Teaching Public Relations Campaigns Course –1

The Role of Clients in the Public Relations Campaigns Course

Vince Benigni, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

College of Charleston

I-Huei Cheng, M.A.

Doctoral Student

MissouriSchool of Journalism

Glen T. Cameron, Ph.D.

Professor & Gregory Chair

MissouriSchool of Journalism

All correspondence to: Vince Benigni, Ph.D.

Department of Communication

College of Charleston

66 George Street

Charleston, SC 29424

Paper submitted to the Teaching Public Relations Division of the 2003 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference in Kansas City, MO

Abstract

Extending Benigni and Cameron (1999), this study provides a current review of teaching methods for the public relations campaigns course based on a national survey. In addition to offering up-to-date descriptions of how the campaigns course is constructed and valued in public relations programs, this study analyzed what may be important factors that influence the course outcomes. Clients’ satisfaction, implementation of plan books that are developed by students, and job/internship opportunities that students receive based on their performance in the campaign course are all indicators for the effectiveness of teaching campaign courses. Certain course features, client involvement in class, and clients’ payment for services rendered also contribute to more positive course outcomes.

Introduction

Within a public relations major or sequence, students are generally required to understand the principles of the profession, and then take subsequent courses in research, writing, management, and finally, the campaigns course (Undergraduate Commission citation). Because it is generally considered the capstone course (Benigni and Cameron 1999) of public relations education, the campaigns class has a multi-faceted obligation to its students.

In one semester, students are often asked to conduct focus groups, formulate questionnaires and analyze data to fulfill a primary research requirement. Setting measurable objectives, and devising strategies and tactics are planning prerequisites (Wilcox, Cameron, Ault and Agee2003) bridging research to the communication phase (e.g. press kits, web site copy and broadcast tactics). Finally, an effective evaluation proposal may include assessment strategies ranging from advertising equivalency and other motivational objectives to benchmarking and more evolved informational outcomes.

Students (and sometimes professors) may find the process overwhelming, but necessary, because of the pivotal assessment of outcomes. In other words, the portfolio and final presentation are not only intrinsic rewards for the exhaustive rite of passage/survival skills (Bourland-Davis 2002), but more importantly, are tangible recruiting tools for internship and/or career opportunities. Not only do participants benefit, but the department and university also gain positive exposure and enrichment from holistic learning experiences.

However, many would argue that the primary beneficiaries of the campaigns course are the clients (Aldoory and Wrigley 2000). In most cases, campaign students work in teams on behalf of a campus or community organization, presenting their findings and portfolios to the client at semester's end. In many respects, the clients are the essence of the major's most important course.

While replicating most elements of Benigni and Cameron’s national survey in 1999, this study adds greater focus on the client's role in the campaigns course, based on the perceptions and experience of the professors, particularly with regard to client expectations, involvement, and trust.

Literature Review

Teaching the Campaigns Course

Public relations pedagogy has been a rich source of scholarship in recent years, both in a holistic sense, and through analysis of specific courses. Most scholars agree that all public relations courses should incorporate “real-world” scenarios, even though it often adds to professor workload.

Over the past decade, a number of articles have dissected individual components of the suggested elements of the public relations major by the Undergraduate Commission on Public Relations Education. These include works on the introduction/principles course (Benigni, Weaver-Lariscy and Tinkham 2002), the writing course (King 2001), case studies (Rybacki and Worley 2000) and management (Kinnick and Cameron 1994).

In fact, case studies (Hendrix 2001) and management (Schick 1997) are considered by some researchers as capstone tenets. That being said, most scholars have agreed that the campaigns class involves the most complete application of essential skills in public relations. Some universities even use a two-semester approach (Metzler and Nadler 2000) because of the rigor involved in synthesizing skills learned in prerequisite courses. Because of the didactic nature of prerequisites, upper-level offerings should foster “active learning” or collaborative strategies (Lubbers and Gorcyca 1997) that represent real-world opportunities.

Many universities espouse hybrid programs that fuse concepts of business and public relations (Pincus and Rayfield 1992). While integrated communication (Reber, Frisby, and Cameron, in press) has gained significant momentum, other scholars believe that public relations is a distinct profession, and not a subset of related professional areas or disciplines (Kruckeberg 1998).

Traditionally, the purveyors of student excellence are their professors, who write recommendation letters, make phone calls to companies or graduate schools, and serve as mentors and confidants. Indeed, teachers set a tone for future success, both with theoretical grounding and practical application. The latter tonic is often more palatable to students, because their motivational objectives usually revolve around their success after college. Research suggests that those students with considerable "real-world" application are more competitive in today's job market. Outcomes arenot just measured by news release competency, but also in attitude (Neff et al. 1999).

Most campaigns courses are taught within a team-based framework (Benigni and Cameron 1999). Oftentimes, objectives are compromised when one or more students donot pull their weight (Lordan 1996). These difficulties can be assuaged by more proactive strategies, such as incorporating teams in the intro course (Adams 1994).

Teaching Campaign-Based Skills

Research, viewed as the critical impetus for decision-making (Broom & Dozier 1990), is given lip service by many public relations professors (DeSanto 1996). Stacks (2002) argued that the introduction to public relations course must allay students’ fears of numbers to provide a positive stimulus for the subsequent research methods offering. He offers “Four Myths” (Research as Math, Memorization, Non-Career Oriented, and Hindrance in Competing with Business Students) that professors must address through theoretical and application exercises.

One of the key elements of a campaign’s planning phase is the setting of strategic objectives. Fall (1998) noted that event management was listed as a critical need area in student internships and organizational campaigns, with motivational objectives (Wilcox et al. 2003) being a particularly illuminating evaluative tool. Informational, awareness-based objectives (Beasley 1992) are more difficult to ascertain, hence the reason that many campaigns professors require survey instruments to gauge public sentiment.

While highly evolved research techniques are stressed, Coombs and Rybacki (1999) lament the limited use of new media pedagogy in public relations classes. Brody (2002) notes that traditional media relations tactics (i.e. news releases) are outmoded, and need to manage transitions into a new age of “experience-based messaging systems.” Still, a number of professors are embracing new technologies within the pedagogical construct. Kent (2001) espouses a mediated approach emphasizing web-based education of secondary research of media outlets and key databases. Forde (2000) suggests a requisite integration of desktop publishing skills (i.e. PowerPoint and Netscape Composer) in the campaigns course for competitive portfolio building, because portfolios are the critical tool of student assessment (Flynn and Russell 2000).

Many capstone courses address the issue of evaluation, but time constraints do not allow for campaign implementation (Benigni and Cameron 1999). However, public relations education task forces are emphasizing equal weights for implementation as well as planning, because outcome perspectives (Gibson 1992) are not being properly addressed in capstone education. Benchmarking (Richter and Drake 1993) should assess the impact of financial rewards of organizations.

Rybacki and Lattimore (1999) argue that many professors eschew opportunities to assess student outcomes at their institution, and therefore, are ill-equipped to broach evaluative issues in public relations classes. Forde (2000) notes that focus groups can offer insights of current students and graduates toward academic departments. In sum, outcome perspectives and university perception are key variables that can be strategically ascertained.

Service Learning

Relationship building has long been a primary tenet of excellent (Grunig, 1992) public relations. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) operationalized three types of relationships – personal, professional, and community – that significantly influenced key public member evaluations of satisfaction with the organization.

University professors are increasingly espousing the notion of service learning as a “counter to ivory tower intellectualism” (Schwartzman 2001), a networking tool for graduates (Tucker and McCarthy 2001), a practice to alleviate tensions inherent in non-reciprocal relationships (Dubinsky 2002), and an extension of traditional university missions (Fall 2002). In public relations courses, managing university-student relationships is a critical variable in gauging student retention (Bruning and Ledingham 1999), and in ascertaining alumni attachments and subsequent donation behaviors (Sallot 1996). Service learning provides a forum to build professionalism (Bourland-Davis 2000), but only if the emphasis of learning is equal or greater to the notion of service (Patterson 2002).

The Role of the Client

While many capstone courses use case studies to illustrate do's and don'ts of public relations campaigns, students are not properly prepared unless they are thrust into a situation filled with problems and opportunities. Fortunately, there is a captive audience within shouting distance of every college campus, ranging from local or regional corporations, to area nonprofits (McPherson 1993), to college offices/organizations. The daunting task for campaigns professors is to choose a set of willing clients.

Worley (2001) notes that the most consistently difficult aspect of the campaigns course is to get students to understand, develop, and maintain the team-client relationship. She proposes a “Letter of Agreement” that outlines student needs from the client, along with ways to fulfill client expectations. Filson (1998) adds that a challenge for practitioners is to make the transition for clients into a “leadership” role that extends beyond presentations.

Oftentimes, “intellectual readiness” (Maglio-Jung 1994) is required to overcome difficult or even hostile clients, a difficult trait for inexperienced college students to develop quickly. Students should learn client-centered approaches (Motschall and Najor 2001) in the intro course to better prepare for complex organizational issues. Rentner (2000) adds that variables of access and logistics lead campaigns professors to offer only on-campus clients.

Conventional wisdom notes that presentations to clients often cement, or doom, the decision to partner with an agency. Miga (1994) suggests a proactive approach where key constituents are briefed at least a week before the presentation.

While the terminal nature of the campaigns course rarely includes the notion of retention, the course should incorporate notions of searching for and retaining clients. Whitney (1997) notes that most sales come from existing customers, and recommendations from those customers. Weems (2001) reports that nearly two-thirds of clients prefer Web-based financial information and advisor-specific sites. Practitioners should emphasize the notion of “clients as long-term investments” over the oft-static nature of current customers/publics. Engaging the client is critical, and trust and satisfaction only come with client involvement in the process (Marken 1997), and keeping clients better informed (Miles 1997).

Research Questions

Based on the literature, the following research questions were formulated to gauge the role of the client in the public relations campaigns course:

RQ1: How are campaigns courses structured?

RQ1.1: How are courses offered and structured overall (e.g. being offered to undergraduate or graduate students, use of real clients, and types of clients)?

RQ1.2: Does the structure of campaign course differ by type of schools or programs?

RQ2: How are clients involved in the campaigns course?

RQ2.1: What is the level of research required for clients (e.g. secondary and primary research)?

RQ2.2: What is the level of client input in terms of access and grading?

RQ3: What are the outcomes of the campaigns courses?

RQ3.1: Are clients satisfied with the work provided?

RQ3.2: Are students offered with internship/job opportunities based on campaign efforts?

RQ4: How do the outcomes of campaigns course differ?

RQ4.1: Do the outcomes differ by course features?

RQ4.2: Do the outcomes differ by types of client or other client-related factors?

RQ5: How do clients pay for services rendered in the campaigns course?

RQ5.1: Is there any formal client payment for services rendered?

RQ5.2: Do the outcomes of the campaigns course differ by whether clients pay?

Method

Sample

Based on tenets from Benigni and Cameron’s 1999 study of public relations campaigns professors, and Wrigley and Aldoory’s 2000 manuscript on student and client reactions to the course, we formulated a 60–question survey. Respondents were targeted through a combination of three directories of educational institutions in public relations. Using the 2002-2003 Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication Directory of Colleges and Universities, along with the 2002-2003 National Communication Directory of Colleges and Universities, the authors mailed the survey to every institution listed which included public relations as a major, sequence, or course of study. We obtained additional respondents from the “2002 Where Shall I Go to Study Advertising and Public Relations Handbook”.Our directories indicated that 387 universities fulfilled the aforementioned criteria, which was, interestingly, 107 more than the respondent pool from Benigni and Cameron’s survey sent to a similar audience.

Variables

This study surveys current structure and design of the public relations campaigns course in general, and focuses on the client's role in the campaigns course, as well as the course outcomes that may be used to assess the effectiveness of teaching campaign courses.

Course structures are explored with questions pertaining to the number of class sections, student enrollment numbers, whether the courses are offered to undergraduate and graduate students, whether prerequisites are required for the campaigns course, whether the campaigns courses are required for the public relations program, and whether campaign courses are a “capstone” class in the program.

Other course features concern the level of research required in the class, use of class time, involvement of a real client, whether clients are invited to the class to offer an overview, whether students are teamed, how students are grouped, whether students are encouraged to ask more confidential information from clients, and whether clients are formally involved in the grading process. For example, to describe the emphasis of research, these questions were asked,“What percentage of the course is devoted to primary research (in general) and to primary research of the client itself (e.g. client interviews, etc.)?” and “What percentage of the course is devoted to secondary research (in general) and to secondary research of the client?” Concerning the use of class time, these questions were asked, “What percentage of overall class time is devoted to prepared lectures, coach/team meetings, other teaching strategies?”

Institution and programs were described by their institutional enrollment size, what degrees are being offered in public relations, and whether the programs are accredited by professional or educational public relations organizations such as Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).

Clients’ roles are explored in the aspects regarding their organization type, their willingness to provide information, the interval to offer inputs to the professor, and whether they pay for services rendered in the campaigns course. Regarding the type of clients, respondents were asked with these questions, “Is your client based typically: campus organizations or off-campus organizations?” and “If clients are "off campus," what percentage of your total client base is: government/non-profit, corporate/for-profit, agency, or other?” In addition, respondents were asked to break down percentages of type of clients in response to these questions, “Please break down the approximate percentage(s) of "types of clients" for the following: on-campus v. off-campus, and non-profit v. for-profit?” Clients’ willingness to provide information to students was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is “not willing at all” and 5 is “very willing”) in response to the question, “How willing are clients - to your knowledge - to provide information regarding the organization?”

Professors’relationship with and selection of clients are further explored with these questions, “Do you usually have a prior affiliation or relationship with the client before the organization is chosen?”“Do you seek/accept "referrals" for potential clients from other sources?” and “How much research do you typically do before choosing campaign clients?” measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is “none/very little research” and 5 is “very much research”). In addition, respondents were asked to report their professional experiences in response to this question, “Please list your background in the following areas in terms of years worked: non-profit PR, corporate/organizational (in-house) PR, agency PR, government PR, and other.”

Course outcomes are the satisfaction of the clients, implementation of plan book by the clients, and job or internship opportunity received by students, based on the perceptions and experience of the professors. The satisfaction of clients were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is not satisfied at all, and 5 is very satisfied) in response to the question “How satisfied are clients with the final plan book/portfolio from student groups?” and “How satisfied are clients with the final presentation from student groups?” The implementation of the plan book developed by students was asked with the question, “In your estimation, are student plans used ‘significantly’ by clients?” And to assess the job or internship opportunities students received, this question was asked, “Have any of your students ever received a job/internship opportunity based on the performance of the campaigns course?”