- Email: [email protected]
Do public relations managers and technicians value news releases differently?
Public Relations Review, 22(4): 355-368 ISSN: 0363-8111
Linda I? Morton
Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Do Public Relations Managers and TechniciansValueNews Releases Differently?
ABSTRACT: This survey of 220 randomly sampled members of Public Relations Society of America sought to determine if 179 respondents (SlOh response rate) valued news releases as a public relations tactic and if attitudes differed between manager and technician roles. It tested differences in responses by six independent variables-professional experience, salary, staff size, education, organization and activities-previously used to differentiate the roles. Although several items differed by levels of the independent variables, the only conclusive difference between the roles indicated that managers valued news releases more than technicians. Morton is an associate professor in the H.H. Herbert School of Journalism and Mass Communications at The University of Oklahoma. She has been researching news releases for more than a decade and has published numerous articles in Public Relations Review and other journals on news releases and other public relations topics.
Winter
1996
355
Public Relations Review
Many practitioners entered public relations because they enjoyed creative activities like writing news releases and designing publications. They learned these skills in college and spent much of their time on them in entry level positions. But as they advanced in their careers, they frequently found that they no longer had time for creative activities. In order to get promotions and salary increases, they had to move into public relations management roles, which required that they learned new skills and spent their time on public relations management activities. McGoon noted that only 18% of practitioners preferred public relations management activities. The majority preferred the more creative activities of technicians.1 Yet, public relations management roles lured them with higher salaries, more influence on policy, and greater job satisfaction.2 Did their desire for career progress change their views of the importance of creative activities? This study sought to answer this question concerning the creative activity of writing news releases. This desire to succeed coupled with emphasis on two-way communications should have resulted in a devaluing of writing and distributing news releases. However, Wakefield and Cottone found in 1987 that employers ranked writing news releases fifth of 38 knowledge/skill areas required of practitioners.3 Schluese estimated in 1988 that practitioners mailed 2.4 million news releases weekly.4 In 1993, Ramsey found that practitioners ranked producing “information for releases to the media” as their most important duty.5 In their 1991 study, Dozier and Broom proposed a theoretical model of the public relations management role. They linked several public relations variables to manager rather than technical roles. They defmed technicians as “‘journalists in residence,’ . . . hired for their writing and media expertise, . . concerned primarily with crafting and placing messages in the media. . . .“6 They classified half of their sample as technicians. Their classifications are important because they provide four independent variables-professional experience, salary, staff size, and education-that this study used to distinguish public relations technicians from managers. It also used two other distinguishing variables-activity and organization-from other roles research.7 Pvofissional lhpevience Druck and Hiebert noted that role changes were related to years of professional experience. They reported that senior professiunals had 17 or more years, professional managers had seven years, staffprofessionals (junior managers) had two years, and beginningprofessionals had less than two years of professional experience.8 Cutlip, Center and Broom noted similar differences between public relations roles: expert prescribers had 16 years, problem-solving facilitators had 15 years, communication facilitators had 13 years, and communication technicians had 10 years of professional experience.y 356
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
In 1980, Broom noted that differences in public relations management and technician roles were related to years of professional experience, with managers having more experience. 10 By 1986, differences in professional experience had decreased, but in 1995, Dozier and Broom again determined professional experience to be a significant role discriminator.11 Therefore, professional experience should discriminate between public relations managers and technicians with respondents having less experience valuing news releases more than respondents with more professional experience.
Tortorello and Wilhelm reported that the median salary in 1993 was $46,204, with those working as technicians generally earning less than the median and those working as managers generally earning more than the median. l 2 Broom and Dozier reported that expert prescribers and problem-solving facilitators earned better salaries than communication facilitators and technicians. In other words, a salary gap existed between technicians and two of three public relations manager roles.13 Because of this salary gap, salary should discriminate public relations technicians from managers. If technicians value news releases more than public relations managers, respondents earning lower salaries should express more positive attutides about news releases than those earning higher salaries.
Staff Size Schneider (aka L. Grunig) reported a relationship between public relations staff size and “clearance of public relations output,“14 with larger staffs indicating less centralized clearance. She noted that organizations with larger public relations staffs were more likely to have public relations practitioners in top administrative positions. Dozier and Broom also noted a relationship between staff size and manager roles: . . . in order for any practitioner . . . to enact the manager role predominantly, he or she must have the additional staff support in the technical areas to concentrate on manager role activities. The larger the staff in the public .relations unit, the greater the opportunity to engage in manager role activities predominantly.15
Therefore, the more people a practitioner supervises, the more likely that practitioner is a pubic relations manager. If technicians value news releases more than public relations managers, respondents supervising none or few people should consider news releases more important than those supervising large staffs.
Educatiun In 1980, Broom technicians.l6 Winter 1996
found differences in formal education between managers and Since, he and Dozier have tested education as a role discriminator 357
Public Relations Review
twice. They wrote that education beyond high school provided “a rough proxy measure of . . . knowledge necessary to enact the manager role”17 and cited evidence “that such knowledge is the most powerful indicator of excellence” in public relations management.18 If education is a discriminator between public relations managers and technicians and if technicians value news releases more, respondents with less education should value news releases more than those with more education. Primary A.&&y When Broom and Smith first deduced and labeled public relations roles, they noted differences in the duties of each. Expert prescribers researched, developed campaigns and supervised their implementation. Communication facilitators served as liaisons between organizations and their publics. Problem-sulvin~facilitaton collaborated with non-communications professionals up the chain-of-command in problem definition and solution. Practitioners in each of these three roles primarily managed public relations while communication technicians primarily produced communication materials.19 Dozier later reduced the four roles to two, noting that public relations managers used research and other information-gathering activities, participated in policy decisions, and accounted for outcomes while technicians did not.20 Dozier and Broom more recently defined the basic differences between public relations manager and technician roles by activities: If a practitioner enacts activities of the manager role set with greater frequency than activities of the technician role set, then the practitioner can be categorized as a manager. By the same logic, technicians are so classfied because they enact technician role activities mroe frequently than manager role activities.21 Thus, practitioners listing technical activities as primary should value news releases more than those listing public relations management activities as primary. Or-anization Schneider (aka L. Grunig) noted differences between large and small organizations. When both were complex, practitioners working in large organizations got news through the media by press conferences and personal contacts. Those working in small organizations concentrated more on news releases. She concluded that this contributed to practitioners’ lack of power in small scale organizations.22 Two other studies also noted a relationship between type of organization and manager roles while a third reported a relationship between organization and media relations activities. Skinner and Shanklin concluded that practitioners were more likely to be executives in “leading business enterprises” where they had “direct or close access to corporate policy makers.“23 Cutlip, Center and Broom noted that, beyond entry level positions, technicians worked in nonprofit organizations, government, education and hospitals.24 Cottone, Wakefield, Cottone and 358
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Suvvey
North reported that agency executives valued media relations activities higher than corporate executives, who preferred to target publics for communications.26 Therefore, respondents working in not-for-profit organizations should express more positive attitudes about news releases than those working in business/industry or public relations agencies. In summary, this study was guided by two research questions. The six independent variables discussed above will be used to answer the second question. RQl : Do public relations practitioners today continue to view news releases as an important public relations tactic? RQ2: Do technicians value news releases more than managers?
METHODOLOGY Survey Instrument Scale
The survey instrument was a multi-item Likert scale: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral/no opinion, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. At least two versions of each item were included to test reliability, with one reversed to guard against acquiescence. Paired items were separated and spread throughout the scale. Values for responses of reversed items were reversed to test for correlation between each paired item. All but one pair significantly correlated below the .05 level. Factor analysis of significant items produced a scale called “importance.” The first six items in Table 1 fit into this scale with an inter-item internal reliability coefficient of .71. When the next two items were added, reliability fell to .64. These two items related more to perception of news release importance by noncommunications professionals up the chain-of-command than to the public relations respondents. Six other items did not fit into the importance scale, but I included them in this study because at least one of each pair had significant results that provided additional insight into practitioners’ views on news releases. Independent Variables In addition to Likert scale items, the survey instrument asked the respondents for demographic information based on the independent variables gleaned from roles research. I provide the levels of these variables under subjects. Subjects I randomly sampled 220 subjects from the Public Relations Journal: 1993-94 Rgister Ike. I sent a preliminary postcard to each subject
announcing the subject’s selection and advising of the survey to follow in two days. Two days later, I sent the survey with a cover letter. After another two days, I sent a follow-up postcard reminding subjects to complete and return the survey. As a result, 179 subjects returned surveys for a response rate of 81%. I have proWinter 1996
359
8.4
49.2
Approves Them, r=.4526**
Personal Preference is Not a Reliable Measure of News Worthiness. r=.1854* A Story That Is Important to Me Is of Relevance to the Public.
My News Releases are More Accurate Because M~agement
2.07 3.20
3.33
1.59 2.49
r=.2537**
Management Trust My Judgment in Writing News Releases, r=.2163**
Management Must Approve My News Releases Before Distribution.
1.60 3.27
I Write My News Releases in Associate Press Style. r= .1326
I Write My News Releases in a Style That Management Prefers.
‘My Management Thinks News Releases are Unimportant.
38.0 1.7
1.88 4.30
Management Expects Me to do News Releases. r=. 1684*
43.1 17.3
3.9
41.3 26.8 16.2
16.2
26.8
39.7 1.7
38.5
34.1
17.3
30.7
9.5
27.4
Apee
35.2
46.9 33.5 10.1
6.1
21.2
I Believe There Are Better Ways to Promote My Client Than Through News Releases.
36.3
1.97 2.25
I Would Write a News Release to Gain Recognition for My Client. ==.3249**
3.22
News Reieases are Not the Best Way to r&fakeIflformation Public. 5.0
2.80
I Prefer News Releases More Than Other Ways of Disse~a~g
xnformation. r=.3298**
60.3 2.8
News Releases Play a Minor Role in Public Relations.
1.53 3.87
Apee
StrO%Lqty
News Releases are an Important Tool for Public Relations. r=.3722**
M
Items with Mean Response and Percentages by Responses
TABLE 1
35.2
14.5
8.9 22.9
6.7
30.7
13.4
13.4 9-s
29.6
17.3
34.6
5.8
14.5
9.5
25.7
9.5
12.8 26.3
1.7
24.0
5.0
3.4 34.1
7.3
5.6
30.2
3.0
41.3
2.2
Neutral Diqpe
2.8
21.2
15.6
.6
20.1
1.1
2.2 52.0
.6
1.7
17.9 8.9
29.1
0.0
0.0
2.8 2.2
2.8
4.5
3.4 1.1
2.8
5.0
2.2 3.9
0.6 2.8
Stron& Disagree A&sins
News Release Survey
vided the number of subjects responding by levels of the independent variables below. 2%~ of ~~0~~~1~e~~ce: (1)zero to four years experience = 15, (2) five to nine years experience = 48, (3) ten to 14 years experience = 41, (4) 15 to 19 years experience 26, (5) 20 or more years experience = 48. One respondent did not provide this information. Salay: (1) less than $20,000 = 3, (2) $20,000 to $29,000 = 15, (3) $30,000 to $39,000 = 38, (4) $40,000 to $49,000 = 26, (5) $50,000 to $59,000 = 21, (6) $60,000 to $69,000 = 21, (7) $70,000 to $79,000 = 16, (8) $80,000 to $99,000 = 14, and (9) $100,000 or more = 18. Seven respondents did not provide this information. Number of People Supervised: (1) none = 39, (2) one to four = 87, (3) five to nine = 27, (4) ten to 14 = 8, (5) 15 or more = 14. Four respondents did not provide t&s isolation. Edmzatti: (1) high school graduate = 1, (2) some college = 11, (3) college graduate = 104, (4) master’s = 55, (5) doctorate = 7. One respondent did not provide this information, Primary A&v@ (1) writing = 9, (2) pro ducing broadcast materials = 0, (3) producing art/photographs = 0, (4) developing campaigns = 17, (5) producing publications = 9, (6) supervising others = 21, (7) advising m~agement = 28, (8) coordinating events = 7, (9) other = 54. Nine respondents did not provide this information. Organizations: (1) business/industry = 49, (2) lobbies/special-interest groups = 3, (3) education = 16, (4) unions/professional organizations = 5, (5) civic/ service organizations = 9, (6) government = 16, (7) religious groups = 1, (8) public relations agencies = 37, (9) other = 35. Data Analysis I coded missing responses to Likert scale items as 0 and instructed the computer to treat them as missing values, then conducted the following statistical analysis using SPSSX for the Macintosh: (1) Pearson correlations to determine validity by correlating paired items, (2) Crombach alpha to test inrer-item reliability, (3) frequencies to get descriptive information on the respondents and items, (4) one-way analysis of variance to determine if there were significant differences among the levels by responses to items, and (5) Tukey post hoc tests to determine groups with the greatest contrast. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
RQl: Do public relations practitioners today continue to view news releasesas an ~rnp~a~t~~bt~~ rehttins taxtic? The answer to this question was yes. Respondents agreed that news releases are an important public relations tool (M = 1.53), that non-communications management expects them to produce news releases (M = 1.88) and that they would Winter 1996
361
Public Relations Re-vim
write news releases to gain recognition for a client (M = 1.97). They disagreed that news releases play a minor role in public relations (ikf = 3.87). See Table 1 for items with means and percentile responses. RQ2: Do technicians value news releases more than public relations managers? answer to question was Public relations and technicians not differ items in “importance of releases” construct salary, staff education or Post hoc on significant items for experience failed indicate significant between the levels that have best differences between roles. The independent variable clearly indicated between public managers and on “importance” collapsed primary ties. It that public managers considered releases more than technicians Profwsional Experience Responses to ‘Tprefer news releases more than other ways of disseminating infmmation” (F (5, 169) = 2.6331,~ = .025) differed by professional experience levels. Respondents disagreed more with this item as their professional experience increased (See Table 2). The greatest difference in means was between respondents with none to four years’ experience and those with five to nine years’ experience. But post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts only between respondents with 20 or more years experience and those with none to four years. Responses to Y write my news releases in a style that managementprefers” also differed by experience levels (F (4, 173) = 2.6278,~ = .036). Post hoc tests indicated that the greatest contrast was between respondents with 10 to 14 years and 20 or more years’ experience. However, the mean for respondents with none to four years indicated the greatest agreement with this item. Respondents with five to nine years and 15 to 19 years indicated slight agreement (Means are provided in Table 2). Other significant differences in responses failed to support that technicians value news releases more than public relations managers. For instance %Wy news releases are nun”e accurate because management approves them” was significant for TABLE
Means for Professional
Experience
2
Levels by Significant Items Pvo@onal Experience Levels in Years 5-9 10-14 15-19 20+ l-4
IttWZS
I Prefer NewsReleases More Than Other Ways of Disseminating Information.
2.20
2.70
2.80
2.92
3.07
My News Releases are More Accurate Management Approves Them.
2.86
3.52
3.68
3.44
2.96
2.87
3.44
2.88
3.31
3.63
Because
I Write My News Releases in a Style That Management Prefers.
362
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Rekwe Suvvty
experience (F 168) = p = .035). Yet, differences were within rather than between public relations’ manager and technician levels. Means in Table 2 revealed that responses formed a curved pattern. Post hoc tests indicated no significant contrasts between groups. Only one of the three significant items fit into the importance construct, and post hoc tests for it did not indicate significant contrasts between expected levels. According to Cutlip, Center and Broom (1994), technicians usually have 10 or fewer years of professional experience (p. 45), and most practitioners begin their careers in technician roles (p, 42). 26 Thus, a significant difference between five to nine years’ and 10 to 14 years’ experience would have best represented differences between public relations technicians and managers. Salary
Only one item, ‘My news releases are more accurate because management a@roves them,” was significant by salary (F (9,163) = 2.5804,~ = .008). Means by salary levels were: less than $20,000 = 3.33, $20,000 to $29,000 = 3.00, $30,000 to $39,000 = 3.95, $40,000 to $49,000 = 2.88, $50,000 to $59,000 = 3.65, $60,000 to $69,000 = 3.55, $70,000 to $79,000 = 3.50, $80,000 to $99,000 = 2.62, $100,000 or more = 2.89. Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents earning $30,000 to $39,000 and two other levels: those earning $40,000 to $49,000 and those earning $80,000 to $99,000. This item was not a part of the importance scale. Stuf Size
Only one item, “Manag-ement expects me to do news releases,” differed by number of people supervised (F (4, 166) = 2.8731,~ = .025). Although this item was a part of the importance construct, post hoc tests did not indicate significant contrasts between the levels expected to best distinguish public relations managers from technicians. Because technicians are entry level, it seems likely that respondents supervising no one would best represent technicians. Instead, post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between those supervising one to four with those supervising 15 or more. Respondents with no supervision duties (M = 2.11) and those supervising 15 or more (M = 2.43) agreed the least, but respondents in all levels of supervision basically agreed that management expects them to do news releases: 1 to 4 (M = 1.69), 5 to 9 (M = 1.96) 10 to 14 (M = 1.75). The difference between respondents supervising none to four and 15 or more could indicate differences between public relations technicians and managers, but according to the literature, I expected larger means as staff size increased. This was clearly not the result. Education Only one item differed by education levels. Mean responses to ‘2 write my news releases in a style that mancgementprefeers” (F (4, 173) = 3.7768,~ = .006) indi-
Winter
1996
363
Public Relations Review
cated that those with the least education (high school graduate, A4 = 2.00) and the most education (doctoral degree, A4 = 1.71) agreed with this item. Those in other education levels slightly disagreed: some college (M = 3.27), bachelor’s degree (A4 = 3.46) an d masters degree (M = 3.20). Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents with doctorate degrees and those with bachelor’s and master?. This significant item was not a part of the importance construct nor did post hoc tests indicate significant contrasts between the education levels expected to best differentiate public relations managers from technicians. Organization Only one item differed significantly by organization. “ManaBement must approve my news releases before distribution” differed (F (8, 162) = 2.9654,~ = .004) with respondents working in religious organizations (M = 3 .OO), responding neutrally to this item. Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents working in educational institutions (M = 3.56) and those working in business (M = 2.27) or public relations firms (M = 1.92). Means by the remaining types of organizations were: special interest groups = 1.00, professional organizations = 2.20, government = 2.63, and other = 2.71, service = 3.22, and education = 3.56. Although this item was not a part of the importance constrnct, results indicate differences between one type of organization likely to hire public relations technicians and two types associated with public relations managers. To further test for differences between public relations technician’s and maninto two categories (F (1, 169) = ager’s responses, I collapsed organizations 6.2759), p = .013). Respondents working in nonprofit organizations indicated less need to have their releases approved with a mean of 2.90 than did those working in business and public relations firms with a mean of 2.29. This represents a difference in public relations manger’s and technician’s responses by the organization, but relates more to autonomy in producing releases than to perceptions of their importance.
Three items differed significantly by primary activity, but post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between levels for only two. In both cases, advising up the chain-of-command management differed by technician and public relations management activities. Means are included in Table 3. The first was Yprefeer news releases moye than other ways of disseminating infovmation” (F (6, 159) = 2.6631,~ = .017). Those noting coordinating events as their primary activities agreed the most while those advising up the chain-of-command management somewhat disagreed. Post hoc tests indicated the greatest contrasts between those advising management with those writing and coordinating events. The second Tersonal prefeerence is not a reliable measure of news worthiness” differed significantly (F (6, 157) = 3.2479,~ = .005) with post hoc tests indicating 364
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
TABLE Means for Primary Activities
3 by Signiifkant
Items
I’rimav Activities Items
Writing
Developing Producing Supevvihg Advising Coordinating Campat&ns Publications Others Management Events 0th
News Release Are an Important Tool for P.R.
1.76
1.59
1.78
1.33
1.54
1.14
1.43
I Prefer News Releases More Than Other Ways of Disseminating Information.
2.58
2.65
2.67
2.76
3.37
2.00
2.87
I Write my News Releases in Associated Press Style.
1.69
1.94
2.25
1.29
1.59
2.43
1.94
Personal Preference is Not a Reliable Measure of News Worthiness.
1.91
1.65
2.00
2.32
1.56
2.43
2.46
the greatest contrast between advising up the chain-of-command management and “other. These levels of respondents agreed the most and least with this item although “other” was expected to represent public relations management activities because technician activities were more all inclusive. Another item differed by primary activities, but post hoc tests failed to indicate significant contrasts between levels for “I write my news releases in Associate Press styb” (F (6, 155) = 2.3479,~ = .034). Only the first item is part of the “importance” construct. Advising up the chainof-command management, a problem-solving facilitator activity, was the only activity that significantly contrasted with any technician activity. Expert prescriber activities-developing campaigns and supervising othersAd not. When I collapsed primary activity levels into those representing public relations technicians and managers, ‘News Releases are an important tool-f& PR” revealed significant differences (F (1, 167) = 6.1525,~ = .014), but not in the expected direction. Respondents reporting public relations management activities agreed more with this item than respondents reporting technician activities, indicating that public relations managers considered news releases a more important public relations tactic than did technicians. However, means for technician (M = 1.77) and public relations manager activities (M = 1.44) indicated strong agreement that news releases are an important tool for public relations.
CONCLUSIONS
than public relations Winter 1996
Public relations managers do not value news releases less technicians. Public relations managers may not personally 365
Public Relations Review
write and disseminate releases, but they believe releases are important and perceive that their executives also value releases. In an ideal world where non-communication executives up the chain-of-command appreciate the full realm of public relations services, sophisticated practitioners would rely less on communicating through news releases. However, the reality is that many executives still expect public information, not press agentry, models from their public relations employees. Wakefield and Cottone found that employers of public relations practitioners rated writing news releases fifth of 38 knowledge/skill areas required of practitioners.27 Ehling and Dozier stated that “viewing public relations solely as a technical copy production role is widely shared in and out of the ranks of public relations practitioners. “28 Furthermore Detwiler concluded that executives resist the arbitrator characteristic of two-wiy symmetric practitioners. Instead they want “a propagandist, a docile functionary who can hawk the party line precisely the way it is given . . .“29 This survey supports at least the Wakefield and Cottone findings, the Ehling and Dozier statement and possibly Detwiler’s conclusion. It also indicates that public relations managers as well as technicians value news releases. One explanation is that the difference between public relations managers and technicians is not between their view of the importance of releases, but in how they use them. Public relations managers may use them more for strategic communications while technicians use them more for routine information dissemination. However, this explanation infers that news releases can be used strategically, but other researchers have rejected this inference. Dozier and Broom write: When a practitioner enacts the technician role predominantly and continues to do so throughout his or her career, the value or worth of such activities cannot be determined without knowing the context. . well-crafted communications are by no means sufficient. To be sufficient, communications must be executed within the context of a strategic plan to achieve measurable goals and objectives related to establishing or maintaining desired relations.30 Ehling and Dozier listed several subgoals of publicity that fit within strategic plans, can be measured, and relate to impact on target publics. However, they noted that few practitioners go to the cost and difIiculty to measure publicity effectiveness by subgoals.31 According to these scholars, it is unlikely that news releases are used strategically. To what extent they are, needs to be further investigated. Such research could determine if public relations managers use releases more strategically than technicians. Further research could also investigate other creative activities to determine if public relations managers continue to value them and to use them strategically. Researchers could also determine how to best execute releases within the context of a strategic plan, how to measure their effects against goals and objectives, and how to utilize them in two-way asymmetric programs for establishing and 366
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
maintaining desired relations, Ehling, Dozier, and L. Grunig have already provided the basis for such study. 32 They present operations research and other management science methods for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of public relations tactics. Because practitioners obviously continue to use and value news releases, the results of such research written in a how-to style for practitioners and published in professional journals could assist practitioners to use news releases more strategically.
NOTES 1.
Cliff McGoon, “Life’s a Beach, for Communicators,” (1983), pp. 12-15.
2.
David M. Dozier and Glen M. Broom,
3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
9. 10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
Winter
Communication
Wmld 10:
“Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice,)) Journal ofhblic Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 3-26. Gay Wakefield and Laura I?. Cottone, “Knowledge and Skills Required by Public Relations Employers,” Public Relations Review 13 (1987), pp. 24-32.
Doris Schleuse, “A Gatekeeper Survey: Opinions on Public Relations Press Releases,” paper presented to the Southwest Symposium for Journalism and Mass Communications, Abilene, TX, October 1988. Shirley Ramsey, “Use of Communication Technologies and Public Relations Models in Corporate Public Affairs,” paper presented to the Southwestern Communications Conference, Lubbock, TX, October 1993. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p.8. Glen M. Broom and George D. Smith, ‘“Testing the Practitioner’s Impact on Clients,” Public Relations Review 5 (1979), pp. 47-59: David M. Dozier, “Toward a Reconciliation of ‘Role Conflict’ in Public Relations Research,” paper presented to the Western Communication Educators Conference, Fullerton, CA, August 1983: Larissa Schneider (aka Larissa Grunig), ‘“The Role of Public Relations in Four Organizational Types,” Journalism Quarterly 6 (1985), pp. 567-577, 594: Richard W. Skinner and William L. Shanklin, “The Changing Role of Public Relations in Business Firms,” Public RelationsReview 4 (1978), pp. 40-46: Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Efictive Public Relations, 7th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994), pp. 42-43. Kalman B. Druck and Ray E. Hiebert, Your Personal Guidebook: To Help You Chart a Mme Succesrful Career in Public Relations (New York: Public Relations Society of America, 1979). Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 45. Glen M. Broom, ‘A Comparison of Roles Played by Men and Women in Public Relations,” paper presented to Association for Education in Journalism, Boston, August 1980. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 3-26. Nicholas J. Tortorello and Elizabeth Wilhelm, “Eighth Annual Salary Survey,” Pub-
lic Relations Journal 49 (1993), pp. 10-19. Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, “Advancement for Public Relations Role Models,” Public Relations Review 12 (1986), pp. 37-56. Larissa Schneider, op. cit., p. 572.
1996
367
Public Relations K&m
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32.
368
David Dozier and Glen M. Broome, op. cit., p. 7. Glen Broom, 1980, op. cit. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 12. Ibid., p. 4. Glen M. Broom and George D. Smith, op. cit., pp. 47-59. David Dozier, op. cit. David Dozier and Glen Broom, op. cit., p. 5. Larissa Schneider, op. cit., pp. 567-577, 594. Richard W. Skinner and William L. Shanklin, op. cit., p. 41. Scott M. Cutlip, ALlen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 45-46. Laura Cottone, D. Gay Wakefield, R. Rocco Cottone, and Willard North, “Public Relations Roles and Functions by Organizations,” Public Relations Review 11 (1985), pp. 29-37. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 42. Gay Wakefield and Laura I?. Cottone, op. cit., pp. 24-32. William P. Ehling and David M. Dozier, “Public Relations Management and Operations Research,” in James Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1992), p. 256. Richard Detwiler, ‘What Every Successful Executive Should Know about His Press Offricer’s Terrible Secrets,” Public Relations Journal 32 (1976), p. 21. David Dozier and Glen Broom, op. cit., p. 23. William P. Ehling and DavidM. Dozier, op. cit., pp. 251-284. William P. Ehling and David M. Dozier, op. cit., pp. 251-284: David M. Dozier, and Larissa A. Grunig, “The Organization of the Public Relations Function,” in James Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1992), pp.395-417.
Vol. 22. No. 4
Linda I? Morton
Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Do Public Relations Managers and TechniciansValueNews Releases Differently?
ABSTRACT: This survey of 220 randomly sampled members of Public Relations Society of America sought to determine if 179 respondents (SlOh response rate) valued news releases as a public relations tactic and if attitudes differed between manager and technician roles. It tested differences in responses by six independent variables-professional experience, salary, staff size, education, organization and activities-previously used to differentiate the roles. Although several items differed by levels of the independent variables, the only conclusive difference between the roles indicated that managers valued news releases more than technicians. Morton is an associate professor in the H.H. Herbert School of Journalism and Mass Communications at The University of Oklahoma. She has been researching news releases for more than a decade and has published numerous articles in Public Relations Review and other journals on news releases and other public relations topics.
Winter
1996
355
Public Relations Review
Many practitioners entered public relations because they enjoyed creative activities like writing news releases and designing publications. They learned these skills in college and spent much of their time on them in entry level positions. But as they advanced in their careers, they frequently found that they no longer had time for creative activities. In order to get promotions and salary increases, they had to move into public relations management roles, which required that they learned new skills and spent their time on public relations management activities. McGoon noted that only 18% of practitioners preferred public relations management activities. The majority preferred the more creative activities of technicians.1 Yet, public relations management roles lured them with higher salaries, more influence on policy, and greater job satisfaction.2 Did their desire for career progress change their views of the importance of creative activities? This study sought to answer this question concerning the creative activity of writing news releases. This desire to succeed coupled with emphasis on two-way communications should have resulted in a devaluing of writing and distributing news releases. However, Wakefield and Cottone found in 1987 that employers ranked writing news releases fifth of 38 knowledge/skill areas required of practitioners.3 Schluese estimated in 1988 that practitioners mailed 2.4 million news releases weekly.4 In 1993, Ramsey found that practitioners ranked producing “information for releases to the media” as their most important duty.5 In their 1991 study, Dozier and Broom proposed a theoretical model of the public relations management role. They linked several public relations variables to manager rather than technical roles. They defmed technicians as “‘journalists in residence,’ . . . hired for their writing and media expertise, . . concerned primarily with crafting and placing messages in the media. . . .“6 They classified half of their sample as technicians. Their classifications are important because they provide four independent variables-professional experience, salary, staff size, and education-that this study used to distinguish public relations technicians from managers. It also used two other distinguishing variables-activity and organization-from other roles research.7 Pvofissional lhpevience Druck and Hiebert noted that role changes were related to years of professional experience. They reported that senior professiunals had 17 or more years, professional managers had seven years, staffprofessionals (junior managers) had two years, and beginningprofessionals had less than two years of professional experience.8 Cutlip, Center and Broom noted similar differences between public relations roles: expert prescribers had 16 years, problem-solving facilitators had 15 years, communication facilitators had 13 years, and communication technicians had 10 years of professional experience.y 356
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
In 1980, Broom noted that differences in public relations management and technician roles were related to years of professional experience, with managers having more experience. 10 By 1986, differences in professional experience had decreased, but in 1995, Dozier and Broom again determined professional experience to be a significant role discriminator.11 Therefore, professional experience should discriminate between public relations managers and technicians with respondents having less experience valuing news releases more than respondents with more professional experience.
Tortorello and Wilhelm reported that the median salary in 1993 was $46,204, with those working as technicians generally earning less than the median and those working as managers generally earning more than the median. l 2 Broom and Dozier reported that expert prescribers and problem-solving facilitators earned better salaries than communication facilitators and technicians. In other words, a salary gap existed between technicians and two of three public relations manager roles.13 Because of this salary gap, salary should discriminate public relations technicians from managers. If technicians value news releases more than public relations managers, respondents earning lower salaries should express more positive attutides about news releases than those earning higher salaries.
Staff Size Schneider (aka L. Grunig) reported a relationship between public relations staff size and “clearance of public relations output,“14 with larger staffs indicating less centralized clearance. She noted that organizations with larger public relations staffs were more likely to have public relations practitioners in top administrative positions. Dozier and Broom also noted a relationship between staff size and manager roles: . . . in order for any practitioner . . . to enact the manager role predominantly, he or she must have the additional staff support in the technical areas to concentrate on manager role activities. The larger the staff in the public .relations unit, the greater the opportunity to engage in manager role activities predominantly.15
Therefore, the more people a practitioner supervises, the more likely that practitioner is a pubic relations manager. If technicians value news releases more than public relations managers, respondents supervising none or few people should consider news releases more important than those supervising large staffs.
Educatiun In 1980, Broom technicians.l6 Winter 1996
found differences in formal education between managers and Since, he and Dozier have tested education as a role discriminator 357
Public Relations Review
twice. They wrote that education beyond high school provided “a rough proxy measure of . . . knowledge necessary to enact the manager role”17 and cited evidence “that such knowledge is the most powerful indicator of excellence” in public relations management.18 If education is a discriminator between public relations managers and technicians and if technicians value news releases more, respondents with less education should value news releases more than those with more education. Primary A.&&y When Broom and Smith first deduced and labeled public relations roles, they noted differences in the duties of each. Expert prescribers researched, developed campaigns and supervised their implementation. Communication facilitators served as liaisons between organizations and their publics. Problem-sulvin~facilitaton collaborated with non-communications professionals up the chain-of-command in problem definition and solution. Practitioners in each of these three roles primarily managed public relations while communication technicians primarily produced communication materials.19 Dozier later reduced the four roles to two, noting that public relations managers used research and other information-gathering activities, participated in policy decisions, and accounted for outcomes while technicians did not.20 Dozier and Broom more recently defined the basic differences between public relations manager and technician roles by activities: If a practitioner enacts activities of the manager role set with greater frequency than activities of the technician role set, then the practitioner can be categorized as a manager. By the same logic, technicians are so classfied because they enact technician role activities mroe frequently than manager role activities.21 Thus, practitioners listing technical activities as primary should value news releases more than those listing public relations management activities as primary. Or-anization Schneider (aka L. Grunig) noted differences between large and small organizations. When both were complex, practitioners working in large organizations got news through the media by press conferences and personal contacts. Those working in small organizations concentrated more on news releases. She concluded that this contributed to practitioners’ lack of power in small scale organizations.22 Two other studies also noted a relationship between type of organization and manager roles while a third reported a relationship between organization and media relations activities. Skinner and Shanklin concluded that practitioners were more likely to be executives in “leading business enterprises” where they had “direct or close access to corporate policy makers.“23 Cutlip, Center and Broom noted that, beyond entry level positions, technicians worked in nonprofit organizations, government, education and hospitals.24 Cottone, Wakefield, Cottone and 358
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Suvvey
North reported that agency executives valued media relations activities higher than corporate executives, who preferred to target publics for communications.26 Therefore, respondents working in not-for-profit organizations should express more positive attitudes about news releases than those working in business/industry or public relations agencies. In summary, this study was guided by two research questions. The six independent variables discussed above will be used to answer the second question. RQl : Do public relations practitioners today continue to view news releases as an important public relations tactic? RQ2: Do technicians value news releases more than managers?
METHODOLOGY Survey Instrument Scale
The survey instrument was a multi-item Likert scale: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral/no opinion, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. At least two versions of each item were included to test reliability, with one reversed to guard against acquiescence. Paired items were separated and spread throughout the scale. Values for responses of reversed items were reversed to test for correlation between each paired item. All but one pair significantly correlated below the .05 level. Factor analysis of significant items produced a scale called “importance.” The first six items in Table 1 fit into this scale with an inter-item internal reliability coefficient of .71. When the next two items were added, reliability fell to .64. These two items related more to perception of news release importance by noncommunications professionals up the chain-of-command than to the public relations respondents. Six other items did not fit into the importance scale, but I included them in this study because at least one of each pair had significant results that provided additional insight into practitioners’ views on news releases. Independent Variables In addition to Likert scale items, the survey instrument asked the respondents for demographic information based on the independent variables gleaned from roles research. I provide the levels of these variables under subjects. Subjects I randomly sampled 220 subjects from the Public Relations Journal: 1993-94 Rgister Ike. I sent a preliminary postcard to each subject
announcing the subject’s selection and advising of the survey to follow in two days. Two days later, I sent the survey with a cover letter. After another two days, I sent a follow-up postcard reminding subjects to complete and return the survey. As a result, 179 subjects returned surveys for a response rate of 81%. I have proWinter 1996
359
8.4
49.2
Approves Them, r=.4526**
Personal Preference is Not a Reliable Measure of News Worthiness. r=.1854* A Story That Is Important to Me Is of Relevance to the Public.
My News Releases are More Accurate Because M~agement
2.07 3.20
3.33
1.59 2.49
r=.2537**
Management Trust My Judgment in Writing News Releases, r=.2163**
Management Must Approve My News Releases Before Distribution.
1.60 3.27
I Write My News Releases in Associate Press Style. r= .1326
I Write My News Releases in a Style That Management Prefers.
‘My Management Thinks News Releases are Unimportant.
38.0 1.7
1.88 4.30
Management Expects Me to do News Releases. r=. 1684*
43.1 17.3
3.9
41.3 26.8 16.2
16.2
26.8
39.7 1.7
38.5
34.1
17.3
30.7
9.5
27.4
Apee
35.2
46.9 33.5 10.1
6.1
21.2
I Believe There Are Better Ways to Promote My Client Than Through News Releases.
36.3
1.97 2.25
I Would Write a News Release to Gain Recognition for My Client. ==.3249**
3.22
News Reieases are Not the Best Way to r&fakeIflformation Public. 5.0
2.80
I Prefer News Releases More Than Other Ways of Disse~a~g
xnformation. r=.3298**
60.3 2.8
News Releases Play a Minor Role in Public Relations.
1.53 3.87
Apee
StrO%Lqty
News Releases are an Important Tool for Public Relations. r=.3722**
M
Items with Mean Response and Percentages by Responses
TABLE 1
35.2
14.5
8.9 22.9
6.7
30.7
13.4
13.4 9-s
29.6
17.3
34.6
5.8
14.5
9.5
25.7
9.5
12.8 26.3
1.7
24.0
5.0
3.4 34.1
7.3
5.6
30.2
3.0
41.3
2.2
Neutral Diqpe
2.8
21.2
15.6
.6
20.1
1.1
2.2 52.0
.6
1.7
17.9 8.9
29.1
0.0
0.0
2.8 2.2
2.8
4.5
3.4 1.1
2.8
5.0
2.2 3.9
0.6 2.8
Stron& Disagree A&sins
News Release Survey
vided the number of subjects responding by levels of the independent variables below. 2%~ of ~~0~~~1~e~~ce: (1)zero to four years experience = 15, (2) five to nine years experience = 48, (3) ten to 14 years experience = 41, (4) 15 to 19 years experience 26, (5) 20 or more years experience = 48. One respondent did not provide this information. Salay: (1) less than $20,000 = 3, (2) $20,000 to $29,000 = 15, (3) $30,000 to $39,000 = 38, (4) $40,000 to $49,000 = 26, (5) $50,000 to $59,000 = 21, (6) $60,000 to $69,000 = 21, (7) $70,000 to $79,000 = 16, (8) $80,000 to $99,000 = 14, and (9) $100,000 or more = 18. Seven respondents did not provide this information. Number of People Supervised: (1) none = 39, (2) one to four = 87, (3) five to nine = 27, (4) ten to 14 = 8, (5) 15 or more = 14. Four respondents did not provide t&s isolation. Edmzatti: (1) high school graduate = 1, (2) some college = 11, (3) college graduate = 104, (4) master’s = 55, (5) doctorate = 7. One respondent did not provide this information, Primary A&v@ (1) writing = 9, (2) pro ducing broadcast materials = 0, (3) producing art/photographs = 0, (4) developing campaigns = 17, (5) producing publications = 9, (6) supervising others = 21, (7) advising m~agement = 28, (8) coordinating events = 7, (9) other = 54. Nine respondents did not provide this information. Organizations: (1) business/industry = 49, (2) lobbies/special-interest groups = 3, (3) education = 16, (4) unions/professional organizations = 5, (5) civic/ service organizations = 9, (6) government = 16, (7) religious groups = 1, (8) public relations agencies = 37, (9) other = 35. Data Analysis I coded missing responses to Likert scale items as 0 and instructed the computer to treat them as missing values, then conducted the following statistical analysis using SPSSX for the Macintosh: (1) Pearson correlations to determine validity by correlating paired items, (2) Crombach alpha to test inrer-item reliability, (3) frequencies to get descriptive information on the respondents and items, (4) one-way analysis of variance to determine if there were significant differences among the levels by responses to items, and (5) Tukey post hoc tests to determine groups with the greatest contrast. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
RQl: Do public relations practitioners today continue to view news releasesas an ~rnp~a~t~~bt~~ rehttins taxtic? The answer to this question was yes. Respondents agreed that news releases are an important public relations tool (M = 1.53), that non-communications management expects them to produce news releases (M = 1.88) and that they would Winter 1996
361
Public Relations Re-vim
write news releases to gain recognition for a client (M = 1.97). They disagreed that news releases play a minor role in public relations (ikf = 3.87). See Table 1 for items with means and percentile responses. RQ2: Do technicians value news releases more than public relations managers? answer to question was Public relations and technicians not differ items in “importance of releases” construct salary, staff education or Post hoc on significant items for experience failed indicate significant between the levels that have best differences between roles. The independent variable clearly indicated between public managers and on “importance” collapsed primary ties. It that public managers considered releases more than technicians Profwsional Experience Responses to ‘Tprefer news releases more than other ways of disseminating infmmation” (F (5, 169) = 2.6331,~ = .025) differed by professional experience levels. Respondents disagreed more with this item as their professional experience increased (See Table 2). The greatest difference in means was between respondents with none to four years’ experience and those with five to nine years’ experience. But post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts only between respondents with 20 or more years experience and those with none to four years. Responses to Y write my news releases in a style that managementprefers” also differed by experience levels (F (4, 173) = 2.6278,~ = .036). Post hoc tests indicated that the greatest contrast was between respondents with 10 to 14 years and 20 or more years’ experience. However, the mean for respondents with none to four years indicated the greatest agreement with this item. Respondents with five to nine years and 15 to 19 years indicated slight agreement (Means are provided in Table 2). Other significant differences in responses failed to support that technicians value news releases more than public relations managers. For instance %Wy news releases are nun”e accurate because management approves them” was significant for TABLE
Means for Professional
Experience
2
Levels by Significant Items Pvo@onal Experience Levels in Years 5-9 10-14 15-19 20+ l-4
IttWZS
I Prefer NewsReleases More Than Other Ways of Disseminating Information.
2.20
2.70
2.80
2.92
3.07
My News Releases are More Accurate Management Approves Them.
2.86
3.52
3.68
3.44
2.96
2.87
3.44
2.88
3.31
3.63
Because
I Write My News Releases in a Style That Management Prefers.
362
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Rekwe Suvvty
experience (F 168) = p = .035). Yet, differences were within rather than between public relations’ manager and technician levels. Means in Table 2 revealed that responses formed a curved pattern. Post hoc tests indicated no significant contrasts between groups. Only one of the three significant items fit into the importance construct, and post hoc tests for it did not indicate significant contrasts between expected levels. According to Cutlip, Center and Broom (1994), technicians usually have 10 or fewer years of professional experience (p. 45), and most practitioners begin their careers in technician roles (p, 42). 26 Thus, a significant difference between five to nine years’ and 10 to 14 years’ experience would have best represented differences between public relations technicians and managers. Salary
Only one item, ‘My news releases are more accurate because management a@roves them,” was significant by salary (F (9,163) = 2.5804,~ = .008). Means by salary levels were: less than $20,000 = 3.33, $20,000 to $29,000 = 3.00, $30,000 to $39,000 = 3.95, $40,000 to $49,000 = 2.88, $50,000 to $59,000 = 3.65, $60,000 to $69,000 = 3.55, $70,000 to $79,000 = 3.50, $80,000 to $99,000 = 2.62, $100,000 or more = 2.89. Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents earning $30,000 to $39,000 and two other levels: those earning $40,000 to $49,000 and those earning $80,000 to $99,000. This item was not a part of the importance scale. Stuf Size
Only one item, “Manag-ement expects me to do news releases,” differed by number of people supervised (F (4, 166) = 2.8731,~ = .025). Although this item was a part of the importance construct, post hoc tests did not indicate significant contrasts between the levels expected to best distinguish public relations managers from technicians. Because technicians are entry level, it seems likely that respondents supervising no one would best represent technicians. Instead, post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between those supervising one to four with those supervising 15 or more. Respondents with no supervision duties (M = 2.11) and those supervising 15 or more (M = 2.43) agreed the least, but respondents in all levels of supervision basically agreed that management expects them to do news releases: 1 to 4 (M = 1.69), 5 to 9 (M = 1.96) 10 to 14 (M = 1.75). The difference between respondents supervising none to four and 15 or more could indicate differences between public relations technicians and managers, but according to the literature, I expected larger means as staff size increased. This was clearly not the result. Education Only one item differed by education levels. Mean responses to ‘2 write my news releases in a style that mancgementprefeers” (F (4, 173) = 3.7768,~ = .006) indi-
Winter
1996
363
Public Relations Review
cated that those with the least education (high school graduate, A4 = 2.00) and the most education (doctoral degree, A4 = 1.71) agreed with this item. Those in other education levels slightly disagreed: some college (M = 3.27), bachelor’s degree (A4 = 3.46) an d masters degree (M = 3.20). Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents with doctorate degrees and those with bachelor’s and master?. This significant item was not a part of the importance construct nor did post hoc tests indicate significant contrasts between the education levels expected to best differentiate public relations managers from technicians. Organization Only one item differed significantly by organization. “ManaBement must approve my news releases before distribution” differed (F (8, 162) = 2.9654,~ = .004) with respondents working in religious organizations (M = 3 .OO), responding neutrally to this item. Post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between respondents working in educational institutions (M = 3.56) and those working in business (M = 2.27) or public relations firms (M = 1.92). Means by the remaining types of organizations were: special interest groups = 1.00, professional organizations = 2.20, government = 2.63, and other = 2.71, service = 3.22, and education = 3.56. Although this item was not a part of the importance constrnct, results indicate differences between one type of organization likely to hire public relations technicians and two types associated with public relations managers. To further test for differences between public relations technician’s and maninto two categories (F (1, 169) = ager’s responses, I collapsed organizations 6.2759), p = .013). Respondents working in nonprofit organizations indicated less need to have their releases approved with a mean of 2.90 than did those working in business and public relations firms with a mean of 2.29. This represents a difference in public relations manger’s and technician’s responses by the organization, but relates more to autonomy in producing releases than to perceptions of their importance.
Three items differed significantly by primary activity, but post hoc tests indicated significant contrasts between levels for only two. In both cases, advising up the chain-of-command management differed by technician and public relations management activities. Means are included in Table 3. The first was Yprefeer news releases moye than other ways of disseminating infovmation” (F (6, 159) = 2.6631,~ = .017). Those noting coordinating events as their primary activities agreed the most while those advising up the chain-of-command management somewhat disagreed. Post hoc tests indicated the greatest contrasts between those advising management with those writing and coordinating events. The second Tersonal prefeerence is not a reliable measure of news worthiness” differed significantly (F (6, 157) = 3.2479,~ = .005) with post hoc tests indicating 364
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
TABLE Means for Primary Activities
3 by Signiifkant
Items
I’rimav Activities Items
Writing
Developing Producing Supevvihg Advising Coordinating Campat&ns Publications Others Management Events 0th
News Release Are an Important Tool for P.R.
1.76
1.59
1.78
1.33
1.54
1.14
1.43
I Prefer News Releases More Than Other Ways of Disseminating Information.
2.58
2.65
2.67
2.76
3.37
2.00
2.87
I Write my News Releases in Associated Press Style.
1.69
1.94
2.25
1.29
1.59
2.43
1.94
Personal Preference is Not a Reliable Measure of News Worthiness.
1.91
1.65
2.00
2.32
1.56
2.43
2.46
the greatest contrast between advising up the chain-of-command management and “other. These levels of respondents agreed the most and least with this item although “other” was expected to represent public relations management activities because technician activities were more all inclusive. Another item differed by primary activities, but post hoc tests failed to indicate significant contrasts between levels for “I write my news releases in Associate Press styb” (F (6, 155) = 2.3479,~ = .034). Only the first item is part of the “importance” construct. Advising up the chainof-command management, a problem-solving facilitator activity, was the only activity that significantly contrasted with any technician activity. Expert prescriber activities-developing campaigns and supervising othersAd not. When I collapsed primary activity levels into those representing public relations technicians and managers, ‘News Releases are an important tool-f& PR” revealed significant differences (F (1, 167) = 6.1525,~ = .014), but not in the expected direction. Respondents reporting public relations management activities agreed more with this item than respondents reporting technician activities, indicating that public relations managers considered news releases a more important public relations tactic than did technicians. However, means for technician (M = 1.77) and public relations manager activities (M = 1.44) indicated strong agreement that news releases are an important tool for public relations.
CONCLUSIONS
than public relations Winter 1996
Public relations managers do not value news releases less technicians. Public relations managers may not personally 365
Public Relations Review
write and disseminate releases, but they believe releases are important and perceive that their executives also value releases. In an ideal world where non-communication executives up the chain-of-command appreciate the full realm of public relations services, sophisticated practitioners would rely less on communicating through news releases. However, the reality is that many executives still expect public information, not press agentry, models from their public relations employees. Wakefield and Cottone found that employers of public relations practitioners rated writing news releases fifth of 38 knowledge/skill areas required of practitioners.27 Ehling and Dozier stated that “viewing public relations solely as a technical copy production role is widely shared in and out of the ranks of public relations practitioners. “28 Furthermore Detwiler concluded that executives resist the arbitrator characteristic of two-wiy symmetric practitioners. Instead they want “a propagandist, a docile functionary who can hawk the party line precisely the way it is given . . .“29 This survey supports at least the Wakefield and Cottone findings, the Ehling and Dozier statement and possibly Detwiler’s conclusion. It also indicates that public relations managers as well as technicians value news releases. One explanation is that the difference between public relations managers and technicians is not between their view of the importance of releases, but in how they use them. Public relations managers may use them more for strategic communications while technicians use them more for routine information dissemination. However, this explanation infers that news releases can be used strategically, but other researchers have rejected this inference. Dozier and Broom write: When a practitioner enacts the technician role predominantly and continues to do so throughout his or her career, the value or worth of such activities cannot be determined without knowing the context. . well-crafted communications are by no means sufficient. To be sufficient, communications must be executed within the context of a strategic plan to achieve measurable goals and objectives related to establishing or maintaining desired relations.30 Ehling and Dozier listed several subgoals of publicity that fit within strategic plans, can be measured, and relate to impact on target publics. However, they noted that few practitioners go to the cost and difIiculty to measure publicity effectiveness by subgoals.31 According to these scholars, it is unlikely that news releases are used strategically. To what extent they are, needs to be further investigated. Such research could determine if public relations managers use releases more strategically than technicians. Further research could also investigate other creative activities to determine if public relations managers continue to value them and to use them strategically. Researchers could also determine how to best execute releases within the context of a strategic plan, how to measure their effects against goals and objectives, and how to utilize them in two-way asymmetric programs for establishing and 366
Vol. 22, No. 4
News Release Survey
maintaining desired relations, Ehling, Dozier, and L. Grunig have already provided the basis for such study. 32 They present operations research and other management science methods for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of public relations tactics. Because practitioners obviously continue to use and value news releases, the results of such research written in a how-to style for practitioners and published in professional journals could assist practitioners to use news releases more strategically.
NOTES 1.
Cliff McGoon, “Life’s a Beach, for Communicators,” (1983), pp. 12-15.
2.
David M. Dozier and Glen M. Broom,
3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
9. 10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
Winter
Communication
Wmld 10:
“Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice,)) Journal ofhblic Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 3-26. Gay Wakefield and Laura I?. Cottone, “Knowledge and Skills Required by Public Relations Employers,” Public Relations Review 13 (1987), pp. 24-32.
Doris Schleuse, “A Gatekeeper Survey: Opinions on Public Relations Press Releases,” paper presented to the Southwest Symposium for Journalism and Mass Communications, Abilene, TX, October 1988. Shirley Ramsey, “Use of Communication Technologies and Public Relations Models in Corporate Public Affairs,” paper presented to the Southwestern Communications Conference, Lubbock, TX, October 1993. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p.8. Glen M. Broom and George D. Smith, ‘“Testing the Practitioner’s Impact on Clients,” Public Relations Review 5 (1979), pp. 47-59: David M. Dozier, “Toward a Reconciliation of ‘Role Conflict’ in Public Relations Research,” paper presented to the Western Communication Educators Conference, Fullerton, CA, August 1983: Larissa Schneider (aka Larissa Grunig), ‘“The Role of Public Relations in Four Organizational Types,” Journalism Quarterly 6 (1985), pp. 567-577, 594: Richard W. Skinner and William L. Shanklin, “The Changing Role of Public Relations in Business Firms,” Public RelationsReview 4 (1978), pp. 40-46: Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Efictive Public Relations, 7th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994), pp. 42-43. Kalman B. Druck and Ray E. Hiebert, Your Personal Guidebook: To Help You Chart a Mme Succesrful Career in Public Relations (New York: Public Relations Society of America, 1979). Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 45. Glen M. Broom, ‘A Comparison of Roles Played by Men and Women in Public Relations,” paper presented to Association for Education in Journalism, Boston, August 1980. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 3-26. Nicholas J. Tortorello and Elizabeth Wilhelm, “Eighth Annual Salary Survey,” Pub-
lic Relations Journal 49 (1993), pp. 10-19. Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, “Advancement for Public Relations Role Models,” Public Relations Review 12 (1986), pp. 37-56. Larissa Schneider, op. cit., p. 572.
1996
367
Public Relations K&m
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32.
368
David Dozier and Glen M. Broome, op. cit., p. 7. Glen Broom, 1980, op. cit. David Dozier and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 12. Ibid., p. 4. Glen M. Broom and George D. Smith, op. cit., pp. 47-59. David Dozier, op. cit. David Dozier and Glen Broom, op. cit., p. 5. Larissa Schneider, op. cit., pp. 567-577, 594. Richard W. Skinner and William L. Shanklin, op. cit., p. 41. Scott M. Cutlip, ALlen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 45-46. Laura Cottone, D. Gay Wakefield, R. Rocco Cottone, and Willard North, “Public Relations Roles and Functions by Organizations,” Public Relations Review 11 (1985), pp. 29-37. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 42. Gay Wakefield and Laura I?. Cottone, op. cit., pp. 24-32. William P. Ehling and David M. Dozier, “Public Relations Management and Operations Research,” in James Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1992), p. 256. Richard Detwiler, ‘What Every Successful Executive Should Know about His Press Offricer’s Terrible Secrets,” Public Relations Journal 32 (1976), p. 21. David Dozier and Glen Broom, op. cit., p. 23. William P. Ehling and DavidM. Dozier, op. cit., pp. 251-284. William P. Ehling and David M. Dozier, op. cit., pp. 251-284: David M. Dozier, and Larissa A. Grunig, “The Organization of the Public Relations Function,” in James Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1992), pp.395-417.
Vol. 22. No. 4