cent
believe
this
will
gain
in
impor-‐
tance)
and
even
more
for
strategic
partnerships
with
the
mass
media
(61.3
per
cent
gain
in
importance).
Jointly
produced
quality
content

and/or
creaPon
of
topical
plaaorms
will
be
especially
relevant
in
Eastern
and
Southern
Europe.

Although
these
trends
are
obvious
and
strong,
it
would
be
premature
to
predict
the
death
of
the
tradiPonal
mass
media:
nearly

three
quarters
of
the
respondents
use
the
mass
media
to
monitor
news
and
public
opinion
(74.3
per
cent),
and
more
than
two
thirds
of

them
evaluate
media
coverage
of
the
organisaPon,
its
products
and
services.
Over
one
third
of
them
also
use
mass
media
content
as
a
source
for
internal
news
services
(39.3
per
cent).
Besides
these
inbound
uses
of
the
mass
media,
communicators
sPll
extensively
use
the

mass
media
for
outbound
reasons:
more
than
seven
out
of
ten
respondents
spread
informaPon
about
the
organisaPon,
its
products
and

services
through
the
mass
media
and
more
than
half
use
them
to
inﬂuence
gatekeepers,
the
media
agenda
and
stakeholders.
This
result

is
congruent
with
other
studies
on
the
current
relaPonship
between
journalism
and
public
relaPons
(Macnamara,
2014b;
Supa ,
2014;
Zoch

&
Molleda,
2006).

PercepPons
of
the
future
of
media
relaPons
developments
are
largely
dependent
on
the
area
of
communicaPon
in
which
profession-‐
als
are
working.
Strategic
partnerships
with
the
mass
media
are
preferred
by
specialists
in
markePng,
brand
and
consumer
communicaPon
and
those
working
in
online
media.
Those
specialists
are
also
strongly
in
favour
of
concepts
like
content
markePng,
brand
journalism
and
naPve
adverPsing.
This
seems
to
conﬁrm
Hallahan’s
(2014)
observaPon
of
an
“encroachment
on
public
relaPons
by
marketers”
(Hallahan,
2014:
406).
Lines
between
adverPsing
and
publicity
are
blurring,
and
new
rules
of
behaviour
will
be
needed
for
professional
communica -‐
tors:
“The
PR,
adverPsing,
markePng,
and
media
industries
need
to
work
together
to
develop
consistent
responsible
codes
of
pracPce
in
relaPon
to
emerging
pracPces
of
'embedded'
markePng
communicaPon
in
its
various
guises,
such
as
'naPve
adverPsing',
'integrated
content',
and
new
forms
of
'advertorial'
to
address
their
potenPal
negaPve
eﬀects
on
the
public
sphere
through
the
blurring
of

boundaries
between
paid
promoPon
and
independent
news,
analysis,
and
commentary”
(Macnamara,
2014a:
231).

18
50.3%

37.0%

22.1%
26.0%

Gain
importance

(scale
4-‐5)
Lose
importance

(scale
1-‐2)
Future
of
public
opinion
building:
Divided
views
on
the
relevance
of
mass
media

for
strategic
communicaPon
–
but
a
majority
believes
in
owned
media

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,232
PR
professionals.
Q
1:
The
mass
media
industry
and
journalism
face
dramaPc

challenges,
which
might
change
the
way
organisaPons
interact
with
them.
Please
rate
the
relaPve
importance
of
those
acPviPes
for
strategic

communicaPon
within
the
next
three
years.
Scale
1
(Lose
a
lot
of
importance)
–
5
(Gain
a
lot
of
importance).

Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion
Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

19
31.3%

46.4%

32.0%

50.9%

41.5%

50.4%

46.3%

54.7%
39.9%

30.1%

38.8%

24.9%

35.0%

29.3%

33.0%

25.7%
28.8%

23.5%

29.2%

24.1%

23.4%

20.3%

20.7%

19.6%
Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.08)

Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.32)

Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.09)

Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.33)

Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.30)

Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.43)

Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.42)

Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

(mean
=
3.49)

Gain
importance

(scale
4-‐5)
Neutral

(scale
3)
Lose
importance

(scale
1-‐2)
Northern

Europe
Western

Europe
Southern

Europe
Easterm

Europe
Mass
media
is
perceived
more
relevant
for
shaping
public
opinion

in
Southern
and
Eastern
Europe,
compared
to
Western
and
Northern
Europe

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,244
PR
professionals.
Q
1:
The
mass
media
industry
and
journalism
face
dramaPc
challenges,

which
might
change
the
way
organisaPons
interact
with
them.
Please
rate
the
relaPve
importance
of
those
acPviPes
for
strategic
communicaPon
within
the

next
three
years.
Scale
1
(Lose
a
lot
of
importance)
–
5
(Gain
a
lot
of
importance).
Mean
values.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,

p
≤
0.01,
F
=
12.535)
between
Northern/Western
Europe
and
Southern/Eastern
Europe
for
item
“Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion”.

Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01)
between
regions
for
all
items.

20
61.3%
57.1%

32.6%

-‐12.8%
-‐13.8%

-‐36.1%

Gain
importance

(scale
4-‐5)
Lose
importance

(scale
1-‐2)
CollaboraPon
between
communicaPon
professionals
and
mass
media:

Strategic
partnerships
and
unpaid
interacPons
will
be
more
important

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,232
PR
professionals.
Q
1:
The
mass
media
industry
and
journalism
face
dramaPc
challenges,

which
might
change
the
way
organisaPons
interact
with
them.
Please
rate
the
relaPve
importance
of
those
acPviPes
for
strategic
communicaPon
within
the

next
three
years:
Scale
1
(Lose
a
lot
of
importance)
–
5
(Gain
a
lot
of
importance).

Paid
interac0ons

with
mass
media
Unpaid
interac0ons

with
mass
media
Strategic
partnerships

with
mass
media
Advertising, native advertising,
content marketing, media sponsoring Press relations,
content sharing Co-produced content,
joint publications and services

21
Strategic
partnerships
and
paid
collaboraPons
are
valued
diﬀerently

by
various
types
of
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,232
PR
professionals.
Q
1:
The
mass
media
industry
and
journalism
face
dramaPc
challenges

…Please
rate
the
relaPve
importance
of
those
acPviPes
for
strategic
communicaPon
within
the
next
three
years.
Scale
1
(Lose
a
lot
of
importance)
–
5
(Gain

a
lot
of
importance).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/ Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies
Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Consultancies
&
Agencies
Strategic
partnerships

with
mass
media
**

Unpaid
interacPons

with
mass
media

Paid
interacPons

with
mass
media
**

Lose
importance
Gain
importance
Neutral
2.5
3.0
4.0

22
Assessment
of
mass
media
and
owned
media
is
signiﬁcantly
correlated

with
the
professional
role
and
experience
of
communicators

CommunicaPon
professionals
working
in
…
Media

relaPons
Online

communicaPon
Strategy
and

coordinaPon
MarkePng,
brand,

consumer
communicaPon

Using
owned
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

3.39

3.56
**

3.38

3.45

Using
mass
media
for
shaping
public
opinion

3.34
**

3.16

3.11
*

3.22

Strategic
partnerships
with
mass
media

3.68

3.73

3.58
*

3.85
**

Unpaid
interacPons
with
mass
media

3.69
**

3.60

3.62

3.71
**

Paid
interacPons
with
mass
media

2.96

3.20
**

2.83
**

3.10
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,232
PR
professionals.
Q
1:
The
mass
media
industry
and
journalism
face
dramaPc
challenges,

which
might
change
the
way
organisaPons
interact
with
them.
Please
rate
the
relaPve
importance
of
those
acPviPes
for
strategic
communicaPon
within
the

next
three
years.
Scale
1
(Lose
a
lot
of
importance)
–
5
(Gain
a
lot
of
importance).
Mean
values.
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
samples
T-‐Test,

p
≤
0.05).
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
samples
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.01).

23
RaPonales
for
working
with
the
media
today
in
organisaPonal
communicaPon

74.3%

67.1%

39.3%
Monitor
news
and
public
opinion

Evaluate
media
coverage
of
the
organisaPon,

its
products
or
services

Source
content
for
internal
news
services
Interac0on
with
mass
media
for
internal
reasons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,237
PR
professionals.
Q
2:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
interact
with
the
mass
media?

(Agencies/consultants:
Think
of
your
own
organisaPon,
not
of
your
clients).
My
organisaPon
(or
our
service
providers)
use
mass
media
and
their
products

to
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
71.0%

59.6%

36.3%
Spread
informaPon
about
the
organisaPon,

its
products
or
services

Inﬂuence
gatekeepers,

the
media
agenda
and
stakeholders

Jointly
produce
quality
content
and/

or
create
topical
plaaorms
Interac0on
with
mass
media
to
reach
the
public
sphere

24
Use
of
mass
media
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons

79.0%

73.7%

39.8%
65.9%

63.8%

37.2%
73.2%

64.3%

35.2%
68.7%

67.5%

41.0%
Monitor
news
and
public
opinion
**

Evaluate
media
coverage
of
the

organisaPon,
its
products
or
services
**

Source
content
for
internal
news
services
*

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,589
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
2:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
interact

with
the
mass
media?
My
organisaPon
use
mass
media
and
their
products
to
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points

4-‐5.
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.05).
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).

76.0%

65.2%

36.2%
71.8%

54.1%

38.5%
77.0%

50.0%

27.0%
73.1%

61.8%

26.9%
Spread
informaPon
about
the
organisaPon,

its
products
or
services
**

Inﬂuence
gatekeepers,

the
media
agenda
and
stakeholders
**

Jointly
produce
quality
content
and/

or
create
topical
plaaorms
**
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Interac0on
with
mass
media
for
internal
reasons

Interac0on
with
mass
media
to
reach
the
public
sphere

25
Co-‐producing
content
and
plaaorms
with
mass
media

is
more
prevalent
in
Eastern
and
Southern
Europe

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,880
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
2:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
interact
with
the

mass
media
(Agencies/consultants:
Think
of
your
own
organisaPon,
not
of
your
clients)?
My
organisaPon
(or
our
service
providers)
use
mass
media
and

their
products
to
…
Item:
Jointly
produce
quality
content
and/or
create
topical
plaaorms.
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on

scale
points
4-‐5.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
Germany
(32.0%)

Austria
(33.7%)

Switzerland
(24.4%)

France
(26.0%)

Belgium
(25.8%)

Netherlands
(26.4%)

United
Kingdom
(36.3%)

Ireland
(24.6%)

Denmark
(25.5%)

Sweden
(17.9%)

Norway
(20.0%)
Finland
(24.6%)
Spain
(34.3%)
Portugal
(27.8%)
Italy
(42.3%)
Slovenia
(45.1%)
CroaPa
(43.2%)
Turkey
(55.2%)
Romania
(53.3%)
Ukraine
(52.0%)
Frequent
jointly
produce
quality
content
and/or
create
topical
pla[orms

Western
Europe

Northern
Europe

Southern
Europe

Eastern
Europe
Scale

0.0%
-‐
60.0%

Integra=ng
communica=on

and
content
strategies

27
Chapter
overview

In
public
relaPons
literature,
there
is
an
axiom
of
the
necessity
to
diﬀerenPate
public
relaPons
and
markePng,
and
keep
them
separated.

On
the
other
hand,
there
is
a
growing
body
of
academic
literature
advocaPng
the
need
to
integrate
all
communicaPon
funcPons,

markePng
and
public
relaPons
included.
Grunig
et
al.
(2002)
idenPﬁed
the
separaPon
of
public
relaPons
and
markePng
as
one
of
the

characterisPcs
of
excellent
communicaPon.
Hallahan
et.
al.
(2007)
proposed
to
conceptualise
all
organisaPonal
communicaPon
acPviPes
as
strategic
communicaPon.
Smith
(2012)
noted
that
emerging
digital
communicaPon
technology
challenges
the
funcPonal
boundaries
between
public
relaPons
and
markePng.
Zerfass
and
Dühring
(2012)
idenPﬁed
a
strong
convergence
of
stakeholder
prioriPes,
goals
and

instruments
when
interviewing
PR
and
markePng
professionals
about
their
branding
acPviPes,
as
well
as
a
high
level
of
structural
integraPon
and
collaboraPon,
although
there
are
also
underlying
conﬂicts,
discrepancies
and
contradictory
percepPons.

85.6
per
cent
of
respondents
in
this
study
believe
that
there
is
an
overall
need
to
integrate
communicaPon
acPviPes
which
aﬀect
all

funcPons.
But
comparison
to
the
monitor
research
from
2011
shows
that
there
is
hardly
any
progress
in
integraPng
communicaPon
by
intra-‐organisaPonal
collaboraPon:
Pes
between
funcPons
have
not
been
strengthened
during
the
last
ﬁve
years.
CollaboraPon
is
stronger

in
publicly
traded
(joint
stock)
and
private
companies,
and
weaker
in
non-‐proﬁt
and
governmental
organisaPons.
Nearly
two
thirds
of

respondents
report
that
corporate
communicaPon
is
gaining
in
importance
as
it
has
a
long
tradiPon
of
handling
content,
while
nearly
half
of
respondents
(64.0
per
cent)
also
see
markePng
gaining
in
importance
(45.2
per
cent)
as
a
consequence
of
the
same
processes.

Researchers
are
somePmes
slow
in
addressing
newly
popular
concepts
of
content
strategy,
brand
journalism,
content
markePng

and
naPve
adverPsing
(Bull,
2013;
Hallahan,
2014;
Halvorson
&
Rach,
2012;
Light,
2014;
Pulizzi,
2014,
Rockley
&
Cooper,
2012)
as
if
they

are
only
passing
hypes.
CommunicaPon
professionals
in
Europe,
however,
perceive
these
concepts
as
very
important:
content
strategy

93.0
per
cent,
content
markePng
87.8
per
cent,
brand
journalism
75.0
per
cent,
and
naPve
adverPsing
55.0
per
cent,
with
strong
gaps
from
20.8
to
34.7
per
cent
when
compared
to
their
actual
usage.
There
are
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
between
countries.
For
example,
content
markePng
has
high
usage
in
the
United
Kingdom
(72.6
per
cent)
as
well
as
Finland
(76.1
per
cent),
compared
to
Slovenia
(47.1
per
cent)
and
CroaPa
(46.4
per
cent)
who
are
slow
movers
in
this
respect.
Major
diﬀerences
were
also
found
for
the
usage
of
content
strategy

as
well
as
brand
journalism
–
the
lamer
pracPce
being
very
popular
in
Danish
(57.1
per
cent),
Dutch
(47.9
per
cent),
and
BriPsh
(45.9
per

cent)
organisaPons.

MarkePng,
brand,
consumer
and
online
communicators
are
more
in
favour
of
these
concepts
than
media
relaPons
or
strategy
and

coordinaPon
people.
There
seems
to
be
a
defensive
and
conservaPve
tendency
at
work
here
involving
“tradiPonal”
public
relaPons

funcPons
(e.g.
media
relaPons).
Instead
of
using
the
integraPon
of
communicaPon
funcPons
as
an
opportunity,
also
to
organise
an

umbrella
under
which
communicaPons
from
markePng
departments
could
migrate
and
feel
welcome,
many
seem
try
to
preserve
their
turf
in
what
is
a
diminishing
territory.
Media
are
not
what
they
used
to
be
and
the
demarcaPon
line
between
news
and
adverPsing
is
becoming
fuzzy.
There
is
no
way
that
the
lines
between
adverPsing/markePng
and
publicity/public
relaPons
could
stay
untouched.
The
quesPon
is
not
if
diﬀerent
communicaPons
funcPons
will
integrate;
the
quesPon
is
how
and
with
what
eﬀect
they
will.

28
Strong
need
to
integrate
communicaPon
acPviPes
as
many
instruments

are
used
by
diﬀerent
funcPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,212
PR
professionals.
Q
3:
New
communicaPon
pracPces
might
aﬀect
the
division
of
work

and

importance
of
diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons
like
corporate
communicaPons
/
public
relaPons
and
markePng.
Please
state
whether
you
see
these

trends
happening
in
your
organisaPon
or
at
your
clients:
Scale
1
(Not
at
all)
–
5
(Very
strong).
Percentages:
Relevance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

85.6%

46.6%

32.0%
There
is
an
overall
need
to
integrate
commu-‐

nicaPon
acPviPes
which
aﬀects
all
funcPons

All
communicaPon
funcPons
use

the
full
range
of
instruments

Diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons
use
the

same
approaches
under
disparate
names

29
Integrated
approaches
are
supported
by
all
kinds
or
organisaPons,

while
the
use
of
instruments
diﬀers
signiﬁcantly
among
them

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,212
PR
professionals.
Q
3:
New
communicaPon
pracPces
might
aﬀect
the
division
of
work

and
importance
of
diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons
like
corporate
communicaPons
/
public
relaPons
and
markePng.
Please
state
whether
you
see
these

trends
happeningin
your
organisaPon
or
at
your
clients:
Scale
1
(Not
at
all)
–
5
(Very
strongly).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items

(ANOVA/ Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).

Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Consultancies
&
Agencies
All
communicaPon
funcPons
use

the
full
range
of
instruments
**
There
is
an
overall
need
to

integrate
communicaPon
acPviPes

which
aﬀects
all
funcPons
**

Diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons

use
the
same
approaches
under

disparate
names
**

Neutral
Very
strong
3.0
5.0

30
IntegraPng
communicaPon
by
intra-‐organisaPonal
collaboraPon:

Pes
between
funcPons
have
not
been
strengthened
during
the
last
years

CEO
/
president

(highest
ranking

execuPve)
Other
members

of
the
execuPve

board
MarkePng

department
Strategy
and

organisaPonal

development
unit
Human
resources

department
Legal
department
Financial

department
AudiPng
and

controlling
unit

2015
84.8%
78.9%
72.4%
58.8%
54.3%
42.8%
41.5%
21.8%

2011
86.6%
78.0%
77.1%
61.7%
54.1%
44.4%
39.1%
19.3%
The
communica0on
func0on
works
always
closely
with
the
…

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments;
Q
8.
Zerfass
et
al.
2011
/
n
=
1,450 .

Q
17:
How
closely
does
the
communicaPon
funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
work
with
the
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on

scale
points
4-‐5.

31
CollaboraPon
with
markePng,
human
resources,
legal,
and
other
funcPons

diﬀers
signiﬁcantly
in
various
types
of
organisaPons

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons
Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Human
resources

department
**

CEO
/
president

(highest
ranking
execuPve )
*

Other
members
of
the

execuPve
board
*

Strategy
and
organisaPonal

development
unit

Legal
department
**

Never
Always
Financial
department
**

MarkePng
department
**

AudiPng
and

controlling
unit
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
17:
How
closely
does
the
communicaPon

funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
work
with
the
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,

p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.05).
2.5
3.0
4.0

The
communica0on
func0on
works
always
closely
with
the
…

32
Importance
of
organisaPonal
funcPons:
Most
communicaPon
professionals

believe
in
their
own
discipline,
and
many
report
a
rise
of
markePng

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,212
PR
professionals.
Q
3:
New
communicaPon
pracPces
might
aﬀect
the
division
of
work

and
importance
of
diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons
like
corporate
communicaPons
/
public
relaPons
and
markePng.
Please
state
whether
you
see
these

trends
happening
in
your
organisaPon
or
at
your
clients:
Scale
1
(Not
at
all)
–
5
(Very
strong).
Percentages:
Relevance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

64.0%

45.2%

28.0%
Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR
gains
in
importance

as
it
has
a
long
tradiPon
of
handling
content

MarkePng
gains
in
importance
as
it
builds
up

competencies
for
handling
content

New
communicaPon
pracPces
do
not
change

the
importance
of
diﬀerent
funcPons

33
Lose
or
no
collaboraPon
with

markePng
department

Close
collaboraPon
with

markePng
department

Not
at
all
relevant
Strongly
relevant
New
communicaPon
pracPces
do

not
change

the
importance

of
diﬀerent
funcPons

MarkePng
gains
in
importance
as
it

builds
up
competencies
for
handling

content
**
Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR

gains
in
importance
as
it
has
a
long

tradiPon
of
handling
content
**

Future
relevance
of
markePng
funcPons
is
rated
signiﬁcantly
higher

by
communicaPon
professionals
who
interact
closely
with
them

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,566
PR
professionals
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
3:
New
communicaPon

pracPces
might
aﬀect
the
division
of
work
and
importance
of
diﬀerent
communicaPon
funcPons
like
corporate
communicaPons
/
public
relaPons
and

markePng.

Please
state
whether
you
see
these
trends
happening
in
your
organisaPon.
Scale
1
(Not
at
all)
–
5
(Very
strongly).
Q17:
How
closely
does
the

communicaPon
funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
work
with
the
markePng
department?
Close
collaboraPon
based
on
scale
points
4
–
5
on
a
5
point
scale.

Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
sample
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
sample
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.05).
2.5
3.0
4.0

34
PracPces
of
content
management
and
delivery:

large
gaps
between
perceived
importance
and
actual
use

34.2%
40.7%
61.2%
58.3%

55.0%
75.0%
87.8%
93.0%

NaPve
adverPsing

(online
adverPsing
that
matches
the
form
and
funcPon
of

the
plaaorm
on
which
it
appears;
i.e.
sponsored
tweets

or
Facebook
posts)
Brand
journalism

(producing
newsworthy
content
which
promotes
brands

by
using
journalisPc
skills)
Content
markePng

(creaPng
and
distribuPng
all
kinds
of
relevant
content
to

amract
and
engage
customers)
Content
strategy

(planning
the
creaPon,
delivery,
and
governance
of

content
across
diﬀerent
plaaorm
to
reach
deﬁned

audiences)

Considered
important
Used

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,210
PR
professionals.
Q
4:
To
what
extent
are
the
following
concepts
and
pracPces
important

or
the
future
of
strategic
communicaPon
in
general?
Scale
1
(Not
at
all
important)
–
5
(Extremely
important).
Percentages:
Important
based
on
scale
points

4-‐5.

And
what
is
used
or
oﬀered
by
your
organisaPon?
(Tick
“Used
by
my
organisaPon”)
Δ
34.7%

Δ
26.5%

Δ
34.3%

Δ
20.8%

35
Assessment
of
content
pracPces
depends
heavily
on
the
type
of
organisaPon

Content
strategy
**
Content
markePng
**
Brand
journalism
**
NaPve
adverPsing
**

Important
Mean
Used
Important
Mean
Used
Important
Mean
Used
Important
Mean
Used

Joint
stock

companies
89.7%
4.48
55.1%
87.6%
4.36
59.8%
69.1%
3.89
36.9%
57.4%
3.60
37.6%

Private
companies
90.2%
4.46
52.0%
88.9%
4.46
63.2%
66.7%
3.87
40.4%
53.0%
3.53
38.1%

Governmental
organisaPons
81.2%
4.25
51.9%
73.0%
4.00
51.7%
60.7%
3.69
38.4%
46.4%
3.21
28.5%

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
91.5%
4.56
66.8%
86.6%
4.37
65.6%
64.2%
3.78
38.0%
52.3%
3.47
31.2%

Consultancies
&
Agencies
93.0%
4.62
65.3%
87.8%
4.44
65.3%
75.0%
4.04
46.5%
55.0%
3.59
33.4%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,210
PR
professionals.
Q
4:
To
what
extent
are
the
following
concepts
and
pracPces
important

for
the
future
of
strategic
communicaPon
in
general?
Scale
1
(Not
at
all
important)
–
5
(Extremely
important).
Percentages:
Important
based
on
scale
points

4-‐5.
And
what
is
used
or
oﬀered
by
your
organisaPon?
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).

36
Professionals
working
in
markePng
or
online
communicaPon
are

stronger
supporters
of
modern
content
pracPces

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

2,210
PR
professionals.
Q
4:
To
what
extent
are
the
following
concepts
and
pracPces
important

for
the
future
of
strategic
communicaPon
in
general?
Scale
1
(Not
at
all
important)
–
5
(Extremely
important).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(Independent
samples
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.01).

Media
relaPons
Strategy
and
coordinaPon

MarkePng,
brand,
consumer
communicaPon
Online
communicaPon
Brand
journalism
**
Content
strategy
**

Content
markePng
**

Neutral
Extremely
important
NaPve
adverPsing
**

3.0
5.0

CommunicaPon
professionals
working
in
…

37
Use
of
content
pracPces
in
diﬀerent
European
countries:

strong
variaPons
in
the
ﬁeld
of
content
markePng

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,869
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
4:
To
what
extent
are
the
following
concepts
and

pracPces
important
for
the
future
of
strategic
communicaPon
in
general?
And
what
is
used
or
oﬀered
by
your
organisaPon?
(Tick
“Used
by
my
organisaPon”)

**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.05).

Germany

Austria

Switzerland

France

Belgium

Netherlands

United
Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

Norway
Finland
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Slovenia
CroaPa
Turkey
Romania
Ukraine

Content
markePng
**

Content
strategy
*

NaPve
adverPsing

Brand
journalism
*
0%
80%

80%

Strategic
issues
and

value
contribu=on

39
Chapter
overview

“Linking
communicaPon
and
business
strategy”
has
been
idenPﬁed
as
the
most
enduring
challenge
for
communicaPon
professionals
in

previous
ECM
surveys
(Verčič
et
al.,
2014)
and
academic
literature
(Steyn,
2007).
Each
year
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
asks

for
the
most
important
challenges
for
communicaPon
management
in
the
next
three
years.
Once
again,
42.9
per
cent
of
the
2,253
respondents
in
this
year’s
survey
stated
that
the
profession
has
to
tackle
the
ongoing
challenge
of
linking
communicaPon
and
business

strategies.
This
ﬁnding
reiterates
that
the
profession
is
conPnuing
to
strive
for
a
strategic
posiPon
at
the
decision-‐making
table
in
order
to
become
a
part
of
the
strategic
management
of
an
organisaPon
(Cornelissen
et
al.,
2013;
Verčič
&
Grunig
2002).

Looking
forward
for
the
next
three
years
to
2018,
European
communicators
regard
“Coping
with
the
digital
evoluPon
and
the
social

web”
as
the
second
most
important
challenge
as
it
has
returned
to
second
place
(37.2
per
cent)
in
the
list,
aper
dipping
to
third
last
year.

Meanwhile
“Building
and
maintaining
trust”
is
in
the
close
third
posiPon
(36.6
per
cent).
There
are,
however,
very
interesPng
diﬀerences
between
countries:
“Linking
business
strategy
and
communicaPon”
is
the
homest
issue
in
Spain,
Finland
and
Ukraine.
“Coping
with
the
digital
evoluPon
and
the
social
web”
is
the
top
issue
in
Ireland,
Belgium,
Romania,
Turkey
and
CroaPa;
“Building
and
maintaining
trust”
is

the
top
issue
in
Slovenia
and
Sweden;
while
in
France
the
top
issue
is
“Matching
the
needs
to
address
more
audiences
and
channels
with

limited
resources”.

Looking
at
how
communicators
and
their
departments
help
to
reach
the
overall
organisaPonal
goals
of
their
organisaPon
or
client
it

is
interesPng
to
see
how
the
responses
breakdown
into
inbound
and
outbound
acPviPes.

Within
these
divides
communicators
see
their
major
role
at
the
outbound
in
contribuPng
to
organisaPonal
objecPves
by
building
immaterial
assets
(brands,
reputaPon,
culture)
and

facilitaPng
business
processes
(inﬂuencing
customer
preferences,
moPvaPng
employees,
generaPng
public
amenPon)
and
in
the
inbound

by
helping
to
adjust
organisaPonal
strategies
(idenPfying
opportuniPes,
integraPng
public
concerns
and
collecPng
customer
feedback)
and
securing
room
for
manoeuvre
(by
managing
relaPonships
and
crises,
building
and
securing
legiPmacy).

QualitaPve
research
among
chief
communicaPon
oﬃcers
in
Germany
(Kiesenbauer
&
Zerfass,
2015)
showed
that
communicators

use
various
strategies
to
explain
what
they
do
and
why.
When
considering
how
communicators
argue
for
the
jusPﬁcaPon
and
legiPmaPon

of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPves
and
internal
clients
there
are
some
interesPng
results
from
this
survey.
The
major
way
the
respon-‐
dents
state
they
argue
for
the
relevance
of
communicaPon
is
by
explaining
the
posiPve
eﬀects
of
good
reputaPon,
organisaPonal
culture

and
brands
(79.8
per
cent).
This
is
followed
by
illustraPng
the
beneﬁts
of
listening
to
stakeholders
and
idenPfying
opportuniPes
(63.6
per
cent);
explaining
the
role
of
content
and
“thought
leadership”
for
organisaPonal
goals
at
56.5
per
cent.
Only
55.4
per
cent
claim
to

demonstrate
posiPve
economic
consequences
of
communicaPon
acPviPes.
However,
the
measurement
and
evaluaPon
chapter
of
this

report
emphasises
the
contradicPon
that
what
respondents
claim
to
do
and
what
they
monitor
and
measure
do
not
match.
The
majority
of
acPviPes
reported
as
contribuPng
to
organisaPonal
goals
are
not
monitored
and
measured,
and
for
that
reason
it
may
be
hard
to
defend,
explain
and
legiPmise
them
to
top
decision-‐makers.

40
Most
important
issues
for
communicaPon
management
in
Europe
unPl
2018

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
5:
Please
pick
those
three
(3)
issues
which
you
believe
will
be
most

important
for
public
relaPons
/
communicaPon
management
within
the
next
three
years!
12.6%
15.8%
16.3%
17.6%
24.2%
31.4%
31.9%
33.4%
36.6%
37.2%
42.9%

Establishing
monitoring
and
listening
strategies
ImplemenPng
advanced
measurement
and
evaluaPon
rouPnes
Dealing
with
sustainable
development
and
social
responsibility
Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPves
Dealing
with
the
demand
for
more

transparency
and
acPve
audiences
Strengthening
the
role
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon

in
supporPng
top-‐management
decision
making
Dealing
with
the
speed
and
volume
of
informaPon
ﬂow
Matching
the
need
to
address
more
audiences

and
channels
with
limited
resources
Building
and
maintaining
trust
Coping
with
the
digital
evoluPon
and
the
social
web
Linking
business
strategy
and
communicaPon

41
Importance
of
strategic
issues
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons
unPl
2018

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
5:
Please
pick
those
three
(3)
issues
which
you
believe
will
be
most

important
for
public
relaPons
/
communicaPon
management
within
the
next
three
years!
44.3%

35.8%

38.2%

36.1%

33.6%

30.0%

22.7%

17.5%

17.7%

13.0%

11.1%
31.3%

36.6%

37.2%

34.1%

30.3%

36.4%

32.1%

17.6%

17.3%

13.2%

14.0%
38.4%

38.8%

38.0%

34.8%

31.6%

28.0%

29.2%

14.4%

16.4%

16.4%

14.0%
Linking
business
strategy
and
communicaPon

Coping
with
the
digital
evoluPon
and
the
social
web

Building
and
maintaining
trust

Matching
the
need
to
address
more
audiences
and
channels
with

limited
resources

Dealing
with
the
speed
and
volume
of
informaPon
ﬂow

Strengthening
the
role
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
in

supporPng
top-‐management
decision
making

Dealing
with
the
demand
for
more
transparency
and
acPve

audiences

Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPves

Dealing
with
sustainable
development
and
social
responsibility

ImplemenPng
advanced
measurement
and
evaluaPon
rouPnes

Establishing
monitoring
and
listening
strategies
Companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

42
Country-‐to-‐country
relevance
of
key
issues

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,893

PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
5:
Please
pick
those
three
(3)
issues
which
you

believe
will
be
most
important
for
public
relaPons
/
communicaPon
management
within
the
next
three
years!

Germany

Austria

Switzerland

France

Belgium

Netherlands

United
Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

Norway
Finland
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Slovenia
CroaPa
Turkey
Romania
Ukraine

Linking
business
strategy
and

communicaPon

Coping
with
the
digital

evoluPon
and
the
social
web

Building
and
maintaining
trust

Matching
the
need
to
address

more
audiences
and
channels

with
limited
resources
0%
80%

80%

43
Top
ﬁve
issues
for
communicaPon
management
in
Europe
since
2008

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,253
PR
professionals;
Q16.
Zerfass
et
al.
2014
/
n
=
2,777;
Q6.
Zerfass
et
al.
2013
/
n
=
2,710;
Q9.

Zerfass
et
al.
2012
/
n
=
2,185;
Q6.
Zerfass
et
al.
2011
/
n
=
2,209;
Q7.
Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n=
1,955;
Q
12.
Zerfass
et
al.
2009
/
n
=
1,863;
Q6.
Zerfass
et
al.

2008
/
n
=
1,524.
Q
5:
Please
pick
those
three
(3)
issues
which
you

believe
will
be
most
important
for
public
relaPons
/
communicaPon
management
within

the
next
three
years!

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Linking
business
strategy
and
communicaPon

Coping
with
the
digital
evoluPon
and
the
social
web

Building
and
maintaining
trust

Dealing
with
the
demand
for
more
transparency
and
acPve
audiences

Dealing
with
sustainable
development
and
social
responsibility

44
75.5%

60.6%

59.9%

53.0%
72.1%

63.6%

49.2%

48.1%

We
build
immaterial
assets

(i.e.
brands,
reputaPon,
organisaPonal
culture)

We
facilitate
business
processes

(i.e.
by
inﬂuencing
customer
preferences,

moPvaPng
employees,generaPng
public
amenPon)

We
help
to
adjust
organisaPonal
strategies

(i.e.
by
idenPfying
opportuniPes,
integraPng

public
concerns,
collecPng
customer
feedback)

We
secure
room
for
manoeuvre

(i.e.
by
managing
relaPonships
and
crises,

building
and
securing
legiPmacy)

2015
2010
ContribuPon
to
overall
objecPves:
How
communicaPon
professionals

comprehend
their
share
in
reaching
organisaPonal
goals

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,252
PR
professionals.
Q
7:
How
do
you
and
your
department
help
to
reach
the
overall
goals
of

your
organisaPon
or
your
client?
Scale
1
(Rarely)
–
5
(Very
open).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n
=
1,955
(Q
9).

O

U

T

B

O

U

N

D

I

N

B

O

U

N

D

45
Perceived
contribuPon
to
organisaPonal
objecPves
in
diﬀerent
types

of
organisaPons
–
comparaPve
and
longitudinal
data

OUTBOUND
INBOUND

Building
immaterial

assets

**
(Cramér's
V
=
0.081)
FacilitaPng
business

processes

**
(Cramér's
V
=
0.089)
Helping
to
adjust

organisaPonal
strategies

**
(Cramér's
V
=
0.071)
Securing
room
for

manoeuvre

**
(Cramér's
V
=
0.083)

2015
2010
2015
2010
2015
2010
2015
2010

Joint
stock

companies
81.9%
74.3%
66.1%
64.8%
54.9%
45.8%
59.3%
53.0%

Private
companies
76.4%
76.0%
63.7%
63.8%
57.1%
42.4%
48.5%
45.0%

Governmental
organisaPons
65.6%
65.2%
46.1%
62.1%
54.7%
50.9%
45.0%
47.6%

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
72.0%
69.9%
54.4%
61.1%
61.6%
54.4%
44.8%
39.8%

Consultancies

&
Agencies
76.7%
71.8%
65.0%
64.2%
68.3%
56.4%
58.1%
49.5%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,252
PR
professionals.
Q
7.
Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n
=
1,955.
Q
9:
How
do
you
and
your
department

help
to
reach
the
overall
goals
of
your
organisaPon
or
your
client?
Scale
1
(Rarely)
–
5
(Very
open).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
between
types
of
organisaPons
2015
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).

46
Perceived
contribuPon
to
organisaPonal
goals
in
diﬀerent
European
countries

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,892
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
7:
How
do
you
and
your
department
help
to
reach

the
overall
goals
of
your
organisaPon
or
your
client?
Scale
1
(Rarely)
–
5
(Very
open).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Building

immaterial
assets
FacilitaPng

business
processes
Helping
to
adjust

organisaPonal
strategies
Securing
room

for
manoeuvre

Germany
77.6%
60.7%
54.6%
52.0%

Austria
74.1%
56.5%
47.1%
45.9%

Switzerland
84.6%
45.1%
51.6%
48.4%

France
74.0%
54.0%
46.0%
38.0%

Belgium
70.1%
44.3%
53.6%
48.5%

Netherlands
81.0%
61.2%
62.0%
64.5%

United
Kingdom
83.0%
68.1%
56.3%
56.3%

Ireland
66.1%
66.1%
49.2%
67.8%

Denmark
76.8%
64.3%
57.1%
44.6%

Sweden
69.8%
53.8%
58.5%
53.8%

47
Perceived
contribuPon
to
organisaPonal
goals
in
diﬀerent
European
countries

Building

immaterial
assets
FacilitaPng

business
processes
Helping
to
adjust

organisaPonal
strategies
Securing
room

for
manoeuvre

Norway
61.4%
50.0%
51.4%
45.7%

Finland
78.8%
69.7%
66.7%
62.1%

Spain
76.2%
65.7%
64.8%
57.1%

Portugal
75.9%
64.8%
66.7%
63.0%

Italy
80.2%
62.6%
59.5%
42.7%

Slovenia
68.6%
64.7%
59.8%
40.2%

CroaPa
67.0%
60.7%
58.0%
51.8%

Turkey
77.6%
74.1%
70.7%
67.2%

Romania
79.7%
59.3%
66.7%
52.0%

Ukraine
76.0%
70.7%
65.3%
64.0%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,892
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
7:
How
do
you
and
your
department
help
to
reach

the
overall
goals
of
your
organisaPon
or
your
client?
Scale
1
(Rarely)
–
5
(Very
open).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

48
Explaining
communicaPon
value:
How
professionals
argue
for
the
relevance

of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPves
or
(internal)
clients

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
6:
How
do
you
usually
argue
for
the
relevance
of
strategic

communicaPon
when
addressing
top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

79.8%

63.6%

56.5%

55.4%

51.5%

48.5%
Explaining
posiPve
eﬀects
of
good
reputaPon,

organisaPonal
culture
and
brands

IllustraPng
the
beneﬁts
of
listening
to
stakeholders

and
idenPfying
opportuniPes

Explaining
the
role
of
content
and
‘thought

leadership’
for
organisaPonal
goals

DemonstraPng
posiPve
economic
consequences

(i.e.
eﬀects
on
sales
or
employee
moPvaPon)

Reminding
of
threats
caused
by
troubled

relaPonships
and
communicaPon
crises

PoinPng
out
the
demand
for
communicaPon

and
transparency
by
the
mass
media

49
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Consultancies
&
Agencies
DemonstraPng
posiPve
economic

consequences
(i.e.
eﬀects
on
sales

or
employee
moPvaPon )
**
Explaining
posiPve
eﬀects
of

good
reputaPon ,
organisaPonal

culture
and
brands

IllustraPng
the
beneﬁts
of
listening

to
stakeholders
and
idenPfying

opportuniPes
**

Explaining
the
role
of
content

and
‘thought
leadership ’
for

organisaPonal
goals
**

PoinPng
out
the
demand
for

communicaPon
and
transparency

by
the
mass
media
*

Reminding
of
threats
caused

by
troubled
relaPonships

and
communicaPon
crises
**
Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon:

clear
diﬀerences
between
various
types
of
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,253
PR
professionals.
Q
6:
How
do
you
usually
argue
for
the
relevance
of
strategic

communicaPon
when
addressing
top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(ANOVA/ Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).

*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.05).
Always
Never
3.0
5.0

50
CommunicaPon
value
explained
by
professionals
working
in
companies

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

809
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
companies.
Q
6:
How
do
you
usually
argue
for

the
relevance
of
strategic
communicaPon
when
addressing
top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based

on
scale
points
4-‐5.

Explaining
posiPve

eﬀects
of
good

reputaPon,

organisaPonal

culture
and
brands

IllustraPng
the

beneﬁts
of
listening

to
stakeholders
and

idenPfying

opportuniPes
Explaining
the
role

of
content
and

‘thought

leadership’
for

organisaPonal
goals
DemonstraPng

posiPve

economic

consequences

Reminding
of

threats
caused
by

troubled
relaPon-‐
ships
and
commu-‐
nicaPon
crises
PoinPng
out
the

demand
for

communicaPon

and
transparency

by
the
mass
media

Germany
77.1%
57.8%
64.2%
55.0%
54.1%
31.2%

Austria
82.1%
64.3%
50.0%
53.6%
39.3%
39.3%

Switzerland
86.5%
61.5%
57.7%
48.1%
46.2%
42.3%

France
76.9%
57.7%
61.5%
53.8%
57.7%
46.2%

Belgium
76.9%
73.1%
80.8%
57.7%
50.0%
57.7%

Netherlands
82.2%
57.8%
57.8%
42.2%
37.8%
26.7%

United
Kingdom
90.6%
60.4%
54.7%
66.0%
62.3%
35.8%

Ireland
68.8%
62.5%
43.8%
56.3%
37.5%
50.0%

Denmark
83.3%
62.5%
37.5%
66.7%
25.0%
41.7%

Sweden
66.7%
48.5%
57.6%
45.5%
39.4%
54.5%

51
CommunicaPon
value
explained
by
professionals
working
in
companies

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

809
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
companies.
Q
6:
How
do
you
usually
argue
for

the
relevance
of
strategic
communicaPon
when
addressing
top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based

on
scale
points
4-‐5.

Explaining
posiPve

eﬀects
of
good

reputaPon,

organisaPonal

culture
and
brands

IllustraPng
the

beneﬁts
of
listening

to
stakeholders
and

idenPfying

opportuniPes
Explaining
the
role

of
content
and

‘thought

leadership’
for

organisaPonal
goals
DemonstraPng

posiPve

economic

consequences

Reminding
of

threats
caused
by

troubled
relaPon-‐
ships
and
commu -‐

nicaPon
crises
PoinPng
out
the

demand
for

communicaPon

and
transparency

by
the
mass
media

Norway
73.7%
57.9%
31.6%
57.9%
42.1%
42.1%

Finland
86.2%
62.1%
62.1%
69.0%
55.2%
44.8%

Spain
75.5%
53.1%
51.0%
73.5%
46.9%
53.1%

Portugal
77.8%
77.8%
55.6%
48.1%
66.7%
66.7%

Italy
83.1%
69.2%
50.8%
58.5%
50.8%
41.5%

Slovenia
73.3%
53.3%
64.4%
66.7%
44.4%
51.1%

CroaPa
71.7%
58.7%
50.0%
52.2%
47.8%
54.3%

Turkey
91.3%
65.2%
69.6%
60.9%
69.6%
56.5%

Romania
81.0%
65.5%
62.1%
77.6%
51.7%
56.9%

Ukraine
80.6%
55.6%
61.1%
50.0%
69.4%
66.7%

Communica=on
strategies

and
organisa=onal
listening

53
Chapter
overview

While
listening
to
stakeholders
and
idenPfying
opportuniPes
is
the
second
most
important
way
in
which
communicators
argue
for
their

relevance
towards
their
superiors,
in
many
organisaPons
listening
strategies
are
open
neglected.
Macnamara
(2013,
2014c)
has
idenPﬁed

the
need
to
create
and
maintain
audiences
and
the
“work
of
listening”,
which
become
all
the
more
challenging
in
an
environment
of
simultaneous
audience
fragmentaPon
and
proliferaPng
media
channels
and
speakers.
Pestana
and
Daniels
(2011)
highlighted
the
importance
of
research,
measurement
and
listening
for
dialogue
and
stakeholder
engagement,
and
Willis
(2012)
underlined
the

relevance
of
face-‐to-‐face
communicaPon
for
community
engagement.
While
84.7
per
cent
of
organisaPons
in
this
study
have
an
overall

communicaPon
strategy
and
nearly
78.3
per
cent
a
messaging
strategy
or
strategies,
only
55.6
per
cent
have
also
developed
an

organisaPonal
listening
strategy
or
strategies.
The
most
acPve
listeners
are
joint
stock
(62.9
per
cent)
and
private
(56.8
per
cent)
companies
and
the
least
are
governmental
organisaPons
(47.9
per
cent).
There
are
also
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
between
countries.

The
most
important
structures
and
techniques
for
organisaPonal
listening
are
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis
(in
84.1
per

cent),
social
media
monitoring
(68.3
per
cent),
ad
hoc
listening
acPviPes
(58.2
per
cent),
issues
monitoring
and
management
(58.0
per

cent)
and
regular
dialogues
with
stakeholders
(53.3
per
cent).
It
is
clear
from
the
ﬁndings
that
joint
stock
companies
lead
the
way
in
the

pracPce
of
organisaPonal
listening.

The
respondents
of
the
ECM
2015,
who
are
mainly
coming
from
the
corporate
communicaPons
and
public
relaPons
ﬁeld,
see

themselves
in
the
dominant
role
in
organisaPonal
listening.
When
asked
to
rate
the
forerunners
in
organisaPonal
listening
they
posted
ﬁrstly
the
corporate
communicaPons/
public
relaPons
department
(76.4
per
cent),
second
the
markePng
/
sales
funcPons
(49.7%)
and

thirdly
customer
relaPons
(45.4
per
cent).
There
were
some
regional
diﬀerences
with
markePng
and
sales
reporPng
higher
importance
in

France,
Finland
and
Turkey.

An
in-‐depth
analysis
into
the
idenPﬁcaPon
of
listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
(based
on
their
mindsets
and

structures)
shows
that
18.9
per
cent
of
departments
can
be
labelled
as
being
ahead
of
the
rest:
they
are
bemer
in
contribuPng
to
overall
objecPves
by
idenPfying
opportuniPes,
in
explaining
communicaPon
value
though
the
beneﬁts
of
listening,
in
implemenPng
listening

strategies
and
in
spearheading
listening
within
the
organisaPon.
The
main
diﬀerenPaPng
aspect
is
that
they
are
making
listening
tasks

an
explicit
objecPve
for
the
communicaPon
funcPon
(62.0
per
cent
of
listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
versus
31.5
per
cent
of
other
departments).
Listening
tasks
are
also
more
open
a
part
of
the
communicators’
job
descripPon
(in
64.5
per
cent
of
listening-‐minded
against
33.4
per
cent
in
other
communicaPon
funcPons).
Other
major
diﬀerences
are
in
conducPng
stakeholder
research
on
a

regular
basis
(63.1
per
cent
against
37.8
per
cent),
issues
monitoring
and
management
(77.8
per
cent
against
52.8
per
cent),
and
leading

stakeholder
dialogue
on
a
regular
basis
(69.9
per
cent
against
48.9
per
cent).
The
diﬀerence
between
listening-‐minded
and
other
communicaPon
funcPons
is
the
smallest
in
social
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis
(77.4
per
cent
against
66.2
per
cent).

54
CommunicaPon
strategies
implemented
by
communicaPon
departments:

overall
plans
and
messaging
are
prevalent,
listening
is
open
neglected

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,487
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your
organisaPon
have

one
or
more
of
the
following
strategies?
Scale
1
(Yes)
–
2
(No)
–
3
(Don’t
know).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
84.7%

78.3%

55.7%
Overall
communicaPon
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
communicaPon
goals,
stakeholders,
key
instruments,

etc.
for
the
organisaPon
or
for
speciﬁc
products/services,

persons;
etc.)

Messaging
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
topics,
wordings,
stories,
target
audiences,
etc.;

instruments
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders;

processes
to
integrate
content
and
design;
etc.)

Listening
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
contact
points
for
collecPng
feedback;
instruments
to

listen
to
stakeholders,
to
monitor
discussions,
iniPate
dialogue

and
integrate
the
knowledge
gained
etc.)

55
CommunicaPon
strategies
used
by
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons

87.3%

83.9%

62.9%
84.8%

79.9%

56.8%
79.6%

68.1%

47.9%
86.6%

79.3%

50.0%
Overall
communicaPon
strategy
or
strategies

Messaging
strategy
or
strategies

Listening
strategy
or
strategies

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons
Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,487
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your
organisaPon
have

one
or

more
of
the
following
strategies?
Scale
1
(Yes)
–
2
(No)
–
3
(Don’t
know).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
Highly
signiﬁcant

diﬀerences
for
all
items
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).

56
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
implementaPon
of
overall
communicaPon
strategies

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,330
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your

organisaPon
have
one
or
more
of
the

following
strategies?
Item:
Overall
communicaPon
strategy
or
strategies
(deﬁning
communicaPon
goals,
stakeholders,

key
instruments,
etc.
for
the
organisaPon
or
for
speciﬁc
products/services,
persons;
etc.).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement.
Germany
(78.0%)

Austria
(89.3%)

Switzerland
(91.8%)

France
(79.5%)

Belgium
(86.1%)

Netherlands
(91.4%)

United
Kingdom

(86.3%)

Ireland
(83.3%)

Denmark
(80.0%)

Sweden
(90.9%)

Norway
(89.8%)
Finland
(87.8%)
Spain
(88.7%)
Portugal
(100.0%)
Italy
(83.9%)
Slovenia
(78.3%)
CroaPa
(65.3%)
Turkey
(90.0%)
Romania
(85.5%)
Ukraine
(90.2%)

Western
Europe

Northern
Europe

Southern
Europe

Eastern
Europe
Scale

0.0%
-‐
100.0%

57
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
implementaPon
of
messaging
strategies

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,319
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your

organisaPon
have
one
or
more
of
the

following
strategies?
Item:
Messaging
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
topics,
wordings,
stories,
target
audiences,
etc.;

instruments
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders;
processes
to
integrate
content
and
design;
etc.).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
Germany
(81.9%)

Austria
(76.8%)

Switzerland
(90.3%)

France
(92.3%)

Belgium
(84.5%)

Netherlands
(89.2%)

United
Kingdom
(84.4%)

Ireland
(80.6%)

Denmark
(62.2%)

Sweden
(60.8%)

Norway
(73.7%)
Finland
(70.2%)
Spain
(86.1%)
Portugal
(90.0%)
Italy
(79.8%)
Slovenia
(70.0%)
CroaPa
(62.9%)
Turkey
(80.0%)
Romania
(75.7%)
Ukraine
(86.0%)

Western
Europe

Northern
Europe

Southern
Europe

Eastern
Europe
Scale

0.0%
-‐
100.0%

58
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
implementaPon
of
listening
strategies

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,276
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your

organisaPon
have
one
or
more
of
the

following
strategies?
Item:
Listening
strategy
or
strategies
(deﬁning
contact
points
for
collecPng
feedback;
instruments

to
listen
to
stakeholders,
to
monitor
discussions,
iniPate
dialogue
and
integrate
the
knowledge
gained;
etc.).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.

Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
Germany
(55.4%)

Austria
(38.9%)

Switzerland
(56.9%)

France
(56.4%)

Belgium
(66.7%)

Netherlands
(64.0%)

United
Kingdom
(59.6%)

Ireland
(63.9%)

Denmark
(22.7%)

Sweden
(33.7%)

Norway
(52.7%)
Finland
(37.5%)
Spain
(77.5%)
Portugal
(81.6%)
Italy
(68.0%)
Slovenia
(51.6%)
CroaPa
(47.8%)
Turkey
(72.4%)
Romania
(54.1%)
Ukraine
(70.0%)

Western
Europe

Northern
Europe

Southern
Europe

Eastern
Europe
Scale

0.0%
-‐
100.0%

59
88.0%

84.8%
Listening
to
stakeholders
helps
to
advance

business/organisaPonal
goals

Listening
to
stakeholders
helps
to
gain
or
secure

legiPmacy
for
the
organisaPon
OrganisaPonal
listening:
communicaPon
professionals
see
major
beneﬁts

both
for
advancing
business
goals
and
securing
legiPmacy

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
11:
Please
state
whether
you
agree
or

disagree
with
these
statements.
Scale
1
(Strongly
disagree)
–
5
(Strongly
agree).
Percentages:
Agreement
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

Objec0ves
of
organisa0onal
listening

60
Engaging
stakeholders
through
organisaPonal
listening:

face-‐to-‐face
communicaPon
is
favoured;
social
media
is
rated
less
eﬀecPve

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
11:
Please
state
whether
you
agree
or

disagree
with
these
statements.
Scale
1
(Strongly
disagree)
–
5
(Strongly
agree).
Percentages:
Agreement
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

90.7%

56.2%
Face-‐to-‐face
conversaPons
are
an
eﬀecPve

technique
to
understand
and
engage
stakeholders

Social
media
communicaPon
is
an
eﬀecPve

technique
to
understand
and
engage
stakeholders
Means
of
organisa0onal
listening

61
Structures
and
techniques
for
organisaPonal
listening:

TradiPonal
instruments
are
prevailing,
responsibiliPes
are
not
always
assigned

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,406
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:
Which
of
the
following
have

been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon
or
are
planned
for
2015?
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
84.1%

68.3%

58.0%

58.2%

53.3%

39.5%

43.1%

37.6%
9.4%

18.3%

17.6%

22.1%

21.6%

25.0%

16.6%

19.3%
6.4%

13.4%

24.4%

19.8%

25.1%

35.6%

40.3%

43.1%
Media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Social
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Issues
monitoring
and
management

Ad
hoc
listening
acPviPes

(monitoring,
surveys,
dialogues,
etc.)

Stakeholder
dialogues
on
a
regular
basis

Stakeholder
research
on
a
regular
basis

Listening
tasks
as
part
of
your
personal
job
descripPon

Listening
tasks
as
explicit
objecPve
for

the
communicaPon
department

Already
implemented
Planned
for
2015
Not
planned

62
OrganisaPonal
listening
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons:

joint
stock
companies
are
clearly
ahead

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,406
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:
Which
of
the
following
have

been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon
or
are
planned
for
2015?
Percentages:
agreement
to
implementaPon
of
each
item.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).

88.4%

73.3%

68.8%

62.1%

57.3%

48.0%

46.2%

42.0%
78.3%

67.9%

53.6%

55.1%

46.0%

32.1%

41.9%

34.6%
85.8%

64.1%

52.2%

58.4%

52.6%

36.3%

40.6%

36.6%
81.2%

64.6%

48.2%

53.9%

56.9%

36.9%

42.2%

34.2%
Media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis
**

Social
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis
**

Issues
monitoring
and
management
**

Ad
hoc
listening
acPviPes

(monitoring,
surveys,
dialogues,
etc.)

Stakeholder
dialogues
on
a
regular
basis
**

Stakeholder
research
on
a
regular
basis
**

Listening
tasks
as
part
of
your

personal
job
descripPon

Listening
tasks
as
explicit
objecPve
for
the

communicaPon
department
or
agency
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Structures
and
techniques
implemented

63
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
structures
and
techniques
for
organisaPonal

listening
implemented
in
communicaPon
departments

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,203
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:

Which
of
the
following
have
been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon
or
are
planned
for
2015?
Percentages:
agreement
to
implementaPon
of
each
item.

**
Highly
signiﬁcant

diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.05).

Listening
tasks

as
part
of
your

personal
job

descripPon
Listening
tasks
as

explicit
objecPve
for

the
communicaPon

department
**
Media

monitoring

on
a
regular

basis
Social
media

monitoring

on
a
regular

basis
Stakeholder

research
on

a
regular

basis
**
Stakeholder

dialogues
on

a
regular

basis
**
Issues

monitoring

and

management

Ad
hoc

listening

acPviPes

*

Germany
32.5%
39.2%
90.6%
72.2%
37.5%
49.1%
64.1%
62.2%

Austria
39.2%
36.0%
96.4%
53.7%
31.9%
43.1%
49.0%
56.9%

Switzerland
38.8%
46.3%
89.3%
56.9%
31.9%
58.0%
66.2%
68.7%

France
38.2%
30.3%
80.6%
61.5%
28.1%
44.1%
61.8%
55.6%

Belgium
53.4%
44.1%
80.6%
76.7%
38.8%
59.7%
53.7%
57.1%

Netherlands
45.9%
34.8%
88.0%
80.4%
54.0%
55.1%
65.2%
72.2%

United
Kingdom
47.2%
40.2%
90.7%
82.5%
48.9%
62.6%
64.8%
60.2%

Ireland
34.3%
26.5%
77.8%
66.7%
33.3%
62.9%
71.4%
41.7%

Denmark
15.9%
14.6%
80.0%
57.8%
22.0%
56.1%
43.9%
56.8%

Sweden
33.0%
23.0%
85.0%
71.1%
42.9%
58.1%
50.0%
57.4%

64
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
structures
and
techniques
for
organisaPonal

listening
implemented
in
communicaPon
departments

Listening
tasks

as
part
of
your

personal
job

descripPon
Listening
tasks
as

explicit
objecPve
for

the
communicaPon

department
**
Media

monitoring

on
a
regular

basis
Social
media

monitoring

on
a
regular

basis
Stakeholder

research
on

a
regular

basis
**
Stakeholder

dialogues
on

a
regular

basis
**
Issues

monitoring

and

management

Ad
hoc

listening

acPviPes

*

Norway
39.6%
51.0%
94.8%
73.7%
36.0%
58.3%
43.8%
64.3%

Finland
31.1%
37.2%
79.6%
75.5%
39.1%
44.7%
45.5%
59.6%

Spain
54.9%
50.7%
76.7%
63.0%
35.9%
47.8%
52.9%
50.0%

Portugal
61.1%
50.0%
85.0%
55.3%
54.1%
51.4%
69.4%
59.5%

Italy
39.8%
40.7%
79.8%
70.6%
42.9%
50.6%
48.1%
42.5%

Slovenia
47.7%
42.1%
77.1%
60.9%
45.5%
61.1%
57.6%
67.7%

CroaPa
38.6%
29.9%
73.0%
53.4%
32.8%
54.9%
43.9%
50.7%

Turkey
63.3%
46.4%
86.7%
63.3%
44.8%
33.3%
55.6%
44.4%

Romania
50.7%
39.4%
72.4%
68.0%
39.7%
57.6%
58.9%
52.0%

Ukraine
52.4%
33.3%
81.0%
69.0%
40.0%
51.2%
65.0%
53.7%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,203
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:

Which
of
the
following
have
been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon
or
are
planned
for
2015?
Percentages:
agreement
to
implementaPon
of
each
item.

**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.05).

65
OrganisaPonal
listening:
respondents
claim
that
corporate
communicaPons

funcPons
are
forerunners
in
the
ﬁeld,
followed
by
markePng
and
CRM

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,442
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
9:
Which
three
(3)
funcPons
in
your

organisaPon
are
forerunners
in
systemaPcally
listening
to
their
respecPve
stakeholders
(based
on
competencies,
experiences,
strategies,
and
instruments

implemented)?
Max.
3
selecPons
per
respondent .

76.4%

49.7%

45.4%

35.8%

23.9%

23.4%

15.0%
Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR

MarkePng
/
Sales

Customer
relaPons

Corporate
strategy
/
OrganisaPonal
development

InnovaPon
management
/
Research
&
development

Human
resources

InformaPon
technology
/
Data
management
Organisa0onal
func0ons
who
are
forerunners
in
listening
to
stakeholders

66
Germany

Austria

Switzerland

France

Belgium

Netherlands

United

Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

Norway
Finland
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Slovenia
CroaPa
Turkey
Romania
Ukraine

Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR

MarkePng
/
Sales

Customer
relaPons

Corporate
strategy
/

OrganisaPonal
development
100%

100%
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
markePng
funcPons
believed
to
play
a
major
role

in
organisaPonal
listening
in
France,
Finland
and
Turkey

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,231
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
9:
Which

three
(3)
funcPons
in
your
organisaPon
are
forerunners
in
systemaPcally
listening
to
their
respecPve
stakeholders
(based
on
competencies,
experiences,

strategies,
and
instruments
implemented)?
Max.
3
selecPons
per
respondent .

0%

67
82.2%
52.8%
66.2%
54.0%
48.9%
37.8%
33.4%
31.5%

Listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
Other
communicaPon
departments
63.6%
IllustraPng
the
beneﬁts
of
listening
to

stakeholders
and
idenPfying
opportuniPes

IdenPfying
listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
based
on
mindsets

and
structures:
18.9
per
cent
are
ahead
of
the
rest

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
OrganisaPons
outperforming
in
all
four

dimensions
(scale
points
4-‐5
on
a
5-‐point-‐scale
or
item
selecPon)
are
considered
as
listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
59.9%
We
help
to
adjust
organisaPonal
strategies

(i.e.
by
idenPfying
opportuniPes,
integraPng

public
concerns,
collecPng
customer

feedback)

55.7%
Listening
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
contact
points
for
collecPng
feedback;

instruments
to
listen
to
stakeholders,
to
monitor

discussions,
iniPate
dialogue
and
integrate
the

knowledge
gained
etc.)

76.4%
Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR
ContribuPon

to
overall

objecPves

(Q7)

Explaining

communi-‐
caPon

value
(Q6)

Implemen-‐

taPon
of

strategies

(Q8)

FuncPons

spearheading

listening

(Q9)
18.9%

81.1%

68
Listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
are
strongly
convinced
of

beneﬁts
for
the
organisaPons
and
social
media

ObjecPves
of
organisaPonal
listening
Means
of
organisaPonal
listening

Listening
to
stakeholders

helps
to
advance

business/organisaPonal

goals
**
Listening
to
stakeholders

helps
to
gain
or
secure

legiPmacy
for
the

organisaPon
**
Face-‐to-‐face
conversaPons

are
an
eﬀecPve
technique

to
understand
and
engage

stakeholders
**

Social
media
communicaPon

is
an
eﬀecPve
technique

to
understand
and
engage

stakeholders
**

Listening-‐minded

communicaPon
departments

94.7%

(4.51)

92.7%

(4.48)

93.4%

(4.65)

65.0%

(3.84)

Other
communicaPon
departments

86.4%

(4.35)

83.0%

(4.27)

90.1%

(4.53)

54.1%

(3.61)

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals.
Q
11:
Please
state
whether
you
agree
or
disagree
with
these
statements.

Scale
1
(Strongly
disagree)
–
5
(Strongly
agree).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson

correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).

69
Listening-‐minded
communicaPon
departments
are
more
advanced
in

implemenPng
appropriate
structures
and
techniques

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,406
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:
Which
of
the
following
have

been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon
or
are
planned
for
2015?
Percentages:
agreement
to
implementaPon
of
each
item.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

for
all
items
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
92.4%

77.8%

77.4%

74.6%

69.9%

63.1%

64.5%

62.0%
82.2%

52.8%

66.2%

54.0%

48.9%

37.8%

33.4%

31.5%
Media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Issues
monitoring
and
management

Social
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Ad
hoc
listening
acPviPes
(monitoring,
surveys,
dialogues,
etc.)

Stakeholder
dialogues
on
a
regular
basis

Stakeholder
research
on
a
regular
basis

Listening
tasks
as
part
of
your
personal
job
descripPon

Listening
tasks
as
explicit
objecPve
for
the
communicaPon

department
or
agency

Listening-‐minded
communicaPon
funcPons
Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Structures
and
techniques
implemented

Measurement
and

evalua=on

71
Chapter
overview

Measurement
and
evaluaPon
enables
communicaPon
pracPPoners
to
demonstrate
the
value
of
their
acPviPes
(Watson
&
Noble,
2014;

Zerfass,
2010).
To
research
how
professionals
are
doing
today
we
selected
a
standard
framework
developed
by
academics,
management

accountants
and
communicaPon
associaPons
in
Germany
(DPRG/ICV
2011;
Watson
&
Noble,
2014:
170-‐181).
It
conceptualises
evaluaPon
and
measurement
acPviPes
in
four
clusters:
inputs,
outputs,
outcomes
and
oualows.
While
all
are
important,
demonstraPng
business
value
of
communicaPon
acPviPes
is
more
transparent
if
done
at
the
outcome
and
oualow
levels.
The
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
introduced
and
used
this
model
for
the
ﬁrst
Pme
ﬁve
years
ago
(Zerfass
et
al.,
2010:
96-‐103).
Five
years
later
in
the
2015
survey
the
results

are
nearly
the
same:
output
measures
like
clippings
and
media
responses
(82.4
per
cent),
internet/intranet
usage
(68.9
per
cent)
and
the

saPsfacPon
of
(internal)
clients
(57.5
per
cent)
lead
the
way
before
outcome
and
input
measures,
with
oualow
measures
at
the
bomom
(impact
on
ﬁnancial
and
strategic
targets,
39.4
per
cent;
impact
on
intangible/tangible
resources,
35.6
per
cent).
This
shows
that
commu-‐
nicators
are
sPll
focussed
on
media
and
channels,
while
they
care
less
about
the
resources
used
to
iniPate
communicaPon
processes,
on
the
stakeholders
addressed
by
communicaPon
acPviPes,
and
most
importantly
on
any
results
this
has
for
the
achievement
of
organisa-‐
Ponal
goals.
While
these
numbers
might
look
depressing,
comparing
the
2015
data
to
those
from
2010
reveal
improvements.
The
biggest

increases
are
indeed
in
inﬂow
measurements
(evaluaPng
ﬁnancial
and
personnel
costs
for
projects)
and
oualow
measurements
(impact
on
ﬁnancial/strategic
assets
and
impact
on
intangible/tangible
resources).

This
ﬁnding
that
35.6
per
cent
evaluate
the
impact
of
communicaPon
on
intangible
or
tangible
resources
is
extremely
interesPng

and
contradictory,
considering
that
the
same
respondents
see
their
major
role
in
contribuPng
to
organisaPonal
objecPves
by
building

immaterial
assets
like
brands,
reputaPon,
and
organisaPonal
culture.
75.5
per
cent
of
the
respondents
supported
this
claim
(see
chapter

on
strategic
issues
and
value
contribuPon
above).
It
is
hard
to
comprehend
how
communicators
do
so
if
only
a
fracPon
monitors
or
measures
the
impact.
The
inconsistency
between
what
communicators
are
pretending
to
do
and
how
they
explain
their
tasks
to
top
management
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
levels
of
monitoring
and
measurement
of
the
same
acPviPes
on
the
other,
may
be
a
major
part
of
an
explanaPon
on
why
“Linking
business
strategy
and
communicaPon”
remains
consistently
the
most
important
issue
for
communicaPon

management
over
many
years.
One
of
soluPons
to
this
problem
is
a
simple
one:
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
business
value,
you
have
to

also
measure
what
you
do
(Watson,
2012).

Another
result
worth
reﬂecPng
is
the
low
percentage
of
communicaPon
departments
using
measuring
data
for
leading
communica-‐
Pon
teams
or
steering
agencies
and
service
providers
(43.3
per
cent).
Slightly
more
are
using
these
insights
into
processes
to
reﬂect
goals

and
direcPon
of
communicaPon
strategies
(58.0
per
cent)
or
planning
new
acPviPes
(62.9
per
cent).
Nevertheless,
the
value
of
data
for

managing
strategic
communicaPon
seems
to
be
overseen
by
many
professionals
today.
Moreover,
the
need
to
explain
acPons
through
ﬁgures
in
large
organisaPons
is
being
neglected
if
only
59.5
per
cent
of
the
communicaPon
departments
in
the
sample
use
measurement
insights
to
explain
the
value
of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPve.
The
need
to
advance
business
competencies
among
communicators
idenPﬁed
in
previous
ediPons
of
this
research
(Zerfass
et
al.,
2012:
86-‐95)
is
a
conPnuing
challenge
for
the
profession.

72
82.4%

68.9%
67.8%

57.5%

53.6%

45.8%
44.9%

39.4%
38.6%
35.6%
Measurement
and
evaluaPon:

How
communicaPon
departments
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
their
acPviPes

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,496
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
12:
Which
items
are
monitored
or

measured
by
your
organisaPon
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
communicaPon
management
/
public
relaPons?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:

Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

Input Output Outcome Outflow Items
monitored
or
measured

73
Longitudinal
analysis:
measurement
methods
used
in
2010
and
2015

Items
monitored
or
measured
2010
2015
Δ

Impact
on
intangible/tangible
resources

(i.e.
economic
brand
value)
24.9%
35.6%
10.7%

Impact
on
ﬁnancial/strategic
targets

(i.e.
with
scorecards,
strategy
maps)
26.2%
39.4%
13.2%

Stakeholder
atudes
and
behaviour
change
40.9%
45.8%
4.9%

Understanding
of
key
messages
52.4%
53.6%
1.2%

Clippings
and
media
response
82.0%
82.4%
0.4%

Internet
/
Intranet
usage
72.2%
68.9%
-‐
3.3%

SaPsfacPon
of
internal
clients
55.5%
57.5%
2.0%

Process
quality
(internal
workﬂow)
26.0%
38.6%
12.6%

Financial
costs
for
projects
46.7%
67.8%
21.1%

Personnel
costs
for
projects
25.7%
44.9%
19.2%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,496
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
12:
Which
items
are
monitored
or

measured
by
your
organisaPon
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
communicaPon
management
/
public
relaPons?
Scale
1
(Do
not
use
at
all)
–
5
(Use
conPnuously).

Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n
=
1,533.
Q
9:
Which
items
do
you
monitor
or
measure
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
public
relaPons
/
communicaPon
management?)
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Gaps
might
partly
be
amributed
to
variaPons
in
the
quesPonnaire
instrument.

Input Output Outcome Outflow

74
Many
organisaPons
focus
only
on
a
small
part
of
the
overall
process

when
measuring
communicaPon
acPviPes

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,496
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
12:
Which
items
are
monitored
or

measured
by
your
organisaPon
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
communicaPon
management
/
public
relaPons?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:

Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Figures
depicted
within
the
DPRG/ICV
framework
for
communicaPon
measurement
(Zerfass
2010).

Results
of

communicaPon

processes
Output
Outcome

Internal
Output

Process
eﬃciency

Quality

External
Output

Coverage

Content

Direct
Outcome

PercepPon

UPlisaPon

Knowledge

Indirect
Outcome

Opinion

Atudes

EmoPon

Behavioral
DisposiPon

Behavior

Resources

Personnel
costs

Outsourcing
costs

Input
Value
Crea=on

Impact
on

strategic
and/or

ﬁnancial
targets

(value
chain)

Impact
on

tangible
and/or

intangible

ressources

(capital

accumulaPon)

OuVlow

ORGANISATION

CommunicaPon
processes
IniPaPon
of

communicaPon
processes
MEDIA/CHANNELS
STAKEHOLDERS
ORGANISATION
56.4%
48.1%
75.7%
53.6%
45.8%
37.5%
61.9%
49.7%

75
External
service
providers
are
mostly
used
to
support
media
monitoring

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,188
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
12:
Which
items
are
monitored
or

measured
by
your
organisaPon
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
communicaPon
management
/
public
relaPons?
Please
Pck
the
box
if

data
collecPon
and/or

interpretaPon
are
supported
by
external
service
providers.
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
external
support.
25.8%

10.5%

9.8%

7.3%

6.4%

6.0%

3.4%

2.3%

1.8%

1.3%
Clippings
and
media
response

Stakeholder
atudes
and
behaviour
change

Impact
on
intangible/tangible
resources

(i.e.
economic
brand
value)

Internet/Intranet
usage

SaPsfacPon
of
internal
clients

Understanding
of
key
messages

Impact
on
ﬁnancial/strategic
targets

(i.e.
with
scorecards,
strategy
maps)

Financial
costs
for
projects

Process
quality
(internal
workﬂow)

Personnel
costs
for
projects
Measurement
methods
used
and
supported
by
external
service
providers

76
66.0%

62.9%

59.5%

58.0%

43.3%
EvaluaPng
the
success
of
communicaPon
acPviPes

Planning
upcoming
communicaPon
acPviPes

Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon
to
top
execuPves
and

internal
clients

ReﬂecPng
goals
and
direcPons
of
communicaPon
strategies

Leading
communicaPon
teams
and
steering
agencies/service

providers
Measurement
insights:
less
than
two
third
of
the
communicaPon
departments

use
evaluaPon
data
for
planning
purposes
and
only
43
per
cent
for
leadership

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
14:
How
are
insights
from

communicaPon
measurement
used
in
your
organisaPon?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

77
Measurement
data
and
reports
are
used
for
…

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons
Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Explaining
the
value
of
commu-‐
nicaPon
to
top
execuPves
and

(internal)
clients
**

EvaluaPng
the
success
of

communicaPon
acPviPes
**

Planning
upcoming

communicaPon
acPviPes
**

ReﬂecPng
goals
and
direcPons

of
communicaPon
strategies
**

Leading
communicaPon
teams

and
steering
agencies /service

providers
**
Use
of
measurement
insights
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons

Always
Never

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
14:
How
are
insights
from

communicaPon
measurement
used
in
your
organisaPon?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe

post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.05).

3.0

78
Measurement
and
evaluaPon
skills:

communicaPon
professionals
in
Europe
report
moderate
capabiliPes

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,993
PR
professionals.
Q
13:
How
would
you
rate
your
personal
capabiliPes
in
the
following

areas?
Scale
1
(No
experience
at
all)
–
5
(Very
high
level
experience).
Percentages:
Frequency
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Mean
values.

55.5%

54.8%

52.4%

49.3%

47.7%

45.0%

33.6%

32.6%

28.6%
3.55

3.49

3.46

3.31

3.31

3.25

2.83

2.81

2.70
Compiling
and
interprePng
data

Performing
content
analyses

Developing
and
managing
surveys

DeconstrucPng
and
analysing
budgets

Running
internet
and
social
media
analyPcs

Analysing
processes
and
workﬂows

ConstrucPng
communicaPon
scorecards

Running
focus
groups

CalculaPng
reputaPon
value
/
brand
value

CommunicaPon
professionals
with
high
capabiliPes
Mean
raPng
of
capabiliPes
(scale
1-‐5)
3.0

79
Measurement
and
evaluaPon
skills
of
professionals
working
in
diﬀerent

types
of
organisaPons

Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Consultancies
&
Agencies
Analysing
processes

and
workﬂows
**

Compiling
and
interprePng
data
*

Developing
and
managing
surveys
*

DeconstrucPng
and

analysing
budgets **

Running
focus
groups
ConstrucPng
communicaPon

scorecards
**

Running
internet
and

social
media
analyPcs

Performing

content
analyses
**

CalculaPng
reputaPon

value
/
brand
value
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,993
PR
professionals.
Q
13:
How
would
you
rate
your
personal
capabiliPes
in
the
following

areas?
Scale
1
(No
experience
at
all)
–
5
(Very
high
level
experience).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/ Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.01).

*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(ANOVA/ Scheﬀe
post-‐hoc
test,
p
≤
0.05).

Very
high
level
experience
No
experience
at
all
Medium
experience
3.0

Personal
capabili0es
in
communica0on
measurement

80
CommunicaPon
professionals
at
higher
hierarchy
are
bemer
qualiﬁed

to
use
data
for
managing
budgets,
processes
and
communicaPon
value

Level
of
experience
Head
of
communicaPon
/

Agency
CEO
Unit
leader

Team
member
/

consultant

High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low

Compiling
and

interprePng
data
*
58.8%
26.0%
15.1%
56.0%
29.5%
14.6%
49.8%
31.0%
19.3%

DeconstrucPng
and
analysing
budgets
**
59.1%
24.3%
16.7%
49.4%
22.4%
28.2%
30.2%
22.6%
47.1%

Analysing
processes

and
workﬂows
**
52.0%
25.8%
22.2%
44.4%
30.7%
24.9%
33.1%
28.6%
38.3%

CalculaPng
reputaPon
value
/
brand
value

**
33.4%
28.9%
37.6%
27.4%
27.7%
44.9%
20.7%
23.3%
56.0%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,889
PR
professionals.
Q
13:
How
would
you
rate
your
personal
capabiliPes
in
the
following

areas?
Scale
1
(No
experience
at
all)
–
5
(Very
high
level
experience).
Percentages:
High
experience
–

scale
points
4-‐5;
Medium
experience
–
scale
point
3;

Low
experience
–
scale
points
1-‐2.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.05).

81
Measurement
capabiliPes
are
correlated
with
the
professional
role
and

experience
of
communicators

Media

relaPons
Strategy
and

coordinaPon
Consultancy,
advising,

coaching,
key
account
Online

communicaPon
Internal

communicaPon

Compiling
and
interprePng
data
3.39
**
3.67
**
3.73
**
3.42
*
3.44

Developing
and
managing
surveys
3.31
**
3.67
**
3.63
**
3.29
**
3.56

Performing
content
analyses
3.42
3.60
**
3.60
*
3.54
3.30
**

DeconstrucPng
and
analysing

budgets
3.18
*
3.57
**
3.48
**
3.00
**
3.03
**

Running
internet
and

social
media
analyPcs
3.20
*
3.32
3.19
*
3.95
**
3.07
**

Analysing
processes
and

workﬂows
3.16
*
3.45
**
3.43
**
3.07
**
3.13

Running
focus
groups
2.56
**
2.99
**
3.09
**
2.38
**
3.05
**

ConstrucPng
communicaPon
scorecards
2.83
3.02
**
2.98
*
2.67
*
2.71

CalculaPng
reputaPon
value
/

brand
value

2.69
2.84
**
2.83
*
2.54
*
2.38
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,889
PR
professionals.
Q
13:
How
would
you
rate
your
personal
capabiliPes
in
the
following

areas?
Scale
1
(No
experience
at
all)
–
5
(Very
high
level
experience).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
samples
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.01).

*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Independent
samples
T-‐Test,
p
≤
0.05).

Rela=onship
between

agencies
and
clients

83
Chapter
overview

The
use
of
agencies,
consultancies
and
freelance
pracPPoners
is
a
common
pracPce
in
communicaPon
management
(Eagle
et
al.,
2015:

123-‐238).
The
ﬁndings
from
this
survey
verify
this
pracPce
across
all
types
of
organisaPons.
They
also
demonstrate
some
interesPng

diversiﬁcaPon
in
reasons
for
using
this
addiPonal
resource
as
well
as
interpretaPons
on
what
independent
counsel
brings
to
the
organi-‐saPon
as
well
as
who
or
what
is
to
blame
when
the
relaPonship
breaks
down
or
goes
wrong
(Bourland,
1993;
Murphy
&
Maynard,
1997).
Most
of
all
the
communicaPon
departments
work
on
an
ongoing
basis
with
mulPple
agencies.
In
fact
only
one
in
ﬁve
organisaPons
(20.7
per
cent)
do
not
work
with
outside
agencies
at
all,
and
13.8
per
cent
of
organisaPons
work
on
an
ongoing
basis
with
a
single
“agency
of

record”.
There
are
fundamental
diﬀerences
between
the
four
sectors
reported
in
the
ECM
2015
survey.
Nearly
20
(19.5)
per
cent
of
joint

stock
companies
work
with
a
single
“agency
of
record”,
compared
to
17.3
per
cent
of
private
companies.
These
ﬁgures
are
even
lower
for
governmental
organisaPons
(7.9
per
cent)
and
non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
(5.6
per
cent).
Only
10.6
per
cent
of
joint
stock
companies
do
not
work
with
agencies
at
all,
with
this
ﬁgure
rising
to
21.8
per
cent
of
private
companies,
28.0
per
cent
of
non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
and
29.5
per
cent
of
governmental
organisaPons.

It
is
interesPng
to
note
diﬀerences
in
how
clients
and
agencies
see
the
reasons
and
explanaPons
for
why
organisaPons
employ

agencies
(Tench
et
al.,
2002;
Fielden
et
al.,
2003).
While
both
sides
are
close
on
the
need
to
integrate
creaPvity
and
use
addiPonal
“arms
and
legs”,
there
are
wide
mispercepPons
on
the
side
of
agencies
that
they
are
more
open
employed
for
experPse;
strategic
insight;
objecPve,
independent
counsel;
their
ability
to
understand
and
explain
communicaPon
trends
and
new
instruments;
and
being
able
to
support
in
explaining
communicaPon
strategies
to
top
execuPves.

In
summary
the
agencies
are
more
opPmisPc
about
their
overall
value

and
contribuPon
to
the
client
organisaPons
when
compared
with
the
clients’
own
responses.

There
are
also
wide
diﬀerences
in
assessing
reasons
for
agency-‐client
conﬂicts
(Bourland,
1993;
Murphy
&
Maynard,
1997).
While

clients
see
the
main
reason
for
conﬂicts
originaPng
in
the
lack
of
knowledge
of
the
client’s
business
and
processes
(62.3
per
cent),
only

one
in
ﬁve
respondents
on
the
agency
side
see
this
as
a
problem
(21.0
per
cent).
On
the
other
hand,
nearly
three
quarters
of
agency
respondents
named
unclear
objecPves
and
expectaPons
as
the
main
reason
for
conﬂicts
(73.0
per
cent),
while
only
a
third
of
respondents

from
the
client
side
see
this
as
a
major
reason
(33.3
per
cent).
Obviously
each
side
blames
the
other
one
for
conﬂicts.

Results
clearly
demonstrate
that
hiring
agencies
demands
competencies
on
the
side
of
communicaPon
departments
as
well
as
a

realisPc
understanding
of
communicaPon
in
organisaPonal
sengs
by
consultancies.
To
make
good
use
of
the
money
spent
organisaPons

have
to
educate
and
train
in-‐house
pracPPoners
to
understand
what
they
can
get
from
agencies
and
how
to
put
that
to
proper
use
to
add

value.
Agencies,
on
the
other
hand,
have
to
align
their
business
models
to
the
outsourcing
needs
of
clients
in
a
changing
business

environment.

84
Four
out
of
ﬁve
communicaPon
departments
in
Europe
work
with
agencies;

every
third
uses
mulPple
consultants
all
the
Pme

We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
a
single
"agency

of
record"

13.9%

We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
mulPple

agencies

35.3%

We
assign
projects
to
a

pre-‐approved
list
of
ﬁrms

11.1%
We
assign
projects
to

agencies
on
an
ad
hoc
basis

19.0%
We
do
not
work
with

outside
agencies

20.7%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
18-‐C:
Which
of
the
following
best

describes
the
nature
of
your
agency
relaPonship(s)?

85
Companies
employ
agencies
more
open,
compared
to
governmental

and
non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
18-‐C:
Which
of
the
following
best

describes
the
nature
of
your
agency
relaPonship(s)?
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
between
the
types
of
organisaPons
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01,

Cramer's
V
=
0.185).
10.6%
21.8%
29.5%
28.0%
13.1%
18.0%
21.4%
30.0%

10.8%
7.4%
16.3%
9.2%

45.9%
35.5%
24.9%
27.2%
19.5%
17.3%
7.9%
5.6%

0%
100%

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies
Governmental
organisaPons
Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

We
work
on
an
ongoing
basis
with
a
single
"agency
of
record"
We
work
on
an
ongoing
basis
with
mulPple
agencies

We
assign
projects
to
a
pre-‐approved
list
of
ﬁrms
We
assign
projects
to
agencies
on
an
ad
hoc
basis

We
do
not
work
with
outside
agencies

86
Nature
of
agency
relaPonships
in
diﬀerent
European
countries

We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
a
single

"agency
of
record"
We
work
on
an

ongoing
basis
with

mulPple
agencies
We
assign
projects
to

a
pre-‐approved
list
of

ﬁrms
We
assign
projects
to

agencies
on
an
ad
hoc

basis
We
do
not
work

with
outside

agencies

Germany
8.5%
57.4%
12.4%
13.2%
8.5%

Austria
23.2%
33.9%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%

Switzerland
9.3%
53.3%
6.7%
25.3%
5.3%

France
7.5%
45.0%
7.5%
20.0%
20.0%

Belgium
9.6%
26.0%
12.3%
24.7%
27.4%

Netherlands
9.6%
40.4%
18.1%
24.5%
7.4%

United
Kingdom
5.1%
30.3%
16.2%
29.3%
19.2%

Ireland
13.5%
40.5%
13.5%
16.2%
16.2%

Denmark
8.7%
34.8%
2.2%
39.1%
15.2%

Sweden
10.9%
38.6%
26.7%
8.9%
14.9%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,366
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.

Q
18-‐C:
Which
of

the
following
best
describes
the
nature
of
your
agency
relaPonship(s)?

87
Nature
of
agency
relaPonships
in
diﬀerent
European
countries

We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
a
single

"agency
of
record"
We
work
on
an

ongoing
basis
with

mulPple
agencies
We
assign
projects
to

a
pre-‐approved
list
of

ﬁrms
We
assign
projects
to

agencies
on
an
ad
hoc

basis
We
do
not
work

with
outside

agencies

Norway
13.6%
20.3%
13.6%
37.3%
15.3%

Finland
22.0%
44.0%
8.0%
14.0%
12.0%

Spain
20.5%
34.2%
2.7%
17.8%
24.7%

Portugal
30.0%
25.0%
10.0%
12.5%
22.5%

Italy
15.7%
33.7%
7.9%
28.1%
14.6%

Slovenia
10.7%
28.0%
6.7%
12.0%
42.7%

CroaPa
14.3%
18.2%
7.8%
16.9%
42.9%

Turkey
25.8%
45.2%
6.5%
3.2%
19.4%

Romania
13.9%
31.6%
11.4%
7.6%
35.4%

Ukraine
20.9%
25.6%
11.6%
18.6%
23.3%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,366
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.

Q
18-‐C:
Which
of
the
following
best
describes
the
nature
of
your
agency
relaPonship(s)?

88
We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
mulPple
clients

79.6%

We
carry
out
projects
with

clients
on
an
ad
hoc
basis

9.7%
We
are
pre-‐approved

supplier
for
agency
services

to
one
or
more

organisaPons

7.8%
We
work
on
an
ongoing

basis
with
a
single
client

2.9%
Client
relaPonships
from
the
perspecPve
of
communicaPon
agencies:

a
clear
majority
works
conPnuously
for
several
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
652
PR
professionals
in
agencies
and
consultancies.
Q
18-‐A:
Which
of
the
following

best
describes
the
nature
of
your
client
relaPonship(s)?

89
Clients
and
agencies
have
diﬀerent
percepPons
of
why
they
work
together

3.98

3.95

3.34

3.33

3.33

3.24

3.08

2.97

2.59
4.24

3.85

3.74

4.24

3.93

4.18

2.69

3.08

3.79
CommunicaPon

departments

Consultancies
&

Agencies
ObjecPve ,
independent
counsel
**

CreaPvity
and
innovaPon
**

AddiPonal
' arms
and
legs'
**

Strategic
insight
**

Cheaper
than
adding
staﬀ;

saving
money
**

Very
important
Explaining
communicaPon
trends

and
new
instruments
**

ExperPse
regarding
speciﬁc

geographies
or
markets
**

Support
in
explaining
communicaPon

strategies
to
top
execuPves
**
Not
allowed
to
hire
addiPonal

people
internally
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,277
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments;
n
=
652
PR
professionals
in
agencies
and

consultancies.
Q
19-‐C:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Q
19-‐A:
Why
does
your
average
client

work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Scale
1
(Not
important
at
all)
–
5
(Very
important).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant

diﬀerences
(One
Sample
t-‐test,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(One
Sample
t-‐test,
p
≤
0.05).
Rela0ve
importance
why
organisa0ons
work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
consultants

Not
important
at
all
3.0

Δ
0.27

Δ
0.10

Δ
0.40
Δ
0.91
Δ
0.60
Δ
0.94

Δ
0.39

Δ
0.11

Δ
1.20

90
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:

Why
communicaPon
departments
work
with
agencies

Strategic

insight
CreaPvity

and

inno-‐
vaPon
ObjecPve.

indepen-‐
dent

counsel
Cheaper

than

adding
staﬀ;

saving

money
Not
allowed

to
hire

addiPonal

people

internally
AddiPonal

'arms

and

legs'
ExperPse

regarding

speciﬁc

geographies

or
markets
Support
in

explaining

communicaPon

strategies
to
top

execuPves
Explaining
/

understanding

communicaPon

trends
and
new

instruments

Germany
39.5%
78.2%
46.2%
38.7%
39.5%
79.8%
44.5%
18.5%
42.0%

Austria
29.2%
77.1%
41.7%
29.2%
37.5%
79.2%
47.9%
35.4%
50.0%

Switzerland
46.5%
67.6%
53.5%
42.3%
39.4%
71.8%
64.8%
25.4%
38.0%

France
46.9%
46.9%
40.6%
37.5%
50.0%
78.1%
46.9%
18.8%
43.8%

Belgium
38.9%
74.1%
33.3%
31.5%
59.3%
77.8%
33.3%
13.0%
35.2%

Netherlands
41.4%
81.6%
49.4%
32.2%
39.1%
81.6%
47.1%
19.5%
42.5%

United
Kingdom
52.5%
71.3%
53.8%
26.3%
28.8%
76.3%
67.5%
17.5%
35.0%

Ireland
59.4%
40.6%
53.1%
18.8%
34.4%
53.1%
56.3%
31.3%
43.8%

Denmark
46.2%
76.9%
25.6%
38.5%
25.6%
59.0%
38.5%
28.2%
25.6%

Sweden
41.9%
73.3%
38.4%
33.7%
46.5%
74.4%
31.4%
22.1%
39.5%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,104
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
19-‐C:

Why
does
your
organisaPon
work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Scale
1
(Not
important
at
all)
–
5
(Very
important).

Percentages:
Importance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

91
Strategic

insight
CreaPvity

and

inno-‐
vaPon
ObjecPve,

indepen-‐
dent

counsel
Cheaper

than

adding
staﬀ;

saving

money
Not
allowed

to
hire

addiPonal

people

internally
AddiPonal

'arms

and

legs'
ExperPse

regarding

speciﬁc

geographies

or
markets
Support
in

explaining

communicaPon

strategies
to
top

execuPves
Explaining
/

understanding

communicaPon

trends
and
new

instruments

Norway
36.0%
76.0%
36.0%
38.0%
38.0%
72.0%
30.0%
18.0%
40.0%

Finland
48.9%
80.0%
44.4%
37.8%
44.4%
77.8%
42.2%
6.7%
46.7%

Spain
47.3%
61.8%
41.8%
30.9%
38.2%
70.9%
56.4%
20.0%
45.5%

Portugal
65.6%
71.9%
59.4%
40.6%
43.8%
78.1%
68.8%
40.6%
65.6%

Italy
61.0%
75.3%
40.3%
32.5%
35.1%
51.9%
58.4%
28.6%
58.4%

Slovenia
51.2%
67.4%
55.8%
37.2%
37.2%
51.2%
58.1%
37.2%
67.4%

CroaPa
48.9%
71.1%
44.4%
40.0%
33.3%
66.7%
48.9%
33.3%
44.4%

Turkey
60.0%
72.0%
56.0%
32.0%
36.0%
64.0%
68.0%
44.0%
60.0%

Romania
60.8%
72.5%
54.9%
43.1%
31.4%
70.6%
56.9%
43.1%
58.8%

Ukraine
48.5%
69.7%
39.4%
33.3%
39.4%
72.7%
51.5%
27.3%
39.4%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,104
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
19-‐C:

Why
does
your
organisaPon
work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Scale
1
(Not
important
at
all)
–
5
(Very
important).

Percentages:
Importance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:

Why
communicaPon
departments
work
with
agencies

92
75.7%

49.0%

51.0%

43.3%
71.3%

52.9%

51.6%

28.7%
69.6%

40.0%

36.4%

47.5%
65.2%

45.3%

41.4%

35.9%
AddiPonal
'arms
and
legs'

Strategic
insight

ObjecPve,
independent
counsel

Not
allowed
to
hire
addiPonal
people

internally

Joint
stock
companies
Private
companies
Governmental
organisaPons
Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
Reasons
to
work
with
agencies
are
correlated
with
the
type
of
organisaPon

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,277
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
19-‐C:
Why
does
your
organisaPon

work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Scale
1
(Not
important
at
all)
–
5
(Very
important).
Percentages:
Importance
based
on

scale
points
4-‐5.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items
between
types
of
organisaPons
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
Rela0ve
importance
why
organisa0ons
work
with
agencies,
freelancers
and
consultants

93
Source
of
conﬂict
in
client-‐agency
relaPonships:
communicaPon
departments

complain
mainly
about
knowledge
gaps,
agencies
refer
to
unclear
expectaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,126
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments;
n
=
599
PR
professionals
in
agencies
and

consultancies.
Q
20-‐C:
Based
on
your
professional
experience,
what
are
the
three
(3)
most
important
reasons
for
conﬂict
with
communicaPon
agencies,

freelancers
or
consultants?
Q
20-‐A:
Based
on
your
professional
experience,
what
are
the
three
(3)
most
important
reasons
for
conﬂict
with
clients?
62.3%

47.8%

44.8%

33.4%

33.3%

29.3%

19.9%

17.2%
21.0%

16.4%

19.0%

33.7%

73.0%

50.3%

36.4%

31.2%
Lack
of
knowledge
of
the
client’s
business
and
processes

Low
performance
and
mistakes
made
by
agencies

Use
of
junior
staﬀ
instead
of
experienced
consultants

Diﬀerent
interpretaPons
of
situaPons
/
acPons

Unclear
objecPves
and
expectaPons
of
the
cooperaPon

Diﬀerent
role
expectaPons
or
unclear
tasks

Financial
disagreements

Bad
chemistry
or
disrespect,
interpersonal
diﬀerences
CommunicaPon

departments

Consultancies
&

Agencies

94
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
Main
reasons
for
conﬂict
in
client-‐agency

relaPonships
from
the
perspecPve
of
communicaPon
departments

Unclear

objecPves
and

expectaPons

of
the

cooperaPon
Diﬀerent
role

expectaPons

or
unclear

tasks
Financial

disagree-‐
ments
Diﬀerent

interpretaPons

of
situaPons
/

acPons
Bad

chemistry
or

disrespect,

interpersonal

diﬀerences
Lack
of

knowledge

of
the
client’s

business
and

processes
IncompaPble

values,

norms
or

habits
Use
of

junior
staﬀ

instead
of

experienced

consultants
Low

performance

and
mistakes

made
by

agencies

Germany
37.1%
30.5%
19.0%
38.1%
13.3%
61.9%
14.3%
39.0%
46.7%

Austria
32.6%
25.6%
25.6%
25.6%
23.3%
69.8%
9.3%
34.9%
53.5%

Switzerland
26.2%
36.1%
14.8%
34.4%
14.8%
63.9%
6.6%
42.6%
60.7%

France
28.6%
21.4%
25.0%
25.0%
7.1%
60.7%
17.9%
60.7%
53.6%

Belgium
38.8%
18.4%
22.4%
38.8%
6.1%
65.3%
14.3%
44.9%
51.0%

Netherlands
27.0%
43.2%
21.6%
31.1%
27.0%
48.6%
9.5%
37.8%
54.1%

United
Kingdom
47.1%
17.1%
8.6%
26.3%
24.3%
61.4%
7.1%
61.4%
45.7%

Ireland
25.0%
21.4%
25.0%
35.7%
14.3%
53.6%
10.7%
60.7%
53.6%

Denmark
47.1%
41.2%
11.8%
44.1%
14.7%
67.6%
11.8%
23.5%
38.2%

Sweden
44.4%
35.8%
21.0%
29.6%
16.0%
65.4%
14.8%
34.6%
38.3%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,126
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
20-‐C:

Based
on
your
professional
experience,
what
are
the
three
(3)
most
important
reasons
for
conﬂict
with
communicaPon
agencies,
freelancers
or
consultants?

Percentages:
Importance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

95
Unclear

objecPves
and

expectaPons

of
the

cooperaPon
Diﬀerent
role

expectaPons

or
unclear

tasks
Financial

disagree-‐
ments
Diﬀerent

interpretaPons

of
situaPons
/

acPons
Bad

chemistry
or

disrespect,

interpersonal

diﬀerences
Lack
of

knowledge

of
the
client’s

business
and

processes
IncompaPble

values,

norms
or

habits
Use
of

junior
staﬀ

instead
of

experienced

consultants
Low

performance

and
mistakes

made
by

agencies

Norway
34.1%
36.6%
12.2%
36.6%
26.8%
78.0%
2.4%
29.3%
43.9%

Finland
50.0%
23.7%
15.8%
26.3%
7.9%
73.7%
2.6%
42.1%
57.9%

Spain
23.1%
17.3%
19.2%
26.9%
25.0%
67.3%
15.4%
50.0%
55.8%

Portugal
29.0%
45.2%
22.6%
45.2%
9.7%
48.4%
12.9%
45.2%
41.9%

Italy
33.9%
26.8%
12.5%
33.9%
10.7%
66.1%
10.7%
53.6%
51.8%

Slovenia
15.0%
17.5%
30.0%
32.5%
30.0%
47.5%
17.5%
45.0%
65.0%

CroaPa
40.0%
27.5%
32.5%
27.5%
20.0%
60.0%
7.5%
55.0%
30.0%

Turkey
30.0%
20.0%
5.0%
45.0%
20.0%
65.0%
10.0%
50.0%
55.0%

Romania
44.0%
30.0%
22.0%
26.0%
26.0%
60.0%
26.0%
38.0%
28.0%

Ukraine
16.1%
19.4%
25.8%
29.0%
9.7%
58.1%
19.4%
64.5%
58.1%
Country-‐to-‐country
analysis:
Main
reasons
for
conﬂict
in
client-‐agency

relaPonships
from
the
perspecPve
of
communicaPon
departments

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,126
PR
professionals
from
20
countries
working
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
20-‐C:
Based

on
your
professional
experience,
what
are
the
three
(3)
most
important
reasons
for
conﬂict
with
communicaPon
agencies,
freelancers
or
consultants?

Percentages:
Importance
based
on
scale
points
4-‐5.

Salaries

97
Chapter
overview

Each
year
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
data
report
on
the
important
demographic
variables
of
age,
gender,
organisaPonal

posiPon
and
type
of
organisaPon
as
well
as
the
most
easily
compared
ﬁgures
on
salary
or
rates
of
pay
across
the
sample
which,
for
this

year,
was
41
countries
across
Europe.
However
it
has
to
be
noted
that
variaPons
in
this
secPon
will
be
inﬂuenced
by
diﬀerent
composiPons
of
the
sample
in
each
ediPon
of
the
survey.

In
2015
the
majority
of
pracPPoners
in
Europe
earn
less
than
€60,000
per
year
(54.7
per
cent)
and
a
quarter
(25.1
per
cent)
earn

even
less
than
€30,000
per
year.
In
this
last
category
are
the
majority
of
respondents
from
Romania,
Ukraine,
CroaPa
and
Slovenia.
At
the

top
end
of
the
pay
scales
across
the
41
countries
the
numbers
are
small
and
with
sharp
regional
diﬀerences.
For
example
only
a
fracPon

of
the
top
earning
pracPPoners
are
making
over
€300,000
(1.6
per
cent),
followed
by
another
small
fracPon
of
pracPPoners
whose
pay
is
between
€200,001
and
€300,000
(2.2
per
cent),
and
4.3
per
cent
of
pracPPoners
are
making
between
€150,001
and
€200,000
per
year.

Generally,
joint
stock
companies
pay
bemer
than
agencies,
private
companies,
non-‐proﬁt
and
governmental
organisaPons.
There

are,
however,
big
diﬀerences
between
countries.
While
there
are
only
1.3
per
cent
of
respondents
from
Switzerland
that
make
less
than

€30,000,
there
are
40.0
per
cent
of
respondents
from
that
country
with
a
salary
of
over
€150,000
per
year.
At
the
top
end
of
the
salary

scales
and
bandings,
Switzerland
is
a
clear
outlier,
with
the
next
country
showing
nearly
a
ﬁph
of
their
respondents
at
the
top
end
being
Germany
with
18.0
per
cent
making
over
€150,00,
followed
by
Norway
with
17.2
per
cent
and
the
United
Kingdom
with
15.1
per
cent
of
respondents.

As
with
previous
years
in
the
ECM
survey
there
is
a
gender
divide
and
the
results
demonstrate
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
in
the
salaries

recorded
for
male
and
female
pracPPoners.
Put
simply
and
repeaPng
past
ediPons
of
this
survey
(Zerfass
et
al.,
2010,
2011,
2014)
men
earn
more
than
women.
At
the
top
side,
there
are
nearly
three
Pmes
more
male
heads
of
communicaPon
who
make
more
than
€150,000
than
female
pracPPoners,
20.6
per
cent
of
men
against
7.1
per
cent
of
women
in
these
top
roles.
On
the
other
hand
there
are
nearly
twice
as
many
female
heads
of
communicaPon
who
make
less
than
€30,000
(20.7
per
cent)
when
compared
with
their
male
counterparts
as
heads
of
communicaPon
earning
the
lower
level
(10.5
per
cent).
When
reviewing
the
other
posiPons
outside
the
top
pracPPoner

posiPons
then
the
gender
diﬀerences
are
smaller,
but
sPll
signiﬁcant.
For
example
at
all
levels
it
is
clear
that
male
pracPPoners
earn
more

than
female
pracPPoners.
A
trend
that
has
consistently
been
recorded
and
reported
in
the
ECM
over
past
years
and
discussed
in
wider
literature
for
the
industry
(Fielden
et
al.,
2003;
Grunig
et
al.,
2001;
Tench
&
Laville ;
2014).

On
the
salary
debate
there
is
once
again
good
news
from
this
survey
about
membership
of
the
European
AssociaPon
of
Communi-‐
caPon
Directors
(EACD)
and
its
correlaPon
with
levels
of
pay.
There
are
signiﬁcantly
more
EACD
members
in
the
ranks
of
the
bemer
paid
pracPPoners
and
more
non-‐members
among
the
least
paid
pracPPoners.

98
Basic
annual
salary
of
communicaPon
pracPPoners
in
Europe
2015

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

2,394
PR
professionals.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?

up
to
€30,000

25.1%

€30,001
-‐
€40,000

11.2%

€40,001
-‐
€50,000

9.1%

€50,001
-‐
€60,000

9.3%
€60,001
-‐
€70,000

7.7%
€70,001
-‐
€80,000

7.0%
€80,001
-‐
€90,000

5.2%
€90,001
-‐
€100,000

5.8%
€100,001
-‐
€125,000

6.4%
€125,001
-‐
€150,000

5.1%
€150,001
-‐
€200,000
4.3%
€200,001
-‐
€300,000
2.2%
1.6%
>
€300,000

99
Development
of
salaries
of
top-‐level
communicators

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

828
heads

of
communicaPon
/
agency
CEOs.
Q
41.
Zerfass
et
al.
2014
/
n
=
966.
Q17.
Zerfass
et
al.

2013
/
n
=

970.
Q
39.
Zerfass
et
al.
2012
/
n
=
798.
Zerfass
et
al.
2011
/
n
=
887.
Q
20.
Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n
=
809.
Q
19.
Zerfass
et
al.
2009
/
n
=
951.

Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?
Results
might
be
inﬂuenced
by
varying
numbers
and
regional/hierarchical
back-‐
ground

of
respondents
in
annual
surveys.
4.3%
10.3%
11.4%
10.4%
13.3%
12.2%
15.9%

23.4%
23.7%
21.5%
23.9%
20.7%
24.5%
21.1%

35.6%
32.1%
29.5%
29.2%
30.1%
29.6%
30.9%

18.7%
20.1%
19.5%
19.8%
19.8%
18.2%
18.6%

17.9%
13.7%
18.0%
16.7%
16.1%
15.4%
13.4%

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Up
to
€30.000
€30,001
-‐
€60,000
€60,001
-‐
€100,000
€100,001
-‐
€150,000
More
than
€150,000
Basic
annual
salaries
(heads
of
communica0on
/
agency
CEOs)

100
Salary
development
on
other
hierarchical
levels

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,067

PR
professionals
below
the
top
level
of
the
hierarchy.
Q
41.
Zerfass
et
al.
2014
/
n
=
1,428.

Q17.
Zerfass
et
al.
2013
/
n
=

1,287.
Q
39.
Zerfass
et
al.
2012
/
n
=
1,013.
Q
38.
Zerfass
et
al.
2011
/
n
=
927.
Q
20.
Zerfass
et
al.
2010
/
n
=
879.
Q
19.

Zerfass
et
al.
2009
/
n
=
817.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?
Results
might
be
inﬂuenced
by
varying
numbers
and

regional/hierarchical
background
of
respondents.
Basic
annual
salaries
(unit
leaders ,
team
members,
consultants)

14.8%
24.8%
29.2%
26.9%
28.6%
29.5%
32.2%

42.7%
38.9%
34.4%
38.6%
33.1%
38.1%
36.4%

28.6%
27.0%
23.0%
23.5%
25.5%
21.6%
21.5%

9.2%
7.5%
9.4%
8.1%
9.2%
7.5%
6.1%

4.7%
1.8%
4.0%
2.9%
3.6%
3.4%
3.8%

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Up
to
€30.000
€30,001
-‐
€60,000
€60,001
-‐
€100,000
€100,001
-‐
€150,000
More
than
€150,000

101
Men
earn
more
than
female
professionals
on
the
same
hierarchical
level

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,895
PR
professionals.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?

Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
heads
of
communicaPon
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01,
Cramers
V
=
0.192).
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
other
professionals

(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01,
Cramérs
V
=
0.242).
Results
may
be
inﬂuenced
by
the
distribuPon
of
types
of
organisaPons
and
countries
among
both
genders.

20.7%

10.5%

37.7%

23.3%
25.3%

16.5%

38.1%

33.5%
31.9%

29.8%

16.9%

29.0%
15.0%

22.6%

4.4%

8.9%
7.1%

20.6%

3.0%

5.2%
Female
heads
of
communicaPon

Male
heads
of
communicaPon

Other
female
professionals

Other
male
professionals

Up
to
€30.000
€30,001
-‐
€60,000
€60,001
-‐
€100,000
€100,001
-‐
€150,000
More
than
€150,000

102
Annual
salaries
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPon

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,895
PR
professionals.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?

Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01,
Cramér's
V
=
0.115).

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

up
to

€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
-‐

€125,000
€125,001
-‐

€150,000
€150,001
-‐

€200,000
€200,001
-‐

€300,000
more
than

€300,000
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Consultancies
&
Agencies

103
Annual
salaries
in
diﬀerent
European
countries

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,611
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic

annual
salary
fall?

0%
100%
Germany

Austria

Switzerland

France

Belgium

Netherlands

United
Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Spain

Portugal

Italy

Slovenia

CroaPa

Turkey

Romania

Ukraine

Up
to
€30.000
€30,001
-‐
€60,000
€60,001
-‐
€100,000
€100,001
-‐
€150,000
More
than
€150,000

104
Annual
salaries
in
diﬀerent
European
countries
in
detail

Up
to

€30.000
€30,001
-‐

€60,000
€60,001
-‐

€100,000
€100,001
-‐

€150,000
More
than

€150,000
Up
to

€30.000
€30,001
-‐

€60,000
€60,001
-‐

€100,000
€100,001
-‐

€150,000
More
than

€150,000

Germany
4.8%
27.5%
29.3%
20.4%
18.0%
Norway
1.6%
9.4%
60.9%
17.2%
10.9%

Austria
7.5%
37.3%
41.8%
9.0%
4.5%
Finland
–
48.3%
33.3%
11.7%
6.7%

Switzerland
1.3%
1.3%
13.8%
43.8%
40.0%
Spain
7.6%
48.9%
28.3%
10.9%
4.3%

France
4.8%
40.5%
35.7%
11.9%
7.1%
Portugal
26.1%
34.8%
34.8%
2.2%
2.2%

Belgium
7.7%
37.2%
32.1%
14.1%
9.0%
Italy
15.7%
33.9%
29.6%
11.3%
9.6%

Netherlands
3.6%
23.6%
43.6%
24.5%
4.5%
Slovenia
51.8%
34.1%
11.8%
1.2%
1.2%

United
Kingdom
2.5%
29.4%
37.8%
15.1%
15.1%
CroaPa
67.0%
22.7%
8.0%
1.1%
1.1%

Ireland
2.0%
20.4%
46.9%
24.5%
6.1%
Turkey
31.8%
40.9%
9.1%
9.1%
9.1%

Denmark
2.0%
28.0%
44.0%
20.0%
6.0%
Romania
76.5%
18.6%
2.0%
2.9%
–

Sweden
2.2%
49.5%
35.2%
5.5%
7.7%
Ukraine
74.2%
17.7%
4.8%
1.6%
1.6%

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,611
PR
professionals
from
20
countries.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic

annual
salary
fall?

105
EACD
members
enjoy
a
comparaPvely
high
annual
salary

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,895
PR
professionals.
Q
33:
In
which
of
the
following
bands
does
your
basic
annual
salary
fall?

Q
31:
Are
you
a
member
of
a
professional
organisaPon?
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01,
Cramér's
V
=
0.298).

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

up
to

€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

-‐

€125,000
€125,001

-‐

€150,000
€150,001

-‐

€200,000
€200,001

-‐

€300,000
more
than

€300,000

EACD
members
Other
communicaPon
professionals

Characteris=cs
of
excellent

communica=on
func=ons

107
Chapter
overview

The
ECM
2014
introduced
a
new
method
to
idenPfy
excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
(Zerfass
et
al.,
2014:
132-‐149;
Verčič
&
Zerfass,

2015),
combining
conceptual
consideraPons
with
self-‐assessments
of
communicaPon
professionals
and
staPsPcal
analyses
to
idenPfy
the

characterisPcs
which
make
a
diﬀerence.
The
method
was
applied
again
this
year
to
divide
between
organisaPons
with
excellent
commu-‐nicaPon
funcPons
( Grunig ,
1992;
Grunig
et
al.,
2002)
and
all
other
organisaPons.
Excellence
is
based
on
the
internal
standing
of
the

communicaPon
funcPon
within
the
organisaPon
(inﬂuence)
and
external
results
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon’s
acPviPes
as
well
as
the
funcPon’s
basic
qualiﬁcaPons
(performance).
Each
of
these
two
components
were
calculated
on
the
basis
of
four
dimensions,
the
ﬁrst
on

advisory
inﬂuence
(where
senior
managers
take
the
recommendaPons
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
seriously)
and
execuPve
inﬂuence

(where
communicaPon
will
likely
be
invited
to
senior-‐level
meePngs
dealing
with
organisaPonal
strategic
planning),
and
the
second
on
overall
communicaPon
success
(where
the
communicaPon
of
the
organisaPon
is
successful)
and
department
competence
(where
the
quality
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
is
bemer
compared
to
those
of
compePng
organisaPons).
Only
organisaPons
clearly
outperforming

in
all
four
dimensions
are
considered
as
excellent
in
the
benchmark
exercise.
This
year
we
idenPﬁed
nearly
the
same
percentage
of

excellent
communicaPons
funcPons
(23.0
per
cent
2015)
like
in
the
2014
monitor
survey
(21.2
per
cent)
(Zerfass
et
al.,
2014:
135).

Excellent
communicaPon
departments
use
mass
media
and
their
products
more
frequently,
they
help
to
reach
overall
goals
more

open
than
other
communicaPon
funcPons/departments,
they
have
professionals
with
higher
levels
of
experience
in
evaluaPon
pracPces,

and
they
are
more
acPve
in
using
insights
from
communicaPon
measurement
in
their
organisaPons.
They
are
also
more
likely
to,
and
will
with
increased
frequency,
collaborate
with
other
funcPons
and
departments
within
the
organisaPon .

InteresPngly,
excellent
communicaPon
departments
also
hire
agencies
and
consultancies
for
diﬀerent
reasons
than
other
communi-‐
caPon
funcPons.
They
hire
support
more
open
for
creaPvity
and
innovaPon,
experPse
regarding
speciﬁc
geographies
or
markets,
strategic
insight,
objecPve
counsel
and
for
explaining
/
understanding
communicaPon
trends
and
new
instruments.
Other,
non-‐excellent
depart-‐ments
more
open
hire
agencies
because
they
are
not
allowed
to
hire
addiPonal
staﬀ
internally,
because
agencies
are
cheaper
than
adding
staﬀ,
so
they
are
saving
money.
Excellent
departments
take
the
lead
in
organisaPonal
listening
within
their
organisaPons
and
they
also

engage
with
more
techniques
for
listening.
Excellent
departments
are
more
likely
to
have
listening
strategies
(73.3
per
cent)
when

compared
with
other
communicaPon
funcPons
(50.1
per
cent),
and
they
use
more
advanced
methods
of
listening
and
deﬁne
listening
objecPves.

Last
but
not
least,
an
important
amribute
of
excellence
as
idenPﬁed
by
this
study
is
the
ability
to
explain
the
value
of
communicaPon

to
top
execuPves
by
using
arguments
related
to
economic
success
and
the
beneﬁt
of
listening
to
stakeholders.
While
excellent
depart-‐ments
use
all
modes
of
explanaPon
more
intensively,
they
diﬀerenPate
most
in
those
two
dimensions
and
in
the
recollecPon
of
threats
caused
by
troubled
relaPonships
and
crises.
This
indicates
that
communicaPon
management
has
to
be
conceptualised
as
a
strategic
discipline,
incorporaPng
both
messaging
and
listening,
with
a
clear
commitment
to
demonstrate
and
evaluate
the
contribuPon
to
overall
organisaPonal
goals.

108
IdenPfying
excellent
communicaPon
funcPons

EXCELLENCE

CommunicaPon
funcPons
in
organisaPons
which
outperform
others
in
the
ﬁeld

INFLUENCE

Internal
standing
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon

within
the
organisaPon

ADVISORY
INFLUENCE

(Q22)

Senior
managers
take

recommendaPons
of
the

communicaPon
funcPon

(very)
seriously

EXECUTIVE
INFLUENCE

(Q23)

CommunicaPon
will
(very)
likely

be
invited
to
senior-‐level

meePngs
dealing
with

organisaPonal
strategic
planning

PERFORMANCE

External
results
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon’s

acPviPes
and
its
basic
qualiﬁcaPons

SUCCESS

(Q24)

The
communicaPon
of
the

organisaPon
in
general
is

(very)
successful

COMPETENCE

(Q25)

The
quality
and
ability
of
the

communicaPon
funcPon
is
(much)

bemer
compared
to
those
of

compePng
organisaPons
Sta0s0cal
analyses
are
used
to
iden0fy
excellent
organisa0ons,
based
on

benchmarking
approaches
and
self-‐assessments
known
from
quality
management

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
Only
organisaPons
outperforming
in
all
four
dimensions
(scale
points
6-‐7
on
a
7-‐point-‐scale)
will
be

considered
as
“excellent”
in
the
benchmark
exercise
comparing
distribuPon
and
characterisPcs
of
organisaPons,
funcPons
and
communicaPon
professionals.

109
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons

0.7%
3.6%
5.9%
14.1%
31.6%
32.9%
11.2%
Success

Not
successful
at
all
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Very
successful
(7)

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Advisory
inﬂuence,
Q
22:
In
your
organisaPon,

how
seriously
do
senior
managers
take
the
recommendaPons
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon?
ExecuPve
inﬂuence,
Q
23:
H ow
likely
is
it
that
communicaPon

would
be
invited
to
senior-‐level
meePngs
dealing
with
organisaPonal
strategic
planning?
Success,
Q
24:
In
your
opinion,
how
successful
is
the
communicaPon
of

your
organisaPon
in
general?
Competence,
Q
25:
How
would
you
esPmate
the
quality
and
ability
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
compared

to
those
of
compePtors?
Scale
1
−
7
(wording
see
above).
Percentages:
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
based
on
scale
points
6-‐7
for
each
quesPon.

0.9%
2.1%
7.7%
18.0%
26.4%
30.2%
14.7%
Competence

Much
worse
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Much
bemer
(7)
1.9%
3.2%
4.6%
10.9%
20.9%
34.9%
23.5%
Advisory
inﬂuence

Not
seriously
at
all
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Very
seriously
(7)

2.7%
5.4%
5.6%
10.9%
18.9%
31.0%
25.4%
Execu0ve
inﬂuence

Never
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Always
(7)
Excellent

communicaPon

funcPons

23.0%

Other

communicaPon

funcPons

77.0%

110
InﬂuenPal
communicaPon
funcPons:

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons
are
leading
the
ﬁeld

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Advisory
inﬂuence,
Q
22:
In
your

organisaPon,
how
seriously
do
senior
managers
take
the
recommendaPons
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon?
Scale
1
(not
seriously)
−
7
(very
seriously).
ExecuPve
inﬂuence,
Q
23:
How
likely
is
it
that
communicaPon
would
be
invited
to
senior-‐level
meePngs
dealing
with
organisaPonal
strategic
planning?

Scale
1
(never)
−
7
(always).
Percentages:
InﬂuenPal
communicaPon
funcPons,
based
on
scale
points
6-‐7.

45.4%

48.5%

39.7%

50.4%
54.6%

51.5%

60.3%

49.6%
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

InﬂuenPal
communicaPon
funcPons
Others

111
Successful
communicaPon
funcPons:

companies
are
clearly
ahead
of
other
types
of
organisaPon

49.5%
50.5%
Joint
stock
companies

44.9%
55.1%
Private
companies

41.6%
58.4%
Non-‐proﬁt
organisa0ons
Successful

communicaPon

funcPons

Others

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
24:
In
your
opinion,
how
successful

is
the
communicaPon
of
your
organisaPon
in
general?
Percentages:
Successful
organisaPonal
communicaPon
based
on
scale
points
6-‐7.
Highly
signiﬁcant

diﬀerences
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01,
Cramér's
V
=
0.097).

37.2%
62.8%
Governmental
organisa0ons

112
Competent
communicaPon
funcPons:

bemer
quality
and
ability
is
most
prevalent
in
corporaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
25:
How
would
you
esPmate
the
quality

and

ability
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
compared
to
those
of
compePtors?
Percentages:
Competent
communicaPon
funcPons
based

on
scale
points
6-‐7.
47.2%

47.0%

42.2%

40.8%
52.8%

53.0%

57.8%

59.2%
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Governmental
organisaPons

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Competent
communicaPon
funcPons
Others

113
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
in
diﬀerent
types
of
organisaPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=
1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments
across
Europe.
Excellence
based
on

advisory
and
execuPve
inﬂuence
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon
within
the
organisaPon
and
its
performance
(success
and
competence);
see
page
108.
26.2%

21.8%

21.6%

20.4%
73.8%

78.2%

78.4%

79.6%

0%
100%
Joint
stock
companies

Private
companies

Non-‐proﬁt
organisaPons

Governmental

organisaPons

Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Other
communicaPon
funcPons

114
Alignment
of
the
communicaPon
funcPon:

Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
between
excellent
departments
and
others

33.4%

24.3%
61.1%

59.4%
5.4%

16.2%
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons

Other
communicaPon
funcPons

is
a
member
of
the
execuPve
board
(strongly
aligned
funcPon)

reports
directly
to
the
CEO
or
top-‐decision
maker
(aligned
funcPon)

does
not
report
directly
to
the
CEO
or
top
decision-‐maker
(weakly
aligned
funcPon)
The
top
communica0on
manager
/
chief
communica0on
oﬃcer
…

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments
across
Europe.
Q
21:
Within
your

organisaPon,
the
top

communicaPon
manager
or
chief
communicaPon
oﬃcer
…
is
a
member
of
the
execuPve
board

(strongly
aligned)/
reports
directly

to
the
CEO
or
highest
decision-‐maker
on
the
execuPve

board
(aligned)
/
does
not
report
directly
to
the
CEO
or
highest
decision-‐maker
(weakly
aligned).
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Kendall
rank
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01,
τ
=
0.126).

115
Excellent
communicaPon
departments
collaborate
more
intensively
with

the
mass
media,
especially
in
producing
joint
content

3.97

3.95

3.86

3.48

3.02

2.83
4.30

4.27

4.17

3.92

3.33

3.31

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Inﬂuence
gatekeepers ,
the
media

agenda
and
stakeholders
**

Monitor
news

and
public
opinion
**

Spread
informaPon
about
the
organisaPon ,

its
products
or
services
**

Evaluate
media
coverage
of
the

organisaPon ,
its
products
or
services
**

Source
content
for

internal
news
services
**

Never
Always
Jointly
produce
quality
content

and/or
create
topical
plaaorms
**

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,589
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
2:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
interact

with
the
mass
media?
My
organisaPon
use
mass
media
and
their
products
to
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.05).
3.0

Δ
0.31
Δ
0.44
Δ
0.31
Δ
0.32
Δ
0.33

Δ
0.48
Ra0onales
for
working
with
the
mass
media

116
Excellent
communicaPon
departments
are
strongly
convinced
that
they

contribute
to
overall
organisaPonal
goals

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,600
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
7:
How
do
you
and
your
department

help
to
reach
the
overall
goals
of
your
organisaPon?
Scale
1
(Rarely)
–
5
(Very
open).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,

p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.05).

3.97

3.48

3.42

3.26
4.34

3.97

4.03

3.86

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
We
help
to

adjust
organisaPonal

strategies
**
We
build

immaterial
assets
**

We
facilitate

business
processes
**

Rarely
Very
open
We
secure
room

for
manoeuvre
**

3.0

Δ
0.37

Δ
0.49

Δ
0.61

Δ
0.60
How
communica0on
helps
to
reach
overall
objec0ves

117
4.11

3.61

3.35

3.43

3.30

3.32
4.36

3.89

3.67

3.66

3.61

3.56

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Explaining
the
role
of
content

and
‚thought
leadership ‘
for

organisaPonal
goals
**
Explaining
posiPve
eﬀects
of

good
reputaPon ,
organisaPonal

culture
and
brands
**

IllustraPng
the
beneﬁts
of

listening
to
stakeholders
and

idenPfying
opportuniPes
**

DemonstraPng
posiPve
economic

consequences
(i.e.
eﬀects
on
sales

or
employee
moPvaPon )
**

PoinPng
out
the
demand
for

communicaPon
and
transparency

by
the
mass
media
**
Reminding
of
threats
caused
by

troubled
relaPonships
and

communicaPon
crises
**
Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon:
excellent
departments
use
arguments

related
to
economic
success,
threats
and
beneﬁts
of
listening
more
open

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
6:
How
do
you
usually
argue

for
the
relevance
of
strategic
communicaPon
when
addressing
top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.

**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).
Always
Never
3.0
5.0
Δ
0.31
Δ
0.23
Δ
0.32
Δ
0.28
Δ
0.25

Δ
0.24

118
Formal
strategies
are
more
prevalent
in
excellent
communicaPon
departments;

listening
strategies
are
implemented
more
open

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,487
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
8:
Does
your
organisaPon
have

one
or
more
of
the
following
strategies?
Scale
1
(Yes)
–
2
(No)
–
3
(Don’t
know).
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

for
all
items
(chi-‐square
test,
p
≤
0.01).
93.4%

87.5%

73.3%
82.1%

75.5%

50.1%
Overall
communicaPon
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
communicaPon
goals,
stakeholders,
key
instruments,

etc.
for
the
organisaPon
or
for
speciﬁc
products/services,

persons;
etc.)

Messaging
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
topics,
wordings,
stories,
target
audiences,
etc.;

instruments
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders;

processes
to
integrate
content
and
design;
etc.)

Listening
strategy
or
strategies

(deﬁning
contact
points
for
collecPng
feedback;
instruments
to

listen
to
stakeholders,
to
monitor
discussions,
iniPate
dialogue

and
integrate
the
knowledge
gained
etc.)

Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Other
communicaPon
funcPons

119
Excellent
departments
claim
to
take
the
lead
in
organisaPonal
listening

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,442
PR
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
9:
Which
three
(3)
funcPons
in
your

organisaPon
are
forerunners
in
systemaPcally
listening
to
their
respecPve
stakeholders
(based
on
competencies,
experiences,
strategies,
and
instruments

implemented)?
Max.
3
selecPons
per
respondent .

81.5%

51.8%

46.6%

21.2%

37.9%

13.4%

25.7%
72.0%

47.9%

44.3%

25.3%

33.9%

16.5%

22.4%
Corporate
communicaPons
/
PR

MarkePng
/
Sales

Customer
relaPons

Human
resources

Corporate
strategy
/
OrganisaPonal
development

InformaPon
technology
/
Data
management

InnovaPon
management
/
Research
&
development
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Organisa0onal
func0ons
who
are
forerunners
in
listening
to
stakeholders

120
OrganisaPonal
listening:
excellent
departments
use
a
greater
number
of

techniques
as
well
as
applying
more
advanced
modes
of
listening

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,406
PR
professional
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
10:
Which
of
the
following
[listening

objecPves
and
instruments]
have
been
implemented
in
your
organisaPon?
Percentages:
Based
on
agreement
to
each
item.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for

all
items
(Kendall
rank
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).
89.2%

76.6%

72.0%

68.6%

64.2%

54.1%

53.3%

55.0%
82.6%

65.8%

53.5%

54.8%

49.8%

34.8%

40.0%

32.3%
Media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Social
media
monitoring
on
a
regular
basis

Issues
monitoring
and
management

Ad
hoc
listening
acPviPes
(monitoring,
surveys,
dialogues,
etc.)

Stakeholder
dialogues
on
a
regular
basis

Stakeholder
research
on
a
regular
basis

Listening
tasks
as
part
of
your
personal
job
descripPon

Listening
tasks
as
explicit
objecPve
for
the
communicaPon

department
or
agency

Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Structures
and
techniques
implemented

121
CommunicaPon
measurement:
excellent
departments
monitor
and
evaluate

more
intensively;
they
are
much
bemer
in
assessing
business
impact

Items
monitored
or
measured
Excellent

communicaPon
funcPons
Other

communicaPon
funcPons
Δ

Impact
on
intangible/tangible
resources

(i.e.
economic
brand
value)
3.30
2.79
0.51

Impact
on
ﬁnancial/strategic
targets

(i.e.
with
scorecards,
strategy
maps)
3.44
2.85
0.59

Stakeholder
atudes
and
behaviour
change
3.73
3.15
0.58

Understanding
of
key
messages
3.94
3.27
0.67

Clippings
and
media
response
4.61
4.25
0.36

Internet
/
Intranet
usage
4.21
3.84
0.37

SaPsfacPon
of
internal
clients
3.99
3.48
0.51

Process
quality
(internal
workﬂow)
3.40
2.94
0.46

Financial
costs
for
projects
4.07
3.85
0.22

Personnel
costs
for
projects
3.41
3.12
0.29

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
min
=

1,496
professionals
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
12:
Which
items
are
monitored
or

measured
by
your
organisaPon
to
assess
the
eﬀecPveness
of
communicaPon
management
/
public
relaPons?
Scale
1
(Do
not
use
at
all)
–
5
(Use
conPnuously).

Mean
values.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).

Input Output Outcome Outflow

122
Measurement
and
evaluaPon
skills:
professionals
working
in
excellent

departments
are
more
experienced

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,430
PR
professional
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
13:
How
would
you
rate
your
personal

capabiliPes
in
the
following
areas?
Scale
1
(No
experience
at
all)
–
5
(Very
high
level
experience).
Mean
values.
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items

(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).

3.43

3.33

3.31

3.29

3.13

3.12

2.69

2.64

2.52
3.70

3.65

3.70

3.46

3.54

3.41

3.06

3.22

3.03

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Analysing
processes

and
workﬂows

Compiling
and
interprePng
data

Developing
and
managing
surveys

DeconstrucPng
and

analysing
budgets

Running
focus
groups

No
experience
at
at
all
Very
high
level
experience
ConstrucPng
communicaPon

scorecards

Running
internet
and
social

media
analyPcs

Performing
content
analyses

CalculaPng
reputaPon

value
/
brand
value

Δ
0.27

Δ
0.32

Δ
0.39

Δ
0.17

Δ
0.41

Δ
0.29

Δ
0.37

Δ
0.58

Δ
0.51
3.0

Personal
capabili0es
in
communica0on
measurement

123
Excellent
communicaPon
departments
use
measurement
insights
more

frequently
for
managing
their
acPviPes

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professional
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
14:
How
are
insights
from
communicaPon

measurement
used
in
your
organisaPon?
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
for
all
items
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).

3.70

3.60

3.47

3.43

3.02
4.21

4.14

4.05

3.98

3.70

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Explaining
the
value
of
communicaPon
to

top
execuPves
and
(internal)
clients

EvaluaPng
the
success
of

communicaPon
acPviPes

Planning
upcoming

communicaPon
acPviPes

Never
Always
ReﬂecPng
goals
and
direcPons
of

communicaPon
strategies

Leading
communicaPon
teams
and

steering
agencies /service

providers

3.0

Δ
0.51

Δ
0.54

Δ
0.58

Δ
0.55

Δ
0.68
Measurement
data
and
reports
are
used
for
…

124
Excellent
departments
collaborate
more
intensively
with
the
board

and
other
organisaPonal
funcPons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,601
PR
professional
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
17:
How
closely
does
the
communicaPon

funcPon
in
your
organisaPon
work
with
the
…
Scale
1
(Never)
–
5
(Always).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).
*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.05).

4.24

3.98

3.86

3.43

3.37

3.06

3.01

2.41
4.69

4.53

4.33

4.11

3.90

3.68

3.70

3.01

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
Human
resources
department
**

CEO
/
president

(highest
ranking
execuPve )
*

Other
members
of
the

execuPve
board
*

Strategy
and
organisaPonal

development
unit

Legal

department
**

Financial
department
**

MarkePng
department
**

AudiPng
and

controlling
unit
**
Δ
0.45

Never
Always
3.0

Δ
0.55

Δ
0.47
Δ
0.68

Δ
0.53

Δ
0.62

Δ
0.69

Δ
0.60
The
communica0on
func0on
works
always
closely
with
the
…

125
Departments
with
excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
hire
agencies

for
diﬀerent
reasons

www.communicaPonmonitor.eu
/
Zerfass
et
al.
2015
/
n
=

1,277
PR
professional
in
communicaPon
departments.
Q
19-‐C:
Why
does
your
organisaPon
work

with
agencies,
freelancers
and
communicaPon
consultants?
Scale
1
(Not
important
at
all)
–
5
(Very
important).
Mean
values.
**
Highly
signiﬁcant
diﬀerences

(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.01).*
Signiﬁcant
diﬀerences
(Pearson
correlaPon,
p
≤
0.05).

3.96

3.95

3.30

3.31

3.29

3.20

3.15

2.99

2.61
4.05

3.95

3.46

3.43

3.44

3.38

2.85

2.92

2.53

Other
communicaPon
funcPons
Excellent
communicaPon
funcPons
ObjecPve ,
independent
counsel
CreaPvity
and
innovaPon

AddiPonal
' arms
and
legs'

Strategic
insight

Cheaper
than
adding
staﬀ;
saving
money

Not
important
at
all
Very
important
Explaining
/
understanding
communicaPon

trends
and
new
instruments
*

ExperPse
regarding
speciﬁc

geographies
or
markets
*

Support
in
explaining
communicaPon

strategies
to
top
execuPves
Not
allowed
to
hire
addiPonal

people
internally
**

Δ
0.09

3.0

Δ
0.00

Δ
0.16

Δ
0.12

Δ
0.15

Δ
0.18

Δ
0.30

Δ
0.07

Δ
0.08
Why
organisa0ons
work
with
agencies
and
communica0on
consultants

126
References

Bourland ,
P.
G.
(1993).
The
nature
of
conﬂict
in
ﬁrm-‐client
relaPons:
A
content
analysis
of
public
relaPons
journals
1980-‐1989.
Public
Rela0ons

Review,
19(4),
385-‐398.

Bull,
A.
(2013).
Brand
journalism.
New
York,
NY:
Routledge.

Cornelissen,
J.,
van
Bekkum,
T.,
&
van
Ruler,
B.
(2013).
Corporate
CommunicaPons:
A
PracPce-‐based
TheorePcal
ConceptualizaPon.
Corporate

Reputa0on
Review,
9(2),
114-‐133.

DPRG
&
ICV.
(2011).
Posi0on
paper
Communica0on
Controlling
–
How
to
maximize
and
demonstrate
the
value
crea0on
through
communica0on.

Bonn,
GauPng:
Deutsche
Public
RelaPons
Gesellschap
/
InternaPonaler
Controller-‐Verein .

Eagle,
L.,
Dahl,
S.,
Czarnecka ,
B.,
&
Lloyd,
J.
(2015).
Marke0ng
communica0ons.
London:
Routledge.

Fielden,
S.
L.,
Tench,
R.,
&
Fawkes,
J.
(2003).
Freelance
communicaPons
workers
in
the
UK:
The
impact
of
gender
on
well-‐being.
Corporate

Communica0ons:
An
Interna0onal
Journal,
8(3),
187-‐196.

Grunig ,
J.
E.
(Ed.).
(1992).
Excellence
in
public
rela0ons
and
communica0on
management.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.

Grunig ,
L.,
Grunig ,
J.,
&
Dozier,
D.
(2002).
Excellent
public
rela0ons
and
eﬀec0ve
organiza0ons:
A
study
of
communica0on
management
in
three

countries.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.

Grunig ,
L.
A.,
Hon,
L.
C.
&
Toth,
E.
L.
(2001).
Women
in
public
rela0ons:
How
gender
inﬂuences
prac0ce .
New
York,
NY:
Guilford
Press.

Hallahan ,
K.
(2014).
Publicity
under
siege:
A
criPcal
comparison
and
analysis
of
content
markePng,
brand
journalism,
naPve
adverPsing
and
user-‐
generated
content
as
challenges
to
professional
pracPce
and
transparency.
In
Y.
G.
Ji,
J.
H.
Liu
&
Z.
C.
Li
(Eds.),
Public
rela0ons
in
a
more

transparent
age.
17th
Interna0onal
Public
Rela0ons
Research
Conference
(pp.
391-‐437).
Miami,
FL:
IPRRC.

Hallahan ,
K.,
Holtzhausen ,
D.,
van
Ruler,
B.,
Verčic ̌,
D.,
&
Sriramesh ,
K.
(2007).
Deﬁning
strategic
communicaPon,
Interna0onal
Journal
of

Strategic
Communica0on,
1(1),
3-‐35.

Halvorson,
K.,
&
Rach,
M.
(2012).
Content
strategy
for
the
web
(2nd
ed.).
Berkeley,
CA:
New
Riders.

Ihlen,
Ø.,
&
Pallas,
J.
(2014).
MediaPzaPon
of
corporaPons.
In
K.
Lundby
(Ed.),
Handbook
on
media0za0on
of
communica0on
(pp.
423-‐441).

Berlin:
De
Gruyter
Mouton.

Kiesenbauer ,
J.,
&
Zerfass,
A.

(2015).
Today’s
and
tomorrow’s
challenges
in
corporate
communicaPons:
Comparing
the
views
of
chief

communicaPon
oﬃcers
and
next
generaPon
leaders.
Public
Rela0ons
Review,
in
press.

Light,
L.
(2014,
July
21).
Brand
journalism
is
a
modern
markePng
imperaPve.
AdAge .
Retrieved
from
hmp://adage.com/arPcle/guest-‐columnists/
brand-‐journalism-‐a-‐modern-‐markePng-‐imperaPve/294206/.

127
References

Macnamara,
J.
(2013).
Beyond
voice.
Audience-‐making
and
the
work
and
architecture
of
listening.
Con0nuum:
Journal
of
Media
and
Cultural

Studies,
27(1),
160-‐175.

Macnamara,
J.
(2014a).
Journalism
and
PR:
Unpacking
'spin',
stereotypes
&
media
myths.
New
York,
NY:
Peter
Lang.

Macnamara,
J.
(2014b).
Journalism-‐PR
relaPons
revisited:
The
good
news,
the
bad
news,
and
insights
into
tomorrow’s
news.
Public
Rela0ons

Review,
40(5),
739-‐750.

Macnamara,
J.
(2014c).
OrganisaPonal
listening:
A
vital
missing
element
in
public
communicaPon
and
the
public
sphere.
Asia
Paciﬁc
Public

Rela0ons
Journal,
15(1),
89-‐108.

Murphy,
P.,
&
Maynard,
M.
(1997).
Using
decision
proﬁles
to
analyse
adverPsing
agency
and
client
conﬂict.
Journal
of
Communica0on

Management,
1(3),
231-‐246.

Pestana ,
R.,
&
Daniels,
M.
(2011).
Valid
metrics
workshop.
Paper
presented
at
the
3rd
European
Summit
on
Measurement,
Lisbon,
Portugal,

June
2011.
Retrieved
from
hmp://amecorg.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2011/12/Lisbon-‐Summit-‐Vaild-‐Metrics-‐Workshop-‐3-‐June-‐2011.pdf

Pulizzi ,
J.
(2014).
Epic
content
marke0ng:
How
to
tell
a
diﬀerent
story,
break
through
the
cluner
&
win
more
customers
by
marke0ng
less.
New

York,
NY:
McGraw
Hill.

Rockley,
A.,
&
Cooper,
C.
(2012).
Managing
enterprise
content:
A
uniﬁed
content
strategy
(2nd
ed.).
Berkeley,
CA:
New
Riders.

Smith,
B.
G.
(2012).
CommunicaPon
integraPon:
An
analysis
of
context
and
condiPons.
Public
Rela0ons
Review,
38(4),
600-‐608.

Steyn ,
B.
(2007).
ContribuPon
of
public
relaPons
to
organizaPonal
strategy
formulaPon.
In
E.
L.
Toth
(Ed.).
The
Future
of
Excellence
in
Public

Rela0ons
and
Communica0on
Management
(pp.
138-‐172).
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.

Supa,
D.
(2014).
The
academic
inquiry
of
media
relaPons
as
both
a
tacPcal
and
strategic
funcPon
of
public
relaPons.
Research
Journal
of
The

Ins0tute
for
Public
Rela0ons,
1 (1).
Retrieved
from
www.insPtuteforpr.org/research-‐journal/.

Tench,
R.,
Fawkes,
J.,
&
Palihawadana ,
D.
(2002).
Freelancing:
issues
and
trends
for
public
relaPons
pracPce.
Journal
of
Communica0on

Management,
6(4),
311-‐322.

Tench,
R.
&
Laville,
L.
(2014).
Role
of
the
public
relaPons
pracPPoner.
In
R.
Tench
&
L.
Yeomans,
Exploring
Public
Rela0ons
(3rd.
ed.,
pp.

83-‐120).
Harlow:
FT
Pearson.

United
Na=ons
Sta=s=cs
Division
(2013).
Composi0on
of
Macro
Geographical
(Con0nental)
Regions,
Geographical
Sub
Regions,
and
selected

Economic
and
other
Groupings
(revised
31
October
2013).
New
York,
NY:
United
NaPons.
Available
at
hmp://unstats.un.org/unsd/
methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe.

128
References

Verčič ,
D.,
&
Grunig ,
J.
E.
(2002).
The
origins
of
public
relaPons
theory
in
economics
and
strategic
management.
In
D.
Moss,
D.
Verčič
&
G.

Warnaby
(Eds.),
PerspecPves
on
public
relaPons
research
(pp.
9-‐58).
New
York,
NY:
Routledge.

Verčič ,
D.,
&
Tkalac
Verčič ,
A.
(2015).
Reﬂexive
MediaPsaPon
and
the
Remaking
of
the
Middleman.
Public
Rela0ons
Review,
in
press.

Verčič ,
D.,
Verhoeven,
P.,
&
Zerfass,
A.
(2014).
Key
issues
of
public
relaPons
of
Europe:
Findings
from
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor

2007-‐2014.

Revista
Internacionales
de
Relaciones
Públicas,
4(8),
5-‐26.

Verčič ,
D.,
&
Zerfass,
A.
(2015).
The
compara0ve
excellence
framework
for
communica0on
management.
Paper
accepted
for
presentaPon
at
the

2015
Annual
Conference
of
the
European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon
and
Research
AssociaPon
(EUPRERA),
Oslo,
October
2015.

Watson,
T.
(2012).
The
evoluPon
of
public
relaPons
measurement
and
evaluaPon.
Public
Rela0ons
Review,
38(3),
390-‐398.

Watson,
T.,
&
Noble,
P.
(2014).
Evalua0ng
Public
Rela0ons.
A
guide
to
planning,
research
and
measurement
(3rd.
ed.).
London:
Kogan
Page.

Willis,
P.
(2012).
Engaging
communiPes:
Ostrom's
economic
commons,
social
capital
and
public
relaPons.
Public
Rela0ons
Review,
38(1),

116-‐122.

Zerfass,
A.
(2010).
Assuring
raPonality
and
transparency
in
corporate
communicaPons.
TheorePcal
foundaPons
and
empirical
ﬁndings
on

communicaPon
controlling
and
communicaPon
performance
management.
In
M.
D.
Dodd
&
K.
Yamamura
(Eds.),
Ethical
Issues
for
Public

Rela0ons
Prac0ce
in
a
Mul0cultural
World,
13th
Interna0onal
Public
Rela0ons
Research
Conference
(pp.
947-‐966),
Gainesville,
FL:
IPR.

Zerfass,
A.,
&
Dühring ,
L.
(2012 ).
Between
convergence
and
power
struggles:
How
public
relaPons
and
markePng
communicaPons
professionals

interact
in
corporate
brand
management.
Public
Rela0ons
Journal,
6 (5),
1-‐31.

Zerfass,
A.,
Tench ,
R.,
Vercic ,
D.,
Verhoeven,
P.,
&
Moreno,
A.
(2014).
European
Communica0on
Monitor
2014.
Excellence
in
Strategic

Communica0on
–
Key
Issues,
Leadership,
Gender
and
Mobile
Media.

Results
of
a
Survey
in
42
Countries.
Brussels:
EACD/EUPRERA,
Helios

Media.

Zerfass,
A.,
Tench ,
R.,
Verhoeven,
P.,
Verčič ,
D.,
&
Moreno,
A.
(2010).
European
Communica0on
Monitor
2010.
Status
Quo
and
Challenges
for

Public
Rela0ons
in
Europe.
Results
of
an
Empirical
Survey
in
46
Countries.
Brussels:
EACD,
EUPRERA.

Zerfass,
A.,
Verčič ,
D.,
Verhoeven,
P.,
Moreno,
A.,
&
Tench ,
R.
(2012).
European
Communica0on
Monitor
2012.
Challenges
and
Competencies

for
Strategic
Communica0on.

Results
of
an
Empirical
Survey
in
42
Countries .
Brussels:
EACD,
EUPRERA.

Zerfass,
A.,
Verhoeven,
P.,
Tench,
R.,
Moreno,
A.,
&
Verčič,
D.
(2011).
European
Communica0on
Monitor
2011.
Empirical
Insights
into
Strategic

Communica0on
in
Europe.
Results
of
an
Empirical
Survey
in
43
Countries.
Brussels:
EACD,
EUPRERA.

Zoch,
L.
M.,
&
Molleda,
J.
C.
(2006).
Building
a
theorePcal
model
of
media
relaPons
using
framing,
informaPon
subsidies,
and
agenda
building.

In
C.
H.
Botan
&
V.
Hazleton
(Eds.),
Public
Rela0ons
Theory
II
(pp.
279-‐310).
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.

129
Survey
organisers

European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon

and
Research
AssociaPon
(EUPRERA)

The
European
Public
RelaPons
EducaPon

and
Research
AssociaPon
(EUPRERA)
is

an
autonomous
organisaPon
with
nearly

500
members
from
40
countries
interest-‐
ed
in
advancing
academic
research
and

knowledge
in
strategic
communicaPon.

Several
cross-‐naPonal
and
comparaPve

research
and
educaPon
projects
are

organised
by
aﬃliated
universiPes,
and
a
highly
regarded
academic
congress
is

staged
each
autumn
at
varying
locaPons.

www.euprera.org
European
AssociaPon
of

CommunicaPon
Directors
(EACD)

The
EACD
is
the
leading
network
for

communicaPon
professionals
across

Europe
with
more
than
2,300
members.

It
brings
in-‐house
communicaPon

experts
together
to
exchange
ideas
and

discuss
the
latest
trends
in
internaPonal
PR.
Through
Working
Groups
on
speciﬁc

communicaPons
topics
and
diverse

publicaPons,
the
EACD
fosters
ongoing
professional
qualiﬁcaPon
and
promotes

the
reputaPon
of
the
profession.

www.eacd-‐online.eu

CommunicaPon
Director

CommunicaPon
Director
is
a

quarterly
internaPonal
magazine
for

Corporate
CommunicaPons
and
Public

RelaPons.
It
documents
opinions
on

strategic
quesPons
in
communicaPon,

highlights
transnaPonal
developments

and
discusses
them
from
an

internaPonal
perspecPve.
The

magazine
is
published
by
Helios
Media,
a
specialist
publishing
house

based
in
Berlin
and
Brussels.

www.communica0on-‐director.eu

131

A
communicaPons
research
innovator,
PRIME
Research
ranks
among
the

largest
global
public
relaPons
research
ﬁrms
with
operaPons
in
nine
research

hubs
and
serving
clients
in
35
countries
in
the
Americas,
Western
and
Eastern
Europe,
the
Middle
East,
Africa,
Australia
and
Asia.
With
ﬁpeen
industry
pracPce
areas
as
well
as
a
complete
array
of
public
relaPons
research,
evaluaPon
and
consulPng
services,
PRIME
leverages
its
corporate
and
brand

reputaPon
research
experPse
to
foster
bemer
communicaPons
and
business

decision-‐making.

www.prime-‐research.com

Partner

132
NaPonal
contacts

EUPRERA
–
Research
collaborators

Please
contact
the
universiPes
listed
here
for
presentaPons,
insights
or
addiPonal
analyses
in
key
countries.

Austria
Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass
University
of
Leipzig
zerfass@uni-‐leipzig.de

Belgium
Prof.
Dr.
Andrea
Catellani
Université
Catholique
de
Louvain
andrea.catellani@uclouvain.be

Bulgaria
Prof.
Dr.
Milko
Petrov
Soﬁa
University
St.
Kliment
Ohridski
milko_petrov@yahoo.com

CroaPa
Prof.
Dr.
Dejan
Verčič
University
of
Ljubljana
dejan.vercic@fdv-‐uni-‐lj.si

Czech
Republic
Dr.
Denisa
Hejlová
Charles
University
Prague
hejilova@fsv.cuni.cz

Denmark
Prof.
Finn
Frandsen
Aarhus
University
ﬀ@asb.dk

Finland
Prof.
Dr.
Vilma
Luoma-‐aho
University
of
Jyväskylä
vilma.luoma-‐aho@jvu.ﬁ

France
Prof.
Dr.
Valérie
Carayol
Université
Bordeaux
Montaigne
valerie.carayol@u-‐bordeaux3.fr

Germany
Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass
University
of
Leipzig
zerfass@uni-‐leipzig.de

Greece
Ass.
Prof.
Dr.
Eleni
Apospori
Athens
University
of
Economics
and
Business
apospori@aueb.gr

Ireland
Dr.
John
Gallagher
Dublin
InsPtute
of
Technology
jpg@iol.ie

Italy
Prof.
Dr.
Emanuele
Invernizzi
IULM
University
Milan
emanuele.invernizzi@iulm.it

Netherlands
Assoc .
Prof.
Dr.
Piet
Verhoeven
University
of
Amsterdam
p.verhoeven@uva.nl

Norway
Prof.
Dr.
Øyvind
Ihlen
University
of
Oslo
oyvind.ihlen@media.uio.no

Poland
Assoc .
Prof.
Dr.
Waldemar
Rydzak
Poznan
University
of
Economics
waldemar.rydzak@ue.poznan.pl

Portugal
Evandro
Oliveira
University
of
Minho,
Braga
evandro.oliveira@uni-‐leipzig.de

Romania
Assoc .
Prof.
Dr.
Alexandra
Craciun
University
of
Bucharest
sandra_craciun@yahoo.com

Russia
Prof.
Dr.
Liudmila
Minaeva
Lomonosov
Moscow
State
University
liudmila.minaeva@gmail.com

Serbia
Prof.
Dr.
Dejan
Verčič
University
of
Ljubljana
dejan.vercic@fdv.uni-‐lj.si

Slovenia
Prof.
Dr.
Dejan
Verčič
University
of
Ljubljana
dejan.vercic@fdv.uni-‐lj.si

Spain
Prof.
Dr.
Ángeles
Moreno
Universidad
Rey
Juan
Carlos,
Madrid
mariaangeles.moreno@urjc.es

Sweden
Prof.
Dr.
Jesper
Falkheimer
Lund
University,
Campus
Helsingborg
jesper.falkheimer@ch.lu.se

Switzerland
Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass
University
of
Leipzig
zerfass@uni-‐leipzig.de

Turkey
Prof.
Dr.
Ayla
Okay
Istanbul
University
aylaokay@istanbul.edu.tr

United
Kingdom
Prof.
Ralph
Tench,
Dr.
Leeds
Metropolitan
University

r.tench@leedsmet.ac.uk

EACD
–
Regional
Coordinators

Please
contact
Vanessa
Eggert,
EACD,
Brussels,
for
details
about
EACD
country
representaPves
vanessa.eggert@eacd-‐online.eu

133
§ Prof.
Dr.
Ansgar
Zerfass
|
Lead
researcher

Professor
and
Chair
in
Strategic
CommunicaPon,
University
of
Leipzig,
Germany

Professor
in
CommunicaPon
and
Leadership,
BI
Norwegian
Business
School,
Norway

§ Prof.
Dr.
Dejan
Verčič

Professor
of
Public
RelaPons,
University
of
Ljubljana,
Slovenia

§ Prof.
Dr.
Piet
Verhoeven

Associate
Professor
of
Corporate
CommunicaPon,
University
of
Amsterdam,
Netherlands

§ Prof.
Dr.
Angeles
Moreno
Professor
of
Public
RelaPons
and
CommunicaPon
Management,
University
Rey
Juan
Carlos,
Madrid,
Spain

§ Prof.
Ralph
Tench,
Dr.
Professor
of
CommunicaPon,
Leeds
Beckem
University,
United
Kingdom

StaPsPcal
analysis
and
assistant
researchers

§ Markus
Wiesenberg
M.A.,
University
of
Leipzig,
Germany
(Senior
Project
Manager)

§ Ronny
Fechner
M.A.,
University
of
Leipzig,
Germany
Authors
&
Research
Team

134
A
large
selecPon
of
reports,
videos
and
publicaPons
based
on
the
European
CommunicaPon
Monitor
(ECM)

surveys
from
2007
onwards
are
available
on
the
internet.
Similar
surveys
are
conducted
in
other
regions
of

the
world
–
the
LaPn
American
CommunicaPon
Monitor
and
the
Asia-‐Paciﬁc
CommunicaPon
Monitor.

Visit
www.communica0onmonitor.eu
for
updates
and
links.
More
informaPon

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: Ecm2015 Results Chartversion (2) (1) [608377] (ID: 608377)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

Ecm2015 Results Chartversion (2) (1) [608377]

Copyright Notice

Introducere…………………………………………………………………………………4 Capitolul I: Apariția primelor icoane ……………………………………………………. 7 I.1 Simboluri premergătoare, apariția… [619363]

Polit ie Local a [613836]

Promovarea online a serviciilor de alimentație publică cu studiu de caz la Restaurantul Șarpele Roz [308684]

Donor Specific Dna A Noninvasive Biomarker Of Renal Allograft Failure Sinescu Ea Si El [613858]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect [627191]

TEHNOLOGIA INFORMA ğIEI [603653]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts