MSPR: Pertemuan-4
STEP 2 PR PROCESS
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING
CUTLIP AND CENTER’S
EFFECTIVE PUBLIC RELATIONS
Eleventh Edition
Glen M. Broom, Ph.D. & Bey-Ling Sha, Ph.D., APR
Sunanda Seshadrinathan
By conducting research and analysis as the first step, strategic management
represents the open systems approach to public relations, whereby the
organization takes stock of its environment. Contrast this to the closed systems,
reactive approach, whereby the organization simply implements actions and
communications without research, planning, or evaluating. One counselor defines
strategic management as “a process that enables any organization—company,
association, nonprofit, or government agency—to identify its long-term
opportunities and threats, mobilize its assets to address them, and carry out a
successful implementation strategy.”3
In the strategic management process, once the public relations problem or
opportunity has been defined through research and analysis, practitioners must
determine what goal is desired by organizational management, either to mitigate
the problem or to capitalize on the opportunity.
Once the public relations goal is set, then practitioners must devise a
strategy for achieving that goal. In short, strategic thinking is predicting or
establishing a desired future goal state, determining what forces will help and
hinder movement toward the goal, and formulating a plan for achieving the
desired state.
This chapter covers the two main aspects of strategic thinking: goal setting
and strategic planning. Goal setting for public relations programs must take place
in the context of organizational missions and goals. Strategic planning in public
relations involves making decisions about program goals and objectives,
identifying key publics, and determining strategies and tactics. In short, step two
of the strategic management process in public relations is planning and
programming—making the basic strategic decisions about what will be done in
what order in response to or in anticipation of a problem or opportunity.
The effectiveness of the tactics used in the next step of the process—taking
action and communicating (Chapter 13)—depends on the sound planning done in
this, the second step. Yet many practitioners do not take the time necessary to
plan; they do “pseudoplanning.”4 Skimping on the strategic planning step in the
public relations management process results in programs that may reinforce
controversy rather than resolve it, waste money on audiences that are not there,
or facilitate misunderstanding and confusion instead of understanding and
clarification.
Many difficult public relations problems were born of spur-of-the-moment
decisions, made without strategic planning. For example, the American Heart
Association’s short lived “seal-of-approval” program for food products was
canceled under heavy pressure from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
other interested parties. Major League Baseball is still trying to recover from its
inactivity and later anemic response to the steroid crisis involving some of the
biggest names in the “nation’s pastime.”
An embarrassed U.S. military regretted giving Afghan children soccer balls
imprinted with a picture of the Saudi Arabian flag. The well-intentioned but
spontaneous gesture backfired because the flag included Arabic script of “Allah”
and “Prophet Muhammad.” Not something respectful Muslims would kick
around! In all these cases, program planners apparently made strategic decisions
based on inadequate situation analyses or without fully considering possible
unintended consequences of their program tactics. In effect, both planners and
their organizations are held responsible for nonstrategic interventions and
responses, regardless of their intentions.
PUBLIC RELATIONS GOALS
Crisis management expert James Lukaszewski summarized the value of
goal-directed strategic thinking: Have a destination before you start the journey,
and understand the outcome you seek to achieve before you begin. More good
intentions perish for want of a clearly defined destination than for almost any
other reason. A focus on the goal tends to reduce the wandering generality
tendency and to force people to focus on more meaningful specifics, more
meaningful actions that construct the desired outcomes. If the goal is missing,
you and the boss are going nowhere.5
Public relations goals should reflect the problems or opportunities defined
in the research step. In addition, public relations goals should never stand in
isolation; they must make sense within the context of the organization’s broader
vision, its mission, and its operational goals. In fact, the four-step public relations
process outlined in Chapters 11 through 14 is based on two assumptions: that the
organization has clearly defined its overall mission and goals and that public
relations is part of the plan to achieve them.
As discussed in Chapter 9, vision and mission statements are designed to
give those in the organization a sense of purpose and direction. Such statements
without management commitment and support, however, become simply
cosmetic additions to brochures, reports, and speeches. The challenge is to instill
a sense of vision, mission, values, and behavior standards throughout an
organization. Each organization has to define its own unique vision and mission,
matching its strategy and values and creating its own culture.6 (For some
examples, see Exhibit 12.1, as well as Exhibit 9.3 on page 199.) Whether these
documents are kept private for competitive or security reasons or are open for
public consumption, public relations staff are privy to them. In organizations
where no such statements have been set down, there is an urgent need for the
top public relations officer to propose one.
Statements of organizational goals, obligations, values, and social
responsibility serve two important purposes in public relations: First, they commit
the whole organization to accountability, and that means visibility or
communication of some sort. Second, the attitudes expressed provide a
framework in which practitioners can devise public relations goals and objectives,
plan programs, build budgets, direct staff, and assess program impacts. In short,
an organization’s vision, its mission, and its operational goals serve as the
framework for public relations goals, which in turn address the problems and
opportunities facing the organization.
Public Relations Planning
Once a public relations goal is set, the next steps are identifying key publics,
articulating objectives, and determining strategies and tactics. There must be a
close linkage between the overall program goal, the objectives established for
each of the publics, and the strategies and tactics selected to accomplish each
objective. The next sections of this chapter cover the specific planning steps
necessary to gather and develop the elements that will comprise the bulk of the
nal public relations plan. Although each program calls for specifically tailored and
unique elements, the overall approach is similar from plan to plan.
Program Objectives
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Goals are broad,
summative statements that spell out the overall outcomes of a program. Such a
program may involve many different parts of an organization as well as many
different strategies. Goals state what the coordinated effort is intended to
accomplish and by when it will be accomplished. Goals establish what will be
accomplished if the objectives set for each of the publics are achieved.
Objectives represent the specific knowledge, opinion, and behavioral
outcomes to be achieved for each well-defined target public, what some call “key
results.” The outcome criteria take the form of measurable program effects to be
achieved by specified dates. In practice, objectives are important for three
reasons. First, objectives provide focus and direction for developing program
strategies and tactics. Second, they offer guidance and motivation to those
Chapter 12 implementing the program. Finally, objectives spell out the criteria for
monitoring progress and for assessing impact. In short, objectives are smaller-
scale outcomes that, collectively and over time, achieve the broader goal of the
public relations program.
Writing Program Objectives
Public relations objectives must be carefully written. Appropriate objectives
contain four specific elements:
1. Target Public. Objectives must include the public being targeted, as defined
earlier in the planning process. If the objective fails to include the target
public, implementation of the strategic plan becomes difficult, as programmers
won’t know who they are supposed to reach.
2. Outcome. Each objective in the sequence should spell out a single, specific
outcome to be achieved. There are only three categories of outcomes: what
people are aware of, know, or understand (knowledge outcomes); how people
feel (pre dispositional outcomes); and what people do (behavioral outcomes).
This is the “learn-feel-do” causal sequence that typifies the working theory
behind most public relations programs:
INFORMATION GAIN ⇒ OPINION CHANGE ⇒ BEHAVIORAL
CHANGE
Behavioral change can only happen when there is opinion support in favor of
the desired behavior. Opinion change happens only with appropriate
informational support or knowledge gain (see Chapter 8). (Note: Over time,
attitude change may also occur.)
3. Measurement. To provide useful and verifiable outcome criteria, objectives
must state the magnitude of change or level to be maintained in measurable,
quantifiable terms. Of course, the levels must be realistic and consistent with
the resources available to those implementing the program. Experience and
judgment, plus evidence from the situation analysis research, provide the
bases for setting the levels of outcomes to be achieved. Without benchmark
data, judgment dominates when setting the outcome levels.
4. Target Date. Objectives spell out the target date for when the outcome is to
be achieved. Typically, outcomes must be achieved in a certain order, with one
necessary before another and each successive outcome a logical consequence
of the previous outcomes. Target dates also provide guidance for those
developing strategies and tactics, even down to deciding when to schedule
communications and events. Dates also help practitioners determine when the
implementation phase is finished and when evaluation can begin.
Objectives in Practice
To summarize, program objectives for each public specify the desired
outcomes, in what sequence, in what magnitude, and by what dates they are
needed in order to achieve the overall program goal (see Exhibit 12.3 for one
example). The more specific the objectives, the more precise everything that
follows.
Without objectives, programs drift according to the whims and desires of
clients and employers, and the intuitions and preferences of practitioners. People
in power choose program strategy and tactics because they like them, not
because they are logically related to intended outcomes.
Practitioners select strategy and tactics because of habit or familiarity
based on previous experience, not because of research results or working theory.
Appropriately written objectives can prevent these problems.
But simply writing down the objectives is not enough; each person working
on the program should have a copy of the objectives. Objectives thus become the
primary basis for developing and implementing program strategy and tactics.
Objectives should be discussed frequently, because they provide the guidance for
planning, managing, and evaluating program elements and the overall program.
As the topic of staff discussions, objectives keep the program on track.
As conditions change, program planners change the objectives to reflect
the evolving program environment. After all, objectives provide the road map—
derived from the working theory—to the desired goal.
All too often, however, public relations program “objectives” either
describe the tactic, or means, rather than the consequences, or ends, to be
achieved. For example, “To mail out 12 monthly issues of . . . ” and “To inform
people about . . .” both describe activities, not results or outcomes. To avoid this
common pitfall, practitioners should review their written objectives and ask “Is
this something that we think needs to be done by the organization?” (If so, then
the statement describes a tactic, not an objective.) An appropriately written
objective will get the answer “Yes” to the question, “Is this an impact we need to
achieve in a target public?”
Following are examples of useful program objectives for the three levels of
outcomes discussed above:
1. Knowledge outcome: By July 1, to increase from 150 to 300 the number of
local homeowners who know that wildland fires destroyed 2,500 homes during
the past three fire seasons.
2. Predisposition (opinion) outcome: To increase neighboring property owners’
confidence in our ability to conduct field tests safely, from a mean confidence
rating of 2.7 to 3.5, by January 15.
Behavioral outcome: To increase the percentage of employees who use
seat belts when driving on the job from the current 51 percent to at least 70
percent within 30 days after the program begins.
Strategies and tactics
Once public relations objectives have been clearly articulated, practitioners
must determine the strategies and tactics necessary to accomplish those
objectives. Borrowed from the military, the terms “strategy” and “tactic” are
often confused. In public relations practice, strategy typically refers to the overall
concept, approach, or general plan for the program designed to achieve an
objective. Tactics refer to the actual events, media, and methods used to
implement the strategy.
Long-time public relations leader and counselor John Beardsley summed up
the difference this way: “Strategy is a ladder leading to a goal. Tactics are the
steps on the ladder.”14 For example, the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board’s
(WMMB) successful program to pass a referendum illustrates the difference
between strategy and tactics.
WMMB wanted to win dairy producers’ support for increasing, from 5 to 10
cents per hundredweight of milk produced, the amount directed to state and
regional promotions of dairy products.
Congress mandated that dairy farmers nationwide contribute 15 cents for
each hundredweight of milk they sell to do research and to promote the sale of
dairy products. Of the mandatory check-off, 5 cents goes to the National Dairy
Promotion and Research Board, and 5 cents goes to state or regional
organizations. Dairy farmers then choose which organization gets the other 5
cents, often called the “middle nickel.” WMMB wanted Wisconsin producers to
direct the discretionary 5 cents to the state organization.
Program strategies included reinforcing the producers’ belief in the need to
build markets for Wisconsin dairy products; demonstrating WMMB’s successes in
marketing, research, and education; and enlisting influential third-party
endorsements to reach targeted groups of producers.
Tactics included check stuffers, newsletters, informational meetings, an
800–telephonenumber information service, the annual report, and exhibit booths
at Farm Progress Days and the World Dairy Expo.
The effect of these strategies and tactics was that 93 percent of the
producers who cast ballots in the referendum voted in favor of directing the
middle nickel to WMMB. The key point is that strategy is selected to achieve a
particular outcome (as stated in a goal or objective), and tactics are how the
strategy gets implemented.
Action and Communication Strategies
Public relations has matured into the role of helping organizations decide
not only how to say something and what to say, but also what to do, according to
Harold Burson. In its infancy and into the 1960s, public relations simply crafted
and distributed the message handed down from management. Reflecting their
view of public relations, management asked, “How do I say it?” In response to the
social changes of the 1960s, organizations and their CEOs were increasingly held
accountable on such issues as public and employee safety, equal opportunity, and
the environment.
In addition to how to say something, management asked public relations,
“What shall I say?” Beginning in the 1980s, however, public relations entered a
third stage; in addition to asking communication questions, management now
asked, “What do I do?”15 Burson attributes this new role to unavoidable and
increasingly detailed public scrutiny of what organizations do and say. This
scrutiny has intensified in the wake of BP’s role in and response to the
environmental crisis caused by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill; controversial responses
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Red
Cross after Hurricane Katrina; and performance-enhancing drugs and “doping” in
sports such as Major League Baseball and professional bicycling events like the
Tour de France. Public response is also quick because of almost instantaneous
worldwide communication and social media; what an organization does can be
reported as quickly as what the organization itself says. As a result, all
organizations need public relations more than ever to help determine what to do
(and not do) and what to say (and not say).16 That constitutes action and
communication strategy.
In the words of an old adage, “Actions speak louder than words.” Yet many
people in management, and unfortunately even some in public relations, believe
the myth that communication alone can solve most public relations problems.
Typically, however, public relations problems result from something done, not
something said. The exception is when the “something said” becomes an event
itself, such as when someone in authority or in a prominent position makes a
sexist remark, uses a racial slur, or simply lies. For example, when a blogger
reported that former
New York 9th District U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner had Tweeted
sexually explicit photos of himself to women he knew only online, he denied the
charge at a press conference. After ten days of intense media attention, he held a
second press conference admitting that he had lied, but that he would not resign.
Ten more days of continuing pressure from Congressional colleagues and media
scrutiny produced a third press conference to announce his resignation from
Congress. Political pundits and crisis management experts agreed that it was the
lie and delayed admission, not the deeds, that led to the seven-term
representative’s resignation. He became a victim of his own words, distributed
worldwide by the 24/7 media.
Action as an Open Systems Response
Public relations action is “socially responsible acts taken by public relations
departments or other parts of the organization with your counsel.”17 Action
strategies typically include changes in an organization’s policies, procedures,
products, services, and behavior. These changes are designed to achieve program
objectives and organizational goals, while at the same time responding to the
needs and well-being of an organization’s publics. In short, corrective actions
serve the mutual interests of an organization and its publics.
Action strategy results from knowing how an organization’s policies,
procedures, actions, and other outputs contribute to public relations problems. As
pointed out in the situation analysis section of Chapter 11, a thorough
understanding of the problem situation is essential for designing the action
strategy. For example, when the Atlanta Bureau of Police Services (ABPS) tackled
the problem of not enough police for public safety and security, it began by
studying its own recruiting and training program. Before developing any external
recruitment communications, ABPS changed how it operated its recruiting
program. First, ABPS expanded the search area from the metropolitan Atlanta
area to the entire state of Georgia. Second, it staffed an office specifically to
handle recruiting. Third, ABPS equipped the office with the computer equipment
necessary for expediting applications. These internal changes and the
accompanying communication campaign resulted in more than 1,800 applicants
and a net gain of 80 new officers on the force in one year. Previous attempts at
statewide recruiting without the other changes in structure and processing had
not reversed the attrition problem.
Action strategies concentrate on adjustment and adaptation within the
organization. An opportunity to implement such changes, however, requires that
both top management and practitioners define public relations as something
much more than publicity and persuasive communication. As Harold Burson
pointed out, in its mature form, public relations helps clients determine what is
done as well as what and how something is said.
Action Before Communication
As described in the previous section, an organization should implement
corrective internal actions before reaching out to external publics with its
communication efforts. In any case, action and communication strategies should
be coordinated, so that they do not contradict. For example, a company cannot
simply say that they are sorry for dumping toxic waste into the river and then
keep doing it! The organization must first stop the dumping (internal, corrective
action), plan and explain how it will clean up the toxic mess (another internal,
corrective action), and then describe to concerned stakeholders how the
company will safely dispose of toxic waste in the future (communication to both
internal and external publics).
Details on communication strategies and tactics, as well as how action and
communication can be coordinated, are discussed in Chapter 13, even though
planning how they will be implemented should be part of the second step of the
strategic management process.
The Public Relations Plan
Planning the public relations program is only part of the challenge; the
other part is putting the program elements together into a coherent, written plan
that is both acceptable to management and realistic for implementation. When
the public relations program meshes with organizational missions and goals, the
employer knows that the public relations practitioner understands what
management is trying to do and is part of the management team. Counselor Jim
Lukaszewski paraphrases the CEO’s position: “Please spare me from another
amateur corporate strategist—the person who doesn’t have a clue about how the
company operates, my goals, or our critical strategic needs; but who yaps at me
every day and calls it strategy.”
The task of writing an overall program or a proposal would rarely fall on a
new member of a staff, but all members of the public relations team should
understand how proposals and presentations evolve. By seeing how all the parts
come together, all practitioners are better able to perform their own segment or
specialty when programs are implemented. Plans and programs are generally
infused with enthusiasm. That helps get approval by employers and clients. But
over-enthusiasm carries with it the serious danger of overpromising: “This
employee communication program has everything necessary to eliminate the
turnover problem.”
Those are dangerous words. Suppose the program falls short, reducing
employee turnover by “only” 50 percent? Ordinarily such a reduction might be
considered an acceptable performance, but evaluated against the unrealistic
earlier statement, it might be considered not up to the level promised.
PLAN COMPONENTS
A public relations plan starts with the organization’s mission statement. It
proceeds from the specific role assigned to it in the form of a public relations
mission. It engages in whatever fact finding is indicated, as discussed in Chapter
11. This information is used to build the foundation of the program: the problem
statement and situation analysis (discussed in Chapter 11) and the public relations
program goal. The final plan (or proposal) typically includes the components
outlined in Exhibit 12.4.
Budgeting
There is as much art and artistry in public relations budgeting as there is
science. Budgets generally relate to one of four control factors: (1) total income
or funds available to the enterprise; (2) “competitive necessity”; (3) overall task or
goal set for the organization; and (4) profit or surplus over expenses.
When total income or funds available is the basis for budgeting, as in
marketing or fundraising activities, public relations is generally allocated a
percentage. The percentage relates to the organization’s total operating budget,
to gross sales, to funds raised, or to funds allocated from taxes.
When competitive necessity is the criterion, the amount spent by a similar
charity or a competing organization is matched or exceeded. This method is very
risky. The task or goal basis for budgeting usually provides for public relations to
have a share of the funding set aside to achieve the desired end result. For
example, to achieve a fund-raising goal, a museum might increase the percentage
of the operating budget allocated to “development activities”. The final approach
profit, based on how much money is “left over” usually sets a fluctuating figure
that can go up or down, depending on the point at which we break even, or in a
nonprofit operation, “the point at which we cover all expenses.” Not only are
planning and staffing difficult under this option, but it also reinforces the
impression that public relations is something you do only if you have money to
spend after covering the essentials.
Budgeting is rarely a one-person job. Each specialist is called on to estimate
and itemize variable costs that will be incurred to implement the public relations
plan during the next budget year. Variable costs are those associated with
projects and activities, such as printing, rent for special events facilities, speakers’
fees, photographers, advertising, travel, and entertainment. The department
head, or someone designated, adds the estimated variable costs to the unit’s
fixed costs, including such expenses as salaries and benefits, plus overhead for
office space, phone service, equipment leases, supplies, subscriptions, and service
contracts. The next executive up the line evaluates the budgets from the
departments for which he or she is responsible, negotiates and adjusts the budget
requests to fit the total available or needed, and finally either approves or
forwards the budgets to the next level for approval (see Figure 12.1).
Practitioners typically follow three guidelines when budgeting:
1. Know the cost of what you propose to buy. If you plan to do a special
mailing, find out the exact costs for photography and artwork, printing and
folding, mailing lists, labeling and sorting, delivery, postage, and everything else
needed to complete the job. Do not guess, because you will have to live within
the budget that gets approved and deliver what was promised.
2. Communicate the budget in terms of what it costs to achieve specific
results. The details of actual variable and fixed costs used to develop the budget
may not be of interest to management or to a client. Managers who must
approve the budget typically want to know how much it will cost to achieve goals
and objectives. They look to you to manage the process in a cost-effective
fashion.
3. Use software to manage the program. Many commercial software
programs are available to help develop a master spreadsheet, as well as
spreadsheets for individual projects. By tracking each project and linking each to
the master spreadsheet, you can estimate cash-flow requirements in advance and
monitor expenditures against cost estimates. Too often, budgets are put aside
after they are approved and are not used as management tools. But, when used
in conjunction with other elements of program planning, budgets provide
guidance for scheduling staff resources, contracting for services, tracking project
costs, and establishing accountability. Individual staff members, as well as the
entire unit, should refer to the budget when assessing performance against
expectations.
Also, budgets often play an important part in shaping and maintaining the
relationship between the public relations staff and their clients and top
management. In the final analysis, practitioners must have realistic budgets, use
them to direct staff efforts, review them frequently with clients and top
management, and be able to link costs to staff performance and program
outcomes.
Pretesting Program Elements
Once the strategic plan is formulated, it should be tried on a pilot basis.
Many qualitative and quantitative tools are available for pretesting efforts:
interviews with opinion leaders, focus groups, controlled laboratory tests, and
field tests in pilot communities. Careful pretests of strategy, tactics, and program
materials provide estimates of how they will work, provide comparisons of
alternatives to determine which work best, and detect possible backlash effects of
unanticipated, unfavorable results.
Backlash effects can be avoided by conducting a response analysis. This
means using a sample audience to observe immediate reaction to specific
communication content. As an example, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) would have been spared much embarrassment had it
pretested its 16-page booklet Safety with Beef Cattle. A pretest would have
eliminated such nonsense warnings as, “Be careful not to step into the manure
pits,” “If your ladder is broken, do not climb it,” and “Beams that are too low can
hurt you. Message pretesting also can help increase the understandability of the
information for its intended audience. The symbolism chosen for a public
relations document may represent perfect clarity to its creator but be both
uninteresting and unintelligible to the reader. Or the symbol may be
inappropriate, as when Caterpillar, Inc., sent 10,000 calendars to its Saudi Arabia
dealer, Zahid Tractor. When government inspectors opened the shipment, they
found that the calendar contained a picture of a village in Iceland showing a
church with two crosses. Workers blotted out the crosses with heavy black
markers because Christian symbols are forbidden in the devoutly Islamic nation.
The blotches created 10,000 reminders of the need to pretest even the smallest
detail in program communications and activities.
A word of caution about pretesting: Public opinion is a process, and that
process is constantly moving, as discussed in Chapter 8. Thus, an idea that worked
well in a pretest might prove a fiasco upon widespread use because of a time lag.
Seasons change and with them change people’s concerns, recreational pursuits,
and so forth. Overpowering and unexpected events can also quickly alter the
public opinion climate. For example, the American Red Cross’ questionable
response to Hurricane Katrina dramatically changed the climate for fund-raising
campaigns Getting Buy-In for the Plan Research, analysis, precedents, and
experience must be converted into program forms acceptable to those who are
not public relations executives and to clients. Some are not sensitively attuned to
public opinion. Some are cost oriented, or publicity gun-shy, or both. Some do not
committee comfortably to speculative expenditures without a guarantee of
return. Some are nervous about issuing information to news media. Goals and
objectives not tied directly to sales or profits are ephemeral to many.
Thus, the best way to get buy-in for the public relations plan is to
demonstrate how the program will help achieve organizational goals, or in the
words of some managers, “affect the bottom line.” After all, management expects
public relations to help manage threats from the environment, to enhance the
organization’s competitive edge, and—most of all—to protect an organization’s
most important assets, its good name and reputation. So, there are several
“bottom lines” addressed by public relations.
Often the health of the bottom line depends on the health of an
organization’s reputation. An organization’s market share, its ability to attract and
retain valuable employees, its attractiveness to prospective donors and members,
its autonomy and freedom to carry out its missions, and even its stock price are
affected by its reputation among various stakeholders. Management expects the
public relations unit to manage the organization’s reputation and good standing
with the same strategic thinking that goes into managing other assets.
Practitioners must thus demonstrate how the proposed public relations
plan will contribute to the organization’s mission, its operational goals, and its
good reputation. To get buy-in for the public relations plan from managers and
clients, practitioners must also use their persuasive and technical communication
skills. Such skills include effective writing, persuasive speaking, effective use of
presentation audiovisual materials, and careful reading of those around the
conference table. But effective selling of the plan begins with an effective
program plan. After a program has been approved at the policy level, it becomes
necessary to familiarize colleagues with what is to follow. Otherwise, these
important collaborators may wind up uninformed, like an outside counselor who
is not allowed to participate in the planning. Then, they would not be able to do
their part. They would not be in a position to solicit support from the people
under their supervision.
Following are some tips for introducing others to the public relations
program: Explain the basic problems in terms of the harm that can be done if they
are left unattended. Then, explain the immediate remedial measures in relation to
long-term plans. Use similar case examples, precedents, and survey results to
substantiate the plan. Eliminate personal opinion except a sit applies to special
knowledge of related cases. Relate the program to the climate in which the
organization operates and that it hopes to enjoy in the future. Emphasize that the
planned tactics will have a desirable ultimate effect on program objectives. Keep
explanations short and to the point. Be decisive and have conviction in the plan,
qualities highly respected by administrators.
And, as Lukaszewski advises, focus on the future: “The trusted strategic
advisor can only be a force for tomorrow. The closer you are in tune with
tomorrow, the more compatible you are likely to be with the leaders you are
advising.”19It is important for future relationships that the programming agreed
upon be a matter of record. Getting the plan on paper tends to make the planning
and programming steps real and tangible for those charged with implementing
the program. Furthermore, practitioners should plan not only strategies and
tactics, but also their implementation. ***