So says a report by Professor Ralph Tench from Leeds Met University. The report, claimed to be the largest of its kind, looked at European Communication Managers’ perceptions of the practice in 2008 and found that Europe is lagging behind the States on three types of influence measures:
| Type | Europe | US |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory influence PR recommendations taken seriously by senior management |
5.21 | 5.67 |
| Executive influence PR involved in decision making |
4.77 | 5.33 |
| Status discrepancy (difference between advisory and executive |
-0.44 | -0.34 |
The research was conducted among 37 European countries and some of the summary findings found:
- Online video and social networks will be the hottest emerging channels in 2009
- Three out of four PR professionals working in Europe are involved in Corporate Social Responsibility
- Strategy and measurement are highlighted as major issues for each of the 37 country respondents
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the European countries. I’ve heard both David Brain and Wolfgang Lunenburger mention on a number of occasions that Europe is not a country and chances are the results for the UK, with an established PR market, would be comparably better than those from an emerging European country where the practice is relatively new.
You can get the full report at http://www.communicationmonitor.eu/
Stephen is a communications consultant based out of the UK. You can connect with him on Twitter or check out his LinkedIn profile. | Email Stephen
Stumble it
Digg it
Deli.icio.us
Tweet this
Andrew Bruce Smith
Thanks for the tip on the report – interesting stuff. I see press clippings still remain the key measurement criteria everywhere – by a mile. In fact, it’s quoted companies that place highest reliance on this – 88.4pc.
Craig McGill
Stephen, it would look bad for us if we boasted about our influence as people would then be more distrusting, so this is our way of telling people not to be scared of us
Christian
Interesting stuff, and a very broad remit of research – one to digest at leisure. However, it’s not tremendously well presented, and whilst I salute them for using ANOVAs, they don’t use them all the way through, or point out where the findings *aren’t* significant. That’s really just as important as where they *are* – so for example, the findings you’ve quoted aren’t statistically significant, nor do they really explain what those numbers in the chart above really mean!
Also, looked at their methodology – they don’t actually mention surveying PR people in the USA at all – and it’s not entirely clear where they got that data from.There’s a reference at the back (and poorly footnoted on p16) to a US study, but it’s not very well explained. In short, I’m not entirely convinced – there are a lot of graphs, and very little in-depth explanation. A few paragraphs for ten graphs doesn’t count!