The Role of Clients in the Public Relations Campaigns Course
Vince Benigni, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
College of Charleston
[log in to unmask]
I-Huei Cheng, M.A.
Doctoral Student
Missouri School of Journalism
[log in to unmask]
Glen T. Cameron, Ph.D.
Professor & Gregory Chair
Missouri School of Journalism
[log in to unmask]
All correspondence to: Vince Benigni, Ph.D.
Department of Communication
College of Charleston
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424
Paper submitted to the Teaching Public Relations Division of the 2003
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference
in Kansas City, MO
Abstract
Extending Benigni and Cameron (1999), this study provides a current review
of teaching methods for the public relations campaigns course based on a
national survey. In addition to offering up-to-date descriptions of how the
campaigns course is constructed and valued in public relations programs,
this study analyzed what may be important factors that influence the course
outcomes. Clients' satisfaction, implementation of plan books that are
developed by students, and job/internship opportunities that students
receive based on their performance in the campaign course are all
indicators for the effectiveness of teaching campaign courses. Certain
course features, client involvement in class, and clients' payment for
services rendered also contribute to more positive course outcomes.
Introduction
Within a public relations major or sequence, students are generally
required to understand the principles of the profession, and then take
subsequent courses in research, writing, management, and finally, the
campaigns course (Undergraduate Commission citation). Because it is
generally considered the capstone course (Benigni and Cameron 1999) of
public relations education, the campaigns class has a multi-faceted
obligation to its students.
In one semester, students are often asked to conduct focus groups,
formulate questionnaires and analyze data to fulfill a primary research
requirement. Setting measurable objectives, and devising strategies and
tactics are planning prerequisites (Wilcox, Cameron, Ault and Agee 2003)
bridging research to the communication phase (e.g. press kits, web site
copy and broadcast tactics). Finally, an effective evaluation proposal may
include assessment strategies ranging from advertising equivalency and
other motivational objectives to benchmarking and more evolved
informational outcomes.
Students (and sometimes professors) may find the process overwhelming, but
necessary, because of the pivotal assessment of outcomes. In other words,
the portfolio and final presentation are not only intrinsic rewards for the
exhaustive rite of passage/survival skills (Bourland-Davis 2002), but more
importantly, are tangible recruiting tools for internship and/or career
opportunities. Not only do participants benefit, but the department and
university also gain positive exposure and enrichment from holistic
learning experiences.
However, many would argue that the primary beneficiaries of the campaigns
course are the clients (Aldoory and Wrigley 2000). In most cases, campaign
students work in teams on behalf of a campus or community organization,
presenting their findings and portfolios to the client at semester's
end. In many respects, the clients are the essence of the major's most
important course.
While replicating most elements of Benigni and Cameron's national survey in
1999, this study adds greater focus on the client's role in the campaigns
course, based on the perceptions and experience of the professors,
particularly with regard to client expectations, involvement, and trust.
Literature Review
Teaching the Campaigns Course
Public relations pedagogy has been a rich source of scholarship in recent
years, both in a holistic sense, and through analysis of specific
courses. Most scholars agree that all public relations courses should
incorporate "real-world" scenarios, even though it often adds to professor
workload.
Over the past decade, a number of articles have dissected individual
components of the suggested elements of the public relations major by the
Undergraduate Commission on Public Relations Education. These include
works on the introduction/principles course (Benigni, Weaver-Lariscy and
Tinkham 2002), the writing course (King 2001), case studies (Rybacki and
Worley 2000) and management (Kinnick and Cameron 1994).
In fact, case studies (Hendrix 2001) and management (Schick 1997) are
considered by some researchers as capstone tenets. That being said, most
scholars have agreed that the campaigns class involves the most complete
application of essential skills in public relations. Some universities
even use a two-semester approach (Metzler and Nadler 2000) because of the
rigor involved in synthesizing skills learned in prerequisite
courses. Because of the didactic nature of prerequisites, upper-level
offerings should foster "active learning" or collaborative strategies
(Lubbers and Gorcyca 1997) that represent real-world opportunities.
Many universities espouse hybrid programs that fuse concepts of business
and public relations (Pincus and Rayfield 1992). While integrated
communication (Reber, Frisby, and Cameron, in press) has gained significant
momentum, other scholars believe that public relations is a distinct
profession, and not a subset of related professional areas or disciplines
(Kruckeberg 1998).
Traditionally, the purveyors of student excellence are their professors,
who write recommendation letters, make phone calls to companies or graduate
schools, and serve as mentors and confidants. Indeed, teachers set a tone
for future success, both with theoretical grounding and practical
application. The latter tonic is often more palatable to students, because
their motivational objectives usually revolve around their success after
college. Research suggests that those students with considerable
"real-world" application are more competitive in today's job
market. Outcomes are not just measured by news release competency, but
also in attitude (Neff et al. 1999).
Most campaigns courses are taught within a team-based framework (Benigni
and Cameron 1999). Oftentimes, objectives are compromised when one or more
students do not pull their weight (Lordan 1996). These difficulties can be
assuaged by more proactive strategies, such as incorporating teams in the
intro course (Adams 1994).
Teaching Campaign-Based Skills
Research, viewed as the critical impetus for decision-making (Broom &
Dozier 1990), is given lip service by many public relations professors
(DeSanto 1996). Stacks (2002) argued that the introduction to public
relations course must allay students' fears of numbers to provide a
positive stimulus for the subsequent research methods offering. He offers
"Four Myths" (Research as Math, Memorization, Non-Career Oriented, and
Hindrance in Competing with Business Students) that professors must address
through theoretical and application exercises.
One of the key elements of a campaign's planning phase is the setting of
strategic objectives. Fall (1998) noted that event management was listed
as a critical need area in student internships and organizational
campaigns, with motivational objectives (Wilcox et al. 2003) being a
particularly illuminating evaluative tool. Informational, awareness-based
objectives (Beasley 1992) are more difficult to ascertain, hence the reason
that many campaigns professors require survey instruments to gauge public
sentiment.
While highly evolved research techniques are stressed, Coombs and Rybacki
(1999) lament the limited use of new media pedagogy in public relations
classes. Brody (2002) notes that traditional media relations tactics (i.e.
news releases) are outmoded, and need to manage transitions into a new age
of "experience-based messaging systems." Still, a number of professors
are embracing new technologies within the pedagogical construct. Kent
(2001) espouses a mediated approach emphasizing web-based education of
secondary research of media outlets and key databases. Forde (2000)
suggests a requisite integration of desktop publishing skills (i.e.
PowerPoint and Netscape Composer) in the campaigns course for competitive
portfolio building, because portfolios are the critical tool of student
assessment (Flynn and Russell 2000).
Many capstone courses address the issue of evaluation, but time
constraints do not allow for campaign implementation (Benigni and Cameron
1999). However, public relations education task forces are emphasizing
equal weights for implementation as well as planning, because outcome
perspectives (Gibson 1992) are not being properly addressed in capstone
education. Benchmarking (Richter and Drake 1993) should assess the impact
of financial rewards of organizations.
Rybacki and Lattimore (1999) argue that many professors eschew
opportunities to assess student outcomes at their institution, and
therefore, are ill-equipped to broach evaluative issues in public relations
classes. Forde (2000) notes that focus groups can offer insights of
current students and graduates toward academic departments. In sum,
outcome perspectives and university perception are key variables that can
be strategically ascertained.
Service Learning
Relationship building has long been a primary tenet of excellent (Grunig,
1992) public relations. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) operationalized three
types of relationships – personal, professional, and community – that
significantly influenced key public member evaluations of satisfaction with
the organization.
University professors are increasingly espousing the notion of service
learning as a "counter to ivory tower intellectualism" (Schwartzman 2001),
a networking tool for graduates (Tucker and McCarthy 2001), a practice to
alleviate tensions inherent in non-reciprocal relationships (Dubinsky
2002), and an extension of traditional university missions (Fall 2002). In
public relations courses, managing university-student relationships is a
critical variable in gauging student retention (Bruning and Ledingham
1999), and in ascertaining alumni attachments and subsequent donation
behaviors (Sallot 1996). Service learning provides a forum to build
professionalism (Bourland-Davis 2000), but only if the emphasis of learning
is equal or greater to the notion of service (Patterson 2002).
The Role of the Client
While many capstone courses use case studies to illustrate do's and don'ts
of public relations campaigns, students are not properly prepared unless
they are thrust into a situation filled with problems and
opportunities. Fortunately, there is a captive audience within shouting
distance of every college campus, ranging from local or regional
corporations, to area nonprofits (McPherson 1993), to college
offices/organizations. The daunting task for campaigns professors is to
choose a set of willing clients.
Worley (2001) notes that the most consistently difficult aspect of the
campaigns course is to get students to understand, develop, and maintain
the team-client relationship. She proposes a "Letter of Agreement" that
outlines student needs from the client, along with ways to fulfill client
expectations. Filson (1998) adds that a challenge for practitioners is to
make the transition for clients into a "leadership" role that extends
beyond presentations.
Oftentimes, "intellectual readiness" (Maglio-Jung 1994) is required to
overcome difficult or even hostile clients, a difficult trait for
inexperienced college students to develop quickly. Students should learn
client-centered approaches (Motschall and Najor 2001) in the intro course
to better prepare for complex organizational issues. Rentner (2000) adds
that variables of access and logistics lead campaigns professors to offer
only on-campus clients.
Conventional wisdom notes that presentations to clients often cement, or
doom, the decision to partner with an agency. Miga (1994) suggests a
proactive approach where key constituents are briefed at least a week
before the presentation.
While the terminal nature of the campaigns course rarely includes the
notion of retention, the course should incorporate notions of searching for
and retaining clients. Whitney (1997) notes that most sales come from
existing customers, and recommendations from those customers. Weems (2001)
reports that nearly two-thirds of clients prefer Web-based financial
information and advisor-specific sites. Practitioners should emphasize the
notion of "clients as long-term investments" over the oft-static nature of
current customers/publics. Engaging the client is critical, and trust and
satisfaction only come with client involvement in the process (Marken
1997), and keeping clients better informed (Miles 1997).
Research Questions
Based on the literature, the following research questions were formulated
to gauge the role of the client in the public relations campaigns course:
RQ1: How are campaigns courses structured?
RQ1.1: How are courses offered and structured overall (e.g. being offered
to undergraduate or graduate students, use of real clients, and types of
clients)?
RQ1.2: Does the structure of campaign course differ by type of schools or
programs?
RQ2: How are clients involved in the campaigns course?
RQ2.1: What is the level of research required for clients (e.g. secondary
and primary research)?
RQ2.2: What is the level of client input in terms of access and grading?
RQ3: What are the outcomes of the campaigns courses?
RQ3.1: Are clients satisfied with the work provided?
RQ3.2: Are students offered with internship/job opportunities based on
campaign efforts?
RQ4: How do the outcomes of campaigns course differ?
RQ4.1: Do the outcomes differ by course features?
RQ4.2: Do the outcomes differ by types of client or other client-related
factors?
RQ5: How do clients pay for services rendered in the campaigns course?
RQ5.1: Is there any formal client payment for services rendered?
RQ5.2: Do the outcomes of the campaigns course differ by whether clients pay?
Method
Sample
Based on tenets from Benigni and Cameron's 1999 study of public relations
campaigns professors, and Wrigley and Aldoory's 2000 manuscript on student
and client reactions to the course, we formulated a 60–question
survey. Respondents were targeted through a combination of three
directories of educational institutions in public relations. Using the
2002-2003 Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication
Directory of Colleges and Universities, along with the 2002-2003 National
Communication Directory of Colleges and Universities, the authors mailed
the survey to every institution listed which included public relations as a
major, sequence, or course of study. We obtained additional respondents
from the "2002 Where Shall I Go to Study Advertising and Public Relations
Handbook". Our directories indicated that 387 universities fulfilled the
aforementioned criteria, which was, interestingly, 107 more than the
respondent pool from Benigni and Cameron's survey sent to a similar audience.
Variables
This study surveys current structure and design of the public relations
campaigns course in general, and focuses on the client's role in the
campaigns course, as well as the course outcomes that may be used to assess
the effectiveness of teaching campaign courses.
Course structures are explored with questions pertaining to the number of
class sections, student enrollment numbers, whether the courses are offered
to undergraduate and graduate students, whether prerequisites are required
for the campaigns course, whether the campaigns courses are required for
the public relations program, and whether campaign courses are a "capstone"
class in the program.
Other course features concern the level of research required in the class,
use of class time, involvement of a real client, whether clients are
invited to the class to offer an overview, whether students are teamed, how
students are grouped, whether students are encouraged to ask more
confidential information from clients, and whether clients are formally
involved in the grading process. For example, to describe the emphasis of
research, these questions were asked, "What percentage of the course is
devoted to primary research (in general) and to primary research of the
client itself (e.g. client interviews, etc.)?" and "What percentage of the
course is devoted to secondary research (in general) and to secondary
research of the client?" Concerning the use of class time, these questions
were asked, "What percentage of overall class time is devoted to prepared
lectures, coach/team meetings, other teaching strategies?"
Institution and programs were described by their institutional enrollment
size, what degrees are being offered in public relations, and whether the
programs are accredited by professional or educational public relations
organizations such as Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).
Clients' roles are explored in the aspects regarding their organization
type, their willingness to provide information, the interval to offer
inputs to the professor, and whether they pay for services rendered in the
campaigns course. Regarding the type of clients, respondents were asked
with these questions, "Is your client based typically: campus organizations
or off-campus organizations?" and "If clients are "off campus," what
percentage of your total client base is: government/non-profit,
corporate/for-profit, agency, or other?" In addition, respondents were
asked to break down percentages of type of clients in response to these
questions, "Please break down the approximate percentage(s) of "types of
clients" for the following: on-campus vs. off-campus, and non-profit vs.
for-profit?" Clients' willingness to provide information to students was
measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is "not willing at all" and 5
is "very willing") in response to the question, "How willing are clients -
to your knowledge - to provide information regarding the organization?"
Professors' relationship with and selection of clients are further explored
with these questions, "Do you usually have a prior affiliation or
relationship with the client before the organization is chosen?" "Do you
seek/accept "referrals" for potential clients from other sources?" and "How
much research do you typically do before choosing campaign clients?"
measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is "none/very little research"
and 5 is "very much research"). In addition, respondents were asked to
report their professional experiences in response to this question, "Please
list your background in the following areas in terms of years worked:
non-profit PR, corporate/organizational (in-house) PR, agency PR,
government PR, and other."
Course outcomes are the satisfaction of the clients, implementation of plan
book by the clients, and job or internship opportunity received by
students, based on the perceptions and experience of the professors. The
satisfaction of clients were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 is
not satisfied at all, and 5 is very satisfied) in response to the question
"How satisfied are clients with the final plan book/portfolio from student
groups?" and "How satisfied are clients with the final presentation from
student groups?" The implementation of the plan book developed by students
was asked with the question, "In your estimation, are student plans used
'significantly' by clients?" And to assess the job or internship
opportunities students received, this question was asked, "Have any of your
students ever received a job/internship opportunity based on the
performance of the campaigns course?"
Results
There were a total of 101 questionnaires completed and returned. The
response rate was 26.3 percent, with a number of 384 questionnaires
successfully delivered. A total of 387 questionnaires were mailed to the
institutions that teach public relations, and three questionnaires returned
with an "undeliverable address."
Structures of Course (RQ1)
RQ1.1: How are courses offered and structured overall (e.g. being offered
to undergraduate or graduate students, use of real clients, and types of
clients)?
A general description of the sample denoted the following: the average
enrollment of responding schools was about 12,400. About 80 percent of
responding schools offered a stand-alone campaigns course. About 73
percent of schools offered campaigns classes to undergraduates only, about
eight percent to graduate students only, and about 20 percent to both
undergraduate and graduate students. Similarly, about three-quarters of
respondents indicated they offered a public relations undergraduate major,
28 percent a master's degree, and six percent a Ph.D. program. More than
three-quarters of respondents considered public relations as at least a
sequence, concentration, or major within a specific department. Among the
101 returned questionnaires, there were 30 programs accredited by AEJMC,
and 17 by PRSA. The average school had about two full-time faculty members
in public relations. Prerequisite classes are required by almost all the
schools (except one) for their campaigns course, which is generally a
requirement course (about 89 percent) and often considered as a "capstone"
course (81 percent) for the public relations major/sequence.
Since most respondents indicated that the campaigns course represents a
capstone experience, it is not surprising that about 96 percent of the
campaigns teachers use actual clients in the class. About 59 percent of
professors have a prior affiliation with the client before the organization
is chosen, and 92 percent seek or accept "referrals" for potential clients
from other sources. Professors generally engage in "moderate" research of
potential clients (M= 3.25).
Because of the relative difficulty in finding new clients, 29 percent of
professors use the same client in more than one semester. This practice may
also be reflected in the large enrollment per class (average of 22
students, and mode of 19 students) and team-based nature of agency work,
which requires a good deal of client contact by the professor, especially
for new clients. About 92 percent of campaigns are handled by student
groups, with an average of five students per group. Interestingly, about 44
percent of groups compete against other groups in the class for the same
client.
Student teams are primarily formed by professors based on student interest
and input (about 47 percent), followed by the students themselves (about 33
percent) and "random choices" by professor (about 15 percent). About 90
percent of courses work with an "agency" structure, with 49 percent having
weekly meetings, and 26 percent having fewer meetings than once per week.
Nearly 58 percent of respondents invite clients to "offer an overview"
about their organization before the teams are chosen. Campaigns clients
are typically off-campus as opposed to on-campus organizations (average of
67 percent vs. 30 percent), and mostly nonprofit as opposed to for-profit
organizations (average of 77 percent versus 23 percent).
RQ1.2: Does the structure of campaign course differ by type of
schools/programs?
Regardless of the size of the institutions and whether the programs are
accredited by AEJMC or PRSA, the average class enrollment is about the
same, with larger schools offering more sections of classes. Regarding the
degrees offered, accredited programs are, not surprisingly, more likely to
offer graduate degrees in public relations than unaccredited programs (41%
vs. 20%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: p-value = .03). Similarly, these
accredited programs then offered their campaigns course at graduate level
only or both more often than the unaccredited do (47.2% vs. 12.8%,
one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: p-value = .001).
The programs accredited by AEJMC or PRSA are found more likely to offer
public relations campaigns course than the unaccredited programs (91% vs.
70%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: p-value= .01). Accredited programs, as
opposed to the non-accredited ones, more often require the campaigns course
for the public relations major (97% vs. 85%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test:
p-value = .054) and have the course as a capstone class (87% vs. 74%,
one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: p-value = .14), but such differences were
not statistically significant. And there was not much other difference
either in requiring prerequisites, using real-world clients, or generally
having mainly off-campus, non-profit clients.
Levels of Client Research and Client Involvement (RQ2)
RQ2.1: What is the level of research required for clients (e.g. secondary
and primary research)?
Since prerequisite courses should broach elements of secondary research,
it stands to reason that all respondents expect students to employ
web-based research of the client and the client's industry. In fact, only
18 percent of all lecture sessions are devoted to secondary research,
nearly all of that regarding the client itself (please note that only 35
percent of the entire course structure is devoted to lectures, the same
percentage earmarked to team/student meetings).
In general, clients are willing (M= 3.80) to provide information regarding
their organization. Students are slightly more willing (M= 4.03) to ask
clients for information regarding their organization. Nearly 60 percent of
professors do not ask students to seek "confidential" information from
clients. If they do, students are generally asked to request clients'
internal information regarding budgets (91 percent), organizational plans
(91 percent), organizational hierarchy/charts (88 percent), or
timetables/Gantt charts (75 percent).
Regarding the areas where students conduct secondary research, nearly 94
percent of professors require a review of organizational brochures, 91
percent require a review of media accounts regarding the organization, 90
percent require a perusal of newsletters, and 81 percent expect students to
review web sites of an organization's competitors.
Primary research takes up almost one-fifth of all lecture time. This
research includes the forms of focus groups, in-depth interviews and/or a
survey instrument. In fact, survey data ranks favorably among other
campaign components.
Three-quarters of respondents utilize conversation and meetings with
clients during the term, and about 73 percent indicate a formal meeting
with clients at the end of the term as well. More than 57 percent of
respondents incorporate a formal group evaluation and/or a client
questionnaire at the end of the term.
RQ2.2: What is the level of client input in terms of access and grading?
Client input generally does not foray into grading, as two-thirds of
respondents noted that clients aren't a formal part of the process. Even
those who enlist clients in the grading process do not provide for
significant impact, with client input accounting for just 18 percent of the
final grade. The client suggests a final grade for the student/team in
nine percent of all cases, even though final presentations are given for 89
percent of all campaigns, and portfolios are also a significant assessment
requirement.
As for the frequency that clients provide input, 38 percent of professors
reported that they seek clients' input "about two or three times" during
the term, while 22 percent said they do so "at the end of the term
only." About 18 percent of professors are quite proactive, consulting with
clients "weekly or regularly."
Client Satisfaction and Other Outcomes of Course (RQ3)
RQ3.1: Are clients satisfied with the work provided?
While client assessment generally doesn't involve grading, it is highly
valued by professors and students. Generally, assessment is highly
positive. Final presentations from student groups were considered
outstanding (M= 4.37). The final plan book/portfolio also merited great
praise (M= 4.26).
RQ3.2: Do clients offer students internship/job opportunities based on
campaign efforts?
Client satisfaction often carries over beyond the presentation, as 89
percent of campaigns students have received a job or internship opportunity
based on their performance in the course. In some cases, clients have
received positive exposure because of the campaign. About 16 percent of
student groups have received media coverage from the final presentation,
primarily from local print media.
Satisfaction also extends beyond the scope of the presentation. Nearly 70
percent of clients, in professors' estimations, use the student plans
"significantly." Special event tactics were perceived as the most utilized
campaign components, followed by collateral/communication materials (e.g.
releases, press kits), and data from surveys/focus groups. Other
components that ranked well behind the others included: research
appendices (e.g. mailing/phone lists, media contacts), revised
mission/objectives, research strategies, evaluation techniques,
timetable/Gantt charts, social responsibility strategies, and budgetary
suggestions.
Important Course Features and Client-related Factors (RQ4)
RQ4.1: Do the outcomes differ by course features?
Certain course features are found to have influence on clients'
satisfaction regarding final presentation and plan book, their
implementation of the plan book, as well as provision of job/internship
opportunities. Professors who designed the course to include the client in
the formal grading process, are more likely to report that plan books are
used (91% vs. 61%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: p-value = .01), and more
likely that their students have been offered a job/internship opportunity
(100% vs. 82%, one-sided Fishers' Exact Test: p-value= .02). In addition,
campaign courses that involve graduate students (courses offered to
graduate students only or to both undergraduates and graduates) are more
likely to be reported with actual use of the plan book, as opposed to
courses offered only to undergraduate students (95% vs. 58%, one-sided
Fishers' Exact Test: p-value= .00).
Student competition seems to lead to higher satisfaction with the plan
book, but the difference was not significant (M= 4.35 vs. 4.17, F= 1.47,
p-value = 2.3). Similarly, it was found that students competing in courses
may result in more implementation of the plan book, but with a
non-significant difference as well (35% vs. 28%, one-sided Fisher Exact
Test: p-value = .34). Courses where the plan books were used by the clients
usually involved more research elements, especially more primary research
of the client (in terms of class percentage). Although the difference was
not statistically significant (M= 16% vs. 11%, F= 3.2, p-value = .08), a
notable difference was found with plan book use being half again higher in
use of primary research. Other research elements (i.e. primary research in
general, secondary research in general, and secondary research of client)
were found with also positive but less influence in contributing to the use
of the plan book.
RQ4.2: Do the outcomes differ by types of client or other client-related
factors?
Few other client-related factors were found potentially influencing client
satisfaction about the plan book and presentation, use of plan book, and
internship opportunity. It was only found that if clients were invited to
class to offer an overview about their organization, the plan books
developed by students were more likely to be used than the cases where
there were no clients' overview in class (84% vs. 46%, one-sided Fisher's
Exact Test: p-value = .002). The level of client satisfaction with plan
books was found positively correlated with the level of clients'
willingness to provide information, but the result was not significant
(Person Correlation = .22, p-value = .06). However, whether clients pay for
services rendered in the campaign course may relate to their use of plan
book and provision of internship opportunity, which will be addressed below.
Pro Bono Assistance: Opportunity Lost? (RQ5)
RQ5.1: Is there any formal client payment for services rendered?
Benigni and Cameron (1999) note that a "formal payment" by clients (for
services rendered) should be strongly considered by campaigns
professors. Only about one-quarter of respondents ask for payment. Of
those clients that pay, about 62 percent reimburse students only for
materials used to formulate the plan and presentation, 19 percent offer a
stipend to be used by the academic department/class for academic purposes,
and about 10 percent pay for research software implemented in the class.
RQ5.2: Do the outcomes of campaign course differ by whether clients pay?
Respondents who reported that their clients paid also thought that their
clients are more satisfied with the work, although the result was not
statistically significant. But in courses where their client have paid for
services rendered, plan books developed by students are more likely to be
used (90% vs. 79.6%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: P-value = .016) and
students were more likely to receive internship opportunity based on the
class performance (100% vs. 83.6%, one-sided Fisher's Exact Test: P-value =
.045).
These findings are probably a reflection of the finding that 75 percent of
respondents use nonprofit clients, and only 24 percent enlist
corporate/for-profit businesses. However, professors are generally trained
in both corporate (average of 3.75 years of experience in agency public
relations and/or corporate and organizational public relations) and
nonprofit/government (average of 3.6 years of combined experience).
Discussion
Our research questions were addressed to depict current structures of
campaigns courses in public relations programs, clients' involvement in the
course and the outcomes that indicate the effectiveness of course elements,
as well as to explore course features that may influence the outcomes. We
found that although campaigns courses are structured in a variety of ways,
some clear patterns emerge. Most public relations programs offer campaigns
courses (about 79 percent), primarily to undergraduate students (about 73
%), and generally students are required to take this course. The campaigns
courses, almost all requiring prerequisite classes, are also often
considered as a capstone course in the program (81%).
Most campaigns courses use actual clients, typically off-campus, non-profit
organizations. Clients' involvement in class have been found important in
many ways, such as paying for services rendered, introducing their
organizations in class, providing information to students, and being
involved in the grading process. Professors should encourage payment from
clients, at least for materials used for creating plan books. Moderate
stipends to academic departments are a reasonable expectation in an agency
setting where real-world firms would charge tens of thousands for a typical
campaign.
Clients should be invited to the class to make a "pitch", offering an
organizational overview and addressing their situation to the class, early
in the semester, before the teams are chosen. Alternatively, students
could visit the respective venues. Our findings showed that professors who
invited clients to their classroom often found the students' plan books
significantly used by the clients. Clients' overview of their organizations
in class, as opposed to institutional brochures and web sites, are
informative, personal and evocative backdrops that also motivate students
to engage in client services work.
The willingness of clients to provide information is found positively
related to their later satisfaction with the presentation of students' work
and the developed plan books. Professors need to engage clients in the need
for full disclosure because students may not be able to delve into problems
or opportunities unless they are privy to budgets, timetables, and
organizational mission and objectives. Clients need to be more accessible
with regard to "confidential" information, and students need to "demand"
that information more, through professor guidance.
Our data showed that if clients were involved in the formal grading
process, students' plan books were also more likely to be used by the
clients. This may be because clients in this case are more engaged in
providing feedback to professor and potentially to students also. We value
the clients' feedbacks as inputs but do not suggest their direct role in
grading. We applaud professors' autonomy in their carefully involving
clients in the grading process. While our survey showed that clients have a
"formal say" in the grading process (33 percent), client input is mainly a
supplemental tool (accounting for only 18 percent of final grade, and only
9 percent of those courses including client in formal grading process would
have clients suggest a final grade).
While plan book and presentation are critical outcomes to the course, a
third "p" (publicity), is generally eschewed. Professors should encourage
students to pursue local and regional media during the campaign
process. Media and other outlets should be used as a proactive tactic
(invited to presentations, etc.), not just post hoc to the campaign
itself. Professors should also stress to students and clients, the
importance of virtually ignored campaign components such as evaluation
techniques (i.e. benchmarking), social responsibility strategies, budgetary
suggestions, timetables, and evaluation of mission and
objectives. Sometimes, the course gets bogged down into a replication of
short-term technical tasks, rather than as an evolved management function.
Research components, especially primary research of the clients, were found
positively related to higher clients' satisfaction and more use of plan
books. The average percentages of class devoted to secondary and primary
research, in general and of the client, all range around 15 to 19
percent. Because of the important contribution of research to the quality
of plan books, and its value in training students' intellectual abilities
in the profession, prerequisite courses should cover research methods and
how to interpret research findings, and campaigns course teachers should
guide students to apply the research results to the development of
communication strategy.
Limitations
We recognize that our findings can be better generalized with a larger
final sample size or higher response rate, even though our response rate
would be considered good for a mail survey. We suspect that the
non-responses included large numbers of individuals at programs that do not
provide public relations campaigns courses. Ignoring this confound between
non-response and ineligibility for inclusion in the study, findings of our
survey still provide a useful description of the designs and important
features of today's campaigns courses, which are crucial in teaching
students to become professionals in our field.
Our respondents were campaigns course instructors in the educational
institutions where degrees or concentrations in public relations were
offered. Many of our measurements concerning course outcomes or
effectiveness of elements of campaigns courses were based on the
instructor's subjective perception, experience, and projection. Answers
provided by our respondents were also based on their overall, aggregate
impression, not specifically for one client or a particular campaigns class.
We believe that future research focusing on students' and clients'
perspectives with a triangulation approach can provide more in-depth
description of the interaction among the professors, clients, and students,
and a better understanding of why certain course features and
client-related factors become important for course outcomes.
References
Adams, W.C. (1994). Using Case Studies in the Introductory Public
Relations Course, Public Relations Division/AEJMC, 34 (Todd Hunt, editor).
Aldoory, L. & Wrigley, B. (2000). Exploring the Use of Real Clients in PR
Campaigns Courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 54 (4), 47-58.
Beasley, W. (1992). Towards Student Autonomy: A Standards-Based
Approach. The Science Teacher, 59 (6), 46-49.
Benigni, V.L., Weaver-Lariscy, R.A., & Tinkham, S.F. (2002). To Evolve is
to Involve: Analyzing Student Choice in the Introduction to Public
Relations Class. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56 (4), 6-18.
Benigni, V.L. & Cameron, G.T. (1999). Teaching Public Relations
Campaigns: The Current State of the Art. Journalism & Mass Communication
Educator, 54 (2), 51-60.
Bourland-Davis, P.G. (2002). A Cultural Perspective of the Course Students
Love to Hate: The Capstone Course. Paper Presented to Public Relations
Division of National Communication Association Annual Conference, New
Orleans, LA.
Bourland-Davis. P.G. (2000). Does Service Learning Extend to and Beyond
the Public Relations Internship? Paper Presented to Public Relations
Division of National Communication Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.
Brody, E.W. (2002). Clients and Employers. Public Relations Quarterly, 47
(2), 7-9.
Broom, G.M. and Dozier, D.M. (1990). Using Research In Public Relations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (1999). Relationships Between
Organizations and Publics: Development of a Multi-Dimensional
Organization-Public Relationship Scale. Public Relations Review, 25, 157-170.
Coombs, W.T. & Rybacki, K.C. (1999). Public Relations Education: Where is
Pedagogy? Public Relations Review, 25 (1), 55-63.
DeSanto, B.J. (1996). The State of Research Education in the Public
Relations Curriculum. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51 (3),
24-31.
Dubinsky, J.M. (2002). Service-Learning as a Path to Virtue: The Ideal
Orator in Professional Communication. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, Spring 2002, 61-74.
Fall, L.T. (2002). Assessing Service Learning Among Student
Interns: Attitudes of Experiences While in the Field. Paper Presented to
Public Relations Division of National Communication Association Annual
Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Fall, L.T. (1998). Management by Objectives: An Effective Tool for
Measuring the Success of Public Relations Classroom Projects. Public
Relations Division/AEJMC, 47 (Gay Wakefield, editor).
Filson, B. (1998). The Golden Public Relations Dictum. Public Relations
Quarterly, 43 (3), 12-13.
Flynn, T. & Russell, B. (2000). Organizing Public Relations Portfolio
Review: The Communication Seminar Course as Means of Assessing Student
Portfolio Development. Paper Presented to Public Relations Division of
National Communication Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.
Forde, J.E. (2000). Integrating New Technologies into the Public Relations
Capstone Course. Paper Presented to Public Relations Division of National
Communication Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.
Forde, J.E. (2000). Using a Public Relations and Advertising Research
Course Focus Group for Departmental Assessment. Paper Presented to Public
Relations Division of National Communication Association Annual Conference,
Seattle, WA.
Gibson, D.C. (1992). ASK/PR: An Outcome Perspective on Public Relations
Education. Public Relations Quarterly, 37 (34), 45-48.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hendrix, J. (2001). Public Relations Cases (5th ed.), Belmont, CA, Thomson.
Kent, M.L. (2001). Teaching Mediated Public Relations. Public Relations
Review, 27 (1), 59.
King, C.M. (2001). The Write Stuff: Teaching the Introductory Public
Relations Writing Course. Public Relations Review, 27 (1), 27.
Kinnick, K. & Cameron, G.T. (1994). Teaching Public Relations
Management: The Current State of the Art, Public Relations Review, 20 (1),
73-88.
Kruckeberg, D. (1998). The Future of PR Education: Some
Recommendations. Public Relations Review, 24 (2), 235-248.
Lordan, E.J. (1996). Using Group Projects to Help Students Sharpen PR
Skills. Public Relations Quarterly, 41 (2), 43-47.
Lubbers, C.A. & Gorcyca, D.A. (1997). Using Active Learning in Public
Relations Instructions: Demographic Predictors of Faculty Use. Public
Relations Review, 23 (1), 67-80.
Maglio-Jung, F.N. (1994). Dealing with Difficult PR
Clients. Communication World, 11 (8), 18-19.
Marken, G.A. (1997). Clients Have Responsibilities in PR Program's
Success. Public Relations Quarterly, 42 (2), 10-11.
McPherson, D. (1993). Twelve Tips to Stretch Your Nonprofit Media
Relations Dollar, Public Relations Quarterly, 38 (3), 41-42.
Metzler, M.S. and Nadler, M.K. (2000). Engaging the Student in Public
Relations Education: Linking Courses to Meet Objectives. Paper Presented
to Public Relations Division of National Communication Association Annual
Conference, Seattle, WA.
Miga, G.P. (1994). Quality Presentations Boost Decision-Making
Power. Public Relations Journal, 50 (2), 24-25.
Miles, L. (1997). Marriage of Convenience? Marketing, 5/1/97, III (2).
Motschall, M. & Najor, M.A. (2001). The Client-Centered Approach as a
Foundation for Teaching the Introductory Course in Public
Relations. Public Relations Review, 27 (1), 3-15.
Neff, B.D., Walker, G., Smith, M.F., & Creedon, P.J. (1999). Outcomes
Desired by Practitioners and Academics. Public Relations Review, 25 (1), 29.
Patterson, S.A. (2002). Integrating Service Learning into the Public
Relations Curriculum. Paper Presented to Public Relations Division of
National Communication Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Pincus, J.D. & Rayfield, R.E. (1992). Public Relations Education: Our
Future is Banking On It. Communication World, 9 (2), 12-16.
Reber, B., Frisby, C. & Cameron, G. T. (in press). Changing Direction:
Assessing Student Thoughts and Feelings About a New Program in Strategic
Communication. Journal of Advertising Education, in press.
Rentner, T.L. (2000). Four Agencies, One Client and a Pizza: Effective
Use of Competition in the Public Relations Campaign Course. Paper
Presented to Public Relations Division of National Communication
Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.
Richter, L. & Drake, S. (1993). Apply Measurement Mindset to
Programs. Public Relations Journal, 49 (1), 32.
Rybacki, K.C. & Worley, D.A. (2000). Innovations in the Case Studies
Course: Teaching Strategies for Public Relations. Paper Presented to
Public Relations Division of National Communication Association Annual
Conference, Seattle, WA.
Rybacki, D. & Lattimore, D. (1999). Assessment of Undergraduate and
Graduate Progams. Public Relations Review, 25 (1), 65.
Sallot, L.M. (1996). Using a Public Relations Course to Build University
Relationships. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51 (1), 51-60.
Schick, T.A. (1997). Real Clients and Hard-Headed Reviews: Using Hands-On
Classroom Work to Teach Public Relations Management.
Schwartzman, R. (2001). Service Learning Responds to Technological
Enchantment and Intellectual Isolation. College Student Journal, 35 (3),
423-432.
Stacks, D.W. (2002). Teaching Public Relations Research From a PR Research
Primer. Paper Presented to Public Relations Division of Association for
Education in Journalism & Mass Communication Annual Conference, Washington,
DC
Tucker, M.L. & McCarthy, A.M. (2001). Presentation
Self-Efficacy: Increasing Communication Skills Through Service
Learning. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (2), 227.
Weems, C. (2001). Searching for and Keeping Clients. Trusts &
Estates. 140 (4), 64.
Whitney, H. (1997). The Marketing Manager's Job is, Above All, to Make
Sure that the Clients are Satisfied. Direct Marketing, 60 (6), 56-59.
Wilcox, D.L., Cameron, G.T., Ault, P.H., Agee, W.K. (2003). Public
Relations: Strategies and Tactics (7th ed.), Boston, MA, Longman.
Worley, D.A. (2001). Teaching the Public Relations Campaigns
Course. Public Relations Review, 27 (1), 47.
Appendices
Table 1. Descriptions of Campaign Courses (Frequencies)
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
N
Offer a public relations campaigns course
80
79.2
21
20.8
101
Require the course for PR majors/concentration/sequence
71
88.8
9
11.3
80
Course available to:
Undergraduates only
58
72.5
22
27.5
80
Graduate students only
6
7.5
74
92.5
80
Undergraduates and graduates
16
20.0
64
80.0
80
Others
6
7.5
74
92.5
80
Prerequisites required
78
98.7
1
1.3
79
Considered as "capstone" course
64
81.0
15
19.0
79
Students work in groups
73
92.4
6
7.6
79
Use actual clients
76
96.2
3
3.8
79
Clients are typically: campus organizations
19
24.1
60
75.9
79
Clients are typically: off-campus organizations
63
80.8
15
19.2
78
Used the same client in more than one semester
22
29.3
54
70.7
76
Clients offer overview in class before teams are formed
42
56.8
31
41.9
73
The way teams are formed:
Professor base on students' interest/input
34
46.6
39
53.4
73
Random choice by professor
11
15.3
61
84.7
72
Primarily by students themselves
24
33.3
48
66.7
72
Client input after researching student interest
0
0
72
100
72
Other
7
9.7
65
90.3
72
Students can choose clients
38
50.7
36
48.0
74
Class has agency/team meetings
70
89.7
8
10.3
78
Groups "compete" against other for same client
34
44.2
43
55.8
77
If students compete, clients choose winners
20
51.3
19
48.7
39
Client is a formal part of the grading process
26
32.9
53
67.1
79
Client suggests a final grade for the course
7
9.1
70
90.9
77
Students make formal presentation to clients at the end
67
89.3
8
10.7
75
Had media coverage for any final presentation
16
20.8
61
79.2
77
Client pays for services rendered
19
26.0
57
74.0
76
If client pays, they pay for:
Materials for the plan/ presentation
13
61.9
8
38.1
21
A stipend to dept./class for academic purpose
4
19.0
17
81.0
21
Research software used in the class
2
9.5
19
90.5
21
Other
7
33.3
14
66.7
21
Students are asked to seek confidential info from clients
32
41.0
46
59.0
78
Internal information that students seek from clients:
Budgets
29
90.6
3
9.4
32
Organizational plans
29
90.6
3
9.4
32
Organizational charts
28
87.5
4
12.5
32
Timetables
24
25.0
8
75.0
32
Other
11
34.4
21
65.6
32
Students received job/intern. based on class performance
69
88.5
9
11.5
78
Student plans are used significantly by clients
48
69.3
21
30.7
69
Professor has prior affiliation or relationship with the client
31
41.3
44
58.7
75
Table 2: Description of Campaign Courses (Means)
Mean
St. Dev.
N
Course sections
2.1
1.6
80
Class enrollment
22.1
6.5
80
Class time in percentage devoted to:
Prepared lecture
.35
.20
80
Coach/team meeting
.35
.22
80
Other teaching strategy
.27
.20
79
Number of students in a group
5.0
1.6
78
Percentage of off-campus clients are:
Government/ nonprofit
.58
.37
67
Corporate/ for-profit
.20
.23
67
Agency
.05
.12
67
Other
.08
.21
67
If client suggests final grade, the percentage of grade counted
.18
.13
31
Percentage of class devoted to research:
Secondary research in general
.18
.18
75
Secondary research of clients
.17
.17
71
Primary research in general
.19
.13
77
Primary research of clients
.15
.11
71
Willingness of students to ask clients for info.
4.0
.88
74
Willingness of clients to provide info.
3.8
.76
74
Clients' satisfaction w/ student presentation
4.3
.63
70
Clients' satisfaction w/ student plan book
4.4
.49
62
Percentage of students received job/intern. opportunity
.17
.18
65
Percentage of type of clients:
On-campus vs.
.30
.31
69
Off-campus
.67
.34
70
Non-profit vs.
.77
.27
70
For-profit
.23
.27
70
Research done by the professor before choosing the client
3.3
1.2
73
Professors' professional background (years):
Non-profit PR
87
3.0
4.8
Corporate (in-house) PR
89
2.0
3.7
Agency PR
87
1.8
4.8
Government PR
87
1.8
3.9
Other
87
3.8
6.7
Table 3: Comparisons between Accredited and Unaccredited Public Relations
Programs
Programs accredited by AEJ, PRSA, etc.
No
Yes
Total
Offers graduate degree in PR*
No
48
80%
22
60%
70
72%
Yes
12
20%
15
40%
27
28%
Total
60
100%
37
100%
97
100%
Offers campaigns course*
No
17
30%
4
9%
21
21%
Yes
39
70%
39
91%
78
79%
Total
56
100%
43
100%
99
100%
Offers campaigns course to graduate students*
No
34
87%
19
52%
53
71%
Yes
5
13%
17
48%
22
29%
Total
39
100%
36
100%
75
100%
Offers campaigns course to graduate students*
No
34
87%
19
53%
53
71%
Yes
5
13%
17
47%
22
29%
Total
39
100%
36
100%
75
100%
Campaigns course is required for PR majors
No
6
15%
1
3%
7
9%
Yes
33
85%
38
97%
71
91%
Total
39
100%
39
100%
78
100%
Campaigns course is the "capstone" class for PR major
No
10
26%
5
13%
15
19%
Yes
29
74%
33
87%
62
81%
Total
39
100%
38
100%
77
100%
*. Difference is significant at level of .05 in one-sided Fisher's Exact Test
Table 4: Comparisons of Course Outcomes
Course offered to graduate students
No
Yes
Total
Use of plan book*
No
20
42%
1
5%
21
31%
Yes
28
58%
19
95%
47
69%
Total
48
100%
20
100%
68
100%
Student job/intern opportunity
No
8
18%
1
5%
9
12%
Yes
45
82%
21
95%
66
88%
Total
53
100%
22
100%
75
100%
Client is a formal part of grading process
No
Yes
Total
Use of plan book*
No
18
39%
2
9%
20
29%
Yes
28
61%
20
91%
48
71%
Total
46
100%
22
100%
68
100%
Student job/intern opportunity*
No
9
18%
0
0%
9
12%
Yes
42
82%
26
100%
68
88%
Total
51
100%
26
100%
77
100%
Clients offer an overview in-class
No
Yes
Total
Use of plan book*
No
15
54%
6
16%
21
32%
Yes
13
46%
31
84%
44
68%
Total
28
100%
37
100%
65
100%
Student job/intern opportunity
No
5
17%
4
10%
9
13%
Yes
25
83%
38
90%
63
87%
Total
30
100%
42
100%
72
100%
Clients pay for services rendered
No
Yes
Total
Use of plan book*
No
19
39%
2
10%
21
30%
Yes
30
61%
18
90%
48
60%
Total
49
100%
20
100%
69
100%
Student job/intern opportunity*
No
9
16%
0
0%
9
12%
Yes
46
84%
21
100%
67
88%
Total
55
100%
21
100%
76
100%
*. Difference is significant at level of .05 in one-sided Fisher's Exact Test
|
