Revisiting Marketing Public Relations Dynamics in the Perspective of Communication
Abstract
At the very beginning, the Marketing Public Relations (MPR) concept was introduced to balance the role of marketing and public relations within the organization. In the first introduction, MPR is defined as the process started from planning and evaluating programs that aim to stimulate consumer buying and consumer satisfaction by creating shared value between brand and consumer by disseminating credible and trusted information. However, there is ongoing debate toward the MPR concept either as a new concept or merely a window dressing. The limitation of the discussion still mainly focuses on the competition of marketing and public relations disciplines, which argues whether MPR is supposed to be part of its discipline or even evolved into a new domain. An overtime discussion toward this issue creates a big question toward the further development of the MPR concept. In addition, the changing landscape of media and information technology significantly changes the face of marketing communication practices, including MPR. This article aims to broaden the MPR concept by exploring the framework through the scientific literature. Scoping review method is used to identify key concepts of the research area, which involves a systematic search of the previous studies about MPR. The process of scoping review is ongoing; hence the result cannot be conveyed yet. The inadequate literature of MPR as a specific issue indicates that studies need to be encouraged to enrich strategic communication studies.
Keywords: Marketing public relations, communication, scope review
Introduction
In practice, marketing communications and public relations have a long history. At one point, the debate over the integration of the two becomes inevitable. On the one hand, integrated marketing communication places public relations or publicity into a small part. Meanwhile, the public relations scholars expressed their opinions on their crucial position in the communication universe.
Understanding and discussing the relevance of public relations in marketing is underlined because public relations have an essential position in the marketing communication function. At the same time, there are difficulties in measuring the performance of public relations. Public relation is a vital element for the context of increasing the positive image of products and brands. The significance of PR strategy and marketing strategy and PR management carried out concerning effort to provide added value to brands, products, and services.
Conceptually, when viewed as a separate entity, marketing communication plays an increasingly significant role in achieving overall marketing success. In large part, this is due to many organizations developing a relationship-building approach to dealing with customers on a long-term basis (Hughes & Fill, 2007). Marketing has a vision that must be a strategic business concept that can provide sustainable satisfaction for the three main stakeholders: customers, employees, and owners. The marketing mission will be the soul (not just a member of the body) of a company; therefore, everyone in the company will become a marketer. The value of marketing positioning the brand that is more valuable than the product to the customer. Whatever business is run, company owners must think of it as a service business. Everyone in the company must feel involved in the customer satisfaction process, either directly or indirectly, and not just as an executor of the particular function.
Historically, marketing itself has had divisions, from marketing 1.0 to 5.0 (Kotler et al., 2021). Marketing 1.0 was during the industrial age when the core technology was industrial machinery-marketing was about selling the factory output to all who would buy them. Marketing 2.0 came out in today's information age-where the core is information technology. At that age, consumers are well informed and can easily compare several similar product offerings. Marketing 3.0: values-driven era. Instead of treating people simply as consumers, marketers approach them as whole human beings with minds, hearts, and spirits. Marketing 4.0 develops connectivity on the machine to machine and artificial intelligence concerning productivity and balancing connectivity development human-to-human, strengthening customer engagement. Marketing 5.0 focuses on technology for humanity in which marketers are trying to integrate the evolution of technology and business models to the dramatic shifts in consumer behaviour. In marketing development, there is also a term named new wave that the essence of this new wave is also experienced in the division of public relations, which in its development has further strengthened long-term relationships with customers using internet technology devices.
Public Relations (PR) 2.0 became a part of PR practice to raise awareness, build relations, and manage positive image and brand exposure, one of them with social media. PR 2.0 was inspired by web 1.0 and the new channel for the distribution of information it represented. It created an entirely new set of influencers with a completely different mechanism for collecting and sharing information while also reforming the daily routines of how people searched for news. PR 3.0 is developing the principle of PR 2.0, which highlights the organization's significance to establish relations with the customer. To apply PR 3.0, the organization should initially move on; it was originally just transactional to maximize customer lifetime value and long-term relationship with the customer.
PR field requires a multidisciplinary application becoming one of the basic principles of PR within the organization (Newsom et al., 2013). Add here; marketing communication has become one of them. In contrast to the frequent discussion in the theoretical literature about the subservient relationship between public relations and marketing, in a representative sample of 75 of the 300 largest US corporations Hunter found that public relations and marketing most commonly are separate but equal management partners. Of these corporations, 81% had particular public relations and marketing departments (Hunter, 1997, as cited in Kim et al., 2013). In two-thirds of the cases, the two departments were on the same level, and when one was above the other, public relations was as likely to be above marketing as below (Grunig & Grunig, 1998).
The integration between marketing and public relations is coming on some labels. On the label of value-added public relations, "public relations can account for its growth by its great versatility, its aptitude for drama, and its capacity to break through the information clutter and capture attention and interest' (Harris, 1998). We should examine not whether public relations and marketing should be integrated or merged but how they work together most truthfully in a successful, well-managed organization (Grunig & Grunig, 1998).
Problem Statement
Marketing Public Relations as a form of integration has not been studied much and is still in the debate, while its practice shows increasing urgency. However, in practice, the boundaries between public relations and marketing are blurred (Broom et al., 1991). The role of public relations in management and its value to an organization has been debated for at least 100 years. The debate has centred on whether public relations are to support marketing or whether it serves a broader social and political function (Grunig & Grunig, 1998).
When talking about communications between organizations and their stakeholders or key publics, marketing and public relations have traditionally been two main areas of attention (Cornelissen et al., 2001; Kotler & Mindak, 1978).
Research Questions
The formulation of the problem, which is the core of this paper, developed from the desire to explain the development points of marketing public relations studies seen in the eyes of communication learners from Indonesia. We want to analyze the issues of the study of 9 (nine) important articles on marketing public relations, with the formulation of the problem as follow:
- How is the development of the MPR study that appears in a cited journal? What problems are studied in these various journals?
- What do we know from the literature about how marketing public relations are defined over generations?
Purpose of the Study
The proliferating number of writings on the integration of the public relations and marketing functions look at the closer connection between corporate and marketing communication programs and a closer alignment of communication departments and disciplines within the organization (Gronstedt, 1996b, as cited in Cornelissen et al., 2001; Schultz et al., 1993). Our study aims to determine the data tendency of marketing public relations studies and fill knowledge gaps and future research opportunities.
Research Methods
This study uses a scoping review methodology to map the literature on marketing public relations from a social science perspective. This study aims to identify key concepts, determine published journals on related topics, summarize findings, and recommend further research and practice. Scoping reviews require systematic procedures and focus on broad, inclusive goals rather than the narrow emphasis of systematic reviews or meta-analyses (Levac et al., 2010, as cited in Dunn et al., 2016). Scoping studies are particularly suitable for analyzing a wide range of facts, both quantitative and qualitative, to assess the breadth and depth of research within a given scope of the study.
The scoping review requires at least a stream of steps: identify the research question, identify relevant studies to inform that question, select studies, charting data, collate, summarize, and report findings. This paper uses a structure-based scoping review and a five-step process by Arksey and O'Malley (2005, as cited in Dunn et al., 2016). The first stage is to identify the formulation of the problem, then identify relevant studies to inform the question. The third thing is the process of selecting studies. The fourth requires documenting the data, and the last thing is organizing the data, summarizing, and reporting findings.
At first, we identify the research question: the development of marketing public relations studies. Then we place relevant studies using to identify master studies from the 1970s until the 2020s. The critical concept that we used is marketing public relations, integrated marketing communication, and integrations. The next step is choosing the studies based on the key points. The filter that we applied is selecting manually and removing articles that are not relevant to our criteria, especially marketing public relations on social science. It comes with three core journals and six derivative journals with various publications in 1990-2000, 2001-2010, and 2011-2020.
Findings
The article was retrieved from an application that discovered research literature namely. The electronic searches of the database resulted in 300 potentially relevant records in the context of similar works. After removing duplicates and irrelevant papers, the selection is moving to the choice of titles and abstracts. Our diagram revealed nine (9) papers that we divided into three (3) significant branches of research within the topic of marketing and public relations: (A) Marketing becomes the central concept, (B) Public relations become the main concept, (C) integration.
Chronology/ Context
From the nine journals reviewed in this study, we classify them according to their period of publication. This method of classification enables us to understand the context of problems, situations, and discussions as per the time of publication. The classification is divided into four periods; the 1970s to 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.
The discussion about MPR around the 1970s to 1980s is focused on the introduction of MPR as a new discipline separate from corporate PR and marketing. Kotler and Mindak (1978) started the discussion by describing the relative level of use of PR and marketing in organizations. They classified the organizations into four classes; class one barely uses both functions, class two is the organization that has a well-established PR but no marketing function, class three is the organization that operates strong marketing but weak PR function, and class four is the organization who operate both strong PR and marketing functions. The problem of the confusion in positioning MPR as an academic concept and professional practice lies in the misconceptions about marketing and PR itself, as well as the similarity between them. Both PR and marketing departments are major external functions of the firm and have the role to satisfy the outside groups of organizations so that their perspective is supposed to come from the outside environment. Thus, understanding that the integration and coordination between both functions are important, sometimes the scope of works between them are overlapping.
Entering the 1990s, the growing interest in PR is greatly shown by numbers of organizations (Kitchen & Moss, 2006). The change in perspective and attitudes towards the value of PR was reflected in the rapid growth of the PR industry as organizations started to realize the importance of PR to be able to communicate, explain, and justify their policies to various publics. However, the ambiguous and controversial relationships between PR and marketing are still ongoing. For marketing professionals and academics, they tend to treat PR as a subset of the marketing mix as they view PR as the function to generate publicity to achieve marketing objectives (Kotler, 1991; Kotler & Mindak, 1978). Hence, this view could not be accepted by PR professionals and academics who consider this view tend to ignore the strategic role of PR as they serve a mediating function between the organization and their publics (Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
Moreover, Harris (1991) suggested that MPR emerge as a distinctive new discipline that comprises specialized application PR techniques that support marketing activities, and it should be differentiated from general and corporate PR although they need to maintain close working relationships. This view is then dismissed by most PR professionals and academics as they consider the new market-oriented form of PR as an attempt by marketers to “hijack” an important part of PR function and place it under the control of marketing (Kitchen & Moss, 2006). The rejection of the idea about MPR as a new discipline is claimed as well by Kitchen and Papasolomou (1997) who suspect MPR as a window dressing. They conducted research by distributing questionnaires and interviewed eight CEOs and managing directors from British PR consultancies and found out that for many years UK PR consultancies have been conducting MPR practice even under perhaps different names.
Following the period of the 2000s, the relationship between public relations and marketing had been studied by Cornelissen (2004) that contributed to the empirical-based theory of communication organization in three areas. First, the study explicitly linked mainstream management and communication organization research with contextualizing and evaluating alternative forms of organization and perspective view of communication organization. Next, the development of information processing perspective in communication organization (corporate and marketing) and design, including a set of propositions and a specification of constructs into reliable measures. Finally, Third, the article has provided a detailed empirical analysis of dimensions of communication organization and has provided empirical support for the thesis that these dimensions of communication organization are related to the inter-functional dependencies between communication disciplines and departments.
In the 2010s, the discussion toward public relations and marketing was emphasized in the negotiation of engagement between public relations and marketing. The convergence of practice and theory between public relations and marketing established a complex and adaptive system, which are not only just appropriate competition but fitting reciprocity in disciplinary exchanges (McKie & Willis, 2012). The boundaries between public relations and marketing do not disappear but continue to shift (Gesualdi, 2019). McKie and Willis (2012) notices that there is a growing concept of marketing imperialism in which subsumed public relations as part of marketing instead of creating a collaboration between the two disciplines (Chartered Institute of Marketing, 2011; McKie & Willis, 2012). Subsequently, the line of practice between public relations and marketing got blurred by the concept development of content marketing, brand journalism, and influencer marketing (Gesualdi, 2019). While the concept of IMC as a way to integrate advertising, marketing, and public relations does not have a good ending, because public relations practitioners and theories view these as an imperialistic encroachment of their turf by marketers (Gesualdi, 2019; Hallahan, 2005; Hutton, 2001; McKie & Willis, 2012). Hence, it is essential to revisit the relations between public relations and marketing in a way for both marketing and public relations to adapt to each other as well as new marketplace realities to best serve their organizations. The positive out, home as well as organization effectiveness toward the collaborate, the ion will solve the problem on who will make decisions about programs and campaigns because it is not clear yet that public relations has gained credibility and has a seat at the table when it comes to integrated communication (Cardwell et al., 2017).
Article Objectives
The nine journals analyzed on average had similar objectives because the focus of the study sees the tendency of the integration of marketing communications and public relations that has not been explicitly explained. If seen in Kotler and Mindak (1978), the article's purpose is more to explore the roles of marketing and public relations in modern organizations. It is just the same as what Broom et al. (1991) stated in their writings. McKie and Willis (2012) article seeks to renegotiate the traditional turf wars between public relations and public relations by reviewing recent significant marketing books. Gesualdi (2019) also notes that the article aims to examine the provenance of encroachment research and argue how the blurring of marketing and public relations boundaries by revisiting the notion behind the encroachment and extending these ideas into today's context. However, Kotler and Mindak (1978) discussion is focused on seeing whether marketing and public relations should be working hand in hand or even being trapped in a rivalry.
Furthermore, Kitchen's, Grunig's, and Cornelissen's writing seem to underline the relevance of the MPR to corporations or organizations. Although, as of Kitchen's 1995 paper, the article's aim is still in the line of considering the more recent development of the MPR by examining the arguments and studies conducted from the perspective of marketing and public relations (Kitchen & Moss, 2006). In 1997, Kitchen's paper explored the conceptual legitimacy of the MPR concept as a new marketing-related discipline or merely a window dressing (Kitchen & Papasolomou, 1997). Cornelissen (2004) also notes their article highlights to substitute the terms of public relations with corporate affairs or corporate communication. Grunig and Grunig (1998) also notes that exploring the MPR concept in their writing is also positioned to answer the question about the values public relations/communication management have for an organization or tend to contribute to organizational effectiveness.
Methodology
Judging from the nine journals reviewed in this study, the majority use literature review as the methodology used to study marketing and public relations (Cornelissen et al., 2001; Gesualdi, 2019; Kitchen & Moss, 2006; McKie & Willis, 2012). Another paper using informants and interviewing them as a focus group discussion panel as Broom et al. (1991) did. Grunig and Grunig (1998) combined a quantitative survey (questionnaire) with a long interview or named it as a compensating variation. Kitchen and Papasolomou (1997) used two methods to obtain their data. The first one is the survey method to gain empirical data. The second one is in-depth interviews with expertise from eight major British PR consultancies. The interviews were carried out with CEOs or managing directors of the consultancies. Cornelissen (2004) using surveys and semi-structured interviews to gain the data. The only one that does not mention the methodology in their paper is Kotler and Mindak (1978).
Figure/ Person
We try to map the figures or figures mentioned in the journal in the context of mapping experts who study marketing and public relations in social science. Kotler and Mindak (1978) contains only themselves, and concerning the basic concepts of PR, the author also mentions Edward L. Barneys. Furthermore, Broom's et al. (1991) writing was the result of a collaborative discussion between nine essential figures in the marketing and public relations sector, among others are: Dr. Glen M. Broom, Dr. Martha M. Lauzen, Kerry Tucker, Bill Trumpfheller, Ami Kassar, William Ehling, Ph.D., Patrick Jackson, APR, Larry Jones, and Philip Kotler, Ph.D.
Several figures mentioned at the beginning of the marketing public relations study are also mentioned in subsequent journals. Such as Kitchen writing in 1995 and 1997, Cornelisson et al. work in 2001 and 2004, both of them put Grunig's statement as one of the primary thoughts or rationale (Cornelissen, 2004; Kitchen, 1997; Kitchen & Moss, 2006). Several other figures who also appear in the majority of writings are those of Kotler and Kitchen. More recent papers also mention Harris, Cutlip, Broom, Hutton, and Cornelissen, as in McKie and Willis (2012) and Gesualdi (2019).
MPR Definition
To map expert discussions in marketing and public relations, we try to map statements regarding the definition of marketing public relations explicitly. However, of the nine journals studied, most did not explain the definition or marketing public relations in it (Cornelissen, 2004; Cornelissen et al., 2001; Gesualdi, 2019; McKie & Willis, 2012). Kotler and Mindak (1978) mention a specific definition of the concept of MPR. Grunig and Grunig (1998) gives a hint on marketing public relations using Harris's (1991) statement. However, in this article, they believe that the neat divisions separating marketing and PR are breaking down. They think that the best way to solve a marketing problem would be done through PR activities and vice versa.
Other journals do not explicitly mention the definition of marketing public relations in an integrative way but do explain each concept. As stated in Broom et al. (1991), public relations are the management process whose goal is to attain and maintain accord and positive behaviors among social groupings on which an organization depends to achieve its mission. On the other hand, in two of his writings in 1995 and 1997, Kitchen shows differences in the development of the MPR definition mapping. In 1995, Kitchen and Moss stated that they tend to be still investigating whether MPR is a new and separate concept in the PR discipline; they do not mention a specific definition of MPR. However, the authors do not strictly close the opportunity to grow into an independent concept, separate from the PR and marketing discipline (Kitchen & Moss, 2006). Later on, in their writings in 1997, Kitchen and Papasolomou defined MPR as a term used to describe PR techniques and approaches to support marketing objectives (Kitchen & Papasolomou, 1997).
MPR Position
Kotler and Mindak (1978) article offers five models of a possible relationship between marketing and PR. As an early article discussing the relationship and the rivalry between both departments, this article did not clearly state its position about MPR. Grunig and Grunig (1998) took what Kotler & Mindak said about the relationship between public relations and marketing, as displayed on five alternative arrangements. Those five are shown in Figure 1.
Separate but equal functions (A)
This model offers a traditional view of the two functions as different entities, especially their perspectives and capacities. Marketing functions to sense, serve, and satisfy customer needs at a profit. Hence, PR exists to produce goodwill in the company's various publics to not interfere in the firm's profit-making activities. The different educational backgrounds between Marketing and PR people also carry stereotypes of each other as marketing people often view PR people as press agents, while PR people view marketers as "number-crunchers." Often each views the other's function in its narrowest perspective. Marketing is sales, PR is publicity.
Equal but overlapping functions (B)
While marketing and PR are essential and separate functions, they share some typical terrain. The most apparent joint group is product publicity. Product publicity can generate visibility and consumer interest. The achievement of developing product success is located within the marketing department. Another common ground is customer relations. Marketing functions usually focus on selling to customers but are less likely to respond to customer complaints after the product is sold. Customer complaints tend to be managed by PR people. PR people try to solve customer's problems and get the marketing departments to avoid similar mistakes to customers. A latent function of the PR people is to "watchdog" the marketing department.
Marketing as the dominant function (C)
This model believes that PR is supposed to be placed under the control of the corporate marketing department. They argue that the existence of PR should be to make it easier for the firm to market its goods. PR is not in the firm to do good deeds, and PR relatively does a poor job of measuring its contribution to profit. Primarily, PR only measures the communication earnings such as clippings.
PR as the dominant function
This model believes that marketing is supposed to be placed under the control of public relations. Marketing is viewed as a sub-function of PR because it thinks that the firm's future depends critically on how its public views it. The task of the firm is to satisfy their public. Satisfying customers is one part of the task, and it lies under the marketing function. However, the firm also needs to be kept in balance with satisfying other groups. Marketing should be put under PR control to ensure that all key publics' goodwill is maintained.
Marketing and PR as the same function
This model views the two functions as rapidly converging in concepts and methodologies. They both talk about public markets (i.e., recognizing the need for market segmentation, consumer insight, importance to create planning, etc.). The authors believe that this model could synthesize the two functions to reduce interdepartmental conflict and lack of coordination as well as an anticipation to avoid the difficulties experienced by corporations when they fail to take a joint marketing/PR program of their activities.
Broom et al. (1991) using the FGD panel and concludes based on Colloquium participants that they agreed that PR and marketing use the same techniques to build and maintain relationships, but the connections are different. They suppose that while public relations and marketing must work together to achieve organizational goals, they draw from fundamentally different philosophies to complete their various missions. Kitchen in 1995 and 1997 is still in doubt about the existence of MPR as a new discipline. The authors tend to see MPR as an attempt of marketers to hijack PR techniques, specifically about their publicity function. However, the authors also undoubtedly believe that the close interaction and synergy between marketing and PR are necessary today. Instead, the findings indicate that at best, MPR may be simply a new label for well-established usage, traditions, and procedures in support of marketing communication (Kitchen & Moss, 2006; Kitchen & Papasolomou, 1997). (See in Figure 2).
Grunig and Grunig (1998) also stated that Public relations are most excellent when it exists as a separate strategic management function from marketing. On the other hand, Cornelissen et al. (2001) stated that the symbiosis of the marketing communications and public relations functions is further supported by contemporary research focusing on the value of shared knowledge and skills between people from marketing and public relations departments in organizations. There is no clear statement towards the MPR position in the article from Cornelissen (2004). McKie and Willis (2012) article is picturing PR and Marketing as different concepts distinct from one another. However, Marketing and Public Relations could collaborate to enrich the view of marketing, focusing on consumers and sales. The worldview of public relations could help broaden the perspective of marketing toward the changing environment that lies in the heart of social disruption. Gesualdi (2019) does not explicitly mention the MPR position in the article but argues that the conflict of PR and marketing has not disappeared but continues to shift by the utilization of social media.
Within Indonesian contexts, several studies of marketing public relations applied for analyzing various study object. Wahid and Puspita (2017) describe the efforts to increase brand awareness of PT. Gojek Indonesia, a growing start-up in online transportation services through the activities of Marketing Public Relations. In the same year, Ermalinda and Wiwitan (2017) also tried to explore the marketing public relations strategy of PT. Kereta Api Indonesia (Persero), the oldest train service in Indonesia, promotes the new facilities of the economic class of the train. It also explained the pull, push, and pass strategy by using mass media and social media, cooperating with other businesses, and conducting CSR (giving social support).
In 2018, Stefany and Sari conducted marketing public relations strategy research on PT. Crowde, a corporate start-up fintech that the scope is on agritech and basis of peer to peer lending (Stefany & Sari, 2019). The goals of using the MPR strategy of PT. Crowde is in increasing investment interest, collaborating with publications and events. In the following years, in 2019, Pratiwi (2019) researched Lazada Indonesia, one of the leading e-commerce companies in Indonesia. She highlighted the marketing public relations' strategy of Lazada in building its brand positioning so that it differs from other e-commerce that is growing in Indonesia. In the same year, in 2019, Himalaya is analyzing the marketing public relations strategy on PT. Premium Parfum Indonesia, the sole distributor for perfumes and any other products for the French perfumes brand. The objectives of conducting MPR strategy on PT. Premium Parfum attracts people to buy the products while joining some well-known events, such as ICI Plus and APRINDO Fair (Himalaya, 2019). Those studies highlight the significant understanding of marketing public relations as a guide to reach the goals both institutions and industry within Indonesian context. On the other hand, it also shows that Indonesian scholars also use different perspectives on defining marketing public relations but still apply to various kinds of the object of study.
Conclusion
The heretofore study about the position of MPR concept under the marketing or public relations fields has been an ongoing debate. Some scholars believe that MPR is supposed to be the field of study under marketing, hence some others believe otherwise. Moreover, some others also believe that classifying the concept under two fields of study would not be necessary. Our main finding suggests that the “turf war” between the marketing and public relations fields is still ongoing, and does not show any sign of agreement soon. The consensus on the MPR as an academic and practical concept has not been mutually agreed upon from the past to date. Although in practice, MPR has been and is still being carried out.
The study of MPR had been conducted at least since half of the century ago, and tends to revolve around a similar issue, although the object and context have developed. In the 1970s-1990s, MPR was still considered as a new concept and the debate revolves around the existence of it as a new concept as well as the battle for MPR territory as part of the marketing or public relations area. Moving to a decade later, in the 2000s the belief in integrating the two fields emerged. However, there was also an assumption that each concept could run independently. Moreover, the study in the 2010s shows the tendency for integration was getting more substantial along with the increasing number of engagement efforts between the PR and marketing domains in the field of marketing communications. However, the tendency for integration is still not receiving solid agreement among scholars in both fields. In the context of marketing communications and the development of today’s technology landscape, this debate needs to be reviewed and renegotiated with an orientation toward harmonious integration efforts in the context of integrated marketing communication.
As the limitation of this study, we realize that this study can only be regarded as an early step in exploring the development of marketing public relations concept to integrated marketing communication as well as public relations as experienced by communication science scholars. We were also unable to use a more robust analysis and synthesis of the study results due to the searching strategy and time constraint limitation. We also believe that this study could be the stepping stone to conduct a future study that comprehensively elaborates the utilization of grey literature resources to find critical references or studies related to marketing communication and public relations development.
Acknowledgments
We thank The Department of Communication Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science, UGM for providing us support in participating in ICEMC 2021 Universiti Sains Malaysia. We thank our colleague in the Department of Communication Science for giving us feedback and the opportunity to develop this writing based on Marketing Public Relation's class for undergraduate students.
References
Broom, G. M., Lauzen, M. M., & Tucker, K. (1991). Public relations and marketing: Dividing the conceptual domain and operational turf. Public Relations Review, 17(3), 219–225.
Cardwell, L. A., Williams, S., & Pyle, A. (2017). Corporate public relations dynamics: Internal vs. external stakeholders and the role of the practitioner. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 152–162.
Chartered Institute of Marketing. (2011). The marketing century: How marketing drives business and shapes society (J. . Kourdi (ed.)). John Willey.
Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications theory and practice. Null. https://doi.org/null
Cornelissen, J. P., & Harris, P. (2004). Interdependencies between Marketing and Public Relations Disciplines as Correlates of Communication Organisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(1–2).
Cornelissen, J. P., Lock, A. R., & Gardner, H. (2001). The organisation of external communication disciplines: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. International Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 67-88.
Dunn, W., Little, L., Dean, E., Robertson, S., & Evans, B. (2016). The State of the Science on Sensory Factors and Their Impact on Daily Life for Children: A Scoping Review. OTJR : Occupation, Participation and Health, 36(2 Suppl), 3S-26S.
Ermalinda, A., & Wiwitan, T. (2017). Strategi Marketing Public Relations PT Kereta Api Indonesia (PERSERO) dalam Mempromosikan Pembaruan Kereta Ekonomi Rasa Eksekutif. Prosiding Hubungan Masyarakat, 408–414.
Gesualdi, M. (2019). Revisiting the relationship between public relations and marketing: Encroachment and social media. Public Relations Review, 45(2), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.pubrev.2018.12.002
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1998). The relationship between public relations and marketing in excellent organizations: Evidence from the IABC study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(3), 141–162.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Null. https://doi.org/null
Hallahan, K. (2005). Integrated Marketing Communication. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (pp. 426–428). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Harris, T. L. (1991). The marketer’s guide to public relations : how today’s top companies are using the new PR to gain a competitive edge. Wiley.
Harris, T. L. (1998). Value-added public relations : the secret weapon of integrated marketing, 314.
Himalaya, A. (2019). STRATEGI MARKETING PUBLIC RELATIONS PT PREMIUM PARFUM INDONESIA DALAM MENARIK MINAT BELI PUBLIK EKSTERNAL [Bina Sarana Informatika]. https://repository.bsi.ac.id/index.php/repo/viewitem/24251
Hughes, G., & Fill, C. (2007). Marketing Communications 2007-2008. Elsevier. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=LjIGqYWE728C
Hutton, J. G. (2001). Defining the Relationship Between Public Relations and Marketing: Public Relations’ Most Important Challenge. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kim, J. N., Sriramesh, K., & Zerfass, A. (Eds.). (2013). Public Relations and Communication Management: Current Trends and Emerging Topics. Routledge. https://books.google.com/books/about/Public_Relations_and_Communication_Manag.html?id=YexwowOOcQIC
Kitchen, P. J. (1997). Was public relations a prelude to corporate communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.
Kitchen, P. J., & Moss, D. (2006). Marketing and public relations: the relationship revisited. DOI: 10.1080/13527269500000012, 1(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527269 500000012
Kitchen, P. J., & Papasolomou, I. C. (1997). Marketing public relations: conceptual legitimacy or window dressing? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/026345 09710165876
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management : analysis, planning, implementation, and control (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall. https://books.google.com/books/about/Marketing_Management.html?id=MRO0QgAACAAJ
Kotler, P., & Mindak, W. (1978). Marketing and public relations. Journal of Marketing.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2021). Marketing 5.0: Technology for Humanity. Wiley. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=lgAXEAAAQBAJ
McKie, D., & Willis, P. (2012). Renegotiating the terms of engagement: Public relations, marketing, and contemporary challenges. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 846–852.
Newsom, D., VanSlyke Turk, J., & Kruckeberg, D. (2013). This is PR : the realities of public relations (11th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Pratiwi, S. D. (2019). Strategi Marketing Public Relations Lazada Indonesia [Universitas Padjadjaran]. http://repository.unpad.ac.id/frontdoor/index/index/docId/34801
Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1993). Integrated Marketing Communications: Putting It. Together & Making It Work Hardcover. NTC Business BookLincolnwood. https://books.google.com/books/about/Integrated_Marketing_Communications.html?id=CCtUdW7EFogC
Stefany, S., & Sari, W. P. (2019). Strategi Marketing Public Relations PT Crowde Membangun Bangsa dalam Meningkatkan Minat Investasi. Prologia, 2(2), 510–517. https://doi.org/
Wahid, U., & Puspita, A. E. (2017). Upaya Peningkatkan Brand Awareness PT. Go-Jek Indonesia Melalui Aktivitas Marketing Public Relations. Jurnal Komunikasi, 9(1), 31–43. https://doi.org /
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
31 January 2022
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-122-5
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
123
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-494
Subjects
Communication, Media, Disruptive Era, Digital Era, Media Technology
Cite this article as:
Sadasri, L. M., Tania, S., & Widagdhaprasana, M. (2022). Revisiting Marketing Public Relations Dynamics in the Perspective of Communication. In J. A. Wahab, H. Mustafa, & N. Ismail (Eds.), Rethinking Communication and Media Studies in the Disruptive Era, vol 123. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 123-135). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2022.01.02.10