The debate over the integration of marketing and public relations continues to rage at professional association meetings and columns in trade publications, usually focusing on the organization chart and who will report to whom.
Too often lost in the discourse over which discipline should be "in charge" are the very real benefits of taking an integrated approach to communicating with and building relationships with key audiences. Those benefits include:
To achieve these benefits, which all center around increased communications effectiveness and efficiency, there are a number of basic steps that healthcare organizations can take to move out of the debate and into the development of an integrated institutional communications program.
The first step is for all parties - the professionals working in all of the functions that are involved in communicating with organizational audiences - to stop focusing on power, control and the organization chart, and start focusing on bringing together a team that can work together as peers.
This means accepting the organizational structure as it exists - and realizing that there is no one model or perfect solution that exists and can be adopted wholesale. Every healthcare organization has a slightly different way of structuring its institutional advancement functions - PR, marketing, development, community relations, etc. - and an integrated approach to communications can be implemented effectively in any structure, if the parties are willing to concede the need for any one person or department to have full control.
If it seems that there's a chance that this collaborative spirit exists - or can be kindled - within the organization, the second step is for someone, or a couple of someones, to take on an informal leadership role to get the process started.
Any senior-level manager charged with responsibility for one of the related functions can be the spark by suggesting to his or her peers that they assemble to begin a discussion of how they can work together to develop (and present to the CEO) a comprehensive institutional communications plan. (It's also a good idea for the person or persons taking the lead to share their intentions with the CEO/COO, who can usually be counted on to support the goal of having a coordinated, non-duplicative, more cost-effective communications program.)
This leads to the third step - convening a meeting of the key players. At this point, the success or failure of the effort will be determined by one key variable: who's at the table. The more inclusive the group, the higher the chances of success. The convenors should bring together all management team members who have responsibility for communications programs. The list will vary by organization, but can include PR, marketing, development/fund-raising, investor relations, employee communications, physician relations admissions and alumni (if there's a medical school), volunteer director, etc.
The goal is to make sure that as the process progresses, there are no key players who are "outside" - continuing to implement communications programs as independent entities.
Once the meeting is in place, the fourth step is to focus the discussion not on who's in charge of what, but to move immediately into a discussion of the organization's overall objectives.
With that list in place, the fifth step (and notice that we're still working as a group here, in an integrated way, with no one having given up any sovereignty) is to identify the audiences related to each objective. Simultaneously, each participant can add to the list audiences that he or she is responsible for, so that the end result is a comprehensive organizational audience list.
This sounds like a fairly simple process, but in fact, it is something that many organizations, both healthcare and others, rarely complete. And it is absolutely essential, given that a coordinated program of messages and channels can't be developed until the group has a clear understanding of the multiple audiences they must reach.
Once this step is completed, the integrated communications plan flows as follows:
1. Identify and review any research that exists, to shed insight into each audience, and note areas where research needs to be conducted.
2. Identify priority messages for each audience, noting any contradictions that need to be addressed.
3. Identify current communications channels that reach each audience, noting overlaps, where one audience is being over-reached through duplicative channels, and gaps, where channels need to be created.
4. Agree on the most appropriate mix of tactics to reach each audience (noting that rarely is one singular channel effective).
5. Develop a timetable and work plan that identifies which group member and department is responsible for implementing the communications tactics for each audience.
The decisions about who's doing what can be based on current responsibilities (PR already does employee communications, marketing already does consumer advertising, etc.). If new channels are to be created, group agreement will be needed to determine who will handle that responsibility.
While implementing this process can certainly include disagreements - over message, or priority audiences, or best communications tactics - by using a group decision model, there's a far greater probability that the end result will be an integrated effort with more efficiency and effectiveness than each department acting in isolation.
It's not a fool-proof method - any one participant can refuse to participate, or continuously disagree - but once the HCO leadership knows that the process is underway and supports the value of the eventual outcome, pressure from that level and from the participating peers is often enough to bring even the most unwilling participant to the table.
By putting aside the "who reports to whom/who's in charge" debate, and focusing on the goals of the organization and the role that the various disciplines can play in achieving those goals, marketing and PR professionals can achieve an integrated approach that will benefit their organization and their own standing as committed professionals in the eyes of the CEO.