Content

Overview Research design and socio-demographic analysis Credibility of public relations and alternative concepts Decision making, leadership style and role enactment Power of communication departments ROI of communication Strategic issues and trust Development of disciplines and communication channels Social media: Governance, skills and activities Future qualification needs and training Salaries Annex (references, authors and advisory board, imprint)

03 09 20 33 47 68 76 84 95 111 124 132

2

Overview

credibility of public relations and alternative concepts for the profession 4 . skills and activites.Key facts European Communication Monitor 2011  Most comprehensive analysis of communication management and public relations worldwide with 2.209 participating professionals from 43 countries  Annual research project conducted since 2007 by a group of professors from 11 renowned universities across Europe. power of communication departments. ROI of communication. University of Leipzig  Organised by the European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA). leadership style. Dr. trust. led by Prof. qualification needs. social media governance. role enactment. development of disciplines and communication channels. Ansgar Zerfass. European Association of Communication Directors (EACD) and Communication Director Magazine  Sponsors: Infopaq and Grayling  Research topics in 2011: Decision making. salaries.

Prof. Prof. Prof. Prof. Aarhus University (DK) Øyvind Ihlen. IULM University. Poznan University of Economics (PL) Statistical analysis and assistant researchers  Ronny Fechner M. Dr. Dr.. Dr.A. University of Bordeaux (FR) Francesco Lurati. Prof.. University of Leipzig (GE)  Katharina Simon B. University Rey Juan Carlos.. Madrid (ES) Dejan Verčič....Sc.Academic task force Research team      Ansgar Zerfass. Prof... University of Leipzig (GE) 5 .. Prof. Prof. Ass. Dr. Leeds Metropolitan University (UK) Angeles Moreno. Prof. Dr. University of Lugano (CH) Finn Frandsen. Dr. University of Leipzig (GE) – Lead Researcher Piet Verhoeven. University of Ljubljana (SI) Advisory board       Emanuele Invernizzi... University of Amsterdam (NL) Ralph Tench. Milano (IT) Valerie Carayol.. Dr. Prof. University of Oslo (NO) Ryszard Lawniczak. Dr.. Prof. Dr. Dr.

It documents opinions on strategic questions in communication.eacd-online. The magazine is published by Helios Media.communication-director. a specialist publishing house based in Berlin and Brussels.600 members. www.eu 6 . Academic scholars and experienced practitioners work together to advance fundamental and applied research.Partners European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA)  The European Public Relations Education and Research Association is an autonomous organisation with members from more than 30 countries that aims at stimulating and promoting the knowledge and practice of communication management in Europe. highlights transnational developments and discusses them from a European perspective. www. The non-partisan association lobbies for the profession. establishes common quality standards and promotes the advancement of professional qualification by organising events and providing services and material.euprera. www.eu Communication Director  Communication Director is a quarterly magazine for Corporate Communications and Public Relations in Europe.org European Association of Communication Directors (EACD)  The European Association of Communication Directors is the leading network for communication professionals across Europe with more than 1.

We have approximately 6. Government Relations. Investor Relations and Events consultancy with specialist services including CSR. Germany. European-based company. Western and Eastern Europe and the Asia Pacific region. www. and digital. analysis and consulting services. with expertise in media. Norway and Sweden. news evaluation. Estonia. environment and sustainability.com Grayling  Grayling is the world’s second largest independent Public Relations.com 7 . The consultancy has 1. By providing media monitoring. tracking. www. surveys. we help our clients improve future communications efforts and thereby attain their business goals. Finland. publicity and analysis.infopaq.Sponsors Infopaq  Infopaq is a global.grayling.000 staff in 70 offices in 40 countries across the US.500 clients and more than 500 employees in Denmark.

Copyright and reproduction of results
Quotation  The material presented in this document represents empirical insights and interpretation by the research team. It is intellectual property subject to international copyright. Publication date: July 2011.  You are welcome to quote from the content of this survey and reproduce any graphics, subject to the condition that the source including the internet address is clearly quoted and depicted on every chart. See the imprint for more information.  The full report (text and figures) is available as a book published by Helios Media, 133 pp., ISBN 978-3-942263-12-2. Suggested citation for this document (APA style)  Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2011): European Communication Monitor 2011. Empirical Insights into Strategic Communication in Europe. Results of an Empirical Survey in 43 Countries (Chart Version). Brussels: EACD, EUPRERA (available at: www.communicationmonitor.eu) Short quotation to be used in legends (charts/graphics)  Source: European Communication Monitor 2011

8

Research design and socio-demographic analysis

Outline of the survey

Aims and focus  to monitor trends in communication management  to analyse the changing framework for the profession in Europe  to evaluate specific topics like decision making, power, trust, social media skills, return on investment for communications, qualification needs, salaries and the image of public relations as well as alternative concepts for the profession.  to identify the development of communication management in different types of organisations, countries and regions Target group  Communication managers and PR professionals working in organisations and consultancies throughout Europe

10

descriptive and analytical analysis (using SPSS)  results have been statistically agreed by Pearson's chi-square tests (x²) or Spearman's rank correlation tests (rho) and are classified as significant (p ≤ 0.05) where appropriate  in this report.014 respondents and 2. significant correlations are marked in the footnotes 11 .209 fully completed replies by participants clearly identified as part of the population (communication professionals in Europe) Statistical analysis  methods of empirical research. 4.000+ professionals throughout Europe via e-mail based on a database provided by EACD. additional invitations to participate via national branch associations and networks (partly self-recruiting). based on hypotheses and instruments derived from previous research and literature  pre-test with 31 practitioners in 10 European countries  personal invitation to 30. English language  questionnaire with 20 sections.277 fully completed replies  evaluation is based on 2.Methodology Survey method and sampling  online survey in March 2011 (4 weeks).

Q17 E Position Formal power. Q10 Communication channels. Q2 Trust as a communication goal. Q11 Importance of social media. Q14 B Structure Type of organisation. Q12 Importance of social media. Q5 Horizontal power. Q9 Disciplines and fields of practice. Q13 Social media governance today. Q20 Communicative. Q20 Association Member. Q11 Strategic issues. Q15 ROI of communication. Q20 Hierarchy. Q17 Public’s trust in public relations. Q20 Organisation Culture Characteristics of organisational culture. Q19 Professional perception Professional role. Q7 Collaboration with other functions in the organisation. Q20 Gender. Q19 12 . Q18 Leadership style. Q13 Social media governance in the future. Q20 C Situation Present D Perception Future Disciplines and fields of practice. Q1 Alternative concepts. Q10 Communication channels. Q16 Training programmes today. Q6 Advisory/executive influence. Q20 Private use of social media. Q20 Social media skills. Q20 Age. Q15 Future skills for communication managers. Q4 Decision making. Q3 Country European homebase. Q8 Personal income. Q20 Experience.Research framework and questions A Demographics Person (Communication Professional) Job status Education Academic.

2% 14. political organisation  non-profit organisation. Freelance consultant 28.9% 28.0% 18. Consultant Other 48.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2.4% 41.2% 17.9% 27.communicationmonitor.8% 71. Q 20. public sector.6% 44.8% Organisation Communication department  joint stock company  private company  government-owned.4% 56.7% Gender / Age Female Male Age (on average) 55. association Communication consultancy.1% 10. Unit Leader Team member.209 PR professionals in 43 European countries.8% 28.6% 5.2 years www. PR Agency. 13 .Demographic background of participants Position Head of communication.7% Job experience Up to 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years 15. Agency CEO Responsible for single communication discipline.

Norway.5% 2. 2011 / n = 2. 14 . Slovenia. Romania) 43 27. Czech Republic.9% 29. United Kingdom. France) Southern Europe (e.4% www.g.7% 54.4% 10.g. see page 18 for a detailed list of countries.g.eu / Zerfass et al. Netherlands. Germany. Italy.Geographical distribution and affiliation Respondents  Professionals working in communication management Geographical distribution      Total number of European states Northern Europe (e. Q 20. Regions are classified according to United Nations Standards.g. Croatia) Eastern Europe (e. Latvia) Western Europe (e.2% 32.209 Membership in a professional organisation  EACD  Other international communication association  National PR or communication association 15.209 PR professionals. Poland.2% 16.communicationmonitor.

M.7% 58..A.A.Sc.).Personal background of respondents Communication qualifications  Academic degree in Communication (Bachelor.B. Doctorate)  Professional certificate in Public Relations / Communication Management  Professional certificate in other communication discipline Highest academic educational qualification  Doctorate (Ph. M.2% www. Mag. Q 20. Master.)  No academic degree 6.209 PR professionals..D.eu / Zerfass et al.6% 16.)  Master (M.. B. 15 .8% 27. Dr.Sc..communicationmonitor.. 2011 / n = 2.6% 44.8% 6. Diploma  Bachelor (B.A.5% 25.

communicationmonitor.A.4% 58.A.6% www. p≤0.4% 27. B. M.D.209 PR professionals..8% Bachelor (B.) 5..0% 6.7% Master. M.05).5% 55.0% 26.Sc.8% No academic degree 4.A..) 61.eu / Zerfass et al. Significant differences among female and male practitioners on all qualification levels (chi-square test.0% 9.B..2% 6.Female professionals are more likely to hold a Bachelor’s or Master’s. Dr. 2011 / n = 2.Sc.) 29. Q 20.. Diploma (M.6% 9. while more male practitioners have a Doctorate or no degree Academic degree Gender Female Male Total Doctorate (Ph. 16 . Mag.

8% 15.7% 21.0% Interactive culture (participative – reactive) 16. Q 18: How would you perceive your organisation regarding the following attributes? participative/non-participative.8% 14.8% 3.1% 83. Significant differences between all groups (chi-square test.Organisational cultures: Different types within the sample Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Agencies/ Consultancies Integrated culture (participative – proactive) 59.05).5% Systematised culture (non-participative – reactive) 18.2% 20.209 PR professional in communication departments. proactive/reactive.7% 15. 2011 / n = 2. p≤0.6% Entrepreneurial culture (non-participative – proactive) 5.9% www.0% 6. 17 .9% 19.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al.5% 62.2% 4.2% 6.1% 3.2% 52. Scale derived from Ernest 1985.0% 8.9% 62.

2% (n=645) Austria Belgium France Germany Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Switzerland Eastern Europe 10. San Marino and Vatican City. Monaco.htm).9% (n=617) Denmark Estonia Finland Iceland Ireland Latvia Lithuania Norway Sweden United Kingdom Western Europe 29. No respondents were registered for this survey from Andorra.5% (n=231) Belarus Bulgaria Czech Republic Georgia Hungary Poland Romania Russia Slovakia Ukraine Southern Europe 32.4% (n=716) Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Cyprus** Greece Italy Kosovo* Macedonia Malta Montenegro Portugal Serbia Slovenia Spain Turkey** In this survey. 18 . Countries are assigned to regions according to the official classification of the United Nations Statistics Division (http://unstats.Countries and regions represented in the study Respondents are based in 43 European countries and four regions Northern Europe 27. eu/abc/european_countries). the universe of 50 European countries is based on the official list of European Countries by the European Union (http://europa.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin. Moldova. Azerbaijan. Armenia.un. These countries were collated like adjacent nations. countries marked ** are assigned to Western Asia. Countries marked * are not included in the UN classification.

Interpretation Insights into the structures and evolution of communications in Europe  Based on a sample of 2.  Respondents are characterised by a high level of experience: more than three out of four are head of communications. which may stimulate qualitative discussions. The survey has been conducted in the English language. Consequently. communication landscapes and professions are in rather different stages of development throughout Europe.209 professionals from 43 European countries. there is no knowledge about the population of communication departments and agencies in Europe. The survey lays a solid foundation for identifying basic structures and developments in strategic communication. unit leaders or agency CEOs. They are especially useful to identify relevant patterns and trends in the field. this research is the most comprehensive transnational study ever conducted in the field of public relations and communication management.  It is necessary to note that economies. 19 . Moreover. 56 per cent have more than ten years of professional experience. the findings presented here can not claim representativeness. Data have been analysed using the appropriate statistical procedures like chi-square tests and rank correlation tests.  The analysis is based on thorough empirical research and analysis. Only fully completed questionnaires have been taken into account. Replies from participants not currently working in communication management (academics. students) and from non-European countries have been removed. the average age is 41 years.

Credibility of public relations and alternative concepts .

8% Negative connotations of PR decrease trust in communication professionals 73.6% Negative connotations of PR in the media damage the reputation of communication professionals 72.communicationmonitor.7% The term ‘public relations’ is discredited 42. considered scale points 4-5. What do you think of these statements? Scale 1-5. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity. 2011 / n = 2.209 PR professionals. Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media. 21 .2% www. PR has negative connotations in the mass media 41. Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’.Professional communication is impaired by negative connotations of public relations in many European countries In my country.eu / Zerfass et al.

534 In my country.000 0. PR has negative connotations in the mass media The term ‘public relations’ is discredited 1.534 1. PR has negative connotations in the mass media" (Pearson correlation. p≤0. Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media. Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’. 2011 / n = 2. 2-tailed.209 PR professionals.01).Perceived negative connotations of PR in the mass media correlate significantly with the disreputability of the concept The term ‘public relations’ is significantly more likely to be discredited if it has negative connotations in the mass media Pearson correlation The term ‘public relations’ is discredited In my country. 22 .communicationmonitor. What do you think of these statements? Strong linear correlation between the items "The term 'public relations' is discredited" and "In my country. PR has negative connotations in the mass media 0.000 www.eu / Zerfass et al. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity.

2011 / n = 2.0%) Norway (52.9%) 0% Croatia (52. less problematic in Belgium.Perceived image of PR in the mass media: Predominantly negative in the UK and Poland.6%) Spain (37.1%) 60% Italy (30. PR has negative connotations in the mass media.209 PR professionals.eu / Zerfass et al.0%) “In my country. Scale 1-5.0%) Netherlands (35.4%) Denmark (50. What do you think of these statements? In my country.3%) 20% 40% France (32.5%) United Kingdom (59.9%) Belgium (27. PR has negative connotations in the mass media” Slovenia (48.6%) Poland (63. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20. Sweden and Italy Switzerland (36.communicationmonitor. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity. 23 . Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media.7%) 80% Sweden (28.0%) Serbia (45.4%) www. Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’.7%) Germany (45.

0%) Serbia (62. Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media.5%) Spain (55.1%) 60% Italy (44. 24 .4%) Netherlands (31. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity. 2011 / n = 2.2%) Belgium (33.209 PR professionals.4%) Denmark (38. Scale 1-5.7%) Norway (45.2%) 80% Sweden (30.1%) Poland (51.1%) Germany (43.6%) 40% United Kingdom (37.7%) www.8%) 20% France (40.The term ‘public relations’ is discredited in most countries Switzerland (32.communicationmonitor. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20. Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’.3%) “The term ‘public relations’ is discredited” 0% Croatia (65.eu / Zerfass et al. What do you think of these statements? The term ‘public relations’ is discredited.7%) Slovenia (53.

2011 / n = 2. Significant differences between respondents from communication departments and agencies (chi-square test.communicationmonitor. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity.eu / Zerfass et al.9% 70. PR has negative connotations in the mass media Negative connotations of PR in the media damage the reputation of communication professionals Negative connotations of PR decrease trust in communication professionals The term ‘public relations’ is discredited 37.2% 52. Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’.209 PR professionals.8% Agencies/ Consultancies 50.Consultants are more critical of the term ‘public relations’ than professionals working in communication departments Communication departments In my country.05). p≤0.8% 38. What do you think of these statements? Scale 1-5.7% 72.5% 76. 25 .9% 77. Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20.3% www.

6% 50. professionals Negative connotations of PR decrease trust in communication professionals The term ‘public relations’ is discredited Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Agencies/ Consultancies Overall 35.209 PR professionals.9% 71.4% www. Significant differences between all types of organisations (chi-square test. Q 1: In many European countries public relations (PR) has negative connotations in the media.6% 69.6% 42.2% 39.3% 71.Perceived negative connotations of public relations in different types of organisations (details) Joint stock companies In my country.communicationmonitor. 26 . Professionals are sometimes labeled as ‘spin doctors’ and ‘propagandists’. p≤0. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20.9% 41.05).8% 72.5% 75.8% 70.3% 71.6% 33.9% 52. PR has negative connotations in the mass media Negative connotations of PR in the media damage the reputation of comm. 2011 / n = 2.7% 37.2% 39.3% 32. What do you think of these statements? Scale 1-5.8% 46.5% 74.3% 42.0% 76.2% 77.7% 72. PR is often reduced to press relations and publicity.8% 73.eu / Zerfass et al.

7% 61. Q 2: Researchers are discussing several concepts to describe the various internal and external communication activities by an organisation.6% Suitability of alternative concepts to describe the various internal and external communication activities by an organisation www. considered scale points 4-5. 2011 / n = 2.communicationmonitor. How would you value these descriptions/labels? Scale 1-5.7% 45.3% 67.eu / Zerfass et al.209 PR professionals. 27 .0% 46.9% 32.9% 55.‘Public relations’ is no longer regarded as a suitable label for the profession compared to other concepts Corporate Communications Strategic Communication Communication Management Public Relations Integrated Communications Business Communication Organisational Communication 34.

Q 2: Researchers are discussing several concepts to describe the various internal and external communication activities by an organisation. 5: significant differences between all types of organisations (chi-square test. p≤0. 4.communicationmonitor.Companies favour ‘Corporate Communications’.05).209 PR professionals. How would you value these descriptions/labels? Scale 1-5 / Q 20. 2011 / n = 2. non-profit and governmental organisations prefer ‘Strategic Communication’ Public Relations Integrated Communications Business Communications Corporate Communications Organisational Communication Communication Management Strategic Communication Not adequate at all Very suitable Joint stock companies Non-profit organisations Private companies Consultancies & Agencies Governmental Organisations www. 28 . Items 1.eu / Zerfass et al.

29 . Q 2: Researchers are discussing several concepts to describe the various internal and external communication activities by an organisation.Concepts and labels for the profession are judged differently in various countries (example: UK versus Germany) Public Relations Integrated Communications Business Communications Corporate Communications Organisational Communication Communication Management Strategic Communication Not adequate at all Very suitable United Kingdom Germany Overall www.communicationmonitor. How would you value these descriptions/labels? Scale 1-5 / Q 20.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2.209 PR professionals.

7% 59. 2-tailed.8% 32. considered scale points 4-5.Practitioners who are sceptical of the term PR dislike ‘Integrated Communications’ as well Corporate Communications Strategic Communication Communication Management Public Relations Integrated Communications Business Communication Organisational Communication 67.2% 45.1% 46.4% All professionals Professionals claiming that the term 'public relations' is discredited www.communicationmonitor. 2011 / n = 2.3% 62.6% 34.7% 55.7% 61. How would you value these descriptions/labels? Scale 1-5.9% 67. Q 2: Researchers are discussing several concepts to describe the various internal and external communication activities by an organisation. 30 .01).0% 34. Linear negative correlation between discreditation of PR and suitability of the PR concept (Pearson correlation.eu / Zerfass et al.209 PR professionals.7% 45.1% 34. p≤0.9% 39.

1% 50.3% 41. 2011 / n = 566.9% 62.4% 58. 31 . 357.eu / Zerfass et al.5% Academic degree in communication 47.communicationmonitor. Q 1 / Q 2 / Q 20.7% 68.0% 35.2% 49.3% 66.5% 42.4% 35.7% 62.0% 47.6% 40.9% 64.9% 35. No calculation of significancies because multiple answers were allowed in Q 20.6% Professional certificate in other communication discipline 48.5% www.7% 68.9% 57. 982 PR professionals.6% 56.4% 37.How formal qualifications influence the approval of alternative concepts and the reputation of public relations Professional certificate in PR/ Communication Management Public Relations Integrated Communications Business Communication Corporate Communications Organisational Communication Communication Management Strategic Communication The term public relations is discredited 49.4% 33.9% 33.

 When comparing the acceptance within different types of organisations. Slovenia. i.  The approval of alternative concepts is not significantly influenced by the formal qualifications of communication professionals.  The terms ‘integrated communication’ and ‘organisational communication’.Interpretation Negative reputation of public relations calls for new concepts and labels  Across Europe. 32 . Further research. communication professionals report negative connotations of ‘public relations’ in the mass media.  As a consequence. are less popular for the professional field. Denmark. strategic communication and communication management. Even in the rest of Europe at least three out of ten practitioners report negative perceptions of the term. e. often used in the academic realm. but also in Norway and Germany. Serbia and Germany. especially in Eastern and Southern Europe. the United Kingdom. The image of PR is especially bad in Poland. while ‘strategic communication’ is the second most popular label.  The survey reveals a significant correlation between the media image and the disreputability of ‘public relations’ as a term and overall concept. Croatia. PR is partly discredited in most European countries. Norway.  Negative connotations of PR in the media damage the reputation of communication professionals as well as trust in their activities. most communication professionals favour alternative labels for the profession – especially corporate communications. may prove these perceptions and provide more detailed insights. media content analysis. ‘corporate communications’ is leading the field across the respondent groups.

Decision making. leadership style and role enactment .

communicationmonitor.6% www.6% 84.7% 53. Types of decision making partly derived from Werder & Holzhausen 2011. only a minority takes risks When making a decision.eu / Zerfass et al. I make a thorough evaluation based on all possible information When making decisions. 2011 / n = 2.Decision making: Most professionals rely on rational approaches and best practices. 34 .9% 45. it is useful to rely on best practices used by similiar organisations I like the shared responsibility that comes from group decision-making Reviewing (scientific) literature and research helps to prepare a decision A risk not taken is usually an opportunity lost Decision-making is driven by the availability of new communication technologies 55.9% 67.1% 38.209 PR professionals. Q 3: How do you make decisions as a communication professional? Scale 1-5. considered scale points 4-5.

35 . 2011 / nmax = 825. considered scale point 5-7. considered scale points 4-5.1% 53.9% European professionals Risk-acceptance decision making 45.8% Group decision making 55. Werder & Holtzhausen 2009.9% 52.communicationmonitor.0% US professionals www.European professionals have a different decision-making profile than their counterparts in the United States Rational decision making 84.209 PR professionals.eu / Zerfass et al.7% 90. Scale 1-7. 2011 / n = 2. Q 3: How do you make decisions as a communication professional? Scale 1-5.

36 . 3.communicationmonitor.05). it is useful to rely on best practices used by similiar organisations Strongly disagree Totally agree Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe www. 2011 / n = 2. Q 3: How do you make decisions as a communication professional? Scale 1-5. / Q 20.Types of decision making in European regions When making a decision. I make a thorough evaluation based on all possible information I like the shared responsibility that comes from group decision-making A risk not taken is usually an opportunity lost Decision-making is driven by the availability of new communication technologies Reviewing (scientific) literature and research helps to prepare a decision When making decisions. Items 2.209 PR professionals. p ≤0. 4: significant differences between the four regions (chi-square test.eu / Zerfass et al.

Research-oriented decision making: Significant differences between organisations (chi-square test.5% Technology-oriented decision making Decision-making is driven by the availability of new communication technologies 37. it is useful to rely on best practices used by similiar organisations 68.eu / Zerfass et al.0% Research-oriented decision making Reviewing (scientific) literature and research helps to prepare a decision 47.3% www.4% 76.6% 67.communicationmonitor.5% 56.1% 54.4% 44.4% 72.0% 38. p ≤0.5% 85. Q 3: How do you make decisions as a communication professional? Scale 1-5 / Q 20.6% Best practices-oriented decision making When making decisions.05). 2011 / n = 2.8% 66.7% 35.3% 41.4% 36.2% 57.5% 51.9% 51.209 PR professionals. 37 .7% Group decision making I like the shared responsibility that comes from group decision-making 55.1% 42.7% 60. I make a thorough evaluation based on all possible information Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations 83.Styles of decision making in different types of organisations Joint stock companies Rational decision making When making a decision.4% Risk-acceptance decision making A risk not taken is usually an opportunity lost 46.1% 82.

88 4.65 3.23 Risk 3.17 2.45 3.18 3.62 3.38 3.41 4.81 3.42 4.26 3.29 3.52 3.16 3.84 3.74 3.53 Technology 2.73 3.71 3.39 3.32 4.93 2.36 3.39 3.41 3.50 Scientific research 3.36 3.communicationmonitor.79 4.82 3.18 3.16 3.Types of decision making in European countries Rational Switzerland Germany Netherlands Belgium France United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Italy Serbia Croatia Slovenia Spain Poland 4.85 4. mean values / Q 20.99 3.57 3.12 4.71 3.24 Group 3.02 38 www.53 3.29 3.49 3.16 2.19 4.37 4.60 3.48 3.64 3.43 3.52 3.60 3.67 3.29 3.38 3.76 3.07 3.42 3.56 Best practices 3.75 3.83 3.73 3.53 3.71 4.73 3.21 3.17 2.80 2.209 PR professionals.20 3.22 3.77 3.92 3.33 3. .65 3.77 3.16 3.eu / Zerfass et al.30 2.45 4.78 3.80 3.84 3.59 3.23 3.12 3.40 3. Q 3: How do you make decisions as a communication professional? Scale 1-5.88 2. 2011 / n = 2.67 3.60 3.00 3.27 3.91 3.

9% Inclusive Leadership: naming challenges.5% Transactional Leadership: drawing on authority. reminding followers of common standards Transformational Leadership: defining a vision.communicationmonitor.209 PR professionals. appealing to followers' ideals and standards 46. involving followers in shared decision making www. 39 .Leadership style: Involving team members is the predominant approach utilised by communication professionals 18. 2011 / n = 2. Q 19: How would you describe the dominant strategy used by leaders in your communication department (or in your consultancy) to achieve common goals? Leadership styles derived from Werder & Holzhausen 2009.eu / Zerfass et al.6% 34.

7% 35.7% Transformational Leaders define a vision and appeal to followers’ ideals and values 36.2% 17.4% 46.7% 31.communicationmonitor.2% www.9% 29.eu / Zerfass et al.2% Inclusive Leaders name challenges and involve followers in shared decision making 46. 40 .3% 37.8% 20.Leadership style in different types of organisations Joint stock companies Transactional Leaders draw on their authority and remind followers of common standards Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Agencies/ Consultancies 17. Q 19: How would you describe the dominant strategy used by leaders in your communication department (or in your consultancy) to achieve common goals? / Q 20. 2011 / n = 2.5% 47.4% 35. Significant differences between the five types of organisations (chi-square test.05).5% 51.8% 13. p≤0.209 PR professionals.8% 32. Leadership styles derived from Werder & Holzhausen 2009.

p≤0.5% 26.9% 33. 2011 / n = 2.6% 45.5% Entrepreneurial culture (non-participative – proactive) 20.6% www. Q 19: How would you describe the dominant strategy used by leaders in your communication department (or in your consultancy) to achieve common goals? / Q 18: How would you perceive your organisation regarding the following attributes? Significant differences between the three types of culture (chi-square test.communicationmonitor.Organisational culture and leadership style are interdependent Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Inclusive Leadership Integrated culture (participative – proactive) 11.8% 49.2% Systematised culture (non-participative – reactive) 46.05).209 PR professionals.1% 30.9% 52.9% 26.eu / Zerfass et al.4% Interactive culture (participative – reactive) 20. 41 .8% 35.

considered scale points: 5-7.955. 2010 / n = 1. Q 7: In your daily work. 2009 / n = 1. Q 4. 2011 / n = 2.8% focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication (+5.communicationmonitor. Zerfass et al.1% compared to 2009) www.eu / Zerfass et al. 7 = Always). Q 8.4% compared to 2010. Zerfass et al.209 PR professionals. 42 .863.8% feel responsible for helping to define business strategies (+8. +6% compared to 2009) 70. a rising number also tries to define them 90. 7 = Very much) / … do you feel responsible for helping to define business strategies? (1 = Never.Strategic contribution: Most communication professionals strive to support overall goals.3% compared to 2010. how much do you focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication? (1 = Not at all. +10.

Professional roles: Most practitioners act as strategic facilitators or operational supporters ALWAYS HELPING TO DEFINE BUSINESS STRATEGIES Business Advisers 3. Q 4: In your daily work.eu / Zerfass et al.0% Scale: 1-4 Scale: 1-4 Scale: 5-7 Operational Supporters 23. 43 .6% VERY MUCH SUPPORTING BUSINESS GOALS BY MANAGING COMMUNICATION Isolated Experts 6.209 PR professionals.2% NOT AT ALL SUPPORTING BUSINESS GOALS BY MANAGING COMMUNICATION Scale: 5-7 Strategic Facilitators 67.communicationmonitor. 7 = Very much) / … do you feel responsible for helping to define business strategies? (1 = Never. 7 = Always).2% NEVER HELPING TO DEFINE BUSINESS STRATEGIES www. 2011 / n = 2. how much do you focus on supporting business goals by planning and executing communication? (1 = Not at all.

All professional roles tend to use rational decision making.209 PR professionals. Decision-making is driven by the availability of new communication technologies: Significant differences between the four roles (chi-square test. I make a thorough evaluation based on all possible information I like the shared responsibility that comes from group decision-making A risk not taken is usually an opportunity lost Decision-making is driven by the availability of new communication technologies Reviewing (scientific) literature and research helps to prepare a decision When making decisions. Q 4. operational supporters are risk-averse and copy best practices When making a decision. 44 . 2011 / n = 2. p ≤0. Q 20.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. it is useful to rely on best practices used by similiar organisations Strongly disagree Totally agree Isolated Experts Business Advisers Operational Supporters Strategic Faciliators www.05).

communicationmonitor. Q 4. 45 . 2011 / n = 2.9% Operational Supporters 22.eu / Zerfass et al.2% 26.2% www. Q 20.3% 4.3% 8.209 PR professionals. p ≤0.0% 27.1% 5.2% 20.8% 3. Significant differences between all regions (chi-square test.Distribution of professional roles in European regions Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe Strategic Facilitators 72.7% Business Advisers 1.6% 2.3% 66.7% 5.0% 65.8% 64.05 ).2% Isolated Experts 4.

strategic facilitators are more rational.8 per cent of communication professionals identify themselves with the advanced ‘strategic facilitator’ role. which means that leaders involve followers in shared decision making.  67. Operational supporters are the second most important role. almost every second respondent reports a predominance for the inclusive leadership style. This role is more common in Southern Europe than in any other region. Rational decisions are less common and an inclusive leadership style is prevalent. This number has risen by 10 per cent within the last two years.Interpretation Inclusive leadership and risk-averse decision making are predominant  Patterns of decision making utilised by European communication professionals differ from the behaviour of their counterparts in the United States. Both groups prefer rational decision making based on an evaluation of all information available. Only 6 per cent of the professionals act as isolated experts who do not contribute to strategic goals at all.  Practitioners in non-profit organisations use significantly different ways of decision making and leadership. research-based and risk-friendly.  Along this line. the shared responsibility offered by group-decision making is more popular than in the US. Only a minority of practitioners in Europe accepts that a risk not taken is an opportunity lost. 46 . meaning that they support organisational goals by executing communication on the one hand whilst also helping to define business strategies. When making decisions. However.

Power of communication departments .

Q 5: Within your organisation.450 PR professionals in communication departments. * public/media and communities. the top communication manager is responsible for ….6% is responsible for all kinds is responsible for at least is responsible for of communication and three communication fields press/media relations and stakeholders* and stakeholder groups internal communication is responsible for press/media relations www.eu / Zerfass et al. marketing/consumers. lobbying/politics 48 .7% 12. communication leaders have a broad level of responsibility The top communication manager within the organisation … 41.7% 41. 2011 / n = 1.communicationmonitor.1% 4.Formal power of the communication function: In most organisations. internal/ employees. financial/investors.

communicationmonitor.Reporting lines and hierarchy: The majority of top level communication managers reports directly to the CEO The top communication manager within the organisation … sits on the board 17.450 PR professionals in communication departments.9% reports to another board member or function 17. Q 5: Within your organisation.8% does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board 4. the top communication manager ….7% www.eu / Zerfass et al. 49 .6% reports directly to the CEO 59. 2011 / n = 1.

9% 8.8% 22..05). Significant differences between all groups (chi-square test. sits on the board 91.1% 15.communicationmonitor.9% reports to another board member or function 77. 50 .. the top communication manager …. Q 5: Within your organisation.8% is responsible for all or at least three communication fields is responsible for media relations or media relations and internal communication www.1% reports directly to the CEO 84. 2011 / n = 1.2% does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board 61.450 PR professionals in communication departments.eu / Zerfass et al.2% 38.Reporting lines and responsibilities are correlated with each other The top communication manager. p≤0.

eu / Zerfass et al.9% Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe www. Significant differences between all four regions (chi-square test.1% 41. / Q 20.0% 47. Q 5: Within your organisation.6% 12.450 PR professionals in communication departments.4% is responsible for press/media relations and internal communication is responsible for at least three communication fields and stakeholder groups is responsible for all kinds of communication and stakeholders 40.4% 40.8% 7.9% 35. the top communication manager ….6% The top communication manager.Levels of responsibility differ significantly within European regions 4.3% 43.. p ≤0.communicationmonitor. 2011 / n = 1. is responsible for press/media relations 16.3% 8.3% 3. 51 .0% 43.05).2% 9.3% 44.0% 2..

the Netherlands and the UK tend to have a wider range of responsibilities 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The top communication manager. the top communication manager … / Q 20.450 PR professionals in communication departments.Top communication managers in Sweden.. is responsible for press/media relations is responsible for press/media relations and internal communication is responsible for at least three communication fields and stakeholder groups is responsible for all kinds of communication and stakeholders www. 52 .eu / Zerfass et al.. Q 5: Within your organisation. 2011 / n = 1.communicationmonitor.

one out of ten communication managers is merely responsible for media relations 2.4% 14.450 PR professionals in communication departments. the top communication manager …. 53 .1% 42. / Q 20..7% 44. Q 5: Within your organisation.7% 2.2% 39.9% 11. is responsible for press/media relations 45.3% 9. p≤0.4% The top communication manager.05).6% 45. Significant differences between the organisations (chi-square test. 2011 / n = 1.eu / Zerfass et al.6% Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations www.4% 14.communicationmonitor.In governmental organisations.2% is responsible for press/media relations and internal communication is responsible for at least three communication fields and stakeholder groups is responsible for all kinds of communication and stakeholders 40.0% 41.3% 34..3% 4.8% 7.

0% 59.05).5% reports directly to the CEO 14.7% 4. / Q 20. 54 .8% does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board reports to another board member or function 62.5% 19.communicationmonitor. No significant differences between the organisations (chi-square test.8% 19.6% 16..8% 58.450 PR professionals in communication departments.7% 5. Q 5: Within your organisation.8% 23.eu / Zerfass et al. 17.9% 55.8% 15.6% The top communication manager.7% 3.1% sits on the board Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations www. the top communication manager …. p ≤0..6% 17.Reporting lines do not differ significantly between various types of organisations 4. 2011 / n = 1.

450 PR professionals in communication departments.2% 20.1% 3.9% 11. 55 ..In Northern European countries..9% sits on the board 13.0% reports directly to the CEO 23. a quarter of the top level communicators sit on the board 5.3% 65. 16.9% 18.eu / Zerfass et al.7% 64. 2011 / n = 1.communicationmonitor.2% Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe www. p≤0.6% 14. Significant differences between all four regions (chi-square test.2% The top communication manager.05).9% does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board reports to another board member or function 52.2% 5.3% 5.5% 60. / Q 20. the top communication manager …. Q 5: Within your organisation.2% 19.

Top communication managers in Germany and France are least likely to hold a board position 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% sits on the board reports directly to the CEO The top communication manager. Q 5: Within your organisation.450 PR professionals in communication departments. does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board reports to another board member or function www. 56 . 2011 / n = 1.eu / Zerfass et al.. the top communication manager …. / Q 20..communicationmonitor.

57 .Top communication managers tend to apply the inclusive leadership style if they have a broader area of responsibility The top communication manager is responsible for … at least three communication fields and stakeholder groups all kinds of communication and stakeholders press/media relations and internal communication press/media relations 46.0% 23.eu / Zerfass et al.3% 17.5% 17. Q 19: How would you describe the dominant strategy used by leaders in your communication department to achieve common goals? / Q 5.9% 36. 2011 / n = 1.5% 46.9% 35.0% 41.3% 32.2% 36.5% Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Inclusive Leadership www.450 PR professionals in communication departments.communicationmonitor.8% 34. Significant differences between the four groups (chi-square test. p≤0.05).

p≤0. Significant differences between the four groups (chi-square test.9% 25.1% 26.2% 35. Q 19: How would you describe the dominant strategy used by leaders in your communication department to achieve common goals? / Q 5. 58 .7% 14.4% 18.1% 45.7% Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Inclusive Leadership www.450 PR professionals in communication departments.0% 47.6% 33.communicationmonitor. 2011 / n = 1.Leaders tend to apply the inclusive leadership style if they sit on the board or report directly to the CEO The top communication manager … sits on the board reports directly to the CEO reports to another board member or function does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board 48.8% 37.eu / Zerfass et al.7% 42.05).9% 24.

2011 / n = 1.9% Other departments' activities depend on the communication department 43. Items based on research in strategic contingencies (Hickson et al. Q 6: How would you describe the position of the communication department in your organisation? Scale 1 (= Strongly disagree) – 5 (= Totally agree). Pfeffer 1992.eu / Zerfass et al.9% The communication department plays an important role in the overall performance of the organisation 75.8% The communication department generates financial and immaterial assets for the organisation 47.4% The communication department is irreplaceable 69.3% www. considered scale points 4-5.450 PR professionals in communication departments.Horizontal power of communication departments is rather low. only a minority generates financial and immaterial assets The communication department anticipates situations and conflicting issues 77. 59 . 1971. Salancik & Pfeffer 1974).communicationmonitor.

Significant correlations between all items (Pearson correlation.01.378 . p≤0.Anticipating situations and conflicting issues strengthens the internal position of communication departments The communication department plays an important role in the overall performance of the organisation The communication department anticipates situations and conflicting issues The communication department generates financial and immaterial assets for the organisation The communication department is irreplaceable . Q 6: How would you describe the position of the communication department in your organisation? Scale 1 (= Strongly disagree) – 5 (= Totally agree). 60 .463 .450 PR professionals in communication departments.eu / Zerfass et al. 2-tailed.communicationmonitor. 2011 / n = 1.).442 .265 www.

61 .7% 26.6% 59.9% 72.450 PR professionals in communication departments.7% 55.1% 46.The horizontal power of communication departments is stronger if the top communication manager has broader responsibilities The communication department anticipates situations and conflicting issues The communication department plays an important role in the overall performance of the organisation 80.4% 50.5% 78.4% The communication department is irreplaceable The communication department generates financial and immaterial assets for the organisation Other departments' activities depend on the communication department The top communication manager is responsible … for all or at least three communication fields for media relations or media relations and internal communication www.eu / Zerfass et al. Q 6: How would you describe the position of the communication department in your organisation? Scale 1 (= Strongly disagree) – 5 (= Totally agree). 2011 / n = 1.5% 64. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 5.8% 33.communicationmonitor.

that communication would be invited to senior-level meetings dealing with organisational strategic planning? Scale 1-7. 2010 / nmax = 1.eu / Zerfass et al. considered scale points: 5-7.communicationmonitor.Influence of communication professionals in Europe: Three out of four are trusted advisers and involved in planning 77.8% compared to 2010 www.511. Q4: In your organisation.9% are taken seriously by senior management (advisory influence) +2. 62 . within your organisation.449 PR professionals in communication departments. Q 7. 2011 / n = 1. How likely is it. Instrument adapted from US GAP VI survey (Swerling 2009). how seriously do senior managers take the recommendations of the communication function?. Zerfaß et al.4% compared to 2010 76.9% are likely to be invited to senior-level meetings dealing with organisational strategic planning (executive influence) +4.

2008. 63 . 2011 / n = 1. Zerfass et al. n = 1.511.eu / Zerfass et al. Q 7.027. Q4 / Zerfass et al.communicationmonitor. 2009.Advisory and executive influence have grown during the last years 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 69% 67% 65% 63% 2008 2009 Advisory influence 2010 Executive influence 2011 www. 2010 / nmax = 1. Q 1 / Advisory influence: consistent wording 2008-2011 / Executive influence: wording in the questionnaire has been changed since 2010 in line with the US GAP surveys (Swerling 2009). Q 3 / Zerfass et al.267. nmax = 1.449 PR professionals in communication departments.

64 .Influence of the communication function is correlated with the formal position and power of the top communication manager The top communication manager… 86.eu / Zerfass et al. Stronger correlation between the position of the top communication manager and executive influence (Spearman’s rho. 2011 / n = 1.4% 89.8% 69.communicationmonitor.01).8% 79. Q 5.9% 64. Significant.8% Advisory influence Executive influence sits on the board reports directly to the CEO reports to another board member or function does not report directly to the CEO or anyone who sits on the board www.449 PR professionals in communication departments.7% 38.8% 50.1% 79. p≤0. but weak correlation between the position of the top communication manager and advisory influence of the communication function. Q 7.

7% 54. considered scale points: 4-5. 2010.1% 86. Q 8: How closely does the communication function in your organisation work with the … Scale 1 (= never) – 5 (= always). Items partly derived from Lurati et al.1% 61.6% www. 65 .Collaboration of communication with other functions in the organisation The communication functions works closely with the … CEO Other members of the executive board Marketing department Strategy and organisational development unit Human resources department Legal department Financial department Auditing and controlling unit 19.4% 39.3% 44. 2011 / n = 1.communicationmonitor.0% 77.450 PR professionals in communication departments.eu / Zerfass et al.1% 78.

5% 66.0% 40.5% 85.6% 15.3% 26.8% 57. 7: Significant differences between the four types of organisations (chi-square test. Items 3.8% 76.9% 77.7% 35.6% 49. 66 .450 PR professionals in communication departments.6% 66.2% 74. 6.8% 33. 5.1% 28.9% Governmental organisations 81.2% 64.1% 32.05).6% 74.communicationmonitor. Q 8: How closely does the communication function in your organisation work with the … Scale 1 (= never) – 5 (= always).0% 59. considered scale points: 4-5 / Q 20.3% 62.2% 20.1% 22.8% www. 4.5% 40.4% 38.eu / Zerfass et al.6% 57. p≤0.3% 19.6% 81. 2011 / n = 1.6% Private companies 85.1% 59.7% Non-profit organisations 92.3% 78.Collaboration with other functions in different types of organisations Joint stock companies CEO Other members of the executive board Human resources department Financial department Legal department Marketing department Auditing and controlling unit Strategy and organisational development unit 87.

this differs widely between various types of organisations. in three out of four organisations communication is taken seriously be senior management and communication is likely to be involved in planning organisational strategies  Working relationships are especially close with the CEO (reported by 86. regions and countries in Europe. marketing. these indicators of formal power are not always accompanied by horizontal power.6 per cent of the respondents).8 per cent of communication professionals are board members.  17. financial and lobbying communications or at least three of these fields.  However. followed by other members of the executive board and the marketing department (more than 75 per cent).Interpretation Communication departments are influential. However. but lack many aspects of power  The communication function has gained more influence in Europe during the last years. The transactional style is prevalent when practitioners do not report to the board and restrict their functions to media relations. Good links to the strategy people are hindered by rather weak connections to auditing and controlling units. For example there are respondents who are responsible for a lot within the organisation but then 24. internal. When leaders hold more responsibility they prefer an inclusive leadership style. and possibly more concerning 30. It is clearly possible for the self reporting respondents to have power and no influence and vice versa.  Six out of ten top communication managers report directly to the CEO.2 per cent think it is replaceable. It is less prevalent in companies and in Western Europe. and 83.4 per cent are responsible for all kind of public / media. 67 .5 per cent of them don’t see the communication department as playing an important role in the overall performance of the company.

ROI of communication .

consultant Usage of the ROI concept 53. p≤0.05).5% www. Q 20. 69 . 2 = No.7% 34.5% Position Head of communication.7% 45. 2011 / n = 2.eu / Zerfass et al.9% use the term 'return on investment' do not use the term 'return on investment' do not know the term 'return on investment' 47. Agency CEO Unit leader Team member.209 PR professionals.Almost every second professional uses the term ‘return on investment’ when planning or evaluating communication 5.communicationmonitor.6% 46. Significant differences between all hierarchical positions (chi-square test. 3 = I don’t know the term) . Q 16: Do you regularly use the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ when planning and evaluating communication activities? (1 = Yes.

70 .8%) 20% 40% United Kingdom (60. Q 20.2%) Serbia (48.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al.4%) 60% Norway (30. only three out of ten use it in Germany.1%) Italy (53. Q 16: Do you regularly use the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ when planning and evaluating communication activities?.2%) Netherlands (48.0%) www.5%) Poland (40.3%) Slovenia (34.8%) 80% Denmark (41.9%) Sweden (58.0%) 0% Belgium (53.1%) Spain (65.209 PR professionals.The term ‘ROI’ is rather common in Spain. the UK and Sweden.3%) Croatia (41. Norway and Slovenia Switzerland (48. 2011 / n = 2.9%) Germany (34.

eu / Zerfass et al.7% 50.8% 3.8% Do not use the term ‘Return on Investment’ 46.2% 45.5% Do not know the term ‘Return on Investment’ 6. p ≤0.05). 2011 / n = 2. Q 20.4% 7.Communication professionals in Southern Europe tend to use ‘ROI’.5% 43. Q 16: Do you regularly use the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ when planning and evaluating communication activities?.4% 46.8% www. which is best known in Western Europe Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe Use the term ‘Return on Investment’ 46.7% 6. Significant differences between all regions for items “use the term” and “do not use the term” (chi-square test.7% 50.5% 45. 71 .communicationmonitor.209 PR professionals.

209 PR professionals.8% 4.eu / Zerfass et al. 2 = No.3% 37.5% 59.4% 56.1% 47.5% 15. 2011 / n = 2. p≤0. Q 16: Do you regularly use the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ when planning and evaluating communication activities? (1 = Yes.communicationmonitor.0% 56.3% 3.The term ‘ROI’ is more common for practitioners working in companies and in agencies Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Agencies/ Consultancies Use the term ‘return on investment’ 51.4% 11. Significant differences between all types of organisations for items “use the term” and “do not use the term” (chi-square test. 3 = I don’t know the term) / Q 20.5% Do not know the term ‘return on investment’ 2.3% Do not use the term ‘return on investment’ 46. 72 .5% 28.2% 32.1% 48.05).1% www.

eu / Zerfass et al. Q 16: Would you agree or disagree with the following statements? (1 = Agree. i. Items partly based on research on ROI concepts in communication. Gregory & Watson 2008. only statements marked with * are consistent with the standard definition of ROI. Rockland & Weiner 2006. 73 .0% 52.communicationmonitor.3% 72.209 PR professionals.5% 62.1% 70. Likely.8% www. 2011 / n = 2.5% 83. 2 = Disagree.Most communication professionals have an improper understanding of the ROI concept ROI can be expressed in achievement of communication objectives ROI requires financial assessments of the resources used for communication * ROI can demonstrate the non-financial value of communication ROI expresses communication's contribution to the formation of organisational strategy ROI needs a standardised financial valuation of results achieved by communication * ROI is the ratio of financial profit resulting from a communication activity against its actual cost * ROI has to be defined in monetary terms * 38. “ROI is the ratio of financial profit …” is the standard economic definition for ROI.8% 58. 3 = I don’t know).e.

Q 16: Do you regularly use the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ when planning and evaluating communication activities? (1 = Yes.communicationmonitor.3% 51. 2 = No.3% 56. 2011 / n = 2.05).8% 59. p≤0. 3 = I don’t know the term) / Q 20. Significant differences between communication departments and agencies regarding the two items displayed (chi-square test.eu / Zerfass et al.3% www.209 PR professionals.More frequent and more accurate use of the term ‘ROI’ in communication agencies and consultancies Communication departments Agencies/ Consultancies Usage of the term ‘ROI’ or ‘return on investment’ ROI is the ratio of financial profit resulting from a communication activity against its actual cost 42. 74 .

8 per cent agree with the standard definition. most communication professionals think it can be expressed in achievement of communication objectives or be used to demonstrate the non-financial value of communication. a concept propagated by a number of evaluation companies for proving the economic value of communication activities. and even less know that ROI has to be defined in monetary terms. It is common for six out of ten professionals in Spain. the UK and Sweden.  While ROI is clearly defined in economics as the ratio of financial profit resulting from an activity against its actual cost.  Almost every second practitioner claims to use the term. 75 . Using the ROI concept in an improper way is pointless and may even damage the reputation of the profession. Slovenia and Germany use ROI when planning and evaluating communications. in consultancies and companies. Only 52.Interpretation Misleading use of the ROI concept in planning and evaluating communications  Communication professionals are ambiguous about ‘return on investment’.  The research shows that basic knowledge about management theories and accounting is missing in the profession. which is especially popular among heads of communication and agencies.  A minority of professionals working in governmental organisations and in countries like Norway.

Strategic issues and trust .

0% Coping with the digital evolution and the social web 54. 77 . Q 12: Here are some issues that might become relevant for public relations and communication management within the next three years.3% Advancing issues management and corporate foresight 13.6% www.1% Supporting organisational change Advancing public affairs 19.communicationmonitor.9% Developing CEO positioning and communication 9.7% Globalisation of communication strategies 17. 2011 / n = 2.Strategic issues for communication management until 2014 Dealing with the demand for more transparency and active audiences 35.209 PR professionals.0% Linking business strategy and communication 44. Please pick those three which are most important from your point of view.eu / Zerfass et al.1% Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility 37.9% Supporting intercultural integration 5.2% and political communication 17.2% Building and maintaining trust 30.2% Establishing new methods to evaluate communication 16.

209 PR professionals.1% www. Q 12: Here are some issues that might become relevant for public relations and communication management within the next three years.2% 4 35.communicationmonitor.Most important issues at a glance Most important issues for communication management until 2014 1 Coping with the digital evolution and the social web 54. 78 .9% 2 Linking business strategy and communication Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility Dealing with the demand of new transparency and active audiences Building and maintaining trust 44.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2. Please pick those three which are most important from your point of view.1% 5 30.0% 3 37.

1% 30.209 PR professionals.955.communicationmonitor. Q 12. 2010 / n = 1. Zerfass et al.0% 35.1% 32. 2009 / n = 1. 2011 / n = 2.863.1% 33.eu / Zerfass et al.6% Linking business strategy and communication Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility Dealing with the demand for more transparency and active audiences Building and maintaining trust 2011 2010 2009 www.8% 34. Q 6.5% 30.2% 36. Q 7.7% 38.3% 37.0% 44. Zerfass et al.9% 53.6% 47.7% 45. 79 .0% 43.Relevance of strategic issues compared to previous surveys Coping with the digital evolution and the social web 54.

communicationmonitor. Page Society & Business Roundtable 2009.eu / Zerfass et al.2% Enhance trust in leaders of my organisation 79. How relevant are each of the following goals in your daily work? Scale 1 (= not relevant) – 5 (= very relevant). 2011 / n = 1. Nielsen 2006.450 PR professionals in communication departments. Items derived from research on trust levels (Luhmann 1979.Trust: Practitioners primarily strive to enhance stakeholders’ trust in organisations and brands. Q 9: Communication management may strive to gain stakeholders’ trust in people. other objectives are less relevant Goals relevant in the daily work of communication professionals Enhance trust in my organisation and/or its brand 93.3% Enhance trust in our markets and business at large 76. organisations. considered scale points: 4-5.8% www. Arthur W. Harris & Wicks 80 . and societal systems as a whole. Giddens 1990.

81 . How relevant are each of the following goals in your daily work? Scale 1 (= not relevant) – 5 (= very relevant).8% 77. p ≤0.eu / Zerfass et al.8% 78.9% 92.3% 74.3% 88.7% 94. and societal systems as a whole. Q 9: Communication management may strive to gain stakeholders’ trust in people.1% www. No significant differences between the different types of organisations (chi-square test. 2011 / n = 1.2% 75.3% 82.8% 62.450 PR professionals in communication departments.0% 78.05).9% 95.communicationmonitor.Gaining stakeholders’ trust as a goal of communication management in various types of organisations Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Enhance trust in leaders of my organisation Enhance trust in my organisation and/or its brand Enhance trust in our markets or business at large 84. organisations. considered scale points: 4-5 / Q 20.

Q 9: Communication management may strive to gain stakeholders’ trust in people.0% 77.6% 72.2% 77.4% 86.Gaining stakeholders’ trust in different European regions Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe Enhance trust in leaders of my organisation Enhance trust in my organisation and/or its brand Enhance trust in our markets or business at large 84. organisations.4% 97. 2011 / n = 1. 82 .3% 92.9% 82.6% 81.eu / Zerfass et al.450 PR professionals in communication departments.05).4% 74. considered scale points: 4-5 / Q 20. and societal systems as a whole.8% www.2% 95. p ≤0.4% 72. No significant differences between the four regions (chi-square test.communicationmonitor. How relevant are each of the following goals in your daily work? Scale 1 (= not relevant) – 5 (= very relevant).

83 . Other issues are judged in the same way as before such as the second-ranking topic ‘linking business strategy and communication’ while some have even lost importance. like enhancing trust.  Alternative objects of trust like leaders of the organisation (people) and markets or businesses at large (societal systems) are less relevant. When striving to gain stakeholders’ trust. almost every respondent (93.Interpretation Digital development and building trust in organisations are key challenges  Coping with the digital evolution and the social web continues to be the most important issue for communication management in the next few years. However.  Three out of ten professionals state that building and maintaining trust is a major challenge for communication management within the next three years. as is the related demand for more transparency and dealing with active audiences.2 per cent) claims he or she wants to enhance trust in the organisation and/or its brands. 54.9 per cent of the respondents identified this challenge. The issue is valued more importantly in each annual survey. enhancing trust in named people is more relevant in joint stock companies and in Northern Europe. they are named by less than 80 per cent of the respondents.

Development of disciplines and communication channels

Most important disciplines in communication management

Today Corporate Communication (Institutional/organisational) Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication 2 3 Crisis Communication Internal Communication and Change Management Issues Management

In 2014 Corporate Communication (Institutional/organisational) Internal Communication and Change Management Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication 4 CSR and Sustainability

1

1

2

4

5

5

Crisis Communication

www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / nmax = 2,163 PR professionals; Q 10: How important are the following fields of practice in your organisation or consultancy? Will they gain more or less importance within the next three years? (1 = Not important; 5 = Very important; important discipline = scale points 4-5). Arrow symbols indicate changes within the ranking of most important disciplines.

85

Corporate communication and internal communication are steadily growing, while marketing has lost ground
Importance of fields of practice in communication management
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (prediction) 2013 (prediction) 2014 (prediction)

Corporate Communication (Institutional/organisational) Internal Communication and Change Management Crisis Communication

Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability

www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / nmax = 2,163 PR professionals; Q 10; Zerfass et al. 2010 / nmax = 1,926; Q 5; Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1,863; Q 4; Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1,524; Q 2; Zerfass et al. 2007 / n = 1,087; Q 3.

86

0 -1.3 -3. All disciplines are considered more important in 2014.9 -2.2 www. Financial Communication Personal Coaching.communicationmonitor.6 +9.6 +7. Training Communication Skills 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% +7. 2011 / nmax = 2. internal communication.163 PR professionals.8 in 2014 today 2014: compared to average increase -7. Comparison shows difference to the average increase (21.8 +5.6 -8. international communication and personal coaching are expected to gain in importance Important discipline Corporate Communication Marketing/Brand and Consumer Communication Crisis Communication Internal Communication and Change Management Public Affairs.1 -7.9%). 87 . important discipline = scale points 4-5).CSR. Lobbying Issues Management Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability International Communication Investor Relations.eu / Zerfass et al. Q 10 (scale 1-5.

Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1.163 PR professionals.Comparison with previous surveys shows that professionals overestimate the growth of disciplines Importance of fields of practice in longitudinal analysis 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (prediction) 2013 (prediction) 2014 (prediction) Internal Communication and Change Management Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability www. 2007 / n = 1.communicationmonitor. 2010 / nmax = 1. Zerfass et al. Q 10. 2011 / nmax = 2.926. Q 3.524.eu / Zerfass et al. Q 2. Zerfass et al. Q 4.863. 2008 / n = 1.087. Zerfass et al. 88 . Q 5.

Arrow symbols indicate changes within the ranking of instruments. gatekeepers and audiences? Will this change within the next three years? (1 = Not important. 5 = Very important. important channel = 4-5).communicationmonitor. 2011 / nmax = 2.eu / Zerfass et al. 89 .146 PR professionals. Q 11: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders.Channels and instruments: Various types of online communication and face-to-face are expected to lead in three years Today Press and media relations: Print media Online communication Press and media relations: Online media Face-to-face communication Press and media relations: TV/radio In 2014 1 1 Online communication Press and media relations: Online media Social media  2 2  3 3  4 4 Face-to-face communication Press and media relations: Print media  5 5  www.

5 -9.146 PR professionals.4 +1.3 -7. gatekeepers and audiences? Will this change within the next three years? (1 = not important. important instrument = scale points 4-5.Expected development of communication channels Important instrument Addressing print media Online communication Face-to-face communication Addressing online media Addressing TV/radio Events Corporate publishing/media Social media Non-verbal communication Paid information Sponsoring 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% +33.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al.) Comparison shows difference to the average increase (11.8 +9. 90 .1%).8 in 2014 today 2014: compared to average increase -27.2 www.8 -9.7 -5. Q 11: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders.9 +14. 2011 / nmax = 2. 5 = very important.9 +4.8 -4.

communicationmonitor.146 PR professionals. 91 .Online channels and instruments are continuously growing. Q 6. Zerfass et al. Zerfass et al.087. Zerfass et al.524. Q 11. 2007 / n = 1.914.863. 2010 / nmax = 1. 2011 / nmax = 2. Zerfass et al. 2009 / nmax = 1. 2008 / n = 1. Q 4. Q 3. while the importance of print media relations is declining 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (prediction) 2013 (prediction) 2014 (prediction) Addressing print media Online communication Addressing online media Social media www.eu / Zerfass et al. Q 5.

6% +42.2% +24.6% +18. 2011 / nmax = 2.8% +8.8% +15.3% -14.5% +4.9% -8. Q 3. 2008 / n = 1. 92 .0% +6.eu / Zerfass et al.1% +43.6% +6.4% -18. Zerfass et al.4% -0.524.Longitudinal analysis shows that professionals tend to overestimate the changing relevance of channels Predicted importance 2008-2011 Press and media relations: Print media Online communication Face-to-face communication Social media Press and media relations: Online media Press and media relations: TV/radio Events Corporate publishing/media -7.0% Real importance 2008-2011 +2.9% www.146 PR professionals.4% +6.7% +10. Q 11.6% -16.communicationmonitor.8% +28.9% +16.7% +33.1% Variation +10.2% +14.3% -10.

4% 77.7% 24.addressing TV/radio Corporate publishing/media Online communication Social media Events Sponsoring Face-to-face communication Non-verbal communication Paid information n= 87.3% 69.6% 21. p ≤0.3% 35.4% 50.addressing online media .146 PR professionals.0% 66. 93 .9% 82.1% 49.2% 66.7% 68. online communication (chi-square test.communicationmonitor.Valuation of communication instruments in different organisations Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Important instruments today: Press and media relations .5% 41.3% 41.6% 17.7% 35. addressing online media.0% 20.7% 29.7% 55.addressing print media .5% 49.9% 48. Q 11.3% 35.9% 76.1% 34.1% 60.5% 55.6% 69.3% 38.4% 381 88.5% 27.3% 73.3% 32.5% 62.8% 77.6% 31.eu / Zerfass et al.3% 226 www. 2011 / nmax = 1.05).0% 65.6% 595 78.0% 18.3% 56.4% 34.8% 25.7% 65.5% 294 80.7% 46. Significant differences between the four types of organisations for all items except addressing print media.

the respondents predict a changing relevance of the various disciplines within the broad range of strategic communication. Face-to-face communication keeps its position. Next to this. e-mail. while press relations targeting print journalists is thought to be less relevant in 2014. Online communication (websites. a stable trend since the 2009 edition of this survey. followed by media relations adressing online journalists and social media channels. Communication professionals predict a growth in importance above average. marketing and consumer communications are thought to be exactly as important as internal and change communication in three years’ time. 94 . a longitudinal analysis reveals that communication professionals tend to overestimate the growth of disciplines and communication channels. 2008) were nearly twice the numbers really identified this year.  Several types of online instruments are expected to lead the media mix utilised by communication management in the near future. Moreover.  Two disciplines to watch are international communication and personal coaching. CSR and sustainability communications will continue their upswing.  However.Interpretation Internal communication and online channels keep growing  In accordance with previous surveys. While media relations oriented towards online publications has gained stronger than expected. intranet) is ranked number one. predictions given in 2008 for the importance of social media and online communications in 2011 (Zerfass et al. Corporate communication (communication focused on the whole institution or organisation) will keep its leading role.

skills and activities .Social media: Governance.

Governance structures for social media are still missing in most communication departments Social media guidelines for communicating in blogs.2% Tools for monitoring stakeholder communication on the social web 33.3% 27.7% 48.0% Training programmes for social media 21.9% 50.eu / Zerfass et al.3% 24.6% 30.3% 30. 2011 / n = 1.7% 42. 3 = Not currently planned). twitter etc.572 PR professionals in communication departments. 2 = Planned for 2011.1% 30. 39.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Already implemented Planned for 2011 Not currently planned www. Q 15: Do any of the following measures exist in your organisation? (1 = Already implemented. 96 .communicationmonitor.8% Key performance indicators for measuring social web activities 21.

9% 21.6% 33.9% 23. 97 .8% 25. on the social web Key performance indicators for measuring social web activities www. 2010 / n = 1.2% 25.6% 25. Q 15: Do any of the following measures exist in your organisation? (Already implemented.7% 21. Not planned yet).1% 15. 2011 / n = 1. Zerfass et al.1% Social media guidelines for Tools for monitoring Training programmes for communicating in blogs. Planned for 2011.8% 15. Q 14: Has your organisation already implemented one of the following? (Already implemented. stakeholder communication social media twitter etc.eu / Zerfass et al.3% Implemented in March 2011 Planned implementation until the end of the year in March 2010 Implemented in March 2010 31.572 PR professionals in communication departments.531. Not currently planned).communicationmonitor.Social media guidelines and monitoring tools have evolved more strongly than expected 39.3% 25. Planned for 2010.

2 = Planned for 2011. twitter etc. 2011 / n = 1. 98 . Q 15: Do any of the following measures exist in your organisation? (1 = Already implemented. Tools for monitoring stakeholder communication on the social web Training programmes for social media France 20% Slovenia Belgium 0% Croatia Key performance indicators for measuring social web activities Serbia 40% United Kingdom Italy Denmark 60% Norway Sweden www.572 PR professionals in communication departments. 3 = Not currently planned) / Q 20.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al.Sweden and the UK are at the cutting edge when it comes to implementing social media guidelines Switzerland Poland Spain Germany Netherlands Already implemented: Social media guidelines for communicating in blogs.

3 = Not currently planned) / Q 20.1% 20.Governmental organisations are lagging behind in terms of social media governance Already implemented: Social media guidelines for communicating in blogs.4% 13. p ≤0.3% 20. Items 1-3: Significant differences among the four types of organisations (chi-square test. Tools for monitoring stakeholder communication on the social web Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations 50.9% 18. 2 = Planned for 2011. 2011 / n = 1.8% 30.eu / Zerfass et al. 99 .communicationmonitor.8% Key performance indicators for measuring social web activities 25.8% 28.3% 20.5% 36.7% 25. Q 15: Do any of the following measures exist in your organisation? (1 = Already implemented.7% 30.8% Training programmes for social media 23.0% 42.05).8% 23.1% 22.1% www.572 PR professionals in communication departments. twitter etc.

eu / Zerfass et al.95 2.01 Moderate (3) Very high (5) www. Q 14: How would you rate your capabilities in the following areas? Scale 1 (= Very low) .communicationmonitor.24 3.209 PR professionals.27 2. mean values.5 (= Very high). 2011 / n = 2.86 2.11 3. 100 .54 3.94 3.Social media skills and knowledge: Communication managers report rather moderate capabilities Knowing about social media trends Delivering messages via the social web Initiating web-based dialogues with stakeholders Setting up social media platforms Knowing the legal framework for social media Managing online communities Establishing guidelines for social media use Developing social media strategies Evaluating social media activities Very low (1) 3.76 2.

Q 14: How would you rate your capabilities in the following areas? Scale 1 (= Very low) .272 -. p≤0.322 -.eu / Zerfass et al.408 -.245 -.209 PR professionals. but correlations with business-specific skills are weak Private use of social media platforms Delivering messages via the social web Knowing about social media trends Setting up social media platforms Managing online communities Developing social media strategies Initiating web-based dialogues with stakeholders Establishing guidelines for social media use Evaluating social media activities Knowing the legal framework for social media -.communicationmonitor.347 -.300 -. 101 . 2011 / n = 2.223 -. Significant correlations between all items (Spearman’s rho.Private use of social media increases capabilities.209 www. 2-tailed.275 -.5 (= Very high) / Q 20.01).

4% 68. 2011 / nmax = 2.087. e-mail. intranet) Press and media relations addressing online media 56.8% 43. Zerfass et al. 2008 / n = 1. 102 .863. important = scale points 4-5).146 PR professionals.4% 40.7% 19. 5 = Very important. podcasts.0% 38. Zerfass et al.communities) 26. gatekeepers and audiences? (1 = Not important.5% Social media (blogs. Q 11. 2007/n = 1. 2010 / nmax = 1.8% 67.communicationmonitor. Q 6.8% 44.2% Online communication (websites. Q 3.6% 58. Zerfass et al.4% 11.8% 58.914. 2009 / nmax = 1. Q 5.5% 12. Q 4: How important are the following methods in addressing stakeholders. Zerfass et al.Online communication and social media activities: Importance has grown steadily during the last five years Important instruments for addressing stakeholders 74.524.5% 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 www.1% 54.eu / Zerfass et al.

2010 / n = 1.5 (= Very important).0% 16.5% 21.8% 10.Social media channels: Online communities are leading the field.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2.209 PR professionals.0% 9.8% 17.3% 27.2% 14. Significant differences between assessments of channels in the 2010 and 2011 survey with the exeception of items ‘Podcasts’ and ‘Weblogs’ (T-test.9% 32. Q 13: Can you indicate the level of importance for communication management today and in the next year of the following communication tools? Scale 1 (= Not important) .5% 38.955.4% 44. considered scale points 4-5.communicationmonitor.5% 16. wikis and weblogs have lost relevance 49.9% 26.5% 39.01). 103 .6% Important tools for communication management 2011 2010 www. Q 13.3% 30.5% 28.8% Online Communities (social networks) Online videos (moving images) Weblogs Microblogs (Twitter) Photo sharing Social bookmarks Slide sharing Wikis Podcasts (audio) Virtual worlds 15. podcasts. p ≤ 0. Zerfass et al. 2010 data not available for newly added items.

8% 14.2% 76.6% 35.communicationmonitor.8% 44. Q 13: Can you indicate the level of importance for communication management today and in the next year of the following communication tools? Scale 1 (= Not important) .209 PR professionals.5% 27.4% 42.3% 42.3% 32.0% 10.0% 47. 104 .9% 39.3% Important tools for communication management 2012 2011 www.5% 15.0% 26. p ≤ 0.5 (= Very important).5% 49.eu / Zerfass et al.8% 82. Assessments for 2011 and 2012 correlate strongly (r > 0.Communication professionals expect a strong growth in importance for all kind of social media tools Online Communities (social networks) Online videos (moving images) Weblogs Microblogs (Twitter) Photo sharing Social bookmarks Slide sharing Wikis Podcasts (audio) Virtual worlds 16.6% 28.4% 62. 2011 / n = 2. considered scale points 4-5.600) and significantly (T-test.5% 55.5% 21.01).

Q 20: How often do you use social media platforms (Facebook.Private use of social media: 18 per cent of communication professionals are not very active 4. 2011 / n = 2.1% 25.eu / Zerfass et al.) for private reasons in your leisure time? 105 . Twitter.209 PR professionals.6% Daily Several times per week Less than once or once a week Never 56.communicationmonitor.7% 13.6% www. Linked-In. etc.

eu / Zerfass et al.Private use of social media decreases with the increasing age of practitioners 0.9% 33. Twitter.1% 41.5% 49.2% 4.7% 29 or younger Daily 30 .209 PR professionals. 106 .4% 4.8% 30.59 60 or older Never Less than once or once a week www.3% 81.communicationmonitor.2% 27.01).39 Several times per week 40 . p≤0. Linked-In.2% 37. 2011 / n = 2.9% 20.49 50 .2% 2.5% 15.9% 18. Q 20: How often do you use social media platforms (Facebook.0% 64.1% 9.9% 10.4% 14.) for private reasons in your leisure time? / How old are you? Significant correlation between the private use of social media platforms and the age of the respondents (Spearman’s rho. etc.8% 10.9% 22.

7% 51. etc.) for private reasons in your leisure time? / Where do you work? Significant differences between all types of organisations (chi-square test.3% 52. 2011 / n = 2.5% 14.4% 53.0% 7. Linked-In.05).5% 15.Private use of social media is most common for practitioners working in non-profit organisations 4.7% 21.eu / Zerfass et al.9% 24.6% Joint stock companies Private companies Governmental organisations Non-profit organisations Daily Never Less than once or once a week Several times per week www.2% 3.209 PR professionals. Twitter.7% 18.0% 25. p≤0. Q 20: How often do you use social media platforms (Facebook. 107 .3% 12.7% 29.2% 59.4% 6.communicationmonitor.

) for private reasons in your leisure time? / In which European state are you normally based? Significant differences between all groups (chi-square test. p ≤0. Q 20: How often do you use social media platforms (Facebook.6% 25. 108 .Private use of social media differs significantly between European regions Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe Daily 59.1% 49.1% Less than once or once a week 13. etc.5% 17.4% 5.8% 5.2% 12.8% www.8% Several times per week 24.communicationmonitor. Linked-In.2% 25.eu / Zerfass et al.1% 27.209 PR professionals.1% 11.9% 58.1% Never 2.7% 4. Twitter.05).9% 57. 2011 / n = 2.

0% 0.7% 16.6% 2.3% 18.5% 9.8% 5.7% 28.6% 11.Social media use for private reasons in European countries Private use of social media Serbia (n = 123) Norway (n = 93) Sweden (n = 88) Croatia (n = 111) Poland (n = 66) Netherlands (n = 120) United Kingdom (n = 237) France (n = 75) Italy (n = 171) Spain (n = 69) Germany (n = 129) Belgium (n = 111) Switzerland (n = 134) Denmark (n = 62) Slovenia (n = 93) Daily 77.communicationmonitor.7% 14.1% 13.1% 31.7% 5.2% 73.2% 2.3% 12.4% 45.2% 25.6% 14.1% 56.7% 29. etc.209 PR professionals.2% 24.5% 20.4% 7.5% 17.8% 0.2% 15.3% 60.0% Less than once/ once a week 6.7% 6. Q 20: How often do you use social media platforms (Facebook.0% 28.0% 27.3% 14.7% 47. 2011 / n = 2.5% 4.2% 50. Twitter.8% 4.7% 48.) for private reasons in your leisure time?/ In which European state are you normally based? .3% 18.1% 38.2% 61.2% Several times per week 15.5% 26.2% 23.7% 5.5% 1.0% 109 www.9% Never 0.1% 68.eu / Zerfass et al. Linked-In.6% 56.2% 45.7% 56.1% 47.8% 8.5% 12.2% 29.0% 6.0% 24.4% 17.0% 53.3% 7.

Every third organisation has established tools for monitoring the social web. key performance indicators to define and evaluate measures of success and training programmes are less prevalent. this is still a minority.  Four out of ten communication departments report about the existence of social media guidelines. Podcasts.  European communication professionals have only moderate social media skills. 110 . specialised training in those areas is indispensable.5 per cent in 2007 and 19.5 per cent in 2011. However. However. This is a clear advancement since last year.  Online communities (social networks) continue to be the most important social media platform. e-mail) and online media relations are relevant for a clear majority. The survey reveals that a stronger private use leads to an increase of social media capabilities. Twitter is still growing. Six out of ten practitioners in Europe do not believe in social media. The number of professionals judging social media as an important instrument for addressing stakeholders has risen from 11. Almost every fifth practitioner uses participative platforms only once a week or not at all. As correlations are weaker with business-specific skills. One reason to consider is the private use of social media. Governance structures for social media are still underdeveloped.Interpretation Skills and governance structures for social media are lagging behind its importance  The survey proves the tremendous growth in perceived importance of online channels in communication management. wikis and weblogs have lost relevance during the last twelve months. whereas controlled online activities (websites.5 per cent in 2009 to 40.

Future qualification needs and training .

evaluation methods and forecasting Initiating and moderating dialogues Persuasion concepts and strategies Global project management Cross-cultural and cross-gender sensitivity Legal requirements and issues Finances. budgeting and accounting Power and coalition building in organisations 83.communicationmonitor.7% 65.8% 59.7% 68.3% www.6% 55.6% 74. Q 17: In your opinion.3% 69.8% 80.Perceived importance of knowledge areas and skills for communication managers in five years time Effects of traditional and new media Relationship building Communication technologies Public speaking and presentation Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Marketing and consumer insight Organisational change and development Ethical issues Message production Societal and political trends Research.6% 59.9% 68.209 PR professionals. 112 . 2011 / n = 2.2% 53.3% 78.7% 70.7% 71. considered scale points 4-5.1% 81.5% 70.4% 53. how important will the following knowledge areas and skills be viewed in five years time? Scale 1 (= Not important) – 5 (= Very important).eu / Zerfass et al.9% 66.

evaluation methods and forecasting Persuasion concepts and strategies Societal and political trends Initiating and moderating dialogues Power and coalition building in organisations 7.communicationmonitor.Training programmes offered by organisations today Public speaking and presentation Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Effects of traditional and new media Communication technologies Finances.7% 41.4% 17.7% 19.2% 16.6% 13.209 PR professionals.8% 13.eu / Zerfass et al.9% 21.2% 37.8% 14.2% 15.6% 13.9% 16. 2011 / n = 2.2% 16.2% 20.4% www.2% 18.8% 14. Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? 113 .0% 12. budgeting and accounting Global project management Relationship building Ethical issues Legal requirements and issues Marketing and consumer insight Cross-cultural and cross-gender sensitivity Organisational change and development Message production Research.

7% 70.eu / Zerfass et al.4% 16.2% 37.7% 41.communicationmonitor.3% 78.1% 81.9% 83.7% 71.2% 14. 2011 / n = 2.2% 17. considered scale points 4-5. Q 17: In your opinion. 114 .5% 70.209 PR professionals.6% 74.2% 20.3% Percentage of respondents thinking that a certain knowledge area will be important in five years time Percentage of respondents whose organisation already offers training in a certain knowledge area www.8% 80.Large gap between qualification needs and training offered today Effects of traditional and new media Relationship building Communication technologies Public speaking and presentation Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Marketing and consumer insight Organisational change and development Ethical issues 21. how important will the following knowledge areas and skills be viewed in five years time? / Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? Scale 1 (= Not important) – 5 (= Very important).8% 16.

5 and 6 (chi-square test.0% 46.1% 576 Private companies 60.4% 80.3% 50.7% 54.eu / Zerfass et al.6% 70.9% 80.8% 62. 2011 / n = 2.7% 64.6% 55. 2.9% 78.4% 56. 115 .2% 62.8% 59.communicationmonitor.9% 64.Qualification needs perceived in different types of organisations (1) Knowledge areas important in five years: Societal and political trends Legal requirements and issues Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Global project management Power and coalition building Cross-cultural/cross-gender sensitivity Effects of traditional and new media Persuasion concepts and strategies Relationship building n= Joint stock companies 69. 4.0% 64.9% 56.2% 65.8% 65.4% 220 www.7% 79.1% 60.7% 73.4% 290 Non-profit organisations 75.4% 64. considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20.9% 78. Significant differences between the types of organisations for items 1. how important will the following knowledge areas and skills be viewed in five years time? Scale 1 (= Not important) – 5 (= Very important).05).8% 78.209 PR professionals.2% 46.9% 58.5% 55. Q 17: In your opinion.2% 84. p ≤0.5% 76.2% 84.8% 47.5% 87.1% 365 Governmental organisations 73.

9% 66.209 PR professionals.9% 47. evaluation methods.8% 82.7% 74.7% 220 www.9% 81. 2011 / n = = 2.1% 290 Non-profit organisations 68.4% 81.8% 62.communicationmonitor.Qualification needs perceived in different types of organisations (2) Knowledge areas important in five years: Ethical issues Communication technologies Finances.8% 66. No significant differences between the types of organisations (chi-square test.0% 55.7% 69.8% 69.7% 62.6% 61.1% 70. p≤0.8% 79. Considered scale points 4-5 / Q 20.8% 75.1% 576 Private companies 66.3% 70.1% 81.6% 55.eu / Zerfass et al.2% 75.8% 63.9% 78. Q 17: In your opinion.4% 78.0% 70. 116 .05).3% 80.8% 79.3% 58.4% 70.6% 365 Governmental organisations 68. how important will the following knowledge areas and skills be viewed in five years time? Scale 1 (= Not important) – 5 (= Very important).2% 65. forecasting Organisational change and development Message production Public speaking and presentation n= Joint stock companies 75.7% 66.0% 63.3% 48. budgeting and accounting Marketing and consumer insight Initiating and moderating dialogues Research.

8% 14.2% 220 www.2% 14.communicationmonitor.3% 13.7% 576 Private companies 9.0% 28.4% 6. No significant differences between the types of organisations (chi-square test.8% 12. 2011 / n = 2.2% 11.0% 17.209 PR professionals.05).7% 9.3% 13.3% 11.6% 8.4% 7.5% 12. p≤0.6% 36.4% 21.6% 16.3% 31.2% 6. Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20.6% 23.2% 13.7% 16.7% 9.eu / Zerfass et al.0% 15.3% 365 Governmental organisations 11.1% 6.Training programmes offered in different types of organisations (1) Training offered: Societal and political trends Legal requirements and issues Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Global project management Power and coalition building Cross-cultural/cross-gender sensitivity Effects of traditional and new media Persuasion concepts and strategies Relationship building n= Joint stock companies 10.7% 16.3% 12.7% 15.2% 290 Non-profit organisations 8.0% 8.4% 28.7% 14.4% 37. 117 .

3% 576 Private companies 11.8% 40.2% 28.eu / Zerfass et al.3% 18.8% 10.communicationmonitor.9% 8. evaluation methods.6% 16.3% 9.3% 11. forecasting Organisational change and development Message production Public speaking and presentation n= Joint stock companies 25.7% 14.1% 10.5% 15.7% 9.3% 17.8% 365 Governmental organisations 14.6% 13.8% 10.5% 13.7% 7.5% 7.8% 32. p≤0. 118 .7% 8.8% 16.6% 8.2% 11.209 PR professionals. Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20.4% 220 www.9% 37.0% 20.1% 290 Non-profit organisations 7.0% 7. 2011 / n = 2.4% 17. No significant differences between the types of organisations (chi-square test.1% 10.2% 33.Training programmes offered in different types of organisations (2) Training offered: Ethical issues Communication technologies Finances. budgeting and accounting Marketing and consumer insight Initiating and moderating dialogues Research.7% 8.05).8% 11.6% 16.

1% 74.eu / Zerfass et al. Significant differences between the four regions for items 4.0% 84.7% 59.6% 78.7% 55.9% 55.05).Qualification needs perceived in various European regions (1) Important knowledge fields in five years: Societal and political trends Legal requirements and issues Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Global project management Power and coalition building Cross-cultural/cross-gender sensitivity Effects of traditional and new media Persuasion concepts and strategies Relationship building n= Northern Europe 71.1% 68.3% 82. 2011 / n = 2.6% 610 Southern Europe 69.9% 63.1% 54.8% 80.7% 571 Western Europe 64. 119 .4% 53.communicationmonitor. Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20.1% 47.5% 56.0% 49.5% 76.209 PR professionals.0% 84.9% 56.8% 54.6% 62.1% 63.8% 71.6% 56.7% 648 Eastern Europe 59.5% 74.4% 81.0% 81.8% 56. p≤0.7% 72.0% 61.0% 65.9% 216 www.4% 60. 5 and 6 (chi-square test.8% 64.

Qualification needs perceived in various European regions (2)

Importance in five years: Ethical issues Communication technologies Finances, budgeting and accounting Marketing and consumer insight Initiating and moderating dialogues Research, evaluation methods, forecasting Organisational change and development Message production Public speaking and presentation n=

Northern Europe 63.5% 75.0% 51.3% 66.9% 68.2% 59.6% 69.3% 65.1% 74.7% 571

Western Europe 18.4% 19.6% 22.0% 14.1% 16.7% 13.3% 18.4% 14.0% 41.2% 610

Southern Europe 75.4% 85.6% 58.2% 73.6% 68.0% 75.3% 72.9% 72.2% 81.8% 648

Eastern Europe 73.5% 82.5% 54.4% 75.0% 69.6% 74.7% 66.2% 64.4% 78.1% 216

www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2,209 PR professionals; Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20. No significant differences between the groups (chi-square test, p≤0.05).

120

Training programmes offered in European regions (1)

Training offered: Societal and political trends Legal requirements and issues Coaching skills (enabling others to communicate) Global project management Power and coalition building Cross-cultural/cross-gender sensitivity Effects of traditional and new media Persuasion concepts and strategies Relationship building n=

Northern Europe 13.8% 19.1% 39.6% 16.5% 5.6% 17.5% 20.3% 13.8% 15.8% 571

Western Europe 11.0% 18.1% 35.5% 27.8% 9.1% 19.8% 19.3% 14.3% 15.3% 610

Southern Europe 15.2% 12.5% 38.4% 14.4% 9.4% 12.1% 22.2% 12.9% 19.7% 648

Eastern Europe 9.6% 14.7% 34.4% 9.5% 6.4% 11.0% 25.6% 13.8% 18.6% 216

www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2,209 PR professionals; Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20. No significant differences between the groups (chi-square test, p≤0.05).

121

Training programmes offered in European regions (2)

Training offered: Ethical issues Communication technologies Finances, budgeting and accounting Marketing and consumer insight Initiating and moderating dialogues Research, evaluation methods and forecasting Organisational change and development Message production Public speaking and presentation n=

Northern Europe 16.5% 17.2% 18.7% 13.2% 10.3% 13.3% 12.5% 15.9% 39.2% 571

Western Europe 18.4% 19.6% 22.0% 14.1% 16.7% 13.3% 18.4% 14.0% 41.2% 610

Southern Europe 16.9% 24.7% 18.0% 19.9% 11.9% 13.9% 15.1% 15.0% 43.2% 648

Eastern Europe 14.2% 21.7% 16.6% 18.5% 10.6% 14.7% 9.6% 13.7% 40.5% 216

www.communicationmonitor.eu / Zerfass et al. 2011 / n = 2,209 PR professionals; Q 17: Does your organisation already offer training programmes in these fields? / Q 20. No significant differences between the groups (chi-square test, p≤0.05).

122

competencies relevant in organisational settings like power and coalition building. relationship building and communication technologies. the most relevant knowledge areas for communication managers will be the effects of traditional and new media. finances.  A comparison between the qualification needs identified and the training programmes offered by organisations today reveals large gaps in every field. 123 . cross-cultural and gender sensitivity is especially important in joint-stock companies.Interpretation Need for a variety of new qualifications needed and focused training programmes  In five years time. More than three out of four respondents value these fields as important or very important. budgeting and accounting as well as legal requirements are only mentioned by every second practitioner.  Qualification needs differ significantly between various types of organisations and regions. presentation and coaching programmes. while global project management is notably relevant in Western and Southern Europe. followed by hands-on skills like public speaking/presenting and coaching. Approximately 40 per cent of all organisations run public speaking. but no other issue is dealt with by more than one out of five organisations. This leaves a broad range of possibilities for improvement. For example.  Quite surprisingly.

Salaries .

€125.001 .€150.000 2.€200.1% 2.3% 5.€70.€100.€50.9% 6.814 PR professionals.9% 7.001 .001 . 2011 / n = 1.001 .000 €150.000 €80.000 €200.000 €50. Q 20: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? 125 .2% 8.4% 9.000 €100.001 .001 .6% 9.2% 6.000 €30.eu / Zerfass et al.000 €60.Basic annual salary of communication practitioners in Europe More than €300.000 Up to €30.0% 20.000 €70.001 .€60.001 .0% 6.8% 5.5% www.000 €40.000 €125.001 .€40.€90.communicationmonitor.001 .001 .€80.€300.000 €90.9% 9.

3% 9. Zerfass et al. Q 20.4% 28.3% 4.001 .000 €100.communicationmonitor.€60. 2011 / n = 1.€150.4% 32.1% 26.000 2011 €60.€100.6% 14.688. Q 17: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? 126 .000 More than €200.2% 20.5% 17. 2009 / n = 1.Development of salaries: More professionals have entered the top ranks.6% 29.eu / Zerfass et al. 2010 / n = 1.€200.814 PR professionals. Zerfass et al.001 .2% 6.8% 14.4% 31.000 €150.3% 5.9% 3.2% 5.1% 13.768.7% 5.000 www.001 .000 2010 €30. but the low-paid cluster is also growing 32.001 .0% 2009 Up to €30. Q 19.

814 PR professionals.Every second EACD member will earn more than 100.eu / Zerfass et al.6% 11.9% 3.7% 9.3% 9.5% 9.9% 10.0% 4.communicationmonitor.0% 13.9% 4.9% 4.4% 8. 2011 / n = 1.9% 7.6% www.9% 7.6% 7.3% 5.6% 5.2% 1. Q 20: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? / Are you a member of a professional organisation? 127 .6% 6.8% 6.000 Euros in 2011 23.7% EACD members Other professionals 13.8% 5.4% 4.0% 6.4% 1.9% 5.

Annual salary of top-level communicators in different regions (Head of Communication. Q 20: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? / What is your position? / In which European state are you normally based? 128 .eu / Zerfass et al. Agency CEO) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe www.814 PR professionals. 2011 / n = 1.communicationmonitor.

000 Euros annually 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe 129 www.814 PR professionals.Most professionals in Eastern and Southern Europe earn less than 40. 2011 / n = 1. Q 20: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? / In which European state are you normally based? .eu / Zerfass et al.communicationmonitor.

814 PR professionals.communicationmonitor.5% 7.8% female male 13.3% 7.5% www.7% 12.1% 11.6% 3.3% 3.2% 9.3% 6.4% 8.1% 8.3% 6. Q 20: In which of the following bands does your basic annual salary fall? / What is your gender? 130 .eu / Zerfass et al.4% 6.0% 5.9% 0. 2011 / n = 1.5% 7.1% 4.7% 10.3% 10.4% 3.2% 7.1% 9.6% 5.Annual salaries of female and male practitioners 26.6% 2.1% 3.

Interpretation The number of high-earning communication managers has grown in Europe  The survey shows that the decline in salaries identified in 2010 has been stopped. Members of the EACD (European Association of Communication Directors) are better paid – 10.2 per cent) has entered the top bands of 100. this report is based on a higher number of questionnaires from Southern European countries and a lower number from Western Europe. A quarter of the professionals (25. Compared to the 2010 study.  Salaries of communication professionals differ widely throughout Europe.000 Euro annually. Also. 131 .000 Euros in 2011. Statistical analyses show that practitioners in Eastern and Southern Europe tend to earn less.000 Euro. a rather large group of 20.5 per cent reports a low annual income of up to 30. Figures are almost the same as before the crisis in 2009.  While 5.  The growth of the low-paid cluster may be explained by the fact that the regional background of participants is better balanced than in previous surveys. the average salary (median) of women is lower than the income of their male counterparts on every hierarchical level.2 per cent earn more than 150.000 Euros or more basic income per year.0 per cent of the respondents will earn more than 200.

Annex .

es  Prof. Dr. Dr. Ansgar Zerfass Professor of Communication Management.uk  Prof. Spain mariaangeles. Dr.tench@leedsmet. Netherlands p. Madrid. University Rey Juan Carlos. University of Leipzig. Leeds Metropolitan University. United Kingdom r. University of Amsterdam. Dr.ac.nl  Prof.moreno@urjc. Ralph Tench Professor of Communication.verhoeven@uva.de  Ass. Dr.Authors & Research Team  Prof. Germany zerfass@uni-leipzig. University of Ljubljana.vercic@pristop. Slovenia dejan. Dejan Verčič Professor of Public Relations and Communication Management.si 133 . Piet Verhoeven Associate Professor of Communication Science. Prof. Angeles Moreno Professor of Public Relations and Communication Management.

Italy emanuele.pl 134 .dk  Prof. Norway oyvind. Switzerland francesco. Milano.carayol@u-bordeaux3. Poland r. Ryszard Lawniczak Poznan University of Economics. Dr.unisi.it  Prof.no  Prof. Dr. Øyvind Ihlen University of Oslo. Aarhus University. Emanuele Invernizzi IULM University.ihlen@media.uio. France valerie.poznan.ch  Prof. Valerie Carayol University of Bordeaux 3. Dr.invernizzi@iulm. Dr. Finn Frandsen.A. M. Denmark ff@asb. Francesco Lurati University of Lugano.lurati@lu.fr  Prof. Dr.lawniczak@ae.Advisory board  Prof.

The Singular Character of Public Relations in a Global Economy. T. Vol. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. International Distinguished Lecture. A Call to Action to Overcome the Present Crisis of Trust in Business (available at http://www. Business Roundtable.pdf). The Consequences of Modernity. 49-60. Dixius. Vol. Lee. Lurati. (1992): Understanding Power in Organizations. United Nations Statistics Division (2011). N. The Dynamics of Public Trust in Business − Emerging Opportunities for Leaders. Vol. J. Giddens. Zurich.P. Page Society & Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics (2009). G. J. (1971): A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power.A. Personnel Administrator. 216-229. W. C. Aldyukhova..D. 13.. The Consequences of Modernity. & Watson. Vol. 142-154. Administrative Science Quarterly... Vol. Chichester. Hinings. T. 135 . Public Trust and Trust in Particular Firm Stakeholder Interactions. Ernest. (1985). 34 (2). U. D. F.R. B. (2009). New York: United Nations. (2006). The Institute for Public Relations. 453-473.awpagesociety. Hickson. The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University. Gregory. Schneck. GAP VI. Questionnaire for Sixth Annual Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices (G. Salancik. London: The Reform Club. (2006).J. Lugano: Swiss Corporate Communications and Public Relations Observatory. Swiss Corporate Communications and Public Relations Practice Monitor.A. New York. (1974).E. Perspectives on ROI of media relations publicity efforts. Nielsen.C. Administrative Science Quarterly. 29-50. J.un.M.C. Unpublished document. & Pennings. Likely. Harris. 337-350. A. 16 (2). (2008)... (1990). (1990). M. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. 19 (4). C.htm#europe. Rockland. A. & Wicks. Giddens. Page Society. F. A.. Gainesville (FL): Institute for Public Relations.. Available at www. (2010). J. J. Charlottesville: A. geographical sub regions.. R. (1979). Swerling. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Journal of Marketing Communications. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions..) Study. J. and selected economic and other groupings (revised 17 February 2011). & Pfeffer. & Weiner. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Corporate cultures and effective planning. D. Trust and Power. R. Luhmann. (2010). Pfeffer. Available at: http://unstats. Corporate Reputation Review. 14 (5).org. 30 (3).instituteforpr.com/ images/uploads/public_trust_in_business.R.org/unsd/methods/ m49/m49regin.References Arthur W.. Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation – towards a new research agenda. & Reinhold. A. California Management Review.

K.. A. Leipzig.communicationmonitor.. (available at: www. D. Vercic.. (available at: www. & Verhoeven. S. Results of an Empirical Survey in 46 Countries. A. Brussels: EACD.. Journal of Public Relations Research. D... (2008).eu) Zerfass. EUPRERA. P. Moreno.P. Tench. (2010): European Communication Monitor 2010. European Communication Monitor 2008.communicationmonitor. (2009). Brussels. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications.eu) 136 . Werder. & Verhoeven. EUPRERA (available at: www. K. 118-142.. & Hamrefors. Vol.communicationmonitor.. University of Leipzig. Brussels: EACD. Verčič.P. (available at: www. 404-427. & Holtzhausen. Status Quo and Challenges for Public Relations in Europe. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications. EUPRERA. A.communicationmonitor. Vercic. Moreno. D. (2011): Organizational Structures and Their Relationship with Communication Management Practices: A Public Relations Perspective from the United States. 21 (4). Rogojinaru. A.. D. Vercic. D. Leipzig: EUPRERA.References (continued) Werder. A. P. Verhoeven. Van Ruler. (2007). R.eu) Zerfass. & Holtzhausen..eu) Zerfass. D. An Analysis of the Influence of Public Relations Department Leadership Style on Public Relations Strategy Use and Effectiveness.... Tench.. 5 (2). R. (2009).. A. P. R. European Communication Monitor 2007. A. International Journal of Strategic Communication.. Vol. Tench. A. European Communication Monitor 2009.. B. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results of a Survey in 34 Countries. Brussels: University of Leipzig. Zerfass.. & Moreno.

Imprint Publication Zerfass. EUPRERA (available at: www. Brussels: EACD. Brussels) for helpful suggestions and administrative support. may be directed to the lead researcher. charts and data. www.. Results of an Empirical Survey in 43 Countries (Chart Version).eu The full report (text and charts) is available as a book published by Helios Media.euprera. It is not allowed to use this data to illustrate promotional material for commercial services. Title graphic provided by Helios Media.org Copyright © 2011 by Ansgar Zerfass and the research team for the whole document and all parts. Acknowledgements Special thanks to Ronny Fechner M.eu instead. Empirical Insights into Strategic Communication in Europe. zerfass@uni-leipzig.de 137 . (2011): European Communication Monitor 2011.Sc. Moreno. including sponsorship opportunities for future surveys. Ansgar Zerfass. P.. Illustration licensed by istockphoto. Questions regarding the overall research. and Katharina Simon B. It is intellectual property subject to international copyright. Dr. subject to the condition that the source including the internet address is clearly quoted and depicted on every chart. Prof.eu) This set of charts is available as a free PDF document at www. Publisher EUPRERA European Public Relations Education and Research Association. D.. A. & Verčič. R.. ISBN 978-3-942263-12-2. Permission is gained to quote from the content of this survey and reproduce any graphics. Please use a link to the official website www. (University of Leipzig) for their most valuable statistical and organisational assistance and to Grit Fiedler and Neil Cranswick (EACD. Contact Please contact any member of the research team or the advisory board in your country/region if you are interested in discussing the insights of this survey or in joint research projects.A.com.communicationmonitor. The material presented in this document represents empirical insights and interpretation by the research team. Publishing this PDF document on websites run by third parties and storing this document in databases or on platforms which are only open to subscribers/members or charge payments for assessing information is not allowed. Tench.communicationmonitor.communicationmonitor. Verhoeven. A.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful