ECM2016-Results-ChartVersion EURO MONITOR COMMUNICATIONS 2016 PDF

EUROPEAN
COMMUNICATION
MONITOR2016
EXPLORINGTRENDSINBIGDATA,STAKEHOLDERENGAGEMENTAND
STRATEGICCOMMUNICATION.RESULTSOFASURVEYIN43COUNTRIES.
AnsgarZerfass,PietVerhoeven,AngelesMoreno,RalphTench &Dejan Veri
AstudyconductedbytheEuropeanPublicRelationsEducationandResearchAssociation(EUPRERA)and theEuropeanAssociation
ofCommunicationDirectors(EACD)supportedbypartnerPRIMEResearchandmediapartnerCommunicationDirectormagazine
Imprint
Publishedby:
EACDEuropeanAssociationofCommunicationDirectors,Brussels,www.eacdonline.eu
EUPRERAEuropeanPublicRelationsEducationandResearchAssociation,Brussels,www.euprera.org
Citationofthispublication(APAstyle):
Zerfass,A., Verhoeven,P.,Moreno,A.,Tench,R.,&Veri,D. (2016).
EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2016.Exploringtrendsinbigdata,stakeholderengagementand
strategiccommunication. Resultsofasurveyin43Countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,Quadriga MediaBerlin.
Shortquotationtobeusedinlegends(charts/graphics):Source:EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2016.
July2016.Allrightsreserved.
Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfassandtheresearchteamforthewholedocumentandallparts,chartsanddata.Thematerialpresentedinthisdocument
representsempiricalinsightsandinterpretationbytheresearchteam.Itisintellectualpropertysubjecttointernationalcopyright.Illustration
licensedbyistockphoto.com.Titlegraphicprovidedby QuadrigaMedia.Permissionisgainedtoquotefromthecontentofthissurveyandreproduce
anygraphics,subjecttotheconditionthatthesourceincludingtheinternetaddressisclearlyquotedanddepictedonevery chart.Itisnotallowed
tousethisdatatoillustratepromotionalmaterialforcommercialservices. PublishingthisPDFdocumentonwebsitesrunbythirdpartiesandstoring
thisdocumentindatabasesoronplatformswhichareonlyopentosubscribers/membersorchargepaymentsforassessinginformationisprohibited.
Pleaseusealinktotheofficialwebsitewww.communicationmonitor.euinstead.
Thisreport(chartversion)isavailableasafreePDFdocumentatwww.communicationmonitor.eu
ThereportisalsoavailableasabookletpublishedbyQuadriga MediaBerlin,ISBN 9783942263405.
Contact:
PleasecontactnationalEUPRERAresearchersatuniversitiesinyourcountrylistedonpage 132,lead researcher Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfass,
zerfass@unileipzig.de,orEACDcoordinator StefanieSchwerdtfeger,stefanie.schwerdtfeger@eacdonline.eu,ifyourareinterestedin
presentations,workshops,interviews,orfurtheranalysesoftheinsightspresentedhere.
4
Content
ForewordandIntroduction 6
Researchdesign 8
Methodologyanddemographics 10
Bigdatainstrategiccommunication 16
AutomationinPRandcommunicationmanagement 34
Communicationpractices:fromoperationaltaskstoexecutivecoaching 42
Strategicissuesandcommunicationchannels 54
Socialmediainfluencers 68
Stakeholderengagement 76
Skills,knowledgeandcompetencydevelopment 84
Salaries 98
Characteristicsofexcellentcommunicationdepartments 108
References 126
Surveyorganisersandpartners 129
Nationalcontacts 132
Authorsandresearchteam 133
5
Foreword
Aswearecelebratingour10thanniversaries,2016isaspecialyearbothfortheEuropeanAssociationof
CommunicationDirectors(EACD)andtheEuropeanCommunicationMonitor.Theanniversaryeditionof
thesurveyprovidesdeepinsightsintotheworkingenvironmentandroutinesofEuropeancommunicators
andpresentsthemwiththetrendsanddevelopmentsthatareshapingourprofession.
Inthepastdecade,theconditionsfortheworkofcommunicationprofessionalshavealtered
significantly.Thesurveyresultsindicatehowcommunicatorsarekeepingupwithdevelopmentsaffecting
theirindustryandthenewchallengestheyhaveyettotackle.
Mostcommunicatorssurveyedshowahighinterestinandfollowthedebateondevelopments
causedbythedigitalisation,whicharehighlysignificanttoourprofession.However,fewcommunication
departmentshavealreadyimplementedstrategiesandtoolstocopewithspecificaspectsofthedigital
evolution.Thisisstrikinglyevidentwhenitcomestobigdata.Despitemanycommunicatorsreportingtheimportanceofbigdata
tocommunicationmanagement,surprisinglyfewcommunicationdepartmentsmakeuseofbigdataanalytics.
Algorithmsofsearchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsalsonowhaveahugeimpactonhowourmessagesreachaudiences
adevelopmentthatmostcommunicatorsagreeon.Butonlyathirdoftherespondentsstatethattheirdepartmentsadapt
communicationactivitiestothesekindsofexternalalgorithms.Whenitcomestocreatingoradaptingcontent,fewcommunicators
believeintheimportanceofapplyingalgorithms.
AttheEuropeanAssociationofCommunicationDirectors(EACD)weoffercommunicationprofessionalsaplatformtoconnect,
deepentheirexpertiseandsharebestpractices.TogetherwithourmembersacrossEuropewebuildanetworkthataimstoresolve
collectivechallenges.
Ourgoalistoenablecommunicatorstoprepareforthenexttenyears.Iinviteyoutoexplorethefindingsofthe10thannual
EuropeanCommunicationMonitorindetailonthefollowingpages.
Dr. HerbertHeitmann
President,EuropeanAssociationofCommunicationDirectors(EACD)
6
Introduction
This10thanniversaryeditionoftheEuropeanCommunicationMonitorsmarksamilestoneinthe
endeavourtogeneratestateoftheartknowledgeaboutstrategiccommunicationandpublicrelations.
Whatstartedasasmallinitiativebyagroupofcolleaguesin2007hasgrownintothelargestandonly
trulyglobalstudyoftheprofessionwithsoundacademicstandards.
Today,morethan4,500practitionersinover80countriesaresurveyedineachwaveofthe
European,LatinAmericanandAsiaPacificCommunicationMonitor.Forthefirsttimeever,itispossible
totrackandprovethechangingrelevanceofstrategicissuesandcommunicationchannelsovera
decade.Longitudinaldatafrommorethan21,000respondentsacrossEuroperevealariseanddecline
ofdigitalandsocialresponsibility,aswellastheunsolvedchallengeoflinkingbusinessstrategyand
communication.Facetofaceandsocialmediacommunicationarethemostimportantinstruments
today,whilepressrelationswithprintmediahavesteadilylostinimportancesince2011.Lastbutnotleast,themonitorresearchhas
introducedauniqueapproachtoidentifythecharacteristicsofexcellenceforcommunicationdepartments.Acomprehensive
overviewofthesefindingsforpractitionerswillbepublishedlaterthisyearinthebookCommunicationExcellence Howto
Develop,ManageandLeadExceptionalCommunicationsbyPalgraveMacmillan,London.
Keytopicscoveredinthisreportaretheuseofbigdataandalgorithmsincommunications,stakeholderengagement,dealing
withsocialmediainfluencers,skillsandcompetencydevelopmentforcommunicators,andmanymore.Readerswillprofitfrom
overallinsights,statisticalevaluationsanddetaileddatafordifferenttypesoforganisationsandcountries,whereapplicable.
Onbehalfoftheresearchteam,Iwouldliketothankeverybodywhoparticipatedinthesurveyaswellasournationalpartners
at21renowneduniversities.ThesupportofassistantresearchersMarkusWiesenberg andRonnyFechner,StefanieSchwerdtfeger
andVanessaEggert atEACD,andourpartnerPRIMEResearchismuchappreciated.
Prof. Dr.AnsgarZerfass
Leadresearcher;ProfessorandChairinStrategicCommunication,UniversityofLeipzig,Germany&
EuropeanPublicRelationsEducationandResearchAssociation(EUPRERA)
7
Researchdesign
Researchdesign
TheEuropeanCommunicationMonitor(ECM)2016explorescurrentpracticesandfuturedevelopmentsofstrategiccommunicationin
companies,nonprofitsandotherorganisationsincludingcommunicationagencies.Itisthetentheditionofasurveythathasbeen
conductedannuallysince2007andiscomplementedbybiannualsurveysinotherregions(LatinAmerica,AsiaPacific).The
communicationmonitorseriesisknownasthemostcomprehensiveresearchinthefieldworldwide.Itistheonlyglobalstudywhich
adherestofullstandardsofempiricalresearchandprovidestransparencyaboutitssamplingproceduresandrespondents.
Ajointstudybyacademiaandpractice,theECMisorganisedbytheEuropeanPublicRelationsEducationandResearchAssociation
(EUPRERA)andtheEuropeanAssociationofCommunicationDirectors(EACD),supportedbypartnerPRIMEResearch,agloballeaderfor
mediainsights,andmediapartnerCommunicationDirectormagazine.ThestudyisledbyAnsgar ZerfassandcoauthoredbyPiet
Verhoeven,AngelesMoreno,RalphTench andDejan Veri allofthemarerenowneduniversityprofessorsrepresentingdifferent
countrycontexts.Awiderboardofprofessorsandnationalresearchcollaboratorsensurethatthesurveyreflectsthediversityofthe
fieldacrossEurope.
TheECM2016isbasedonresponsesfrom2,710communicationprofessionalsbasedin43Europeancountries.Theyhaveanswered
aquestionnairewhichcollectsalargenumberofindependentanddependentvariables:personalcharacteristicsofcommunication
professionals(demographics,education,jobstatus,experience);featuresoftheorganisation(structure,country);attributesofthe
communicationdepartment;thecurrentsituationregardingtheprofessionalandhis/herorganisation,aswellasperceptionson
developmentsinthefield.Thequestionsandtheresearchframeworkhavebeenderivedfrompreviousempiricalstudiesandliterature.
Thestudyexploresfourconstructs.Firstly,developmentsanddynamicsinthefieldofstrategiccommunication(Hallahan etal.,
2007)areidentifiedbylongitudinalcomparisonsofstrategicissues,communicationchannelsandpersonneldevelopmentneedsor
opportunities.Tothisend,questionsfrompreviousECMsurveys(Zerfassetal.,2015,2014,2013,2012,2011,2010,2009,2008, 2007)
havebeenrepeated.Secondly,regionalandnationaldifferencesarerevealedbybreakingdowntheresultsofthisstudytotwentykey
countriesandbycomparingresultsfromEuropetothosefromothercontinents(Morenoetal.,2015;Macnamara etal.,2015).
Thirdly,aselectionofcurrentchallengesinthefieldareempiricallytested.TheECM2016explorestherelevance,understanding
andimplementationofbigdata(Gandomi &Haider,2015),algorithmsincommunications(Collister,2015;Phillips,2015),practicesof
communicationwithaspecificfocusoncoachingandadvising(VanRuler&Veri,2005;Zerfass&Franke,2013),stakeholderengage
ment (Kang,2014),socialmediainfluencers(Freberg etal.,2011),aswellasskills,knowledgeandcompetencydevelopmentfor
communicationprofessionals(Tench &Moreno,2015).Fourthly,statisticalmethodsareusedtoidentifyhighperformingcommunication
departmentsinthesample(Veri &Zerfass,2015),andtheredefinewhichaspectsmakeadifference.Overall,theresearchdesign
supportsabroadrangeofevaluationsandinterpretationswhichexpandthebodyofknowledge.
9
Methodologyand
demographics
Methologyanddemographics
TheonlinequestionnaireusedfortheEuropeanCommunicationMonitor2016consistedof32questionsarrangedin14sections.Five
questionswereonlypresentedtoprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Instrumentsuseddichotomous,nominaland
ordinalresponsescales.Theywerebasedonresearchquestionsandhypothesesderivedfrompreviousresearchandliterature.The survey
usedtheEnglishlanguageandwaspretestedwith40communicationprofessionalsin15Europeancountries.Amendmentsweremade
whereappropriateandthefinalquestionnairewasactivatedforfiveweeksinMarch2016.Morethan40,000professionalsthroughout
EuropewereinvitedwithpersonalemailsbasedonadatabaseprovidedbytheEuropeanAssociationofCommunicationDirectors(EACD).
Additionalinvitationsweresentvianationalresearchcollaboratorsandprofessionalassociations.
6,902respondentsstartedthesurveyand3,287ofthemcompletedit.Answersfromparticipantswhocouldnotclearlybeidentified
aspartofthepopulationweredeletedfromthedataset.ThisstrictselectionofrespondentsisadistinctfeatureoftheECMandsetsit
apartfrommanystudieswhicharebasedonsnowballsamplingorwhichincludestudents,academicsandpeopleoutsideofthefocused
professionorregion.Theevaluationisthenbasedon2,710fullycompletedrepliesbycommunicationprofessionalsinEurope.
TheStatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences(SPSS)wasusedfordataanalysis.Clusteranalyseswereusedforclassifying subjects.
Resultshavebeentestedforstatisticalsignificancewith,dependingonthevariable,Chi,PearsonCorrelation,ANOVA/Scheffe Posthoc,
KendallrankindependentsamplesT,andKendallrankcorrelationtests.Statisticalindicators(CramersV,F,r,Tau)arereportedinthe
footnotes.Moreover,resultsaremarkedassignificant(p0.05)*orhighlysignificant(p0.01)**inthegraphicsortables.
Thedemographicsshowthatsevenoutoftenrespondentsarecommunicationleaders:37.2percentholdatophierarchical
positionasheadofcommunicationorasCEOofacommunicationconsultancy;32.1percentareunitleadersorinchargeofasingle
communication disciplineinanorganisation.59.9percentoftheprofessionalsinterviewedhavemorethantenyearsofexperiencein
communicationmanagement.58.1percentofthemarefemaleandtheaverageageis41.6years.Avastmajority(94.5percent) in the
samplehasanacademicdegree,andmorethantwothirdsholdagraduatedegreeorevenadoctorate.Threeoutoffiverespondents
workincommunication departmentsinorganisations(jointstockcompanies,19.5percent;privatecompanies,17.9percent;
governmentowned,publicsector,politicalorganisations,13.1percent;nonprofitorganisations,associations,11.9percent),while37.5
percentarecommunicationconsultantsworkingfreelanceorforagencies.
Professionalsfrom43countriesparticipatedinthesurvey.Thedatasetprovidedmoredetailedinsightsfor20countries,includingall
keymarketsinEurope.Mostrespondents(30.0percent)arebasedinNorthernEurope(countrieslikeNorway,Sweden,UnitedKingdom),
followedbyWesternEurope(29.6percent;countrieslikeGermany,Switzerland,Netherlands,France),SouthernEurope(27.0percent;
countrieslikeSpain,Italy,Croatia)andEasternEurope(13.5percent;countrieslikeRomania,Ukraine,Poland,Russia).Theuniverseof50
countriesinEuropeusedforthisstudyandthedistinctionofgeographicregionsisbasedontheofficiallistofEuropeanCountriesbythe
EuropeanUnion(2016)andtheColumbiaEncyclopedia (2016).
.
11
Researchframework and questions
Person(Communicationprofessional) Organisation
Demographics Education Jobstatus Experience Structure Country
Age,Q26 Academic Positionand Overalljobexperience Typeoforganisation, Q18 Europeancountry,Q31

qualifications, hierarchylevel, (years), Q28
Gender,Q27 AlignmentoftheCCO /top
Q29 Q19
communicationmanager,
Membershipin
Dominantareasof Q20
association(s),Q30
work,Q25
Communicationdepartment
Excellence
Influence Performance
Advisory influence,Q21 Success,Q23
Executive influence,Q22 Quality andability,Q24
Situation Perception
Attentiongiventothedebateabout Dealingwithsocialmediainfluencers, InfluenceofbigdataonthePR Identifyingstakeholderengagement,
bigdata,Q1 Q13 profession,Q1 Q11
Bigdataactivitiesintheorganisation,Q3 Socialmediaskillsandknowledge, Understandingofbigdata,Q2 Importanceofcommunication
Q15 channels andinstruments,Q12
Useofbigdataanalytics,Q6 Challengesofbigdata,Q5
Managementskillsandknowledge, Importanceofsocialmedia
UseofalgorithmsandautomatedPR,Q6 Relevanceofalgorithmsand
Q16 influencers,Q13
automatedPR,Q6
Timespentforvariousfieldsof
Trainingprogramsoffered/facilitated Identifyingsocialmediainfluencers,Q
communicationpractice,Q7 Strategicissues, Q9
bytheorganisation,Q17 14
Activitiestosupportexecutivesand Understandingofengagement,Q10
Annualsalary,Q32 Needsforpersonaldevelopment,Q17
otherstaff,Q8
12
Demographic background of participants
Position Organisation
Headofcommunication, 37.2% Communicationdepartment
agency CEO joint stockcompany 19.5%
Responsibleforsingle 32.1% privatecompany 17.9%
communicationdiscipline, governmentowned,public sector, 62.5%
unit leader political organisation 13.1%
nonprofitorganisation,association 11.9%
Teammember,consultant 24.9%
Other 5.8% Communicationconsultancy, 37.5%

PRagency,freelanceconsultant
Jobexperience Alignmentofthecommunicationfunction
Morethan10years 59.9% Stronglyalignedcommunicationdepartment 26.6%
6to 10years 22.9% Alignedcommunicationdepartment 57.6%
Up to 5years 17.3% Weaklyalignedcommunicationdepartment 15.8%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q18:Wheredoyouwork?Q19:Whatisyourposition?Q28:Howmany
yearsofexperiencedoyouhaveincommunicationmanagement/PR?Alignment:n=1,601PRprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Q20:
Withinyourorganisation,thetopcommunicationmanagerorchiefcommunicationofficerisamemberoftheexecutiveboard/reportsdirectlytotheCEO 13
orhighestdecisionmakerontheexecutiveboard/doesnotreportdirectlytotheCEOorhighestdecisionmaker.
Personalbackground of respondents
Gender/Age
Overall Headof communication, Teamleader, Teammember,

AgencyCEO Unitleader Consultant
Female 58.1% 50.7% 55.2% 69.4%
Male 41.9% 49.3% 44.8% 30.6%
Age(onaverage) 41.6yrs 45.6yrs 41.0yrs 35.8yrs
Membershipinaprofessional association Highestacademiceducationalqualification*
EACD 10.6% Doctorate(Ph.D.,Dr.) 6.3%
Otherinternationalcommunication Master(M.A.,M.Sc.,Mag.,M.B.A.),Diploma 62.6%

12.1%
association
Bachelor(B.A.,B.Sc.) 25.6%
NationalPRorcommunicationassociation 48.3%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q19:Whatisyourposition?Q26:Howoldareyou?Q27:Whatisyour
gender?Q29:Pleasestatethehighestacademic/educationalqualificationsyouhold.*Noacademicdegree=5.5%.Q30:Areyouamemberofaprofessional 14
organisation?Highlysignificantcorrelationsbetweengender(Q27)andposition(Q19)(chisquaretest,p0.01,Cramr's V=0.153).
Countriesand regions represented inthe study
Respondentsarebasedin43Europeancountriesandfourregions
NorthernEurope WesternEurope EasternEurope SouthernEurope

30.0%(n=812) 29.6%(n=802) 13.5%(n=365) 27.0%(n=731)
Denmark Austria Armenia Albania

Estonia Belgium Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina
Finland France Bulgaria Croatia
Iceland Germany CzechRepublic Cyprus
Ireland Liechtenstein Georgia Greece
Latvia Luxembourg Hungary Italy
Lithuania Netherlands Poland Macedonia
Norway Switzerland Romania Malta
Sweden Russia Montenegro
UnitedKingdom Slovakia Portugal
Ukraine Serbia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q31:InwhichEuropeanstateareyounormallybased?Inthissurvey,
theuniverseof50EuropeancountriesisbasedontheofficialcountrylistbytheEuropeanUnion(http://europa.eu/abouteu/countries,2016)andthe
ColumbiaEncyclopedia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1Europe.html,2016).NorespondentswereregisteredforthissurveyfromAndorra, 15
Azerbaijan,Kosovo,Moldova,Monaco,SanMarino,Vatican City.
Bigdata instrategic
communication
Chapteroverview
Todayssocietiesaretransformedbythemassiveamountofdatacollectedbyorganisations,intermediaries,technologyfirmsand
platformproviders:Dataistheoiloftheinformationeconomy(MayerSchnberger &Cukier,2013:16).However,thediscussionabout
bigdata howtoacquireandusedatafromvarioussourcestoinformdecisionmakinganddeliverbetterproductsorservices hasonly
veryrecentlyenteredtherealmofpublicrelationsandstrategiccommunication(Weiner&Kochar,2016).Aliteraturereviewshowsthat
academiahasnottouchedthetopicatall.Professionals,ontheotherhand,needtobeawareoftheopportunitiesandchallengesfortheir
organisations.Bigdatamightchangetheirjobsdramatically,asdigitizationandbigdataanalytics()impactemploymentamongst
knowledgeworkers justasautomationdidformanufacturingworkers(Loebbecke &Picot,2015:149).
ThisstudyrevealsthatthreeoutoffourcommunicationprofessionalsinEurope(72.3percent)indeedbelievethatbigdatawill
changetheirprofession.Almostonequarter(23.4percent)statesthatthisisoneofthemostimportantissuesforcommunication
managementinthenearfuture.Nevertheless,only59.3percentoftherespondentshavegivencloseattentionorattentionto thedebate
aboutbigdata.Probablybecauseofthis,onlyaminorityshowedacomprehensiveunderstandingwhentheywereaskedtoratevarious
definitionsrepresentingdifferentcharacteristicsofbigdata.
Followingthisexercise,thequestionnairethenofferedafulldefinitionofbigdataincludingthescaleofdata(volume),itsdifferent
forms(variety),constantflowandprocessing(velocity)anduncertainty(veracity)(Chenetal.,2012;Gandomi &Haider,2015;Schroeck
etal.,2012).Basedonthisunderstanding,only21.2percentofcommunicationdepartmentsandagencieshaveimplementedbigdata
activitiesuntilnow.Another16.8percentareplanningtodosountiltheendof2017.Notsurprisingly,jointstockcompaniesandagencies
areleadingthemovement,whilegovernmentalorganisationsandnonprofitsaresignificantlylaggingbehind.55.3percentofthe
organisationswhohaveimplementedbigdataactivitiesincommunicationuseanalyticsforplanningpurposes,e.g.toinformfuture
campaigns.Lessrelyonbigdataforcommunicationmeasurement(45.9percent)orforguidingdaytodayactions,e.g.byautomatically
generatingcontentforspecificpublics(36.5percent).
Whatarethereasonsforthelimitedpenetrationofbigdatainthefieldofstrategiccommunication?Ontheonehand,the
communicationprofessionlacksanalyticalskillstomakesenseofbigdataandtimetostudysuchdata.Theselimitationswereconfirmed
bynearlyhalfoftherespondents.Moreover,statisticalanalysesconfirmedthatthereisahighlysignificantcorrelationbetweenthe
knowledgeandawarenessofbigdataamongcommunicationprofessionalsandbigdataactivitiesoftheirorganisations.However,only
54.7percentofthepractitionerscanbeclassifiedasinformed,basedonaclusteranalysisofallrespondents.Theygiveattentiontothe
bigdatadiscourseandhavealotofknowledgeinthefield.17.0percent,ontheotherhand,arepretenders theypayattention,butthey
lackknowledge.Therest(28.2percent)areeitherbystandersorevencluelessaboutbigdata.
Ironically,analarminglackofskillsandknowledgehinderspublicrelationsandcommunicationprofessionals whotendtodefine
themselvesasinformationexperts fromprofitingfromthemassiveamountofstructuredandunstructureddataavailableforpublic
communicationtoday.
17
Amajorityofcommunicatorsbelievethatbigdatawillchangetheirprofession
23.4%ofpractitionersinEurope
rateusingbigdataand/or
algorithmsforcommunicationas
oneofthethreemostimportant
72.3% issuesforcommunication
management
until2018
20.9%
6.8%
Bigdatawill(substantially)change Neutral BigdatawillnotchangethePR
thePRprofession (scale3) profession(atall)
(scale45) (scale12)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PR professionals. Q 1:Bigdataisacommontopicfordiscussiontogetherwiththebroader

implicationsforsocietytoday.Thisdiscussionmightalsoberelevantforstrategiccommunicationandpublicrelations(PR). Pleaseratethesestatements
basedonyourexperience.Scale1(BigdatawillnotchangethePRprofessionatall)(0,8%) 5(BigdatawillsubstantiallychangethePRprofession)(19,9%). 18
Q9:Pleasepickthosethreeissueswhichyoubelievewillbemostimportantforpublicrelations/communicationmanagementwithinthenextthreeyears!
Threeoutofoffivecommunicationpractitionersfollowthedebateonbigdata
59.3%
24.4%
16.3%
Havegiven(close)attention Neutral Havenotgivenattention(atall)

(scale45) (scale3) (scale12)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PR professionals. Q 1:Bigdataisacommontopicfordiscussiontogetherwiththebroader

implicationsforsocietytoday.Thisdiscussionmightalsoberelevantforstrategiccommunicationandpublicrelations(PR).Pleaseratethesestatements
basedonyourexperience.Scale1(Ihavenotgivenattentionatalltothedebateaboutbigdata)(6,9%) 5(Ihavegivencloseattentiontothedebateabout 19
bigdata)(14,9%).
Howcommunicationprofessionalsdefinebigdata
Correct definitions Wrong definitions

Bigdata refers to Bigdata refers to
massquantitiesofstoreddatathat
interpretationofrelevantdata
74% providenewinsightswhichwere 55% forstrategicdecisionmaking
previouslynotavailable
avarietyofmultipledatatypes allkindsofinformationwhich
56% frominternalandexternalsources 32% isavailableinrealtime
afaststreamofdata(datain
amultitudeofinformation
37% motion)andtheirconstant 27% fromsocialmedia
processing
highandlowqualitydatafrom customised creationofcontent

28% trustedanduntrustedsources 25% fordifferentstakeholders
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. Q2:Bigdataischaracterised invariousways.Pleasepickalldefinitions

whichyoubelievearemostappropriate.Correctitemsanddefinitionsrepresentthekeycharacteristicsvolume,variety,velocity,veracitybasedon Chenet 20
al.(2012),Schroeck etal.(2012),andGandomi &Haider (2015).
Manypractitionerslackacomprehensiveunderstandingofbigdata
Allitemscorrectlyclassified
0.9%
(highlydeveloped)
7of8itemscorrectlyclassified
6.2%
(developed)
15.4%
(developed)
30.7%
(moderatedeveloped)
23.6%
(somehowdeveloped)
15.8%
(lessdeveloped)
4.5%
(notdeveloped)
1.1%
(notdeveloped)
Noitemscorrectlyclassified
1.8%
(notatalldeveloped)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. Q2:Bigdataischaracterised invariousways.Pleasepickalldefinitions

whichyoubelievearemostappropriate.Developmentofbigdataunderstandingamongpractitionersbasedonthecorrectclassificationofitems/definitions: 21
allitemsarecorrectlyidentifiedwhenthefourcorrectdefinitionshavebeenselectedandthefourwrongdefinitionshavenotbeenselected,etc.
Definitionof big data
Bigdataismostlydescribedas
hugevolumesandstreamsofdifferentformsofdata
fromdiversesources(externalandinternal)andtheir
constantprocessing,whichprovidesnewinsights.
Scale of data Different

forms of data
Volume Variety
Velocity Veracity
Analysisof Uncertainty
streaming data ofdata
22
Definitionshown to respondents based onGandomi &Haider,2015;Schroeck etal.,2012.
Communicationdepartmentsaswellasagenciesareconsulting
(internal)clientsandcolleaguesinthefieldofbigdata
Communicationdepartments Consultancies&Agencies
Jointstock(24.8%)
Private(21.8%)
Governmental (18.6%)
Nonprofit(15.7%)
20.2%
28.8%
79.8% 72.2%
Consulting(internal)clientsandcolleaguesinthefieldofbigdata Notconsultinginthefield
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,505PR professionals. Q3:Bigdataismostlydescribedashugevolumesandstreamsof
differentformsofdatafromdiversesources(externalandinternal)andtheirconstantprocessing,whichprovidenewinsights.Takingintoaccountthis 23
definition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency...Item:consults(internal)clientsandcolleaguesinthefieldofbigdata.
OnlyaminorityofEuropeanorganisationshasimplementedbigdataactivities
My communication department/agency
hasimplementedsuchbigdataactivities 21.2%
planstostartsuchbigdataactivitiesuntiltheendof2017 16.8%
isnotconductingsuchbigdataactivities 45.0%

definition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency...
Governmentalandnonprofitorganisationsarelaggingbehind
23.4%
22.0%
hasimplementedsuchbigdataactivities 18.3%
16.3%
22.3%
17.7% Jointstockcompanies
21.1% Privatecompanies
planstostartsuchbigdataactivitiesuntiltheendof2017 18.3% Governmentalorganisations
16.0% Nonprofitorganisations
14.1% Consultancies&Agencies
43.1%
42.7%
isnotconductingsuchbigdataactivities** 49.7%
54.9%
42.1%

definition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency....**Highly significant differences(chisquare test,p0.01).
ImplementationofbigdataactivitiesacrossEurope
Germany(17,1%)
Russia(26,9%) Austria(9,4%)
Ukraine(27,3%) Switzerland(14,8%)
Romania(21,1%) France(26,3%)
Poland(25,4%) Belgium(18,3%)
Serbia(16,1%) Netherlands(17,8%)
Croatia(20,2%) UnitedKingdom(25,2%)
Slovenia(22,4%) Ireland(26,4%)
WesternEurope
Italy(27,3%) Sweden(19,8%) NorthernEurope
Scale Spain(30,3%) Norway(20,6%) SouthernEurope
0.0% 40.0% Finland(19,8%) EasternEurope
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,174PRprofessionalsfrom20countries. Q3:Bigdataismostlydescribedashugevolumesand
streamsofdifferentformsofdatafromdiversesources(externalandinternal)andtheirconstantprocessing,whichprovidenewinsights.Takingintoaccount 26
thisdefinition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency...Item:hasimplementedsuchbigdataactivities. Percentages:Frequencybasedonselectionofitem.
Bigdataanalyticsaremainlyusedtoplanoverallstrategiesandjustifyactivities
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Weanalysebigdatatoplanoverallstrategies
(e.g.useinsightstoguidefuturecampaigns,foresights)
55.3% 3.52
Weanalysebigdatatojustifyactivities
(e.g.bymeasuringresultsanddemonstrating 45.9% 3.27
effectiveness)
Weanalysebigdatatoguidedaytodayactions
(e.g.targetingpublicswithspecialisedcontent,content 36.5% 2.99
adaptation)
(1)Never (3) Always (5)

0.0% Frequentuseofbigdataanalytics
50.0%
Useofbigdataanalytics
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,013PR professionalsworkingindepartmentsandagenciesthathaveimplementedbigdata 27
activities. Q4:Howdoesyourdepartmentoragencyusebigdataanalytics?Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.Meanvalues.
Majorchallengesforthecommunicationprofessionwhenworkingwithbigdata
Lackofanalyticalskills(tomakesenseofbigdata) 48.6%
Lackoftimetostudy/analysebigdata 45.4%
Lackoftechnicalskills(tohandlebigdata) 36.6%
Dataquality 31.1%
Lackofsoftwaresolutionsfittingcommunicationneeds 25.5%
Lackofbudget 24.3%
Organisationalbarriers(e.g.alackofcooperationbetween
22.8%
departments)
Datasecurityandriskmanagement 22.1%
LackofITstaffwhocansupport 15.8%
Ethicalconcerns 14.1%
Legalrestrictions 13.6%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,687PR professionals. Q5:Inyouropinion,whatarethethree(3)majorchallengesforthe 28

communicationprofessioningeneralwhenworkingwithbigdata?Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3challenge.
Perceptionofchallengesdiffersamongagegroups
49.0%
53.1%
Lackofanalyticalskills(tomakesenseofbigdata) 53.2%
45.0%
38.3%
44.2%
38.9%
Lackoftimetostudy/analysebigdata 45.7%
49.1%
43.9%
34.6%
33.4%
Lackoftechnicalskills(tohandlebigdata) 33.5%
39.0%
43.9%
17.3%
16.4%
Ethicalconcerns 14.5%
12.4%
13.5%
60orolder
12.5% 5059
17.3%
Legalrestrictions 14.7% 4049
11.8% 3039
10.7%
29oryounger
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,687PR professionals. Q5:Inyouropinion,whatarethethree(3)majorchallengesforthe 29

communicationprofessioningeneralwhenworkingwithbigdata?Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3challenge.
Typesofcommunicationprofessionalsbasedonaclusteranalysis
(accordingtoattentionforandknowledgeaboutbigdata)
ALOTOFKNOWLEDGEABOUTBIGDATA
Bystanders Informed
22.1% 54.7%
ALOTOF
LITTLEATTENTION ATTENTION
TOBIGDATA TOBIGDATA
DISCOURSE DISCOURSE
Clueless Pretenders
6.1% 17.0%
LITTLEKNOWLEDGEABOUTBIGDATA
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata, 30

rangingfromnoattentionatalltocloseattention)andQ2(knowledgeaboutbigdatadefinitions)identifiedfourdifferent groupsofrespondents.
Mostofthepretenders areworkinginconsultanciesandagencies;
onethirdofprofessionalsingovernmentalorganisationsarebystanders
0% 100%
Jointstockcompanies 55.0% 22.7% 18.0% 4.3%
Privatecompanies 55.6% 21.4% 16.3% 6.8%
Governmentalorganisations 52.4% 29.0% 10.4% 8.2%
Nonprofitorganisations 52.3% 23.5% 16.1% 8.0%
Consultancies&Agencies 55.8% 19.3% 19.6% 5.4%
Informed Bystanders Pretenders Clueless
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata, 31

Communicationprofessionalsfollowingthedebateaboutbigdata
rateitsrelevanceforthefieldsignificantlyhigherthanothers
100%
34.9%
44.4%
84.0% 84.4%
50.6% Bigdatawill(substantially)change
41.2% thePRprofession(scale:45)
Neutral(scale:3)
12.2% 11.9% BigdatawillnotchangethePR

14.4% 14.5%
3.8% 3.7%
profession(atall)(scale:12)
0%
Informed Pretenders Bystanders Clueless
(4,07) (4,04) (3,32) (3,22)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata,

Q 1:Bigdataisacommontopicfordiscussiontogetherwiththebroaderimplicationsforsocietytoday.Thisdiscussionmightalsoberelevantforstrategic
communicationandpublicrelations(PR).Pleaseratethesestatementsbasedonyourexperience.Scale1(BigdatawillnotchangethePRprofessionatall) 32
5(BigdatawillsubstantiallychangethePRprofession).Highlysignificantdifferences(ANOVA/Scheffe posthoctest,p0.01,F=183.773)
Significantcorrelationsbetweentheawareness/knowledgeofprofessionals
andthebigdataactivitiesoftheirorganisations
29.2%
23.6%
hasimplementedsuchbigdataactivities**
11.1%
9.8%
Pretenders
21.0%
planstostartsuchbigdataactivities 19.0% Informed
untiltheendof2017** 8.2% Bystanders
14.4%
Clueless
27.6%
39.1%
isnotconductingsuchbigdataactivities**
68.7%
70.5%
31.2%
consults(internal)clientsandcolleagues 25.5%
inthefieldofbigdata** 14.7%
12.1%

definition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency....**Highly significant differences(chisquare test,p0.01).
AutomationinPR
and communication
management
Chapteroverview
Digitalinformationandbigdatacanbeusedformorethandecisionmaking:ithasopenedupthedoorstorealtime,inexpensiveand
largescaletestingoftheeffectivenessofpersuasion(Tufekci,2014:8)andforgeneratinguserspecificandsituationspecificcontent.
SearchengineslikeGoogleandecommerceplatformssuchasAmazondisplayadvertisementsandproductsbasedonprevioussearch
behaviour.Facebookusesautomoderationfunctionstoidentifyimproperpostingsonbrandpages,whichhasadirectimpactonthe
publicdiscourseincrisissituations(Collister,2015:364).Here,contentproductionorsuppressionisnotbasedonplanningorcreative
ideasbycommunicationprofessionals,butonalgorithms.
Algorithmsaretraditionallyunderstoodasanexactprescription,definingacomputationalprocess,leadingfromvariousinitial
datatothedesiredresult(Markov,1954:1)orasetofrulesthatpreciselydefinesasequenceofoperations(Stone1972:4). Modern
algorithmsaredynamicinasensethattheyareabletoadapttomultiplesituations.Assuch,theoutcomeofanautomatedcommunica
tion process,e.g.thecontentpresentedtoauserinaspecificsituationonaparticulardevice,isnotknowninadvance,butgeneratedin
thecourseoftheinteraction.Thisspursmanyquestionsabouttheopportunitiesandchallengesofautomatedpublicrelations (Phillips,
2015).
EmpiricalinsightsfromtheECMshowalargegapbetweentheperceivedimportanceandtodaysimplementationofalgorithmsin
strategiccommunicationandpublicrelations.Moreover,apassiveandsupportiveuseofalgorithmsispreferred.Threeoutof four
respondents(75.0percent)agreethatcommunicationactivitiesshouldbeadaptedtoexternalalgorithmsofsearchenginesor social
mediaplatforms.Butonly29.2percentstatethattheircommunicationdepartmentoragencyusessuchapproaches.Bothfiguresare
surprisinglylow,assearchengineoptimisation(SEO)(Gudivada etal.,2015)andcontentproductionalignedtotheselectioncriteriaof
multipliersarenothingnewatall.Twothirdsofthecommunicationprofessionalsbelievethatalgorithmsareimportanttosupport
decisionmaking(67.4percent)orcontentdistribution(66.9percent).Again,theimplementationratesaremuchlowerat15.9and23.6
percent.Interestingly,onlyaminoritythinksthatactiveapplicationsofalgorithmsareimportant,e.g.forautomaticallyadaptingcontent
(46.3percent)orcreatingcontent(46.0percent).Companiesandagenciesareleadingthefieldwhenitcomestotheimplementationof
suchroutines.TherearealsocleardifferencesbetweenkeycountriesinEurope.Acorrelationanalysisprovesthatorganisationswho
haveimplementedbigdataanalyticstoguidedaytodayactionsusealgorithmsofallkindmoreoftenthanotherorganisations.Both
trends bigdataandalgorithms areclearlyintertwined.Therisingimportanceclaimedforbothmightleadtoasituationwherewesee
moreandmoreautocommunication.Thismightlookpromisingatfirstglance,asithelpstobefasterandmoreefficient.
Buttherearealsoinevitablerisks.Multilateralstakeholderrelationsmightbesucceededbynontransparent approachesof
engineeringpublicsandconsent(Tufekci,2015;Bernays,1923).Onabroaderscale,professionalcommunicationmightloseitsrelevance
ifitisrestrictedtoselfreferentialpracticeswhichcreatenooverallvaluefororganisationsandsociety.Thisproblemhasbeennoted
earlierbyChristensen(1997)formarketingmanagement.Hismetaphoricandcriticaluseofthetermautocommunicationdeservesnew
attentionintodaysdigitalenvironment.
35
Importanceandimplementationofpracticesforautomatedcommunication
75.0%
Adaptationtoalgorithmsofonlineserviceslike
45.8%
searchenginesorsocialmediaplatforms
29.2%
67.4%
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedtosupportdecision 51.5%
making
15.9%
66.9%
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfullyorsemi
automaticcontentdistribution 43.2%
23.6%
46.3%
automaticcontentadaptation
39.2%
7.0%
46.0%
33.6%
automaticcontentcreation
12.4%
Importance Implementation
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,298PR professionals. Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsusealgorithmstoselect

anddisplaycontent.Similarapproachesmightbeusedbyorganisationstoautomatetheircommunicationactivities.Inyouropinion:Towhatextentarethe
followingpracticesimportantforstrategiccommunicationtoday?Andwhatisalreadyusedbyyourdepartment/agency?Percentages:Frequency basedon 36
scalepoints45.
Algorithmictoolsareimportantforallkindsoforganisations
butgovernmentalorganisationsarelessconvinced
Adaptationto algorithms of
onlineservices likesearch engines
or social media platforms
Algorithmic tools
programmed to support
decisionmaking *
Algorithmic tools programmed

for fully or semiautomatic
content distribution *

content adaptation

content creation
(1)Not at allimportant (3) Extremely important (5)
Companies Governmentalorganisations Nonprofitorganisations Consultancies&Agencies

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,298PR professionals. Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsusealgorithmstoselect
anddisplaycontent.Similarapproachesmightbeusedbyorganisationstoautomatetheircommunicationactivities.Inyouropinion:Towhatextentarethe 37
followingpracticesimportantforstrategiccommunicationtoday?Mean values.*Significant differences (ANOVA/Scheffe posthoctest,p0.05).
Utilisationofautomatedcommunicationindifferenttypesoforganisations
26.0%
Adaptationtoalgorithmsofonlineserviceslikesearchengines 31.0%
29.4%
orsocialmediaplatforms 28.3%
30.3%
14.5%
16.8%
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedtosupportdecisionmaking 13.1%
13.4%
18.1%
21.8%
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfullyorsemiautomatic 25.6%
25.2%
contentdistribution 23.1%
23.4%
7.2%
4.5%
contentadaptation 8.2%
6.8%
8.3%
12.8%
contentcreation* 14.7%
13.6%
Jointstockcompanies Privatecompanies
Governmentalorganisations Nonprofitorganisations
Consultancies&Agencies
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,417PR professionals. Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsusealgorithmstoselect
anddisplaycontent.Similarapproachesmightbeusedbyorganisationstoautomatetheircommunicationactivities.Inyouropinion:What isalreadyusedby 38
yourdepartment/agency?Percentages:Frequencybasedonapprovalofutilisation.*Significantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.05).
Perceivedimportanceandusageofalgorithmsforstrategiccommunication
acrossdifferentEuropeancountries
Adaptationto
Algorithmictools Algorithmictools Algorithmictools Algorithmictools
algorithmsofonline
programmedto programmedforfullyor programmedforfully programmedforfully
serviceslikesearch
supportdecision semiautomaticcontent orsemiautomatic orsemiautomatic
enginesorsocial
making distribution contentadaptation contentcreation
mediaplatforms
Importance Usage Importance Usage* Importance Usage* Importance Usage Importance Usage**
Germany 76.3% 33.5% 63.6% 16.4% 61.5% 20.0% 29.8% 4.3% 25.6% 5.5%
Austria 81.3% 26.5% 74.0% 14.0% 78.0% 22.0% 40.0% 8.0% 42.0% 16.0%
Switzerland 72.6% 27.0% 67.3% 14.6% 64.6% 23.3% 33.1% 5.0% 32.7% 7.3%
France 78.2% 23.9% 72.3% 12.6% 60.2% 16.7% 60.9% 4.5% 51.8% 9.2%
Belgium 77.2% 24.6% 66.9% 12.6% 69.6% 20.6% 48.0% 2.4% 43.2% 8.8%
Netherlands 77.1% 29.0% 66.1% 15.2% 70.4% 17.5% 55.4% 5.8% 49.6% 9.5%
United
73.2% 25.5% 56.3% 14.2% 64.4% 19.1% 41.9% 6.4% 41.9% 14.4%
Kingdom
Ireland 78.5% 22.6% 53.7% 14.1% 58.2% 22.9% 48.8% 3.5% 44.4% 9.6%
Sweden 70.3% 33.7% 72.6% 12.6% 59.1% 20.4% 47.3% 9.6% 42.6% 13.4%
Norway 57.7% 26.8% 54.7% 21.8% 55.6% 20.0% 37.0% 10.9% 42.3% 9.4%
Finland 81.3% 37.0% 71.5% 15.9% 66.4% 27.0% 43.1% 8.9% 36.5% 6.3%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,081PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsuse

algorithmstoselectanddisplaycontent.Similarapproachesmightbeusedbyorganisationstoautomatetheircommunicationactivities.Percentages:
Frequency basedonscalepoints45.Inyouropinion:Whatisalreadyusedbyyourdepartment/agency?**Highlysignificantdifferences(chisquaretest, 39
p0.01). *Significantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.05).
Perceivedimportanceandusageofalgorithmsforstrategiccommunication
acrossdifferentEuropeancountries
Adaptationto
Algorithmictools Algorithmictools Algorithmictools Algorithmictools
algorithmsofonline
programmedto programmedforfully programmedforfully programmedforfully
serviceslikesearch
supportdecision orsemiautomatic orsemiautomatic orsemiautomatic
enginesorsocialmedia
making contentdistribution contentadaptation contentcreation
platforms
Importance Usage Importance Usage* Importance Usage* Importance Usage Importance Usage**
Spain 74.8% 33.3% 78.0% 27.2% 69.9% 26.1% 51.9% 9.5% 56.5% 17.9%
Italy 66.2% 25.5% 70.4% 15.2% 69.3% 18.1% 44.8% 5.5% 47.9% 13.3%
Slovenia 68.3% 18.2% 75.0% 6.0% 70.5% 30.3% 55.2% 1.5% 56.5% 15.4%
Croatia 73.8% 31.9% 70.0% 12.0% 72.7% 25.0% 56.0% 6.6% 62.5% 15.2%
Serbia 75.4% 33.3% 71.2% 22.6% 66.1% 27.0% 47.5% 13.1% 60.9% 15.6%
Poland 67.3% 30.2% 67.3% 20.8% 64.7% 26.9% 41.5% 7.5% 39.6% 11.3%
Romania 84.9% 39.8% 75.3% 20.0% 78.9% 38.1% 49.4% 7.1% 53.3% 28.6%
Ukraine 74.5% 30.0% 68.4% 23.0% 72.5% 33.3% 47.3% 13.3% 58.9% 18.0%
Russia 79.6% 27.5% 66.7% 13.7% 70.8% 31.4% 50.0% 14.0% 55.1% 23.5%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,081PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsuse

algorithmstoselectanddisplaycontent.Similarapproachesmightbeusedbyorganisationstoautomatetheircommunicationactivities.Percentages:
Frequency basedonscalepoints45.Inyouropinion:Whatisalreadyusedbyyourdepartment/agency?**Highlysignificantdifferences(chisquaretest, 40
p0.01). *Significantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.05).
Organisationsintegratingbigdataintheirdailyroutinesalsouseallkindsof
algorithmictoolsmorefrequently:thetwoarethereforecloselyconnected
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfully
orsemiautomaticcontentcreation
Adaptationtoalgorithmsofonline
serviceslikesearchenginesorsocial
mediaplatforms
Analysebig data Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfully

to guide dayto orsemiautomaticcontentdistribution
day actions
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfully
orsemiautomaticcontentadaptation
Algorithmictoolsprogrammedto
supportdecisionmaking
Strengthofcorrelation
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2015/n=1,013PR professionals. Q4:Howdoesyourdepartmentoragencyusebigdataanalytics?
Item:Weanalysebigdatato guidedaytodayactions(e.g.targetingpublicswithspecialisedcontent,contentadaptation).Scale1(Never) 5(Always).
Q6:Towhatextentarethefollowingpracticesimportantforstrategiccommunicationtoday?Scale1(Notatallimportant) 5(Extremelyimportant). 41
Highlysignificantcorrelation(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).rvaluesindicatecorrelationsbetweenuseofbigdataanalysisfordailyroutinesandalgorithms.
Communicationpractices:
fromoperationaltasks
toexecutivecoaching
Chapteroverview
Thecommunicationfunctionofanorganisationembracesasetofspecificmessagingandlisteningtaskswhicharenecessaryto reach
overallgoals.Thefunctioncanbemoreorlessinstitutionalised.Communicationdepartmentsandprofessionalsareoftenresponsiblefor
strategies,governance,androutineactivities,whileothermembersoftheorganisationcommunicateinthelightoftheirparticularroles.
Communicationdiffersfromotherfunctions(finance,humanresources,logistics,etc.)becauseitincludesthreeaspects.
Communicationisaperformancefunctionwhenactivitiesarerealised,e.g.bywritingFacebookpostsorpressreleases,organisingevents
orlisteningtostakeholders.Communicationisamanagementfunctionwhensuchactivitiesaredisposedandaligned,e.g.bypositioning
acompanyorbrand,planningcampaigns,leadingcommunicationteams,etc.Lastbutnotleast,communicationisalsoasecondorder
managementfunction(Nothhaft,2010)whichinfluencesthemanagementbehaviouroftopexecutivesandpeersbyconfrontingthemwith
publicopinion,criticalissues,andalternativeviews.
Thisvarietyoftasksisachallengeforcommunicationprofessionalsandtheirroleassensemakers andsensenegotiators fororganisa
tions (Berger&Meng,2014).Addingtothetraditionaldistinctionofoperationalcommunicationandmanagingcommunication,VanRuler
andVeri (2005)suggestedthatprofessionalscanbringinreflectivecapacitiestoalignorganisationsandtheirstakeholders.Theycanalso
adviseandenabletopexecutivesandothermembersoftheorganisationinthefieldofmediaandcommunication.Coaching,trainingand
consultingarerelevantbecauseemployeesactmoreandmoreoftenasactiveagentsinthecommunicationareaofacompany(Mazzei,
2014).
Empiricaldatafromthissurveyshowthatalloftheserolerequirementsarerelevantinpractice.Inatypicalweek,communicators
spend36.2percentoftheproductivetimeatworkforoperationalcommunication(talkingtocolleaguesandmedia,writingtexts,moni
toring,organisingevents,etc.).Managingactivitiesrelatedtoplanning,organising,leadingstaff,evaluatingstrategies,justifyingspending
andpreparingforcrisestakes27.8percentofthetime.Onaverage,18.8percentareusedforreflectivecommunicationmanagementlike
aligningcommunication,theorganisation/clientanditsstakeholders.Coaching,trainingandenablingmembersoftheorganisationor
(internal)clientstakes17.2percent.Thelatterareahasrisenslightlyby2.5pointscomparedtoasimilarsurveyfouryears ago(Zerfasset
al.,2012:46).Therearesignificantcorrelationswiththehierarchicalpositionofacommunicatorandwiththejobdescription media
relationsprofessionalsstillspendnearlyhalfoftheirtimeonoperationalwork.
Thestudyrevealsthatcommunicatorsemploydifferentpracticesofcoaching,advisingorenablingwhentheysupporteithersenior
managersorotherstaff.Themostimportantactivitywhenworkingwithexecutivesisdeliveringinsightsfordecisionmaking(agreedby
71.9percentoftherespondents),followedbyadviceonhowtohandleconcretechallengesincommunication(68.7percent).Lessthan
halfofthecommunicatorsstatethattheyenabletheirexecutivestomastercommunicativechallengesontheirown.Coworkersandother
staffmostoftenreceivehandsonadviceaboutcommunicationtasks(65.2percent).Notsurprisingly,theneedsofexecutivesandtradi
tional waysofsupportareshapingthefield.However,enablingotherstoreflectandcommunicatethemselvesisclearlyanimportant part
ofthepracticetoday.Itreflectsthegrowingneedtodealwithmultiplevoicesinstrategiccommunication(Zerfass&Viertmann,2016).
43
HowEuropeancommunicationprofessionalsspendtheirproductivetimeatwork
Aligningcommunication,theorganisation/clientanditsstakeholders Operationalcommunication
Studyingbusinessandsocialresearchreports,identifyingorganisational Talkingtocolleaguesandjournalists,
goals,monitoringpublicissuesandstakeholderexpectations,debating writingpressreleasesandprint/online
visionsandbusinessstrategieswithtopmanagementandother texts,producingcommunicationmedia,
departments,developingscenarios,buildinglegitimacy monitoringresultsofouractivities,
organisingeventsetc.
18.8%
36.2%
Coaching,training,consultingandenabling
membersoftheorganisationorclients 17.2%
Onthevision,missionandother
communicationrelatedissuesaswellas
upgradingtheircommunicativecompetence, 27.8%
preparingthemforcommunicatingwiththe
media,stakeholdersetc.
Managing communicationactivitiesandcoworkers
Planning,organising,leadingstaff,budgeting,evaluatingprocessesand
strategies,justifyingcommunicationspending,preparingforcrises
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q7:Pleasethinkabouthowyouspendmostofyourtimeatwork.
Pleasedivideyourproductivetimespentatwork(valuesshouldaddupto100%).Inatypicalweek,Ispendthefollowingamountoftimewith 44
Figuredisplaysmedianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.
Headsofcommunicationfocustoagreaterextentonstrategicandreflective
activities,butoperationalcommunicationstilltakesonethirdoftheirtime
Productivetimespentatwork
Headof
communication/ 29.6% 30.7% 20.7% 19.0%
AgencyCEO
Teamleader/
35.1% 29.4% 18.0% 17.6%
Unitleader
Teammember/
46.6% 22.7% 16.7% 14.0%
Consultant
0% 100%
Operationalcommunication**
Managingcommunicationactivitiesandcoworkers**
Aligningcommunication,theorganisation/clientanditsstakeholders**
Coaching,training,consultingandenablingmembersofmyorganisationorclients**
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,552PRprofessionals.Q7:Pleasethinkabouthowyouspendmostofyourtimeatwork.Please
divideyourproductivetimespentatwork(valuesshouldaddupto100%).Inatypicalweek,IspendthefollowingamountoftimewithFiguredisplays 45
medianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Kendalls rankcorrelation,p0.01).
Professionalsworkinginnonprofitorganisationsusemoretimeforoperational
communicationandareleastengagedincoachingcolleagues
Companies 36.0% 28.4% 19.4% 16.2%
Governmental
39.3% 28.0% 15.7% 17.0%
organisations
Nonprofit
39.5% 27.8% 17.4% 15.2%
organisations
Consultancies&
34.2% 27.2% 19.7% 18.8%
Agencies
0% Operationalcommunication** 100%
Managingcommunicationactivitiesandcoworkers
medianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(ANOVA/Scheffe posthoctest,p0.01).
Activityprofilesofpractitionersaresignificantlycorrelatedtotheirage
29oryounger 45.1% 23.7% 18.7% 12.5%
3039 38.5% 27.9% 17.9% 15.8%
4049 33.9% 29.0% 18.7% 18.3%
5059 30.9% 28.9% 20.2% 20.1%
60orolder 32.2% 25.5% 22.0% 20.3%
medianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Femalepractitionersspendmoretimeforoperationalcommunication,
whiletheirmalecolleaguesaremoreinvolvedinalignmentprocesses
Female 38.1% 27.6% 17.7% 16.6%
Male 33.5% 28.1% 20.4% 18.0%
0% Operationalcommunication* 100%
Coaching,training,consultingandenablingmembersofmyorganisationorclients
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q7:Pleasethinkabouthowyouspendmostofyourtimeatwork.
Pleasedivideyourproductivetimespentatwork(valuesshouldaddupto100%).Inatypicalweek,Ispendthefollowingamountoftimewith
Figuredisplaysmedianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01). 48
*Significantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.05).
Workinginmediarelationsandonlineisstronglyhandsonandoperational
Productivetimespendatworkbyprofessionalsworkinginthefieldof
Strategyand
27.1% 31.8% 21.3% 19.8%
coordination
Consultancy,advising,
27.8% 27.6% 20.5% 24.1%
coaching,keyaccount
Marketing,brand,
consumer 34.5% 30.4% 18.9% 16.3%
communication
Overallcommunication 38.8% 27.8% 17.4% 16.0%
Onlinecommunication 42.3% 25.7% 16.6% 15.4%
Mediarelations 46.9% 24.5% 15.5% 13.2%
medianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(IndependentsamplesTTest,p0.01).
PracticeofcommunicationmanagementinvariousEuropeancountries
Germany 31.2% 27.6% 21.4% 19.8%

Austria 37.8% 28.3% 14.8% 19.2%
Switzerland 37.1% 28.6% 18.0% 16.4%
France 34.6% 29.8% 17.0% 18.7%
Belgium 38.9% 24.9% 19.7% 16.6%
Netherlands 32.7% 27.3% 21.5% 18.6%
UnitedKingdom 33.7% 29.6% 18.9% 17.8%
Ireland 43.0% 27.1% 16.8% 13.1%
Sweden 33.5% 29.3% 16.2% 21.0%
Norway 38.2% 25.3% 18.1% 18.4%
Finland 41.5% 25.0% 15.4% 18.3%
Spain 34.7% 28.0% 20.8% 16.5%
Italy 33.4% 29.9% 19.7% 17.0%
Slovenia 45.7% 24.7% 16.5% 13.1%
Croatia 38.6% 24.7% 19.7% 17.1%
Serbia 37.8% 29.8% 17.2% 15.2%
Poland 40.9% 25.3% 19.4% 14.3%
Romania 38.6% 27.3% 19.8% 14.3%
Ukraine 33.4% 31.7% 19.2% 15.7%
Russia 36.3% 28.3% 18.9% 16.5%
0% Operationalcommunication 100%
Aligningcommunication,theorganisation/clientanditsstakeholders
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q7:Pleasethinkabouthowyouspendmostofyour
timeatwork.Pleasedivideyourproductivetimespentatwork(valuesshouldaddupto100%).Inatypicalweek,Ispendthefollowingamountoftimewith 50
Figuredisplaysmedianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.
Howcommunicationprofessionalscoach,adviseandenablepeersandsuperiors
Coaching,advising or enabling executives/senior managers
Providinginformation/insightsfordecisionsandactivities 71.9%
Advisinghowtomanagespecificcommunicationchallenges 68.7%
Enablingthemtorecognisethecommunicativedimensionoftheir
60.9%
decisionsandactivities
Enablingthemtomastercommunicativechallengesontheirown 48.5%
Coaching,advising or enabling other staff

Providinginformation/insightsfordecisionsandactivities 61.5%
Advisinghowtomanagespecificcommunicationchallenges 65.3%
Enablingthemtorecognisethecommunicativedimensionoftheir
56.1%
decisionsandactivities
Enablingthemtomastercommunicativechallengesontheirown 51.7%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,907PR professionalswhospendatleast10%oftheirtimeforcoaching,training,consulting

andenabling. Q8:Whenyoucoach,adviseorenableexecutives/seniormanagersorothermembersofyourorganisation/client,howoftendoyoupractice 51
thefollowingactivities?Scale1(Notatall) 5(Veryoften)forbothcategories.Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Advisingandenablingispractiseddifferentlyinvarioustypesoforganisations
73.1%
73.8%
Supporttopexecutive(s)/seniormanager(s)byproviding
62.6%
information/insightsfortheirdecisionsandactivities
68.5%
74.5%
71.1%
63.4%
Advisetopexecutive(s)/seniormanager(s)howtohandlespecific
63.7%
communicativechallenges**
67.6%
71.8%
60.6%
59.6%
Enabletopexecutive(s)/seniormanager(s)torecognisethe
55.7%
communicativedimensionoftheirdecisionsandactivities**
67.9%
61.2%
46.6%
44.1%
Enabletopexecutive(s)/seniormanager(s)tomastercommunicative
44.5%
challengesontheirown**
46.4%
53.6%
Jointstockcompanies Privatecompanies Governmentalorganisations Nonprofitorganisations Consultancies&Agencies
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,907PR professionalswhospendatleast10%oftheirtimeforcoaching,training,consulting

andenabling.Q8:Whenyoucoach,adviseorenableexecutives/seniormanagersorothermembersofyourorganisation/client,howoftendoyoupractice
thefollowingactivities?Scale1(Notatall) 5(Veryoften).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.**Highlysignificantdifferences(chisquare 52
test,p0.01).
Advising,enabling,coachingandconsultingtopexecutives/seniormanagers
indifferentEuropeancountries
Advisehow Enableto Provide Enableto Advisehow Enableto Provide Enableto
tohandle master information/ recognisethe tohandle master information/ recognisethe
specific communi insightsfor communica specific communi insightsfor communica
communi cative their tive dimen communi cative theirdecisions tive dimen
cative challengesondecisionsand sion oftheir cative challengeson andactivities sion oftheir
challenges theirown activities decisionsand challenges theirown decisionsand
activities activities
Germany 67.6% 43.8% 77.2% 60.4% Finland 52.6% 43.9% 58.4% 57.0%
Austria 65.1% 53.5% 64.3% 48.8% Spain 71.9% 59.2% 74.2% 65.3%
Switzerland 70.2% 37.4% 62.6% 61.5% Italy 66.4% 51.8% 70.8% 63.4%
France 60.0% 36.6% 68.2% 54.8% Slovenia 70.0% 42.0% 67.3% 55.1%
Belgium 57.4% 50.0% 70.6% 53.7% Croatia 81.3% 59.0% 88.8% 68.8%
Netherlands 72.6% 48.7% 71.8% 65.5% Serbia 64.6% 54.2% 78.7% 71.4%
UnitedKingdom 74.4% 47.8% 76.4% 62.4% Poland 51.2% 31.8% 64.3% 59.5%
Ireland 76.0% 53.2% 76.3% 73.3% Romania 67.2% 43.5% 70.5% 50.0%
Sweden 70.0% 57.3% 60.4% 62.9% Ukraine 84.4% 66.7% 88.9% 72.7%
Norway 87.5% 62.5% 66.0% 60.4% Russia 61.0% 38.1% 70.0% 50.0%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,637PR professionalswhoworkatleast10%incoaching,training,consultingandenabling.

Q8:Whenyoucoach,adviseorenableexecutives/seniormanagersorothermembersofyourorganisation/client,howoftendoyoupracticethefollowing 53
activities?Item:topexecutive(s)/seniormanager(s).Scale1(Notatall) 5(Veryoften).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Strategicissuesand
communicationchannels
Chapteroverview
Digitisation,mediatisationandnewdemandsinbusinessandsocietyhavechangedcommunicationmanagementdramatically.The
longitudinaldatacollectedbytheEuropeanCommunicationMonitorforonedecade(20072016)substantiatesthisdevelopmenton
thestrategicandoperationallevel.
Linkingbusinessstrategyandcommunicationaswellascopingwiththedigitalevolutionareconsistentlythekeychallengesfor
communicationmanagementoverthepasttenyears.Bothaspectshavebeencontinuouslyrankedamongthetopthreemostimportant
strategicissues.Thereisstillmuchuncertaintyaboutthesetopics.Responsesfrommorethan21,000communicationprofessionalsacross
Europeshowthatstrategicalignmentisthemoststableissue(mentionedbyatleast42percentineverysingleyear).Digitalisationhada
peakin2007andagainfrom20102012,whenitwastopofmindforcommunicatorsacrossEurope.Itistheonlystrategicissuethatwas
eversupportedbymorethanhalfoftherespondents(upto54.9percent).Interestingly,therelevancehasdeclined onlyonethird
believesthatthetopicisoneofthemostimportantchallengesrightnowin2016.
Dealingwithsustainabledevelopmentandsocialresponsibilitytookasimilarpath.Itstartedasthenumbertwoissuein2008.
Fouroutoftenprofessionalsassessedthisatoppriorityinthefollowingyearsuntil2011.Sincethentheperceivedrelevancehasdropped
sharply only15.5percentoftheECM2016respondentsbelievethatitwillbeatopissuefortheprofessioninthenearfuture.Clearly
CSRcommunicationismoreroutinised todayandnotablackboxanymore(Tench etal.,2014).Anothernotableissueisbuildingandmain
taining trust.Thiswasmentionedasakeychallengeby29.4percentoftherespondentsinthecurrentsurveyandwasalwaysratedimpor
tant byasimilarorlargerfractionduringthelasttenyears.Practitionersareexperiencingthattrustinorganisationsissteadilyundersiege.
Thedynamicdevelopmentofthefieldisalsovisibleonthelevelofcommunicationchannels.Ananalysisbasedon13,709responses
overtenyearsshowsthatmostinstrumentshaveeithergainedorlostinimportance.Onlyaminorityofcommunicationprofessionals
ratedsocialmediaimportantbetween2007and2011.Thishasclearlychanged.In2016,threeoutoffourECMrespondents(76.2percent)
attributedimportancetosuchinstruments,and88.9percentstatedthattheywillbeimportantforaddressingstakeholdersin2019.
Asimilarpositivedevelopmentcanbeshownforonlinecommunicationviawebsites,intranetsandemails.Quiteinterestingly,the riseof
digitalinstrumentsiscomplementedbyagrowingrelevanceoffacetofacecommunication.Itisthenumberoneinstrumentforstrategic
communicationtodayintheECM2016(77.6percentapproval),whereasonlyhalfofthepractitionersthoughtitwasimportant tenyears
earlierin2007.Thetrendtowardsonetoonestakeholdercommunication,eitherrealorvirtual,hasimpairedtraditionalinstrumentslike
pressandmediarelations.Collaboratingwithprintmedia,aclearchampionfrom2007until2011,hassteadilylostinimportance.64.1per
centstillbelieveinitsimportancetoday.Thisfiguredropsdramaticallyto30.2percentin2019(futureimportance).
Thislargescaleempiricalstudyshowsthatmoderncommunicationmanagementhasbeenemancipatedfromitsrootsinmediarela
tions,copywritingandjournalism.ItisaglobaltrendsupportedbymonitorstudiesinAsiaPacific(Macnamara etal.,2015)andLatinAme
rica (Morenoetal.,2015).Digitalcommunicationaswellasnewgatekeepersandinfluencershavetobetakenintoaccount.Thisoffers
manyopportunitiesbutalsoneedsacriticalreflectionaboutemergingpowerstructuresandnewrulesofthegame(Motionetal.,2016).
55
DevelopmentofstrategicissuesforcommunicationmanagementinEurope
overthelastdecade(10years)
Strategicissues perceived as most important
53.7% 54.9%
48.9% 46.3%
47.3%
45.4% 44.9%
43.6% 44.0% 42.7% 42.9%
45.6% 42.0%
41.3% 45.0% 44.1%
38.0% 41.8% 38.7%
43.4% 36.7% 37.2% 37.2%
38.5% 34.6%
32.8% 32.2% 38.0% 36.8%
36.3% 30.4% 35.1% 36.6%
33.1% 32.0%
30.5% 30.1% 29.4%
28.9% 23.4% 28.8% 28.4%
24.2% 22.8%
20.7%
Linkingbusinessstrategyandcommunication 19.7%
16.2% 16.3% 15.4%
Copingwiththedigitalevolutionandthesocialweb
Buildingandmaintainingtrust
Dealingwiththedemandformoretransparencyandactiveaudiences
Dealingwithsustainabledevelopmentandsocialresponsibility
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals(Q9);Zerfassetal.2015/n=2,253(Q5); Zerfassetal.2014/n=2,777
(Q16);Zerfassetal.2013/n=2,710(Q6);Zerfassetal.2012/n=2,185(Q9);Zerfassetal.2011/n=2,209(Q6);Zerfassetal.2010/n=1,955(Q7);
Zerfassetal.2009/n=1,863(Q12);Zerfassetal.2008/n=1,524(Q6);Zerfassetal.2007/n=1,087(Q6).Q:Pleasepickthosethree(3)issueswhichyou
believewillbemostimportantforpublicrelations/communicationmanagementwithinthenextthreeyears!Percentages:Frequencybasedonselectionas 56
Top3issue. Longitudinal evaluationbasedon21,273responsesfromcommunicationprofessionalsin43countries.
Mostimportantstrategicissuesforcommunicationmanagementuntil2019
Linkingbusinessstrategyandcommunication 42.0%
Dealingwiththespeedandvolumeofinformationflow 38.0%
Copingwiththedigitalevolutionandthesocialweb 36.8%
Matchingtheneedtoaddressmoreaudiencesandchannels
33.8%
withlimitedresources
Strengtheningtheroleofthecommunicationfunctionin
30.8%
supportingtopmanagementdecisionmaking
Buildingandmaintainingtrust 29.4%
Usingbigdataand/oralgorithmsforcommunication 23.4%
Dealingwiththedemandformoretransparencyandactive
22.8%
audiences
Dealingwithsustainabledevelopmentandsocial
15.4%
responsibility
Explainingthevalueofcommunicationtotopexecutives 15.3%
Enable,coachandadviseseniormanager(s)andotherstaff 12.4%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PR professionals. Q9:Pleasepickthosethreeissueswhichyoubelievewillbemost 57

importantforpublicrelations/communicationmanagementwithinthenextthreeyears!Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3issue.
PerceivedrelevanceofstrategicissuesinWesternandNorthernEurope
Linkingbusiness Dealingwith Copingwith Strengtheningtheroleof Buildingand Usingbigdata Enable,coach

strategyand thespeedand thedigital thecommunicationfunction maintaining and/or andadvisesenior
communication volumeof evolutionand insupportingtopmanage trust algorithmsfor manager(s)and
informationflow thesocialweb ment decisionmaking communication otherstaff
Germany 47.2% 35.2% 35.8% 27.8% 30.1% 21.0% 13.1%
Austria 32.1% 44.6% 39.3% 26.8% 35.7% 17.9% 12.5%
Switzerland 40.0% 45.1% 40.0% 25.1% 31.4% 13.7% 14.3%
France 27.0% 35.0% 51.0% 28.0% 23.0% 27.0% 14.0%
Belgium 44.1% 44.8% 45.5% 30.8% 21.7% 25.9% 11.9%
Netherlands 42.9% 34.3% 25.7% 32.1% 32.1% 22.9% 17.9%

United
47.0% 34.8% 40.8% 42.5% 25.4% 19.2% 10.8%
Kingdom
Ireland 46.2% 26.0% 44.2% 46.2% 21.2% 20.2% 8.7%
Sweden 37.5% 35.7% 29.5% 27.7% 38.4% 20.5% 19.6%
Norway 46.9% 42.2% 35.9% 26.6% 18.8% 23.4% 7.8%
Finland 44.3% 36.4% 33.6% 34.3% 19.3% 17.9% 22.9%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q9:Pleasepickthosethree(3)issueswhichyoubelieve 58
willbemostimportantforpublicrelations/communicationmanagementwithinthenextthreeyears!
PerceivedrelevanceofstrategicissuesinSouthernandEasternEurope
Linkingbusiness Dealingwith Copingwith Strengtheningtheroleof Buildingand Usingbigdata Enable,coach

strategyand thespeedand thedigital thecommunicationfunction maintaining and/or andadvisesenior
communication volumeof evolutionand insupportingtopmanage trust algorithmsfor manager(s)and
informationflow thesocialweb ment decisionmaking communication otherstaff
Spain 50.0% 32.0% 25.0% 39.0% 35.5% 23.3% 12.8%
Italy 39.3% 27.0% 36.2% 34.4% 33.1% 26.4% 14.1%
Slovenia 33.3% 49.3% 36.0% 37.3% 38.7% 25.3% 6.7%
Croatia 36.8% 37.7% 36.8% 22.6% 28.3% 24.5% 12.3%
Serbia 41.4% 41.4% 40.0% 22.9% 34.3% 30.0% 8.6%
Poland 50.0% 50.0% 28.3% 35.0% 36.7% 23.3% 6.7%
Romania 36.4% 35.2% 35.2% 20.5% 36.4% 29.5% 4.5%
Ukraine 51.5% 39.7% 25.0% 23.5% 51.5% 27.9% 5.9%
Russia 36.8% 45.6% 47.4% 21.1% 31.6% 36.8% 7.0%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q9:Pleasepickthosethree(3)issueswhichyoubelieve 59
willbemostimportantforpublicrelations/communicationmanagementwithinthenextthreeyears!
Changingrelevanceofkeychannels andinstrumentsduringthelast10years
Perceivedimportanceforaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiences
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Facetofacecommunication
30% Onlinecommunicationviawebsites,email,intranets
Socialmediaandsocialnetworks(Blogs,Twitter,Facebookandthelike)
20% Pressandmediarelationswithonlinenewspapers/magazines
PressandmediarelationswithTVandradiostations
10% Pressandmediarelationswithprintnewspapers/magazines
Events
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015* 2016
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,583PR professionals;Zerfassetal.2014/n=2,666PRprofessionals(Q24);Zerfassetal.2011/
n=2,125(Q11);Zerfassetal.2010/n=1,900(Q6);Zerfassetal.2009/n=1,806(Q5);Zerfassetal.2008/n=1,542(Q3);Zerfassetal.2007/n=1,087
(Q4).Q12:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsinaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Very
important).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.*Nodatacollectedintheseyears;figureshowsextrapolatedvalues. 60
Longitudinal evaluationbasedon13,709responsesfromcommunicationprofessionalsin43countries.
Importanceofcommunicationchannels/instrumentstodayandinthefuture
Perceivedimportanceforaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestodayandinthreeyears
Facetofacecommunication 77.6%
77.9%
Onlinecommunicationviawebsites,email,intranets 76.9%
82.9%
Socialmediaandsocialnetworks(Blogs,Twitter,Facebookandthe 76.2%
like) 88.9%
Pressandmediarelationswithonlinenewspapers/magazines 74.7%
83.5%
PressandmediarelationswithTVandradiostations 68.0%
55.1%
Pressandmediarelationswithprintnewspapers/magazines 64.1%
30.2%
Mobilecommunication(phone/tabletapps,mobilewebsites) 63.7%
91.2%
Events 61.5%
58.7%
Nonverbalcommunication(appearance,architecture) 44.4%
52.4%
Corporatepublishing/ownedmedia(customer/employeemagazines) 38.1%
40.0%
Importancetoday Importancein2019
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,521PR professionals. Q12:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsinaddressing

stakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant). 61
Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Mobile,socialandallkindsofonlinecommunicationaresteadilyrising
Perceivedimportanceforaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestodayandinthreeyears
27.5% 12.7% 8.8% 6.0%
91.2% 88.9%
83.5% 82.9%
76.2% 74.7% 76.9%
63.7%
Mobilecommunication Socialmediaandsocialnetworks Pressandmediarelationswith Onlinecommunicationvia

(phone/tabletapps,mobile (Blogs,Twitter,Facebookandthe onlinenewspapers/magazines websites,email,intranets
websites) like)
Importancetoday Importancein2019

stakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant). 62
Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Globalcomparison:Howcommunicationchannelsareratedbypractitioners
inEurope,AsiaPacificandLatinAmerica
Perceivedimportanceforaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiences
77.6%
Facetofacecommunication 71.2%
71.5%
76.9%
Onlinecommunicationviawebsites,email,intranets 73.6%
80.1%
Socialmediaandsocialnetworks(Blogs,Twitter,Facebookand 76.2%
75.0%
thelike) 68.1%
74.7%
Pressandmediarelationswithonlinenewspapers/magazines 73.2%
76.8%
68.0%
PressandmediarelationswithTVandradiostations 66.8%
70.7%
64.1%
Pressandmediarelationswithprintnewspapers/magazines 76.5%
66.3%
63.7%
Mobilecommunication(phone/tabletapps,mobilewebsites) 66.5%
60.5%
61.5%
Events 59.8%
73.2%
44.4%
Nonverbalcommunication(appearance,architecture) 42.3%
58.5%
Corporatepublishing/ownedmedia(customer/employee 38.1%
39.1%
magazines) 56.3%
Europe AsiaPacific LatinAmerica

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,583PR professionals(Q12);Macnamara etal.2015/n=1,148PRprofessionals(Q4);
Morenoetal.2015/n=803(Q5).Q:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsinaddressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Scale1 63
(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.Overallevaluationbasedon4,534respondentsin84countries.
Youngerpractitionersratemobilecommunication,socialmediaandevents
significantlyhigherthanpeerswithalongerlifeexperience
Perceivedimportanceindifferentagegroups
29oryounger 30 39 40 49 50 59 60orolder
% M % M % M % M % M
Pressandmediarelationswithprint
61.2% 3.76 63.0% 2.78 63.6% 3.79 69.1% 3.89 63.8% 3.77
newspapers/magazines
Pressandmediarelationswithonline
80.8% 4.22** 78.5% 4.09** 72.8% 3.99** 71.4% 3.96** 55.9% 3.71**
PressandmediarelationswithTVandradio
67.4% 3.87 68.9% 3.90 67.1% 3.89 69.3% 3.92 65.7% 3.89
stations
Corporatepublishing/ownedmedia
38.8% 3.24** 39.8% 3.27** 36.8% 3.15** 38.6% 3.18** 30.7% 2.96**
(customer/employeemagazines)
Onlinecommunication
76.5% 4.12 76.4% 4.07 78.6% 4.09 76.3% 4.07 69.2% 3.95
viawebsites,email,intranets
Socialmediaandsocialnetworks
85.3% 4.35** 80.3% 4.16** 74.6% 4.00** 69.8% 3.87** 56.7% 3.71**
(Blogs,Twitter,Facebookandthelike)
Mobilecommunication
74.1% 4.03** 63.6% 3.79** 62.5% 3.76** 60.8% 3.70** 56.7% 3.65**
(phone/tablet apps,mobilewebsites)
Events 72.0% 3.95** 63.3% 3.78** 60.9% 3.68** 55.4% 3.61** 47.6% 3.45**
Facetofacecommunication 75.8% 4.11 77.8% 4.18 78.6% 4.19 76.4% 4.18 77.7% 4.17
Nonverbalcommunication
50.8% 3.49** 48.3% 3.46** 41.6% 3.31** 41.3% 3.24** 32.7% 3.12**
(appearance,architecture)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,583PR professionals. Q12:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsinaddressingstakeholders,

gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scales1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant).Percentages: 64
Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsonproductmomentcorrelationbasedonageasmetricvariable,p0.01).
Governmentalorganisationsexpressthestrongestbeliefinthefuturerelevance
ofTVandradioasimportantchannelsforpublicrelations
Perceivedimportanceinvarioustypesoforganisations
Jointstock Private Governmental Nonprofit Consultancies
companies companies organisations organisations &Agencies
2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 2019
Pressandmediarelationswithprint
66.5% 29.9% 64.7% 28.8% 61.6% 30.5% 61.9% 28.2% 64.1% 31.6%
Pressandmediarelationswithonline
75.6% 85.5% 76.1% 85.3% 71.8% 83.3% 76.8% 83.2% 73.9% 81.6%
PressandmediarelationswithTVand
61.6% 52.5%** 60.8% 46.3%** 72.6% 63.5%** 64.1% 52.2%** 74.4% 58.6%**
radiostations
Corporatepublishing/ownedmedia
39.3%** 40.0% 44.8%** 42.9% 33.8%** 33.6% 35.3%** 34.4% 36.6%** 42.5%
(customer/employeemagazines)
Onlinecommunication
75.9% 83.1% 79.0% 82.8% 83.0% 83.5% 85.7% 88.8% 71.5% 80.8%
viawebsites,email,intranets
Socialmediaandsocialnetworks
70.6% 89.2% 75.6% 87.7% 75.0% 88.5% 86.1% 93.6% 76.6% 88.0%
(Blogs,Twitter,Facebookandthelike)
Mobilecommunication
61.1% 91.6% 65.7% 91.2% 65.0% 92.9% 68.9% 94.0% 62.2% 89.5%
(phone/tablet apps,mobilewebsites)
Events 62.3% 58.4% 65.8% 64.6% 58.4% 56.5% 68.1% 63.2% 58.1% 55.5%
Facetofacecommunication 81.3% 78.8% 80.0% 78.2% 74.9% 78.5% 80.5% 79.1% 74.5% 76.6%
Nonverbalcommunication
42.1% 51.2% 50.0% 57.1% 42.8% 53.6% 42.7% 48.8% 44.2% 51.5%
(appearance,architecture)

stakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scales1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant). 65
Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.**Highlysignificantdifferencesfortherelevantyear(chisquaretest,p0.01).
ImportanceofcommunicationchannelsinWesternandNorthernEuropetoday
Pressandmedia Pressandmedia Pressandmedia Corporate Online Socialmedia Mobile Events Faceto Non
relationswith relationswith relationswith publishing/ communica andsocial communi face verbal
print online TVandradio owned tionviaweb networks cation commu commu
newspapers/ newspapers/ stations media sites,email, nication nication
magazines magazines intranets
Germany 69.6% 73.3% 53.8% 46.8% 77.8% 71.8% 53.8% 58.9% 71.9% 25.1%
Austria 78.2% 64.8% 74.1% 38.2% 83.3% 63.6% 58.2% 54.7% 85.5% 40.0%
Switzerland 75.0% 70.9% 62.2% 36.8% 79.5% 62.8% 57.6% 64.1% 81.3% 42.9%
France 64.6% 82.3% 70.4% 30.9% 73.5% 72.4% 66.7% 63.8% 72.2% 45.4%
Belgium 61.9% 72.1% 56.8% 38.1% 84.2% 79.6% 55.4% 70.3% 79.3% 39.6%
Netherlands 68.1% 73.7% 70.7% 38.1% 83.6% 76.7% 70.9% 56.4% 79.7% 47.0%
United
64.1% 78.1% 61.9% 36.5% 80.1% 76.5% 73.1% 59.1% 75.0% 43.1%
Kingdom
Ireland 76.5% 72.3% 85.1% 36.4% 80.8% 80.2% 78.2% 58.4% 84.2% 45.5%
Sweden 62.7% 70.0% 66.1% 29.4% 78.0% 70.0% 63.3% 50.5% 80.0% 45.4%
Norway 71.4% 81.0% 74.6% 30.2% 74.6% 79.4% 55.6% 52.4% 66.7% 30.0%
Finland 66.9% 77.0% 54.3% 42.0% 84.8% 77.5% 56.1% 52.2% 79.0% 40.6%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q12:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsin
addressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Very 66
important).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
ImportanceofcommunicationchannelsinSouthernandEasternEuropetoday
Pressandmedia Pressandmedia Pressand Corporate Online Socialmedia Mobile Events Faceto Non
relationswith relationswith mediarelations publishing/ communica andsocial communi face verbal
print online withTVand owned tionviaweb networks cation commu commu
newspapers/ newspapers/ radiostations media sites,email, nication nication
magazines magazines intranets
Spain 66.1% 73.2% 71.0% 43.9% 67.9% 75.0% 60.1% 61.1% 78.4% 57.5%
Italy 59.6% 65.4% 64.9% 32.9% 68.4% 66.9% 63.2% 65.8% 74.2% 42.4%
Slovenia 64.9% 75.7% 82.2% 40.5% 73.6% 74.0% 53.5% 48.6% 72.2% 52.7%
Croatia 71.0% 83.5% 86.9% 41.0% 74.5% 83.5% 68.4% 69.4% 80.8% 51.5%
Serbia 69.6% 69.1% 75.0% 36.2% 71.6% 85.3% 75.4% 67.6% 79.4% 60.9%
Poland 56.4% 72.7% 70.9% 30.9% 69.1% 69.1% 52.7% 52.7% 72.7% 34.5%
Romania 42.2% 83.8% 72.2% 46.9% 87.3% 83.8% 74.4% 72.8% 76.5% 53.2%
Ukraine 34.3% 89.6% 73.1% 37.9% 65.7% 89.6% 67.2% 77.3% 84.6% 53.8%
Russia 68.5% 72.2% 74.1% 40.7% 85.2% 87.0% 60.4% 72.2% 85.2% 46.3%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q12:Howimportantarethefollowingmethodsin
addressingstakeholders,gatekeepersandaudiencestoday?Inyouropinion,howimportantwilltheybeinthreeyears?Scales1(Notimportant) 5(Very 67
important).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Socialmediainfluencers
Chapteroverview
Organisationsareincreasinglychallengedbymultipliersandinfluencersonthesocialweb.Somenobodiesofthepastarethenew
somebodiesdemandingtheattentionofcommunicationprofessionals(Booth&Matic,2011:184).Professionalandparttimebloggers,
communitymanagersandactivistscangainpoweroverthepublicperceptionofbrandsandissuesiftheybecomeopinionleadersin
socialnetworks.TheroleofopinionleadershasbeenhighlightedbyKatzandLazarsfeld (1955)intheirseminalworkonthetwostepflow
ofcommunication.Theyextert anunequalamountofinfluenceonthedecisionofothers(Rogers&Cartano,1962:435).Alongthisline,
socialmediainfluencers(SMIs)canbecharacterisedasanewtypeofthirdpartyendorserswhoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,
tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia(Freberg etal.,2011:90).
DuetotherisingimportanceofsocialmediaforstrategiccommunicationsuggestedbytheECMrespondentsformanyyears(see
previouschapter),itcanbeexpectedthatorganisationsareawareofSMIsandknowhowtodealwiththem.Morespecifically, concrete
methodsareneededtoidentifyrelevantinfluencersonthesocialweb.Indicatorslikecitationscores,linkages,centralitywithinthematic
networksetc.areheavilydiscussedinsocialmediamarketingandmeasurement(e.g.,Greve,2015).Publicrelationsscholars,however,
havediscussedthisonlysporadically(Gilin 2008;Freberg etal.,2011;Pangetal.,2016),whichmightindicatealowerawarenessinthe
professionathand.
TheempiricalstudyshowsthatamajorityoforganisationsacrossEurope(58.4percent)understandsthatsocialmediainfluencers
areimportantfortheircommunicationactivities.Butonlyaminorityusesspecificstrategiestocommunicatewiththoseopinion leaders
(42.9percent)andevenlesshavespecificapproachestoidentifythem(40.1percent).Thisindicatesthatsomeorganisationsemploya
reactivestrategy theycommunicatewithSMIsiftheyshowup,buttheydonottrackorapproachthemproactively.Consultanciesand
agenciesareclearlyaheadinthisfield,whereasonlyonequarterofthegovernmentalorganisationsispreparedtoidentifyand
communicatewithSMIs.Therearestatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweentheperceivedimportanceandmethodsacrosskey
countries.Buttheoverallassessmentisquitesimilar thenewstructuresofopinionbuildingareindeedatransnationalphenomenon.
WhichfactorsareimportantforidentifyingSMIs?TheECM2016showsthatmostcommunicationprofessionalsprefertraditional
indicatorsalreadyknownfromtheofflineworld:therelevanceoftopicsorissuescoveredbyanopinionleader(ratedimportant by84.2
percentoftherespondents)andhis/herpersonalreputation(82.1percent).Thesearecomplementedbytwoindicatorswhichrepresent
specificfeaturesofSMIs.81.2percentstatethatqualitativeoutreach,e.g.contentsharedorforwardedbyfollowers,areimportantto
identifydigitalinfluencers.And78.7percentsupporttheideaofidentifyingthestrengthoftheirnetworkposition(i.e.characteristicsand
powerofthepeoplelinkedtomultipliers)todeterminerelevantinfluencers.Thesemeasurescanbetrackeddigitallyandare necessary
todealwiththetopicathand.Interestingly,sixoutoftencommunicatorsbelievethatthenumberoffollowers(outreach)helpsto
identifyopinionleaders.35.1percentarguethatthesheervolumeofcontentpublished(productivity)pointstotherelevanceofSMIs.
Thus,theoverallpictureemergesthatmanycommunicationprofessionalshavenotfullygraspedtheconceptofinfluenceand
opinionleadershipinsocialnetworks.Moreknowledgeandexperienceisneededtoleveragethefullpotentialofthedigitalsphere.
69
Manyorganisationsrecognisetherelevanceofsocialmediainfluencers
butspecificmeasurestoidentifyandcommunicatewiththemarelesscommon
Socialmediainfluencers(SMIs)representnewtypesofindependentthirdpartyendorsers
whoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia.
SMIsareimportantforourstrategiccommunicationactivities 58.4%
WeusespecificstrategiestocommunicatewithSMIs 42.9%
WehaveaspecificapproachtoidentifySMIs 40.1%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q13:Socialmediainfluencers(SMIs)representnewtypesofindependent
thirdpartyendorserswhoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia.Pleaseratethefollowingstatements,thinking 70
ofyourorganisation/agency.Scale1(Stronglydisagree) 5(Totallyagree).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Consultanciesandagenciesareclearlyaheadwhendealingwith
socialmediainfluencers
Jointstockcompanies
55.8%
38.6%
67.5% 36.7% Private

Consultancies&Agencies 53.3%
companies
52.2%
54.4% 36.4%
40.9%
SMIsareimportantforour
23.7%
strategiccommunicationactivities
31.0% Weusespecificstrategiesto
communicatewithSMIs
27.6%
33.4% Wehaveaspecificapproachto
47.3% identifySMIs
53.9%
Nonprofitorganisations Governmentalorganisations
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q13:Socialmediainfluencers(SMIs)representnewtypesofindependent
thirdpartyendorserswhoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia.Pleaseratethefollowingstatements,thinking
ofyourorganisation/agency.Scale1(Stronglydisagree) 5(Totallyagree).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.Highlysignificantdifferences 71
forallitems (chisquaretest,p0.01).
Countrytocountryassessmentofsocialmediainfluencers
Germany
Russia Austria
Ukraine Switzerland
Romania France
Poland Belgium
Serbia Netherlands
Croatia UnitedKingdom
SMIsareimportantforourstrategic
Slovenia Ireland
communicationactivities**
Weusespecificstrategiesto
Italy Sweden
Scale (Means): communicatewithSMIs**
(1) Strongly disagree Spain Norway
Wehaveaspecificapproachto
(5)Totally agree Finland
identifySMIs**
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q13:Socialmediainfluencers(SMIs)representnew
typesofindependentthirdpartyendorserswhoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia.Pleaseratethefollowing
statements,thinkingofyourorganisation/agency.Scale1(Stronglydisagree) 5(Totallyagree).Meanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(ANOVA/ 72
Scheffe posthoctest,p0.01).
Importantfactorsforidentifyingsocialmediainfluencers
Relevanceoftopics/issuescovered 84.2%
Personalreputation 82.1%
Qualitativeoutreach(contentshared/forwardedbyothers) 81.2%
Networkposition(number,reputationandinfluenceofpeople
78.7%
linkedtoaninfluencer)
Reputationoftheaffiliatedorganisation 71.0%
Quantitativeoutreach(followers) 60.4%
Productivity(numberofmessages/contentpublished) 35.1%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,489PRprofessionals.Q14:Inyouropinion,howimportantarethefollowingfactorsfor
identifyingsocialmediainfluencerswhicharetrulyrelevantforanorganisation?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant).Percentages:Frequencies 73
basedonscalepoints45.
ImportantindicatorstoidentifySMIsinkeycountriesacrossEurope
Relevanceof Reputation
Network Quantitative Qualitative Personal
topics/issues Productivity oftheaffiliated
position outreach outreach reputation
covered organisation
Germany 84.7% 76.7% 29.9% 62.0% 83.7% 83.6% 61.7%
Austria 84.6% 71.7% 28.3% 50.9% 84.9% 86.8% 64.2%
Switzerland 86.3% 79.2% 27.8% 55.0% 77.0% 75.8% 67.1%
France 86.8% 77.1% 40.2% 68.5% 89.1% 84.6% 73.3%
Belgium 89.9% 78.6% 21.5% 55.8% 78.6% 78.0% 71.5%
Netherlands 82.3% 78.8% 42.3% 60.8% 83.3% 77.1% 70.5%

United
84.7% 73.8% 34.4% 59.7% 75.8% 77.5% 74.4%
Kingdom
Ireland 85.6% 77.3% 41.2% 57.3% 74.5% 85.9% 76.8%
Sweden 92.2% 79.4% 20.6% 49.0% 81.4% 79.8% 68.0%
Norway 80.4% 70.2% 19.6% 59.6% 78.6% 80.4% 74.1%
Finland 88.6% 77.4% 25.4% 58.4% 86.3% 75.0% 75.0%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,138PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q14:Inyouropinion,howimportantarethefollowing
factorsforidentifyingsocialmediainfluencerswhicharetrulyrelevantforanorganisation?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant).Percentages:Based 74
onscalepoints45.
ImportantindicatorstoidentifySMIsinkeycountriesacrossEurope
Relevanceof Reputation
Network Quantitative Qualitative Personal
topics/issues Productivity oftheaffiliated
position outreach outreach reputation
covered organisation
Spain 79.4% 83.9% 36.8% 57.8% 84.5% 84.4% 69.5%
Italy 84.1% 77.5% 30.7% 57.2% 72.3% 83.1% 68.7%
Slovenia 82.2% 82.2% 36.5% 65.3% 79.7% 84.7% 61.6%
Croatia 84.5% 78.4% 49.5% 70.5% 87.6% 87.5% 77.6%
Serbia 90.9% 83.6% 50.0% 72.7% 89.4% 86.6% 77.6%
Poland 66.0% 68.6% 34.0% 60.4% 73.1% 79.2% 60.8%
Romania 84.7% 81.4% 52.9% 68.7% 90.5% 82.1% 77.9%
Ukraine 83.3% 83.3% 38.1% 64.5% 78.3% 88.5% 71.2%
Russia 83.3% 81.5% 57.4% 59.3% 87.0% 94.3% 75.9%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,138PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q14:Inyouropinion,howimportantarethefollowing
factorsforidentifyingsocialmediainfluencerswhicharetrulyrelevantforanorganisation?Scale1(Notimportant) 5(Veryimportant).Percentages: 75
Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.
Stakeholderengagement
Chapteroverview
Engagementisamuchdebatedconceptintodaysorganisationsandsociety.Itisoftenusedinpublicrelationsandstrategiccommuni
cation.Butacommonunderstandingismissing;manyexplanationsaremerelysmokeandmirrors.Practitionersinthefieldofsocial
mediaoccasionallyuseFacebookLikesasanindicatorforstakeholderengagement oftenwithoutbeingabletoprovewhoclickedthe
button,whyitwasdone,andwhethertheactionwasanexpressionofinterestorjustahabitus.Somescholars,ontheotherhand,define
engagementnormativelyastwoway,relational,giveandtakebetweenorganizationsandstakeholders/publicswiththeintendedgoal
ofmakingdecisionsthatbenefitallpartiesinvolvedandfosteringafullyfunctioningsociety(Taylor&Kent,2014:391).
Kang(2014)hasconcludedthattheconceptofpublicengagementlacksasounddefinitionandoperationalisation.Sheandothers,
e.g.Macnamara (2016),haveevaluatedtheinterdisciplinaryliteratureandmadeproposalsforamultidimensionalunderstandingofthe
construct.
Thisstudycomplementstheseeffortsbyexploringthecomprehensionofengagementamongcommunicationprofessionals.Ina
firststep,professionalsacrossEuropewereaskedwhatengagementmeanstothemingeneral.Theitemspresentedstandforthree
stagesofengagement:cognitive,affectiveandparticipativeinvolvement(Macnamara,2016:40).Respondentspreferredtwoviews:
forthreeoutoffourengagementmeansbeinginterestedorfeelinginvolved(cognitive;75.1percent)orbeingwillingtocollaborate
andimprove(participative;73.0percent).Affectiveaspects,i.e.engagementasbeingexcited,proudoremotionallyattached,are
relevantforasmallergroupofcommunicators(56.8percent).
Secondly,participantsofthestudywereaskedhowtheywouldidentifystakeholderengagementthroughcommunicationand
interactiontowardstheirorganisationorbrand(oraclientsorganisation/brand).Again,indicatorsforcognitiveandparticipative
engagement communicatingactivelywiththeorganisationandgivingfeedback(67.0percent)andworkingtogetherwiththe
organisation(61.3percent) arementionedmostoften.Positivetalktothirdpartiesaboutanorganisation,whichindicatesaffective
engagement,followscloselyandwaspickedby58.1percentoftherespondents.Threeotherwaystoidentifyengagementareless
preferred.Theseincludeunidirectionalcommunicationactivities(stakeholdersinformingthemselvesaboutanorganisation)andaction
behaviour,e.g.becominganinstitutionalisedsupporterorinfluencingdecisionsasamemberofadvisorycommittees.Thereare
differencesbetweenvarioustypesoforganisations,buttheoverallpictureisratherconsistent.
Overall,communicationprofessionalsseemtoconceptualiseengagementmostlyasacommunicationactivity.Emotionaldrivers
andinstitutionalisedinteractionsmightbeoverlooked.Theresultsconfirmthatthereisaneedtospecifythebuzzwordengagement
tomakeitusefulforpractitioners.Asoundoperationalisation isneededifitshallbeusedasagoalforcommunicationcampaigns.
77
Communicationprofessionalshavearatherrationalandactionoriented
understandingofengagementingeneral
Engagementmeansbeing 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
interestedorfeelinginvolved(cognitive) 75.1% 4.01
excited,proudoremotionallyattached(affective) 56.8% 3.58
willingtocollaborateormotivatedtoimprove(participative) 73.0% 3.96
(1)Strongly disagree (3) Strongly agree (5)

0.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Agreement Meanlevelofagreement
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q10:Engagementisamuchdebatedconceptinsocietyandorganisations 78
today.Whatdoesitmeantoyou?Scale:1(Stronglydisagree) 5(Stronglyagree).Percentages:Frequenciesbasedonscalepoints45.
Stakeholderengagementismostlyconceptualisedasacommunicationactivity,
butthereisnoagreementonhowtoidentifysuchbehaviour
Stakeholdersshowengagement,ifthey
communicateactivelywiththeorganisationorgivefeedback(e.g.write
emailsorletters,like/commentonsocialmedia,calltheserviceline, 67.0%
answerquestionnaires)
worktogetherwiththeorganisation(e.g.participateincustomergroups
61.3%
orstakeholderdialogues;volunteer)
talktootherspositivelyabouttheorganisation(e.g.share
58.1%
Facebook/Twitterposts,recommendbrands,productsorservices)
influenceorganisationaldecisionmaking(e.g.asmemberofadvisory
39.5%
committees,boards)
informthemselvesabouttheorganisation(e.g.viewwebsites,followon
36.7%
FacebookorTwitter,installapps,visitevents,subscribetomagazines)
becomeinstitutionalisedsupporters(e.g.asmemberofabrand
27.6%
communityorfanclub)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PRprofessionals.Q11:Howwouldyouidentifyexternalstakeholderengagementthrough
communicationandinteractiontowardsyourorganisation/brand(oryourclientsorganisation/brand)?Pleasepickuptothree(3)ofthemostrelevantitems. 79
Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3item.
Communicationprofessionalsusequitedifferentwaystoidentify
stakeholderengagement
communicateactivelywiththeorganisationorgive
67.0%
feedback
Cognitive
informthemselvesabouttheorganisation 36.7%
talktootherspositivelyabouttheorganisation 58.1%
Affective
becomeinstitutionalisedsupporters 27.6%
worktogetherwiththeorganisation 61.3%
Participative
influenceorganisationaldecisionmaking 39.5%
Practitionersworkinginnonprofitandgovernmentalorganisationsperceive
engagementmorecollaborativelythantheircolleagues
65.0%
64.6%
communicateactivelywiththeorganisationorgivefeedback 66.8%
65.0%
69.9%
59.2%
58.2%
worktogetherwiththeorganisation 68.2%
67.5%
59.4%
64.1%
59.1%
talktootherspositivelyabouttheorganisation 56.3%
57.6%
55.3%
36.5%
37.9%
influenceorganisationaldecisionmaking 42.0%
39.9%
40.9%
37.4%
40.9%
informthemselvesabouttheorganisation 34.6%
35.6% Jointstockcompanies
35.4% PrivateCompanies
29.3% Governmentalorganisations
29.2%
becomeinstitutionalisedsupporters 22.5% Nonprofitorganisations
26.6%
28.0% Consultancies&Agencies
PreferredindicatorsforidentifyingstakeholderengagementacrossEurope
Cognitive Affective Participative

informthemselves communicateactively talktoothers become worktogether influence
aboutthe withtheorganisation positivelyaboutthe institutionalised withthe organisational
organisation orgivefeedback organisation supporters organisation decisionmaking
Germany 33.5% 71.6% 53.4% 36.9% 55.1% 39.8%
Austria 51.8% 75.0% 48.2% 30.4% 58.9% 26.8%
Switzerland 37.1% 65.7% 63.4% 32.0% 56.0% 37.7%
France 36.0% 62.0% 58.0% 38.0% 55.0% 42.0%
Belgium 39.9% 65.0% 60.1% 27.3% 65.7% 35.7%
Netherlands 32.9% 60.0% 57.1% 27.1% 71.4% 40.7%
UnitedKingdom 37.3% 66.6% 63.1% 19.5% 69.0% 36.9%
Ireland 51.9% 65.4% 66.3% 17.3% 53.8% 34.6%
Sweden 46.4% 62.5% 66.1% 20.5% 55.4% 34.8%
Norway 31.3% 65.6% 56.3% 23.4% 59.4% 50.0%
Finland 39.3% 67.1% 70.7% 15.0% 72.9% 27.9%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q11:Howwouldyouidentifyexternalstakeholder
engagementthroughcommunicationandinteractiontowardsyourorganisation/brand(oryourclientsorganisation/brand)?Pleasepickuptothree(3) 82
ofthemostrelevantitems.Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3item.
PreferredindicatorsforidentifyingstakeholderengagementacrossEurope
Cognitive Affective Participative
informthemselvescommunicateactivelywith talktoothers become worktogether influence

aboutthe theorganisationorgive positivelyabout institutionalised withthe organisational
organisation feedback. theorganisation supporters organisation decisionmaking
Spain 23.8% 61.0% 63.4% 41.3% 55.2% 48.3%
Italy 40.5% 58.9% 60.1% 23.9% 61.3% 44.8%
Slovenia 38.7% 81.3% 50.7% 21.3% 61.3% 40.0%
Croatia 37.7% 70.8% 46.2% 34.0% 60.4% 42.5%
Serbia 34.3% 71.4% 50.0% 41.4% 65.7% 25.7%
Poland 40.0% 83.3% 40.0% 11.7% 58.3% 48.3%
Romania 39.8% 69.3% 52.3% 22.7% 59.1% 36.4%
Ukraine 29.4% 61.8% 55.9% 30.9% 61.8% 41.2%
Russia 31.6% 73.7% 52.6% 28.1% 52.6% 52.6%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,356PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q11:Howwouldyouidentifyexternalstakeholder
engagementthroughcommunicationandinteractiontowardsyourorganisation/brand(oryourclientsorganisation/brand)?Pleasepickuptothree(3) 83
ofthemostrelevantitems.Percentages:FrequencybasedonselectionasTop3item.
Skills,knowledge
andcompetency
development
Chapteroverview
Staffcompetencieshavebeenidentifiedasakeydriveroforganisationalsuccessindynamicandcomplexenvironments.Humanresources
expertssuggesttheneedtoassessanddevelopskillsandknowledgewithcompetencymodels(Stevens,2014).Communicationleaders
havetotakecarethattheirteamsacquirerelevantcompetenciestodealwiththerequirementsofcommunicationacrossmultiple
channels,manageprogramsandcampaigns,coachandenableotherpeople,andhelporganisationstoalignwithvariousstakeholders.
Tothisend,previousresearchhasidentifiedthreecriticalareas.Firstly,competenciesinthegrowingfieldofsocialmediaareoftenlacking
(Tench etal.,2013;Zerfassetal.,2013:3849;Macnamara etal.,2015:3441).Secondly,managementandbusinessqualificationsneedto
bedeveloped.Lastbutnotleast,onlyaminorityofdevelopmentneedsforcommunicatorsareaddressedthroughsuitabletraining
programs(Zerfassetal.,2012:8699).
TheECM2016tracksthecurrentsituationacrossEuropebasedonathoroughunderstandingofcompetenciesasthemixofskills
andknowledgeheldbyapractitioner,whichcombinewithpersonalattributestoproduceeffectiveprofessionalbehaviours(Tench &
Moreno,2015:44).Afirstimportantfindingisthemediocrelevelofsocialmediacompetencies.Only65.2percentoftherespondents
reporthighcapabilitiesfordeliveringmessagesviasocialmedia whichmeansthatonethirdoftheprofessionalshavealoworaverage
competencybaseinthisarea.Asmallmajoritybelievesthattheyunderstandsocialmediatrends,knowhowtoavoidrisksand areable
todevelopdigitalstrategies.Allotherdimensionsarelessdeveloped.Thisisespeciallytrueforapproacheswhichusethefullpotentialof
newmedia:managingonlinecommunities(38.4percentreporthighcapabilities),initiatingwebbaseddialogueswithstakeholders(34.3
percent)andunderstandingtheuseofalgorithms(21.6percent).Therearesignificantdifferencesdependingontheageand genderof
practitionersandthetypeoforganisations.AcomparisonwithpreviousECMresults(Zerfassetal.,2013:40)showsthatthe average
competencylevelhashardlygrown.Astrongeradvancementwasonlyreportedforsocialmediacrisispreventionandmanagement.
Themeancapabilitylevelherewas2.86onafivepointscalethreeyearsearlierandis3.49now.
Asimilarpictureemergesinthefieldofmanagementcompetencies.Communicationprofessionalsarequiteconfidentabouttheir
planningandpositioningcapabilities.Managingrelationshipsandleadingpeopleorgroupsarealsopositivelyselfevaluated.Between
74.4and82.6percentofthepractitionersagreethattheyhavehighcapabilitiesinthosefourareas.Leastdevelopedarecompetencies
formanagingfinancialandhumanresources,establishingstructuresandprocesses,andperformingcontroltasks.Approximatelyhalfof
thesampleisselfcriticalhere.
Whenaskedfortheirdevelopmentandtrainingneeds,everysecondcommunicatormentionstechnicalknowledgeandtechnical
skills.Thisisfollowedbybusinessknowledgeorskillsandmanagementknowledgeorskills(markedbyapproximatelyonethird). 23.6
percentoftherespondentsneedtodeveloptheircommunicationknowledgeand17.0percentwanttoenhancetheircommunication
skills.Interestingly,thelatteroneistheonlyareawhereorganisationstrainingprovisionoutstripsdemand.Largeorsmallgapsbetween
developmentneedsandopportunitieshavebeenidentifiedforallothertopics.
Employerstendtoofferskillsdevelopment,whilepractitionersrateknowledgesupportmoreimportantineacharea.Thisshould
bereflectedandadjusted intelligentpeopledevelopmentisindispensableforexcellentcommunicationdepartmentsandagencies.
85
SocialmediacapabilitiesofcommunicationprofessionalsinEurope
Deliveringmessagesviasocialmedia 65.2% 3.75
Knowingaboutsocialmediatrends 54.3% 3.55
Knowinghowtoavoidrisksandhandlecrisesonsocialmedia 53.2% 3.49
Developingsocialmediastrategies 50.3% 3.46
Evaluatingsocialmediaactivities 49.4% 3.42
Identifyingsocialmediainfluencers 45.0% 3.30
Interpretingsocialmediamonitoringdata 41.1% 3.25
Settingupsocialmediaplatforms 40.5% 3.16
Managingonlinecommunities 38.4% 3.17
Initiatingwebbaseddialogueswithstakeholders 34.3% 3.08
Knowingthelegalframeworkforsocialmedia 32.5% 2.99
Understandingtheuseofalgorithms(e.g.bysocialmediaplatforms) 21.6% 2.62

(1)Very low (3) Very high (5)
0.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Communicationprofessionalswithhighcapabilities Meanratingofcapabilities
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,675PRprofessionals.Q15:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowing 86
areas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Percentages:Frequenciesbasedonscalepoints45.Meanvalues.
Digitalnativesreportsignificantlyhighersocialmediaskillsandknowledge
29oryounger 30 39 40 49 50 59 60orolder Overall
Deliveringmessagesviasocialmedia** 4.03 3.85 3.69 3.57 3.30 3.75

Knowingaboutsocialmediatrends** 3.81 3.62 3.47 3.46 3.29 3.55
Knowinghowtoavoidrisksandhandlecrises
3.59 3.52 3.46 3.44 3.36 3.49
onsocialmedia**
Developingsocialmediastrategies** 3.66 3.53 3.40 3.34 3.18 3.46
Evaluatingsocialmediaactivities** 3.69 3.54 3.33 3.27 3.06 3.42
Identifyingsocialmediainfluencers** 3.64 3.41 3.17 3.13 3.05 3.30
Interpretingsocialmediamonitoringdata** 3.50 3.38 3.14 3.11 2.99 3.25
Managingonlinecommunities** 3.56 3.29 3.04 3.00 2.86 3.17
Settingupsocialmediaplatforms** 3.58 3.34 3.03 2.87 2.79 3.16
Initiatingwebbaseddialogues
3.33 3.16 3.00 2.94 2.93 3.08
withstakeholders**
Knowingthelegalframeworkforsocialmedia 3.00 2.99 2.97 3.03 2.88 2.99
Understandingtheuseofalgorithms
2.86 2.77 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.62
(e.g.bysocialmediaplatforms)**
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,675PRprofessionals.Q15:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas? 87
Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsonproductmomentcorrelationbasedonageasmetricvariable,p0.01).
Onlineskillsofmaleandfemalepractitionersdifferinvariousdimensions
Delivering messages viasocial media * 3.70 3.78
Knowing about social media trends 3.54 3.56
Knowing how to avoid risks and handlecrises onsocial media ** 3.43 3.57
Developing social media strategies 3.45 3.48
Evaluating social media activities 3.41 3.42
Identifying social media influencers 3.28 3.32
Interpreting social media monitoring data * 3.21 3.31
Managingonlinecommunities 3.15 3.19
Settingup social media platforms 3.15 3.17
Initiating webbased dialogues with stakeholders * 3.04 3.13 Male
Knowing the legalframework for social media 2.97 3.00 Female

Understandingthe use ofalgorithms
2.57 2.68
(e.g.by social media platforms)**
(1)Very low (3) Very high(5)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,675PRprofessionals.Q15:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas?
Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.*Significantdifferences(ANOVA/Scheffe posthoctest,p0.05).**Highlysignificantdifferences(ANOVA/ 88
Scheffe posthoctest,p0.01).
Socialmediacapabilitiesindifferentorganisations:
nonprofitsandprivatecompaniesareaheadofjointstockcompanies
Jointstock Private Governmental Nonprofit Consultancies

companies companies organisations organisations &Agencies
% M % M % M % M % M
Deliveringmessagesviasocialmedia** 57.9% 3.60 65.1% 3.75 66.9% 3.77 73.5% 3.93 65.7% 3.76
Knowingaboutsocialmediatrends 51.5% 3.51 54.2% 3.55 53.4% 3.47 52.4% 3.53 56.7% 3.61
Knowinghowtoavoidrisksandhandlecriseson
52.4% 3.47 53.0% 3.48 49.0% 3.38 52.7% 3.50 55.3% 3.53
socialmedia
Developingsocialmediastrategies** 47.4% 3.34 47.4% 3.43 45.8% 3.37 52.5% 3.50 54.0% 3.55
Evaluatingsocialmediaactivities 48.3% 3.38 51.9% 3.47 44.0% 3.32 48.3% 3.38 50.9% 3.46
Identifyingsocialmediainfluencers** 37.2% 3.13 45.8% 3.27 38.3% 3.13 38.0% 3.22 53.2% 3.48
Interpreting socialmediamonitoring data* 40.5% 3.21 41.3% 3.27 34.4% 3.08 41.6% 3.27 43.4% 3.31
Managingonlinecommunities* 35.0% 3.11 43.9% 3.26 34.1% 3.05 35.8% 3.14 39.8% 3.22
Settingupsocialmediaplatforms* 37.2% 3.08 43.2% 3.27 39.3% 3.13 47.5% 3.33 39.1% 3.11
Initiatingwebbaseddialogueswithstakeholders* 29.3% 2.98 34.6% 3.02 30.8% 2.99 36.4% 3.11 37.4% 3.18
Knowingthelegalframeworkforsocialmedia 34.0% 3.05 33.6% 2.97 35.5% 3.02 24.7% 2.82 32.7% 3.00
Understandingtheuseofalgorithms
20.3% 2.60 22.4% 2.65 17.5% 2.49 21.3% 2.57 23.4% 2.67
(e.g.bysocialmediaplatforms)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,667PRprofessionals.Q15:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowing
areas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.Meanvalues.*Significantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.05). 89
**Highlysignificant differences(chisquaretest,p0.01).
Managementcapabilities:communicationprofessionalsareselfconfident
inplanning,positioningandcollaborating;butlessintermsoffinances
Planactivities 82.6% 4.16
Strategicpositioning 78.7% 4.09
Managerelationships 74.5% 4.01
Leadpeopleandgroups 74.4% 3.98
Manageinformation 68.3% 3.83
Managehumanresources 58.5% 3.64
Control 56.5% 3.60
Establishstructuresandprocesses 55.1% 3.60
Managefinancialresources 49.6% 3.46

0.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Communicationprofessionalswithhighcapabilities Meanratingofcapabilities
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,603PRprofessionals.Q16:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas? 90
Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Percentages:Frequencybasedonscalepoints45.Meanvalues.
Overalllevelofmanagementcapabilitiesindifferentcountries
Germany(3.92)
Russia(3.53) Austria(3.15)
Ukraine(3.53) Switzerland(3.02)
Romania(3.60) France(3.12)
Poland(3.30) Belgium(3.23)
Serbia(3.63) Netherlands(3.23)
Croatia(3.63) UnitedKingdom(3.22)
Slovenia(3.20) Ireland(3.26)
WesternEurope
Italy(3.21) Sweden(3.11)
NorthernEurope
Spain(3.24) Norway(3.24) SouthernEurope
Finland(3.26)
EasternEurope
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,226PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q16:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesin
thefollowingareas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvaluesforoveralllevelofmanagementskills(meanofallitems).Significantdifferencesforthe 91
itemManageinformation(ANOVA/Scheffe posthoctest,p0.05).
Significantdifferentmanagementcapabilitiesacrossranksandhierarchies
Planactivities **
Strategicpositioning **
Managerelationships **
Leadpeople and groups **
Manageinformation *
Managehumanresources **
Establish structures and processes **
Control **
Managefinancial resources **
(1)Very low (3) Veryhigh (5)
Teammember/Consultant Teamleader/Unitleader Headofcommunication/AgencyCEO
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,456PRprofessionals.Q16:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas?
Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.*Significantdifferences(Kendallrankcorrelation,p0.05).**Highlysignificantdifferences(Kendallrank 92
correlation,p0.01).
Differentcompetencyprofilesformaleandfemaleprofessionals
Planactivities **
Strategicpositioning **
Managerelationships
Leadpeopleandgroups
Manageinformation
Managehumanresources
Establish structures and processes * Male
Control * Female
Managefinancialresources
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,603PRprofessionals.Q16:Howwouldyourateyourpersonalcapabilitiesinthefollowing
areas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.*Significantdifferences(IndependentsamplesTTest,p0.05).**Highlysignificantdifferences 93
(IndependentsamplesTTest,p0.01).
Developmentneedsandtraining:communicationprofessionalsreportahuge
necessitytobuildknowledgeandlimitedofferingsbytheiremployers
56.9%
Technicalknowledge 47.5%
9.4%
51.1%
Technicalskills 39.7%
11.4%
33.3%
Businessknowledge 17.6%
15.7%
33.9%
Businessskills 15.3%
18.6%
31.3%
Managementknowledge 17.2%
14.1%
31.4%
Managementskills Developmentneedfor 5.0%
26.4%
practitioners
23.6% Gapbetweenneedand
Communicationknowledge 3.2%
20.4% offering
Trainingoffered/facilitated
17.0%
Communicationskills byorganisations +12.3%
29.3%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,517PRprofessionals.Q17:Thinkingofyourself,yourcurrentcapabilitiesandyourfuture
development,whichofthefollowingskillsandknowledgeareasdoyoubelieveareinneedofdeveloping?Myorganisationoffers/facilitatestraining. 94
Scale1(Noneedtodevelop) 5(Strongneedtodevelop).Percentages:Frequenciesbasedonscalepoints45.
Personneldevelopmentdifferssignificantlybetweenvariousorganisations
Trainingoffered/facilitatedbyorganisationsfor...
11.8%
7.3%
Technicalknowledge 6.8%
6.1%
11.0%
15.9%
9.5%
Technicalskills 12.6%
8.4%
10.6%
26.3%
16.0%
Businessknowledge 8.1% Jointstockcompanies
8.2%
15.0%
24.7%
Privatecompanies
15.2%
Businessskills
15.2%
17.7% Governmentalorganisations
18.5%
18.9% Nonprofitorganisations
9.5%
Managementknowledge 13.3%
Consultancies&Agencies
8.7%
15.9%
40.3%
22.5%
Managementskills 26.1%
19.4%
23.2%
18.7%
15.6%
Communicationknowledge 16.4%
12.3%
27.6%
32.9%
22.1%
Communicationskills 31.0%
24.6%
31.8%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,572PRprofessionals.Q17:Thinkingofyourself,yourcurrentcapabilitiesandyourfuture
development,whichofthefollowingskillsandknowledgeareasdoyoubelieveareinneedofdeveloping?Myorganisationoffers/facilitatestraining. 95
Highlysignificantdifferencesforallitems(chisquaretest,p0.01).
Practitionersreportlessneedforpersonaldevelopmentthanfouryearsago
33.3%
Businessknowledge
38.2%
33.9%
Businessskills
34.2%
31.3%
Managementknowledge
42.4%
31.4%
Managementskills
46.4%
23.6%
Communicationknowledge
26.8%
17.0% Developmentneedreportedin2016
Communicationskills
17.6% Developmentneedreportedin2012
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,517PRprofessionals(Q17);Zerfassetal.2012/nmin =2,138PRprofessionals(Q20).

Q:Thinkingofyourself,yourcurrentcapabilitiesandyourfuturedevelopment,whichofthefollowingskillsandknowledgeareasdoyoubelievearein 96
needofdeveloping?Scale1(Noneedtodevelop) 5(Strongneedtodevelop).Percentages:Frequenciesbasedonscalepoints45.
Organisationsoffermoretrainingprogramsforcommunicatorstoday
15.7%
Businessknowledge
16.1%
18.6%
Businessskills
17.3%
14.1%
Managementknowledge
12.5%
26.4%
Managementskills
22.8%
20.4%
Communicationknowledge
13.4%
29.3%
Communicationskills
21.5%
Trainingoffered/facilitatedin2016 Trainingoffered/facilitatedin2012
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,572PRprofessionals(Q17);Zerfassetal.2012/nmin =2,163PRprofessionals(Q20).

Q:Thinkingofyourself,yourcurrentcapabilitiesandyourfuturedevelopment,whichofthefollowingskillsandknowledgeareasdoyoubelieveareinneed 97
ofdeveloping?Doesyourorganisationalreadyoffertrainingprogrammesinthesefields?
Salaries
Chapteroverview
TheECM2016,likepreviouseditions,providesanoverviewofannualsalariesforcommunicationprofessionalsinEurope.Results are
basedonalargesampleofupto2,293professionalswhoagreedtodisclosetheirpersonalincome.Nevertheless,thedataisonlya
snapshot.Changesbetweenyearsmightberelatedtoarisingordecliningrecognitionoftheprofessionaswellastooverall economic
developmentsandtovariationsinthecompositionofrespondentsinthesamples.
In2016,almosteverytenthcommunicatorsurveyedearnsmorethan150,000basesalaryperyear(9.6percent).Butonlyavery
smallgroup(1.8percent)makesmorethan300,000.Attheotherendofthescale,oneoutoffive(20.9percent)earnslessthan
30,000peryear.Thesefigureshavetobeputintocontext.Theaverageannualincomeinthe20keycountriesanalysedindetail forthis
studyspreadsbetween5,900(Romania)and57,000(Switzerland)(EUROSTAT,2016a).Thisexplainswhynearlythreeoutoffour
Romaniancommunicationprofessionalsfallintothelowestbandofupto30,000peryear.However,26.2percentearnmoreandfive
timetheaveragesalaryintheircountry.InSwitzerland,ontheotherhand,nearlyeverycommunicatorisonthesunnysideoftheincome
stream:96.7percentearnmorethan60,000peryear.Communicationprofessionalsarecomparativelywelloffineconomicterms,
althoughtheincomespreadwithinsinglecountriesandacrossEuropeisquitebroad.
Acomparisonofannualsalariesovertimehastoberelatedtohierarchicalpositions.Quiteinterestingly,theportionofcommunica
tion headsandagencyCEOswithanannualincomeover100,000isrelativelystablesince2009(between13.4and18.4percent).Longi
tudinal dataalsoshowsthatthereisastableportionearningthesamewithoutbeingatthetopofthehierarchy(upto4.7percent).This
isanindicatorforbrightcareerperspectivesforspecialistsandmidlevelleaders,notonlyforchiefcommunicationofficers.
Thedatarevealsacleargenderdivide.Salariesreportedbyfemalepractitionersarelowercomparedtomalecommunicators,both
fortoppositionsandotherhierarchicallevels.Thereare23.1percentmalecommunicationheadsandagencyCEOswhomakemorethan
150,000,butonly13.8percentoffemaleleadersinthesamesalaryband.Therearealso30.6percentwomencomparedto20.4per
centmenwhoearnlessthan30,000onthetoplevelofthehierarchy.Bothgapsarelowerthaninpreviousstudies(Zerfassetal.2015:
191).
Again,thedataandtheunderlyingdiscussionaboutagenderpaygapinpublicrelations(Tench &Laville,2014)hastobemirrored
withoveralllabourstatistics.TheseshowthatapaygapissadlyarealityacrossallindustriesinEurope.In2014,womenearned16.1per
centlessthanmenintheEuropeanUnion(EU28)and16.5percentintheEuroarea(EA18).However,thegenderpaygapvaried
strongly.ItwasrelativelylowinSlovenia(2.9percent),Italy(6.5percent)andPoland(7.7percent),butquitehighin Austria(22.9per
cent),Germany(21.6percent)andSpain(18.8percent),tonamejustafewexamples(EUROSTAT2016b).Thisshouldbetakeninto
accountwheninterpretingtheempiricalinsightsofthisstudyforcommunicationprofessionals.
Generally,jointstockandprivatecompaniespaybetterthannonprofitandgovernmentalorganisations.Mostrespondents
reportingalowannualincomeworkinconsultanciesandagencies.Butagencypeoplearealsowellrepresentedinhighersalarybands.
Thissupportstheclaimthatworkingforaconsultancyisfinanciallylessrewardingfornewcomersandmidlevelprofessionals,butonthe
positivesidehigherranksoftengetveryattractivecompensationpackages.
99
BasicannualsalaryofcommunicationpractitionersinEurope2016
1.8% >300.000
200,001 300,000,2.9%
150,001 200,000,4.9% upto30,000,
20.9%
125,001 150,000,4.8%
100,001 125,000,
8.3%
90,001 100,000,
5.3% 30,001 40,000,
12.1%
80,001 90,000,
5.1%
70,001 80,000,
6.3% 40,001 50,000,
11.4%
60,001 70,000,
7.2% 50,001 60,000,8.8%
100
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,293PRprofessionals.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall?
Developmentofsalariesoftoplevelcommunicators
Basicannual salaries (heads of communication /agency CEOs)
2016 11.4% 20.6% 28.8% 20.8% 18.4%
2015 15.9% 21.1% 30.9% 18.6% 13.4%
2014 12.2% 24.5% 29.6% 18.2% 15.4%
2013 13.3% 20.7% 30.1% 19.8% 16.1%
2012 10.4% 23.9% 29.2% 19.8% 16.7%
2011 11.4% 21.5% 29.5% 19.5% 18.0%
2010 10.3% 23.7% 32.1% 20.1% 13.7%
2009 4.3% 23.4% 35.6% 18.7% 17.9%

Upto30.000 30,001 60,000 60,001 100,000 100,001 150,000 Morethan150,000
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=860headsofcommunicationandagencyCEOs(Q32);Zerfassetal.2015/n=828(Q33);
Zerfassetal.2014/n=966(Q41);Zerfassetal.2013/n=970(Q17);Zerfass etal.2012/n=798(Q39);Zerfass etal.2011/n=887(Q20);Zerfass
etal.2010/n =809(Q19);Zerfassetal.2009/n=951 (Q17).Q: Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall?Resultsmightbe 101
influencedbyvaryingnumbersandregional/hierarchicalbackgroundofrespondentsinannualsurveys.
Salarydevelopmentonotherhierarchicallevels
Basicannual salaries (unit leaders,team members,consultants)
2016 26.7% 39.3% 21.1% 8.5% 4.5%
2015 32.2% 36.4% 21.5% 6.1% 3.8%
2014 29.5% 38.1% 21.6% 7.5% 3.4%
2013 28.6% 33.1% 25.5% 9.2% 3.6%
2012 26.9% 38.6% 23.5% 8.1% 2.9%
2011 29.2% 34.4% 23.0% 9.4% 4.0%
2010 24.8% 38.9% 27.0% 7.5% 1.8%
2009 14.8% 42.7% 28.6% 9.2% 4.7%
Upto30.000 30,001 60,000 60,001 100,000 100,001 150,000 Morethan150,000
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,433PRprofessionalsbelowthetoplevelofthehierarchy(Q32);Zerfassetal.2015/n=1,067
(Q33);Zerfassetal.2014/n=1,428(Q41);Zerfass etal.2013/n=1,287(Q17);Zerfass etal.2012/n=1,013(Q39);Zerfass etal.2011/n=927(Q20);
Zerfassetal.2010/n=879(Q19);Zerfass etal.2009/n=817(Q17).Q: Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall?Resultsmight 102
beinfluencedbyvaryingnumbersandregional/hierarchicalbackgroundofrespondentsinannualsurveys.
Malecommunicatorsearnmorethanfemaleonthesamehierarchicallevel
Femaleheadsofcommunication 14.5% 23.4% 29.7% 18.6% 13.8%
Maleheadsofcommunication 8.2% 17.6% 28.0% 23.1% 23.1%
Otherfemaleprofessionals 30.6% 43.0% 17.8% 5.9%
2.7%
Othermaleprofessionals 20.4% 33.3% 26.4% 12.7% 7.3%
Upto30.000 30,001 60,000 60,001 100,000

100,001 150,000 Morethan150,000
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,293PRprofessionals.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall?
HighlysignificantdifferencesbetweenmaleandfemalePRprofessionals(chisquaretest,p0.01,Cramers V=0.236).Resultsmaybeinfluencedbythe 103
distributionoftypesoforganisationsandcountriesamongbothgenders.
Annualsalariesforcommunicatorsindifferenttypesoforganisation
30%
25%
Jointstockcompanies
Privatecompanies
20%
Governmentalorganisations
Nonprofitorganisations
15% Consultancies&Agencies
10%
5%
0%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,293PRprofessionals.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall? 104
Highlysignificantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.01,Cramr's V=0.142).
AnnualsalariesindifferentEuropeancountries
Germany 5.6% 21.0% 23.8% 28.0% 21.7%

Austria 4.3% 29.8% 38.3% 14.9% 12.8%
Switzerland 2.7% 24.2% 38.3% 34.2%
France 8.2% 44.7% 24.7% 15.3% 7.1%
Belgium 9.4% 41.0% 23.1% 15.4% 11.1%
Netherlands 3.4% 26.3% 41.5% 18.6% 10.2%
UnitedKingdom 4.7% 34.5% 31.8% 13.6% 15.5%
Ireland 6.1% 36.7% 44.9% 8.2% 4.1%
Sweden 46.1% 42.7% 6.7% 3.4%
Norway 18.0% 49.2% 27.9% 4.9%

Finland 62.7% 27.8% 5.6% 2.4%
Spain 18.5% 36.9% 19.7% 14.6% 10.2%

Italy 24.8% 34.8% 16.3% 14.2% 9.9%
Slovenia 42.6% 44.4% 7.4% 3.7% 1.9%
Croatia 62.3% 26.0% 6.5% 2.6% 2.6%
Serbia 75.4% 19.3% 3.5% 1.8%
Poland 48.9% 37.8% 11.1% 2.2%
Romania 73.7% 19.7% 3.9% 2.6%
Ukraine 68.5% 22.2% 3.7% 3.7%
Russia 59.2% 26.5% 6.1% 8.2%
Upto30.000 30,001 60,000 60,001 100,000 100,001 150,000 Morethan150,000
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,001PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasic 105
annualsalaryfall?
AnnualsalariesindifferentEuropeancountriesindetail
Upto 30,001 60,001 100,001 Morethan Upto 30,001 60,001 100,001 Morethan
30.000 60,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 30.000 60,000 100,000 150,000 150,000
Germany 5.6% 21.0% 23.8% 28.0% 21.7% Finland 1.6% 62.7% 27.8% 5.6% 2.4%
Austria 4.3% 29.8% 38.3% 14.9% 12.8% Spain 18.5% 36.9% 19.7% 14.6% 10.2%
Switzerland 0.7% 2.7% 24.2% 38.3% 34.2% Italy 24.8% 34.8% 16.3% 14.2% 9.9%
France 8.2% 44.7% 24.7% 15.3% 7.1% Slovenia 42.6% 44.4% 7.4% 3.7% 1.9%
Belgium 9.4% 41.0% 23.1% 15.4% 11.1% Croatia 62.3% 26.0% 6.5% 2.6% 2.6%
Netherlands 3.4% 26.3% 41.5% 18.6% 10.2% Serbia 75.4% 19.3% 3.5% 1.8%
UnitedKingdom 4.7% 34.5% 31.8% 13.6% 15.5% Poland 48.9% 37.8% 11.1% 2.2%
Ireland 6.1% 36.7% 44.9% 8.2% 4.1% Romania 73.7% 19.7% 3.9% 2.6%
Sweden 1.1% 46.1% 42.7% 6.7% 3,3% Ukraine 68.5% 22.2% 3.7% 1.9% 3.7%
Norway 18.0% 49.2% 27.9% 4.9% Russia 59.2% 26.5% 6.1% 8.2%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,001PRprofessionalsfrom20countries.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasic 106
annualsalaryfall?
EACDmembersenjoyacomparativelyhighannualsalary
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
EACDmembers Othercommunicationprofessionals
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,293PRprofessionals.Q32:Inwhichofthefollowingbandsdoesyourbasicannualsalaryfall? 107
Q30:Areyouamemberofaprofessionalorganisation?
Characteristicsof
excellent communication
departments
Chapteroverview
Companiesandotherorganisations arecontinuouslyforcedtoimprovetheirperformance.Wellestablishedapproachestomasterthis
challengearequalitymanagement,processreengineeringandbusinessexcellencemodels.Excellencecanbedefinedasanoutstanding
practiceinmanagingtheorganizationandachievingresults(MartinCastilla &RodriguezRuiz,2008:136).Organisations trytoidentify
characteristicsofexcellence,benchmarktheirownperformancealongthesedimensions,andfocusonweakpointstoimproveandout
perform.Inpublicrelationsscholarship,excellenceisoftenderivedfromthestaticExcellenceTheorybyGrunig andcolleagues,which
postulatesnormativelythatcommunicationmanagementismostvaluablewhenitismanagerial,strategic,symmetrical,diverse,integrated,
sociallyresponsible,ethicalandglobal(Grunig etal.,2002;Kimetal.,2013).Inmanagementtheoryandpractice,however,excellenceis
mostlyconceptualised asadynamicmodelforselfassessmentagainstaprovidedframework.Onthelevelofgeneralmanagement,many
businessexcellencemodelshavebeendevelopedandareinusearoundtheglobe(Dahlgaard etal.,2013;DahlgaardPark&Dahlgaard,
2007).TheCommunicationMonitorresearchserieshasadoptedthisapproachforthefunctionallevelofstrategiccommunicationand
publicrelations(Veri &Zerfass,2015).
Inthecomparativeexcellenceframework(CEF),theoreticalconsiderationsarecombinedwithselfassessmentsofcommunication
professionalsandstatisticalanalysestoidentifythecharacteristicswhichmakeadifference.Excellenceisbasedontheinternalstanding
ofthecommunicationdepartmentwithintheorganisation (influence)andexternalresultsofthecommunicationdepartmentsactivities
aswellasitsbasicqualifications(performance).Eachofthesetwocomponentswerecalculatedonthebasisoffourdimensions(seepage
104).Onlyorganisations clearlyoutperforminginalldimensionsareconsideredasexcellent.Theportionofexcellentdepartmentsidentified
was20.0percentintheECM2016.ThisconfirmsresultsofpreviouscommunicationmonitorstudiesinEurope,LatinAmericaandAsia
Pacific,wheretheexcellencefractionliesbetween19.8and24.4percent(Zerfassetal.,2014:135;Zerfassetal.,2015:109;Morenoetal.,
2015:99;Macnamara etal.,2015:77).
TheECM2016showsthatexcellentcommunicationdepartmentshaveimplementedbigdataactivitiessignificantlymoreoften.One
thirdofthemalsoconsultsinternalclientsandcolleaguesaboutthetopic.Bigdataanalyticsareusedforthesamepurposesasinother
departments,butmoreintensively.Socialmediainfluencersareregardedasmoreimportantandspecificmeasurestodealwith themare
availabletoahigherdegree.Excellentdepartmentsarealsobetteralignedtothetopmanagement.Professionalsworkingtherespendless
timeforoperationalwork.Theyputmoreeffortoncoachingandconsultingothermembersoftheorganisation withahighlysignificant
focusonadvisingandenablingtopexecutives.
Thisislinkedtoahigherlevelofstaffcompetencies.Excellentdepartmentsemploycommunicatorswithstrongermanagementskills.
Theyarenotablybetterinstrategicpositioningandmanagingrelationships,informationandhumanresources.Moreover,theaverageself
assessmentoftheirsocialmediacompetenciesispositiveforalldimensionsexceptforunderstandingtheuseofalgorithms.Thesedepart
ments aredistinguishablebytheirinvestmentinpersonneldevelopment.Organisations withexcellentcommunicationdepartmentsoffer
muchmoretraininginthetechnical,business,managementandcommunicationrealm.Theyalsofocusonconveyingknowledgeand not
merelyontrainingskills.
109
Identifyingexcellentcommunicationdepartments
Statisticalanalysesareusedtoidentifyexcellentorganisations,basedon
benchmarkingapproachesandselfassessmentsknownfromqualitymanagement
EXCELLENCE
Communicationdepartmentsinorganisationswhichoutperformothersinthefield
INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE
Internalstandingofthecommunicationdepartment Externalresultsofthecommunicationdepartments
withintheorganisation activitiesanditsbasicqualifications
ADVISORYINFLUENCE EXECUTIVEINFLUENCE SUCCESS COMPETENCE

(Q21) (Q22) (Q23) (Q24)
Seniormanagerstake Communicationwill(very)likely Thecommunicationofthe Thequalityandabilityofthe
recommendationsofthe beinvitedtoseniorlevel organisationingeneralis communicationfunctionis(much)
communicationfunction meetingsdealingwith (very)successful bettercomparedtothoseof
(very)seriously organisationalstrategicplanning competingorganisations
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/Onlyorganisationsoutperforminginallfourdimensions(scalepoints67ona7pointscale)willbe 110
consideredasexcellentinthebenchmarkexercisecomparingdistributionandcharacteristicsoforganisations,departmentsand communicators.
Excellentcommunicationdepartments
Advisoryinfluence
4.0% 6.8% 11.8% 20.4% 32.8% 22.9% Excellent
1.2% communication
Notseriouslyatall(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Veryseriously(7) departments
20.0%
Executiveinfluence
6.5% 5.6% 10.0% 19.6% 32.1% 23.4%
2.4%
Never(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Always(7)
Success Other
communication
3.3% 7.7% 15.2% 33.8% 30.5% 8.5% departments
1.0%
Notsuccessfulatall(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Verysuccessful(7) 80.0%
Competence
3.1% 7.4% 16.8% 28.8% 31.6% 11.2%
1.0%
Muchworse(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Muchbetter(7)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PRprofessionalsincommunicationdepartments.Advisoryinfluence,Q21:Inyourorganisation,
howseriouslydoseniormanagerstaketherecommendationsofthecommunicationfunction? Executiveinfluence,Q22:How likelyisitthatcommunication
wouldbeinvitedtoseniorlevelmeetingsdealingwithorganisationalstrategicplanning?Success, Q23:Inyouropinion,howsuccessfulisthecommunicationof
yourorganisationingeneral?Competence,Q24:Howwouldyouestimatethequalityandabilityofthecommunicationfunctioninyourorganisationcompared 111
tothoseofcompetitors?Scale17(wordingseeabove).Percentages:Excellentcommunicationfunctionsbasedonscalepoints67foreachquestion.
Influentialcommunicationdepartments:
Jointstockcompaniesareleadingthefield
47.8%
Jointstock
companies
52.2%
39.3%
Private
companies
60.7%
42.5%
Governmental
organisations
57.5%
42.5%
Nonprofit
organisations
57.5%
Influentialcommunicationdepartments Othercommunicationdepartments
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PRprofessionalsincommunicationdepartments.Advisoryinfluence,Q21:Inyour
organisation,howseriouslydoseniormanagerstaketherecommendationsofthecommunicationfunction? Scale1(notseriously)7(veryseriously).
Executiveinfluence,Q22:Howlikelyisitthatcommunicationwouldbeinvitedtoseniorlevelmeetingsdealingwithorganisationalstrategicplanning? 112
Scale1(never)7(always).Percentages:Influentialcommunicationfunctions,basedonscalepoints67.
Successfulcommunicationdepartments:higherpercentageidentified
injointstockcompaniesandnonprofits
Jointstockcompanies Privatecompanies
57.1% 61.5%
42.9% 38.5%
Successful
communication
departments
Governmental organisations Nonprofitorganisations
Others
34.6% 65.4% 63.4%

41.6%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n= 1,504PR professionalsincommunicationdepartments. Q23:Inyouropinion,howsuccessfulisthe 113

communicationofyourorganisationingeneral?Percentages:Successfulorganisationalcommunicationbasedonscalepoints67.
Competenceofcommunicationdepartments:nonprofitsarelaggingbehind
43.3%
Jointstockcompanies
56.7%
43.0%
Privatecompanies
57.0%
43.7%
Governmentalorganisations
56.3%
38.8%
Nonprofitorganisations
61.2%
Competentcommunicationdepartments Othercommunicationdepartments
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PR professionalsincommunicationdepartments. Q24:Howwouldyouestimatethequality

andabilityofthecommunicationfunctioninyourorganisationcomparedtothoseofcompetitors?Percentages:Competentcommunicationfunctionsbased 114
on scalepoints67.
Excellentcommunicationfunctionsindifferenttypesoforganisations
Jointstockcompanies 22.9% 77.1%
Privatecompanies 19.3% 80.7%
Governmental
16.9% 83.1%
organisations
Nonprofitorganisations 19.4% 80.6%
Excellentcommunicationdepartments Othercommunicationdepartments
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PRprofessionalsincommunicationdepartmentsacrossEurope.Excellencebasedon 115
advisoryandexecutiveinfluenceofthecommunicationdepartmentwithintheorganisationanditsperformance(successandcompetence);seepage110.
Excellentcommunicationdepartmentsarebetteralignedtotheexecutiveboard
Excellentcommunication
39.5% 54.5% 6.0%
departments
Othercommunication
23.4% 58.4% 18.2%
departments
Thetopcommunication manager /chief communication officer ...

isamemberoftheexecutiveboard(stronglyaligned)
reportsdirectlytotheCEOorhighestdecisionmakerontheexecutiveboard(aligned)
doesnotreportdirectlytotheCEOorhighestdecisionmaker(weaklyaligned)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n= 1,504PR professionalsincommunicationdepartmentsacrossEurope. Q20:Withinyour

organisation,thetopcommunicationmanagerorchiefcommunicationofficerisamemberoftheexecutiveboard(stronglyaligned)/reportsdirectly
totheCEOorhighestdecisionmakerontheexecutiveboard(aligned)/doesnotreportdirectlytotheCEOorhighestdecisionmaker(weaklyaligned). 116
Highlysignificantdifferences(Kendallrankcorrelation,p0.01,=0.169).
Excellentcommunicationdepartmentsareforerunnersinbigdata
My communication department
30.5%
hasimplementedsuchbigdataactivities**
18.7%
departments
19.9%
planstostartsuchbigdataactivitiesuntiltheendof2017 Othercommunication
18.6% departments
30.9%
isnotconductingsuchbigdataactivities**
49.0%
29.4%
consults(internal)clientsandcolleaguesinthefieldofbig
data**
19.9%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,391PR professionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments. Q3:Bigdataismostly

describedashugevolumesandstreamsofdifferentformsofdatafromdiversesources(externalandinternal)andtheirconstantprocessing,which
providenewinsights.Takingintoaccountthisdefinition,mycommunicationdepartment/agency...Percentagesbasedonagreementtoeachitem. 117
**Highlysignificantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.01).
Excellentcommunicationdepartmentsaremoreengagedinbigdata
mostofthemarebothattentiveandknowledgeable
55.5% 16.6% 21.9% 6.0%
departments
Othercommunication
53.9% 25.9% 14.0% 6.2%
departments
Informed Bystanders Pretenders Clueless
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =1,504PR professionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1

(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata,rangingfromnoattentionatalltocloseattention)andQ2(knowledgeaboutbigdatadefinitions)identified 118
fourdifferentgroupsofrespondents. Highly significantdifferences(chisquaretest,p0.01,Cramer'sV=0.110).
Bigdataanalyticsareusedmoreintensivelyinexcellentdepartments
Weanalysebigdata to
planoverallstrategies** 3.34 3.88
Weanalysebigdata
3.17 3.70
tojustifyactivities**
Weanalysebigdatato
2.85 3.38
guidedaytodayactions**
(1)Never (3) Always (5)
Othercommunicationdepartments Excellentcommunicationdepartments
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,013PR professionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments. Q4:Howdoesyourdepartment 119

oragencyusebigdataanalytics?Meanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Socialmediainfluencersandstrategiesfordealingwiththemaremorerelevant
inexcellentdepartments
SMIsare important for our strategic

communication activities ** 3.31 3.70
We use specific strategies to 2.77 3.45

communicate with SMIs**
We have aspecific approach 2.65 3.37

to identify SMIs**
(1)Strongly disagree (3) Totally agree (5)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PRprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Q13:Socialmediainfluencers
(SMIs)representnewtypesofindependentthirdpartyendorserswhoshapeaudienceattitudesthroughblogs,tweets,andtheuseofothersocialmedia.
Pleaseratethefollowingstatements,thinkingofyourorganisation/agency.Scale1(Stronglydisagree) 5(Totallyagree).**Highlysignificantdifferences 120
Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Practitionersworkinginexcellentdepartmentarebetterqualifiedinthefield
ofsocialmedia
Delivering messages viasocial media ** 3.68 3.89
Knowing about social media trends ** 3.46 3.78
Knowing how to avoid risks and handlecrises onsocial media ** 3.39 3.74
Developing social media strategies ** 3.32 3.70
Evaluating social media activities ** 3.35 3.58
Identifying social media influencers ** 3.14 3.49
Interpreting social media monitoring data ** 3.11 3.52
Managingonline communities ** 3.13 3.36
Settingup social media platforms ** 3.07 3.47
Initiating webbased dialogues with stakeholders ** 2.93 3.31
Knowing the legalframework for social media ** 2.95 3.22
Understandingthe use ofalgorithms ** 2.53 2.87

(1)Very low (3) Very high(5)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,484PRprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Q15:Howwouldyourateyour 121

personalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Excellentdepartmentsemploycommunicatorswithstrongermanagementskills
Planactivities ** 4.13 4.29
Strategicpositioning ** 3.97 4.33
Managerelationships ** 3.93 4.28
Leadpeople and groups ** 3.92 4.15
Manageinformation ** 3.76 4.07
Managehumanresources ** 3.57 3.92
Establish structures and processes ** 3.56 3.75
Control ** 3.54 3.78
Managefinancial resources ** 3.46 3.69

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,443PRprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Q16:Howwouldyourateyour 122

personalcapabilitiesinthefollowingareas?Scale1(Verylow) 5(Veryhigh).Meanvalues.**Highly significant differences (Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Communicationprofessionalsinexcellentdepartmentsspendlesstimefor
operationalworkandputmoreeffortonstrategictasks
34.2% 28.1% 19.9% 17.8%
departments
Othercommunication
37.9% 28.4% 17.9% 15.9%
departments
Operationalcommunication
Aligningcommunication,theorganisation/clientanditsstakeholders
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=1,504PRprofessionals workingincommunicationdepartments.Q7:Pleasethinkabouthowyou
spendmostofyourtimeatwork.Pleasedivideyourproductivetimespentatwork(valuesshouldaddupto100%).Inatypicalweek,Ispendthefollowing 123
amountoftimewithFiguredisplaysmedianforeachitem;valueshavebeenroundedbasedonmeanvalues.
Professionalsinexcellentdepartmentsfocusonsupportingtopmanagement
Supporttopexecutive(s)/senior manager(s)by providing

3.87 4.21
information/insights for their decisions and activities **
Advise topexecutive(s)/senior manager(s)how to
3.76 4.16
handlespecific communicative challenges **
Advise other staff how to handle

3.78 3.87
specific communicative challenges
Supportother staff by providing information/

3.71 3.84
insights for their decisions and activities
Enable topexecutive(s)/senior manager(s)to recognise the

3.59 3.96
communicative dimension oftheir decisions and activities **
Enable other staff to recognise the communicative

3.58 3.70
dimension of their decisions and activities
Enable other staff to master communicative

3.39 3.52
challenges ontheir own
Enable topexecutive(s)/senior manager(s)to master
communicative challenges ontheir own ** 3.23 3.60
(1)Not at all (3) Very often (5)
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,066PR professionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments. Q8:Whenyoucoach,advise

orenableexecutives/seniormanagersorothermembersofyourorganisation/client,howoftendoyoupracticethefollowingactivities?Scale1(Notatall) 124
5(Veryoften).**Highlysignificantdifferences(Pearsoncorrelation,p0.01).
Excellentorganisationsinvestsignificantlymoreinpersonneldevelopment
Trainingoffered/facilitated by organisations to develop ...
16.0%
Technicalknowledge** Excellentcommunicationdepartments
6.9%
Othercommunicationdepartments
18.7%
Technicalskills**
10.8%
25.0%
Businessknowledge**
15.2%
27.9%
Businessskills**
17.2%
23.0%
Managementknowledge**
11.8%
34.8%
Managementskills*
28.7%
23.9%
Communicationknowledge**
15.3%
36.2%
Communicationskills**
26.6%
www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,431PRprofessionalsworkingincommunicationdepartments.Q17:Thinkingofyourself,
yourcurrentcapabilitiesandyourfuturedevelopment,whichofthefollowingskillsandknowledgeareasdoyoubelieveareinneedofdeveloping? 125
Myorganisationoffers/facilitatestraining.*Significantdifferences(Chisquaretest,p0.05).**Highlysignificantdifferences(Chisquaretest,p0.01).
References
Berger,B.K.,&Meng,J.(Eds.)(2014).Publicrelationsleadersassensemakers.Aglobalstudyofleadershipinpublicrelationsandcommunication
management.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Bernays,E.(1923).Crystallizingpublicopinion.NewYork,NY:Boni andLiveright.
Booth,N.,&Matic,J.A.(2011).Mappingandleveraginginfluencersinsocialmediatoshapecorporatebrandperceptions.CorporateCommunications:
AnInternationalJournal,16(3),184191.
Chen,H.,Chiang,R.H.L.,&Storey,V.C.(2012).Businessintelligenceandanalytics:frombigdatatobigimpact.MISQuarterly,36(4),11651188.
Christensen,L.T.(1997).Marketingasautocommunication.Consumption,Markets&Culture,1(3),197227.
Collister,S.(2015).Algorithmicpublicrelations:Materiality,technologyandpowerinaposthegemonicworld.InJ.L'Etang,D.McKie,N.Snow&J.Xifra
(Eds.),TheRoutledge HandbookofCriticalPublicRelations(pp.360371).NewYork,NY:Routledge.
ColumbiaEncyclopedia (2016).Europe.Retrievedfromhttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1Europe.html[15.06.2016].
Dahlgaard,J.J.,Chen,C.K.,Banegas,L.A.,&DahlgaardPark,S.M.(2013).Businessexcellencemodels:limitations,reflectionsandfurtherdevelopment.
TotalQualityManagement,24(5),519538.
DahlgaardPark,S.M.,&Dahlgaard,J.J.(2007).Excellence 25yearsevolution.JournalofManagementHistory,13(4),371393.
EuropeanUnion(2016).AbouttheEU:Countries.Retrievedfromhttp://europa.eu/abouteu/countries[15.06.2016].
EUROSTAT(2016a).Averagegrossannualearningsinindustryandservices,bysex[Code:tps00175].Retrievedfrom
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00175.
EUROSTAT(2016b).Genderpaygapinunadjustedform[Code:tsdsc340].
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdsc340.
Freberg,K.,Graham,K.,McGaughey,K.,&Freberg,L.A.(2011).Whoarethesocialmediainfluencers?Astudyofpublicperceptionsofpersonality.
PublicRelationsReview,37(1),9092.
Gandomi,A.,&Haider,M.(2015).Beyondthehype:Bigdataconcepts,methods,andanalytics.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,35(2),137
144.
Gilin,P.(2008).Newmedia,newinfluencersandimplicationsforthepublicrelationsprofession.JournalofNewCommunicationsResearch,2(2),110.
Greve,G.(2015).Socialmediaperformancemeasurement.InT.Tsiakis (Ed.),Trendsandinnovationsinmarketinginformationsystems(pp.214235).
Hershey,PA:ICIGlobal.
Grunig,L.,Grunig,J.,&Dozier,D.(2002).Excellentpublicrelationsandeffectiveorganizations:Astudyofcommunicationmanagementinthreecountries.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Gudivada,V.N.,Rao,D.,&Paris,J.(2015).Understandingsearchengineoptimization.Computer,48(10),4352.
Hallahan,K.,Holtzhausen,D.,vanRuler,B.,Veric,D.,&Sriramesh,K.(2007). Definingstrategiccommunication.InternationalJournalofStrategic
Communication,1(1),335.
Kang,M.(2014).Understandingpublicengagement:Conceptualizingandmeasuringitsinfluenceonsupportivebehavioral intentions.JournalofPublic
RelationsResearch,26(5),399416.
126
References
Katz,E.,&Lazarsfeld,P.F.(1955).Personalinfluence:Thepartplayedbypeopleintheflowofmasscommunications. NewYork,NY:TheFreePress.
Kim,J.N.,HungBaesecke,C.F.,Yang,S.U.,&Grunig,J.E.(2013).Astrategicmanagementapproachtoreputation,relationships,andpublics:Theresearch
heritageoftheExcellencetheory.InC.E.Caroll (Ed.),TheHandbookofCommunicationandCorporateReputation (pp.197212).Chichester,UK:
WileyBlackwell.
Loebbecke,C.,&Picot,A.(2015).Reflectionsonsocietalandbusinessmodeltransformationarisingfromdigitizationandbigdataanalytics:Aresearch
agenda.TheJournalofStrategicInformationSystems,24(3),149157.
Macnamara,J.(2016).Organizationallistening:Themissingessentialinpubliccommunication.NewYork,NY:PeterLang.
Macnamara,J.,Lwin,M.O.,Adi,A.,&Zerfass,A.(2015).AsiaPacificCommunicationMonitor2015/16.Thestateofstrategiccommunicationandpublic
relationsinaregionofrapidgrowth.Surveyresultsfrom23countries.HongKong:APACD.
Markov,A.A.(1954).Theoryofalgorithms[TranslatedbyJacquesJ.SchorrKon andPSTstaff].Moscow:AcademyofSciencesoftheUSSR.
MayerSchnberger,V.,&Cukier,K.(2013).BigData:Arevolutionthatwilltransformhowwelive,workandthink.Boston,MA&NewYork,NY:Houghton
MifflinHarcourt.
MartnCastilla,J.I.,&RodrguezRuiz,.(2008).EFQMmodel:knowledgegovernanceandcompetitiveadvantage.JournalofIntellectualCapital9(1),133
156.
Mazzei,A.(2014).Internalcommunicationforemployeeenablement.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal,19(1),8295.
Moreno,A.,Molleda,J.C.,Athaydes,A.,&Surez,A.M.(2015).LatinAmericanCommunicationMonitor2015.Excelencia encomunicacin estratgica,
trabajo enlaeradigital,socialmediayprofesionalizacin.Resultados deuna encuesta en18pases. Brussels:EUPRERA.
Motion,J.,Heath,R.L.,&Leitch,S.(2016).Socialmediaandpublicrelations:Fakefriendsandpowerfulpublics.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Nothhaft,H.(2010).Communicationmanagementasasecondordermanagementfunction:Rolesandfunctionsofthecommunicationexecutive results
fromashadowingstudy.JournalofCommunicationManagement,14(2),127140.
Pang,A.,Tan,E.Y.,Lim,R.S.,Kwan,T.Y.,&Lakhanpal,P.B.(2016).BuildingeffectiverelationswithsocialmediainfluencersinSingapore.MediaAsia,
43(1),5668.
Phillips,D.(2015).Theautomationofpublicrelations:Aperspectiveonthedevelopmentofautomationaffectingpublicrelations. Woodbridge,UK:BLURB.
Rogers,E.M.,&Cartano,D.G.(1962).Methodsofmeasuringopinionleadership.PublicOpinionQuarterly,26(2),435441.
Schroeck,M.,Shockley,R.,Smart,J.,RomeroMorales,D.,&Tufano,P.(2012).Analytics:Therealworlduseofbigdata.Howinnovativeenterprises
extractvaluefromuncertaindata. Retrievedfromhttps://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/global/files/se__sv_se__intelligence__Analytics__The_
realworld_use_of_big_data.pdf[15.06.2016]. Stevens,G.W.(2013).Acriticalreviewofthescienceandpracticeofcompetencymodelling.
HumanResourceDevelopmentReview,12(1),86107.
Stone,H.S.(1972).Introductiontocomputerorganizationanddatastructures. NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.
Taylor,M.,&Kent,M.L.(2014).Dialogicengagement:Clarifyingfoundationalconcepts.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,26(5),384398.
Tench,R.&Laville,L.(2014). Roleofthepublicrelationspractitioner.InR.Tench &L.Yeomans,ExploringPublicRelations (3rd.ed.,pp.83120).
Harlow:FTPearson.
127
References
Tench,R.,&Moreno,A.(2015).MappingcommunicationmanagementcompetenciesforEuropeanpractitioners.JournalofCommunicationManagement,
19(1),3961.
Tench,R.,Sun,W.,&Jones,B.(Eds.)(2014). Communicatingcorporatesocialresponsibility:Perspectivesandpractice.Bingley:Emerald.
Tench,R.,Zerfass,A.,Verhoeven,P.,Veri,D.,Moreno,A.,&Okay,A.(2013). CommunicationmanagementcompetenciesforEuropeanpractitioners.Leeds:
LeedsMetropolitanUniversity.
Tufekci,Z.(2014).Engineeringthepublic:Bigdata,surveillanceandcomputationalpolitics.FirstMonday,19(7),116.
VanRuler,B.,&Veri,D.(2005).Reflectivecommunicationmanagement,futurewaysorpublicrelationsresearch.InP.K.Kalbfleisch (Ed.),Communication
Yearbook29(pp.239273).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Veri,D.,&Zerfass,A.(2015).Thecomparativeexcellenceframeworkforcommunicationmanagement.Paperpresentedatthe2015AnnualConferenceof
theEuropeanPublicRelationsEducationandResearchAssociation(EUPRERA),Oslo,October2015.
Weiner,M.,&Kochhar,S.(2016).Irreversible:Thepublicrelationsbigdatarevolution[IPRWhitepaper].Gainesville,FL:InstituteforPublicRelations.
Zerfass,A.,&Franke,N.(2013).Enabling,advising,supporting,executing:Atheoreticalframeworkforinternalcommunicationconsultingwithinorganizations.
InternationalJournalofStrategicCommunication,7(2),118135.
Zerfass,A.,Moreno,A.,Tench,R.,Veri,D.,&Verhoeven,P.(2008).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2008.Trendsincommunicationmanagementand
publicrelations Resultsandimplications. Leipzig:UniversityofLeipzig/EUPRERA.
Zerfass,A.,Moreno,A.,Tench,R.,Veri,D.,&Verhoeven,P.(2009). EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2009.Trendsincommunicationmanagementand
publicrelations.Resultsofasurveyin34countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,HeliosMedia.
Zerfass,A.,Moreno,A.,Tench,R.,Veri,D.,&Verhoeven,P.(2013).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2013.Achanginglandscape managingcrises,digital
communicationandCEOpositioninginEurope.Resultsofasurveyin43countries. Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,HeliosMedia.
Zerfass,A.,Tench,R.,Veri,D.,Verhoeven,P.,&Moreno,A.(2014).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2014.Excellenceinstrategiccommunication Key
issues,leadership,genderandmobilemedia.Resultsofasurveyin42countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,HeliosMedia.
Zerfass,A.,Tench,R.,Verhoeven,P.,Veri,D.,&Moreno,A.(2010). EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2010.Statusquoandchallengesforpublicrelationsin
Europe.Resultsofanempiricalsurveyin46countries.Brussels:EACD,EUPRERA.
Zerfass,A.,VanRuler,B.,Rogojinaru,A.,Veri,D.,&Hamrefors,S.(2007).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2007.Trendsincommunicationmanagement
andpublicrelations Resultsandimplications.Leipzig:UniversityofLeipzig/EUPRERA.
Zerfass,A.,Veri,D.,Verhoeven,P.,Moreno,A.,&Tench,R.(2012).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2012.Challengesandcompetenciesforstrategic
communication.Resultsofanempiricalsurveyin42Countries. Brussels:EACD,EUPRERA.
Zerfass,A.,Veri,D.,Verhoeven,P.,Moreno,A.,&Tench,R.(2015).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2015.Creatingcommunicationvaluethrough
listening,messagingandmeasurement.Resultsofasurveyin41countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,HeliosMedia.
Zerfass,A.,Verhoeven,P.,Tench,R.,Moreno,A.,&Veri,D.(2011).EuropeanCommunicationMonitor2011.Empiricalinsightsintostrategiccommunication
inEurope.Resultsofanempiricalsurveyin43Countries.Brussels:EACD,EUPRERA.
Zerfass,A.,&Viertmann,C.(2016).Multiplevoicesincorporationsandthechallengeforstrategiccommunication.In:K.Alm,M.Brown&S.Ryseng (Eds.),
Kommunikasjon og ytringsfrihet i organisasjoner (pp.4463).Oslo,NO:Cappelen Damm.
128
Surveyorganisers
EuropeanPublicRelationsEducation EuropeanAssociationof CommunicationDirector

andResearchAssociation(EUPRERA) CommunicationDirectors(EACD)
TheEuropeanPublicRelationsEducation TheEACDistheleadingnetworkfor CommunicationDirectorisa
andResearchAssociation(EUPRERA)is communicationprofessionalsacross quarterlyinternationalmagazinefor
anautonomousorganisation withnearly Europewithmorethan 2,300members. CorporateCommunicationsand
500membersfrom40countriesinterest Itbringsinhousecommunication PublicRelations.Itdocuments
ed inadvancingacademicresearchand expertstogethertoexchangeideasand opinionsonstrategicquestions in
knowledgeinstrategiccommunication. discussthelatesttrendsininternational communication,highlights
Severalcrossnationalandcomparative PR.ThroughWorkingGroupsonspecific transnationaldevelopments and
researchandeducationprojectsare communicationstopicsanddiverse discussesthemfrom aninternational
organised byaffiliateduniversities,anda publications,theEACDfostersongoing perspective.Themagazineis
highlyregardedacademiccongressis professionalqualificationandpromotes publishedbyHeliosMedia,a
stagedeachautumnatvaryinglocations. thereputationoftheprofession. specialistpublishinghousebasedin
www.euprera.org www.eacdonline.eu BerlinandBrussels.
www.communicationdirector.eu
129
analyse
Partner
PRIMEResearchisagloballeaderformediainsights,makingadifferenceat
over500companiesandbrandsaroundtheworld.Over500specialistsand
consultantsineightresearchandnewscentersaroundtheglobeconstantly
monitor,analyse andprovideguidanceoncommunicationandbusinesstrends
inmorethan50markets.
www.primeresearch.com
131
Nationalcontacts
EUPRERA Researchcollaborators
Pleasecontacttheuniversities listed hereforpresentations,insightsoradditionalanalysesinkeycountries.
Austria Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfass UniversityofLeipzig zerfass@unileipzig.de
Belgium Prof.Dr.AndreaCatellani UniversitCatholiquedeLouvain andrea.catellani@uclouvain.be
Bulgaria Prof.Dr.MilkoPetrov SofiaUniversitySt.Kliment Ohridski milko_petrov@yahoo.com
Croatia Prof.Dr.DejanVeri UniversityofLjubljana dejan.vercic@fdvunilj.si
CzechRepublic Dr.DenisaHejlov CharlesUniversityPrague hejilova@fsv.cuni.cz
Denmark Prof.FinnFrandsen AarhusUniversity ff@asb.dk
Finland Prof.Dr.VilmaLuomaaho UniversityofJyvskyl vilma.luomaaho@jvu.fi
France Prof.Dr.ValrieCarayol Universit BordeauxMontaigne valerie.carayol@ubordeaux3.fr
Germany Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfass UniversityofLeipzig zerfass@unileipzig.de
Greece Ass.Prof.Dr.EleniApospori AthensUniversityofEconomicsandBusiness apospori@aueb.gr
Ireland Dr.JohnGallagher DublinInstituteofTechnology john.gallagher@dit.ie
Italy Prof.Dr.EmanueleInvernizzi IULMUniversityMilan emanuele.invernizzi@iulm.it
Netherlands Assoc. Prof.Dr.PietVerhoeven UniversityofAmsterdam p.verhoeven@uva.nl
Norway Prof.Dr.yvindIhlen Universityof Oslo oyvind.ihlen@media.uio.no
Poland Assoc.Prof.Dr.WaldemarRydzak PoznanUniversityofEconomics waldemar.rydzak@ue.poznan.pl
Portugal EvandroOliveira UniversityofMinho,Braga evandro.oliveira@unileipzig.de
Romania Assoc.Prof.Dr.AlexandraCraciun UniversityofBucharest sandra_craciun@yahoo.com
Russia Prof.Dr.LiudmilaMinaeva LomonosovMoscowStateUniversity liudmila.minaeva@gmail.com
Serbia Prof.Dr.DejanVeri UniversityofLjubljana dejan.vercic@fdv.unilj.si
Slovenia Prof.Dr.DejanVeri UniversityofLjubljana dejan.vercic@fdv.unilj.si
Spain Prof.Dr.ngelesMoreno UniversidadReyJuanCarlos,Madrid mariaangeles.moreno@urjc.es
Sweden Prof.Dr.JesperFalkheimer LundUniversity,CampusHelsingborg jesper.falkheimer@ch.lu.se
Switzerland Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfass UniversityofLeipzig zerfass@unileipzig.de
Turkey Prof.Dr.AylaOkay IstanbulUniversity aylaokay@istanbul.edu.tr
UnitedKingdom Prof.RalphTench,Dr. LeedsBeckettUniversity R.Tench@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
EACD RegionalCoordinators
Please contact StefanieSchwerdtfeger,EACD,Brussels,fordetailsaboutEACDcountry representatives stefanie@schwerdtfeger@eacdonline.eu 132
Authors &ResearchTeam
Prof.Dr.AnsgarZerfass|Leadresearcher
Professorand Chair inStrategicCommunication,UniversityofLeipzig,Germany
ProfessorinCommunicationandLeadership,BINorwegianBusinessSchool,Norway
Prof.Dr.PietVerhoeven
Associate ProfessorofCorporateCommunication,UniversityofAmsterdam,Netherlands
Prof.Dr.ngelesMoreno
Professorof PublicRelationsand CommunicationManagement,UniversityReyJuanCarlos,Madrid,Spain
Prof.RalphTench,Dr.
ProfessorofCommunication,LeedsBeckettUniversity,UnitedKingdom
Prof.Dr.DejanVeri
Professorof PublicRelations,Universityof Ljubljana,Slovenia
Statisticalanalysisandassistantresearchers
MarkusWiesenberg M.A.,UniversityofLeipzig,Germany(Senior ProjectManager)
RonnyFechnerM.A.,UniversityofLeipzig,Germany
133
Moreinformation
Alargeselectionofreports,videosandpublicationsbasedontheEuropeanCommunicationMonitor(ECM)
surveysfrom2007onwardsareavailableontheinternet.Relatedsurveysareconductedinotherregionsof
theworld theLatinAmericanCommunicationMonitorandtheAsiaPacificCommunicationMonitor.
Altogether,morethan4,500publicrelationsprofessionalsinmorethan80countriesaresurveyedineach
waveofthislargestandonlytrulyglobalstudyoftheprofessionwithtransparentempiricalstandards.
Visitwww.communicationmonitor.eu forupdatesandlinks.
134

ECM2016-Results-ChartVersion EURO MONITOR COMMUNICATIONS 2016 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ECM2016-Results-ChartVersion EURO MONITOR COMMUNICATIONS 2016 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EUROPEAN

AnsgarZerfass,PietVerhoeven,AngelesMoreno,RalphTench &Dejan Veri

Age,Q26 Academic Positionand Overalljobexperience Typeoforganisation, Q18 Europeancountry,Q31

Other 5.8% Communicationconsultancy, 37.5%

6to 10years 22.9% Alignedcommunicationdepartment 57.6%

Up to 5years 17.3% Weaklyalignedcommunicationdepartment 15.8%

Overall Headof communication, Teamleader, Teammember,

Membershipinaprofessional association Highestacademiceducationalqualification*

EACD 10.6% Doctorate(Ph.D.,Dr.) 6.3%

Otherinternationalcommunication Master(M.A.,M.Sc.,Mag.,M.B.A.),Diploma 62.6%

NorthernEurope WesternEurope EasternEurope SouthernEurope

Denmark Austria Armenia Albania

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PR professionals. Q 1:Bigdataisacommontopicfordiscussiontogetherwiththebroader

Havegiven(close)attention Neutral Havenotgivenattention(atall)

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,710PR professionals. Q 1:Bigdataisacommontopicfordiscussiontogetherwiththebroader

Correct definitions Wrong definitions

highandlowqualitydatafrom customised creationofcontent

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. Q2:Bigdataischaracterised invariousways.Pleasepickalldefinitions

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. Q2:Bigdataischaracterised invariousways.Pleasepickalldefinitions

Scale of data Different

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,505PR professionals. Q3:Bigdataismostlydescribedashugevolumesandstreamsof

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,505PR professionals. Q3:Bigdataismostlydescribedashugevolumesandstreamsof

(1)Never (3) Always (5)

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,687PR professionals. Q5:Inyouropinion,whatarethethree(3)majorchallengesforthe 28

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,687PR professionals. Q5:Inyouropinion,whatarethethree(3)majorchallengesforthe 29

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata, 30

Jointstockcompanies 55.0% 22.7% 18.0% 4.3%

Privatecompanies 55.6% 21.4% 16.3% 6.8%

Governmentalorganisations 52.4% 29.0% 10.4% 8.2%

Nonprofitorganisations 52.3% 23.5% 16.1% 8.0%

Consultancies&Agencies 55.8% 19.3% 19.6% 5.4%

Informed Bystanders Pretenders Clueless

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata, 31

12.2% 11.9% BigdatawillnotchangethePR

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n =2,710PR professionals. ClusteranalysisbasedonQ 1(attentiongiventothedebateonbigdata,

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/n=2,505PR professionals. Q3:Bigdataismostlydescribedashugevolumesandstreamsof

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,298PR professionals. Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsusealgorithmstoselect

Algorithmic tools programmed

Algorithmic tools programmed

Algorithmic tools programmed

(1)Not at allimportant (3) Extremely important (5)

Companies Governmentalorganisations Nonprofitorganisations Consultancies&Agencies

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,081PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsuse

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =2,081PR professionalsfrom20countries.Q6:Searchenginesandsocialmediaplatformsuse

Analysebig data Algorithmictoolsprogrammedforfully

Companies 36.0% 28.4% 19.4% 16.2%

29oryounger 45.1% 23.7% 18.7% 12.5%

3039 38.5% 27.9% 17.9% 15.8%

4049 33.9% 29.0% 18.7% 18.3%

5059 30.9% 28.9% 20.2% 20.1%

60orolder 32.2% 25.5% 22.0% 20.3%

Female 38.1% 27.6% 17.7% 16.6%

Male 33.5% 28.1% 20.4% 18.0%

Overallcommunication 38.8% 27.8% 17.4% 16.0%

Onlinecommunication 42.3% 25.7% 16.6% 15.4%

Mediarelations 46.9% 24.5% 15.5% 13.2%

Germany 31.2% 27.6% 21.4% 19.8%

Coaching,advising or enabling executives/senior managers

Coaching,advising or enabling other staff

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,907PR professionalswhospendatleast10%oftheirtimeforcoaching,training,consulting

Jointstockcompanies Privatecompanies Governmentalorganisations Nonprofitorganisations Consultancies&Agencies

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,907PR professionalswhospendatleast10%oftheirtimeforcoaching,training,consulting

www.communicationmonitor.eu/Zerfassetal.2016/nmin =1,637PR professionalswhoworkatleast10%incoaching,training,consultingandenabling.