Damjana Jerman

Intereuropa Ltd. Co., Koper

Bruno Završnik
University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor, Slovenia

PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRIBUTION TO COMPANY’S

EFFECTIVENESS

ABSTRACT

With the increasing call for accountability of public relations spending, measuring the
contribution of public relations to company’s effectiveness is a requirement for business
success. Many companies have taken a limited view of the impact that public relations can
have on overall company’s effectiveness. This paper deals with the value or more
specifically, the contribution of public relations to overall company's effectiveness and
hypothesizes that public relations impact on company’s effectiveness. The paper consists of
two parts: the theoretical framework for the role of public relations for the overall
effectiveness of the company and the empirical analysis, based on the primary data
collected. An analysis of the data in the sample of Slovenian companies is used to address
the research question regarding the relationship between two concepts. This research
confirms positive relationship between dependent variable public relations and the
independent variable company’s effectiveness.

Key words: public relations, public relations evaluation, company’s effectiveness

JEL classification: M3

1. INTRODUCTION

This article deals with one of the problems for public relations practice – its value, or
more specifically, the contribution of public relations to overall company's
effectiveness. Companies invest significant expenditure in public relations.
Specifically, spending on public relations in America has been growing and reached
$3.7 billion in 2005 (Economist, 2005; quoted in Kim, 2007). Little attention has been
paid to research of public relations effectiveness, particularly as compared with
advertising effectiveness research. There are many theories and empirical research
about how advertising works and how advertising has been effective for its consumers
and corporate (Barry and Howard, 1990; Barry, 2002; Colley, 1961, quoted in De
Pelsmacker et al. 2004; Lavidge and Steiner, 1961; Belch and Belch, 2003, Bendixen,
1993; Beerli and Santana, 1999; Benkahla, 2006). Often public relations professionals
want to prove how much value public relations has to an organization, for example
how much public relations increases profits, contribute to market share, and support

ElectronicElectronic copycopy availableavailable at:at: https://ssrnhtp:/ssrn..cocom/abstract=2238970/abstract=2238970

customer satisfaction. Kim (2007) presented the effects of advertising and public
relations on sales revenue, but the reporting of public relations participation to
organizational actual achievement is unclear. This paper attempts to examine the effect
of public relations on company’s effectiveness. With respect to this, the research
question is: “Can public relations impact and improve company’s effectiveness?”
Research into measures of public relations and company’s effectiveness and their
relationship reflects this important issue. In this paper, we question the possibility of
linking public relations activities to overall organizational effectiveness.

Many authors similarly define public relations. Public relations can be defined as a
management function that conducts research about an organization and its publics to
establish mutually beneficial relationship trough communication (Lindenmann et. al.,
1997). Hunt and Grunig (1995: 6) define “public relations as the management of
communication between an organization and it publics. Public relations encompass the
overall planning, execution, and evaluation of an organization’s communication with
both external and internal publics”. The focus of public relations theory has recently
shifted from communication to relationship management (Grunig, 2001; Ledingham,
2003; quoted in Hayes, 2008) linking communication ethics, collaboration,
concurrence, culture and community. Common to all the above concepts is the notion
of relationships as being central to the public relations function.

Public relations had evolving from a communication technician role focused on

producing and distributing information, to a communication manager role focused on
building and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders (Macnamara, 1997). An
increasing number of companies will give the top public relations managers the
responsibility and authority for managing communications (Leckenbay, 2003).
Participation in strategic management provides the integrating link for public relations
to enhance organizational effectiveness. Therefore, company’s effectiveness is one
appropriate outcome measure for determining the effect of public relations.

2. PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMPANY’S

EFFECTIVENESS

The need for measuring and evaluating public relations effectiveness has grown in the past
20 years. A 1992 survey by the Counselors Academy of the Public Relations Society of
America indicated that most people identified »demand for measured accountability« as
one of the leading industry challenges (IPRA, 1994). In 1997, there was a first academic
attempt to find a uniform standard for measuring and evaluating public relations
effectiveness. Since the first attempt, the attention on measurement of public relations
effectiveness has been increased (e.g., Guidelines for Setting Measurable PR Objectives
and Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations). Furthermore, as many
public relations practitioners and scholars have agreed public relations a management role,
many researchers have come to recognize the need for evaluation and measurement of
public relations effectiveness (Lindenmann et. al. 1997). During the past few years, the
general practice of public relations has experienced repeated calls for the development of
methods of measuring evaluation. Hon (quoted in Henderson, 2005) has written several
journal articles on developing and

ElectronicElectronic copycopy availableavailable at:at: https://ssrnhtp:/ssrn..cocom/abstract=2238970/abstract=2238970

expanding the use of evaluation research. A frequent theme is tying evaluation to
public relations objectives, which derive from organizational objectives. Effective
organizations choose and achieve appropriate goals because they develop relationships
with their publics.

An understanding of Grunig's four models of public relations which describe the

evolving types of public relations practice from press agentry through public
information to two-way asymmetric and two-way symmetric communication is also
important to a study of evaluation, as different objectives pertain to each model and,
therefore, different evaluation strategies are required for each (Macnamara, 1997). We
should evaluate the individual public relations program for demonstrating its
effectiveness (Dozier, 1990; Fairchild, 2002) or its impact on organizational
effectiveness (Radford and Goldstein, 2002). There are some studies which suggest
emphasis on measuring public relations program in terms of public relations program
output (Gregory, 2001; Walker, 1994).

The goal of public relations is to help an organization to achieve its business

objectives goal. Getting a clear understanding of an organization’s business goals is
the first step of public relations activities to set measurable objectives for a
communication program. If public relations managers don’t understand business goals,
they can’t achieve company’s effectiveness. Difficulties in link public relations to
company’s effectiveness can be found in the position of public relations managers in
the organizations, because public relations managers don’t take part in setting
company’s objectives (Anderson and Handley, 1999). Another barrier to measure
public relations and consequently link it to the company’s effectiveness can be found
in its benefits, which in most cases are not tangible, but this reason it should be seen
like a myth of measurement (Delahaye, 2003). Other reasons can be low level of
expertise for conducting sophisticated public relations research (Sriramesh, 2004) and
lack of budget dedicated to public relations.

Cutlip, Centre and Broom’s model is most generally accepted by practitioners to show
the different levels of evaluation of public relations (IPRA, 1994). The three levels are
Preparation, Evaluation, Implementation Evaluation, and Impact Evaluation
(Henderson, 2005). Others have developed similar models. Macnamara (1997)
developed a Macro Model of Public Relation Evaluation. This model was first
outlined in a paper published in IPRA Review in 1992. A key feature of this model is
that it breaks public relations activity into three stages: inputs, outputs, and outcomes.
Individual public relations program is constructed from a serious of inputs, outputs are
then produced, and finally outcomes are achieved.

Briefly, in setting public relations goals and objectives, it is important to decide

whether public relations effectiveness should be measured as total entity or
effectiveness of individual public relations program. Outputs measure how well an
organization presents itself to other, the amount of attention or exposure that the
organization receives (Lindenmann, 1993). Broader outcomes measures are about
weather audience target groups actually receives the messages directed at them, were
aware of the message, understood it, retained and even acted upon its meaning
(Phillips, 2001). There is a tradition in public relations evaluation research of seeking

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

to link public relations activities or information campaigns to specific behavioral
and/or attitude effects (Dozier and Ehling, 1992; qouted in Springston and Lariscy
2005). Henderson (2005) said that this is probably the most difficult and the most
sophisticated level of public relations evaluation. Usually, it involves for different
types of outcome measures: awareness and comprehension measurements, recall and
retention measurements, attitude and preference measurements, and behavior
measurements.

And finally it is important to link public relations results to the ultimate goals,
objectives, and results of the organization as a whole. In other words, it is important to
relate public relations outcomes to such desired business and organizational outcomes
as increasing market penetration, market share, sales and increasing an organization’s
profitability (Lindenmann, 1993: 7-8). Also, Grunig et al. (2002) proposed that
“Public relations contribute to organizational effectiveness when it helps reconcile the
organization’s goals with the expectations of its strategic constituencies. This
contribution has monetary value to the organization. Public relations contribute to
effectiveness by building quality, long-term relationships with strategic
constituencies”. Other public relations performance measures can derive from how is
public relations managed. Senior public relations professionals participate in the
strategic decision processes of an organization and counsel other managers
participating in that process about the consequences of potential decisions on publics
(Grunig and Grunig, 2002).

The key to implementing a successful program is to incorporate measurement and

analysis from the beginning. Overall measurement of public relations programs should
provide a holistic view of public relations against corporate goals and objectives. The
company’s effectiveness as a philosophy and as a result of communication activities
has been explored by innumerable authors (McArthur and Griffin, 1997; Schultz and
Kitchen, 1997; Low, 2000; Pickton and Broderick, 2001; Jerman et al., 2008).
Company’s effectiveness and related performance is a robust and ongoing necessity to
business. Have companies become so good at implementing public relations to lead to
company’s effectiveness? Moreover, an even more important issue concerns the
ability of public relations to interface effectively with key stakeholders who could
impact on organizational performance.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Purpose of the research

The main thrust of the paper concerns public relations factors affecting the company's
effectiveness, which can be viewed as a factors related to managing and implementing
public relations.

3.2. Hypothesis

The dominant proposition of this paper is that public relations may be playing a greater role
in terms of emphasis at corporate performance and effectiveness. Empirical

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

evidence supporting this enhanced role at company's effectiveness level will be
presented. Accordingly, we make the following research hypothesis:
H: There is an association and positive relationship between public relations and
company’s effectiveness.

3.3. Variables

For the purposes of our research, the following measures for constructs were
developed, drawing from the conceptual work in the public relations and company's
effectiveness context.

Public relations description

The public relations scale captures the following statements: the primary function of
public relations is to increase the company’s reputation, the public relations office
takes part in strategic decisions in our company, the public relations office holds a
consultation with the managing board or the top management of our company, we are
planning all or public relations activities in our company and public relations manage
build and manage relationships with company’s strategic publics. Public relations
construct consists of interval scale questions. Answers were given on a Likert-scale
format (7= I strongly agree and 1= I strongly disagree). The reliability of construct
was assessed by Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient. The measure had 9 items and
reported an Alpha of 0,8629.

Company's effectiveness description

Company's effectiveness construct can be operationalized in different ways. Many
authors are agreeing that public relations have an impact on company's effectiveness
(McArthur and Griffin, 1997; Schultz and Kitchen, 1997; Low, 2000; Pickton and
Broderick, 2001). We used a multi-item measure of eleven items to investigate the
company’s effectiveness along financial, market and other types of company’s
effectiveness (Churchill, 1979). This variable was composed of three types of
company’s effectiveness: market, financial and other type; we calculated the mean
score for each type of company’s effectiveness as a sum of all mean scores averages.
Company’s effectiveness construct consists of interval scale questions. Answers were
given on a Likert-scale format (7= I strongly agree and 1= I strongly disagree). The
concept of company's effectiveness reported an Alpha of 0,8535.

Therefore, measurement scales for public relations construct and company's

effectiveness construct demonstrated relatively high degree of reliability.

3.4. Data gathering and characteristics of the sample

The main research instrument for empirical investigation, e.g. a questionnaire, was
developed on the derived theoretical basis. The covering letters with questionnaires
were mailed to the corporate directors, marketing directors or director of 1000 the
Slovenian enterprises. We choose the convenience sample. The survey was conducted
in January, 2007. A total of 200 useful responses were received and that gave the
response rate of 20,0 %. The results present in this paper are related to the sample of
200 respondents. The collected empirical data were processed with Statistical Package

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

for the Social Sciences (SPSS), where the emphasis was given to descriptive statistical
analysis.

The relevant data of the companies were provided mainly by marketing directors (28,3
% of cases), followed by company's directors with 26,3 %, members of top managers
(18,7 %), business consultants (9,6 %) and head executives (6,1 %). Members of the
managing boards, heads of public relations offices and counseling specialists answered
in 2,5 %. Other respondents appeared in 3,5 % of cases.

Company size was determined regarding the number of employees. The sample
consists of 45,2 % small companies, 23,8 % middle sized companies and 31,0 % of
large companies. The companies included in the sample are distributed according to
industries as follows. 41,0 % of respondents belong to production oriented companies,
30 % of respondents belong to service oriented companies and 24,5 % were trade
oriented companies. The sample consists of 1,5 % of institutions, 0,5 % of government
organizations and 2,5% of companies chose the answer »other«.

3.5. Research instrument

Both the constructs, e.g. public relations factors and company's effectiveness were
measured on the Likert scale. The respondents had to indicate their agreement with the
statements on the 7-point Likert (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) scales.
Despite the fact that the Likert-type measure does not claim to be more than an ordinal
scale, it has, nevertheless, been accepted as a means of achieving interval
measurement quality, and there are several arguments favoring a variety of positions
on this issue (Avlonitis and Papastathopoulou, 2000).

4. RESULTS

4.1. The public relations practice in the Slovenian companies

One of the goals of our research was to explore if companies has developed its own
public relations function. Data show that 42,3 % of companies are using the outside
public relations agencies, and the remaining 57,7 % of companies have its own in-
house public relations office.

When asked how many employees in your company deal with public relations, we
received the following answers. In the most companies (46,4 %) activities of public
relations are performed by 1 employee, followed by 25 % of companies which have 2
employees dealing with public relations, in the 14,8 % of cases 3 employees work in
the field of public relations and in the remaining 6,6 % of companies 4 employees
performed public relations activities. Data presented in the research are confirming
that public relations activities are performed in the companies nevertheless the public
relations function is organized as the separate department or when it is organized in
the marketing or sales department.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

When asked which department performed the external communication function in
their companies, respondents give the following answers: public relations department
(3 %), marketing or sales department (42 %), no department because the president of
the managing board or director personally attends to this (25 %), and nobody (30 %).

Respondents also indicated that in 61,2 % of the total communications budget go for
marketing communications and the remaining 38,8 % go for public relations.

4.2. The impact of public relations on company’s effectiveness

For each statement of public relations, the average value and the standard deviation
have been calculated. Results in Table 1 show that achieved mean scores regarding
public relations statements are 4, 5 and more, so we can conclude that the respondents
agree with statements regarding public relations. Standard deviation results shows, that
many scores are on the interval between 1, 30 and 2, 12 about mean.

Table 1: Mean scores regarding statements of public relations

Statements about public relations Mean SD

scores
The primary function of public relations is to increase
the company’s reputation. 5,93 1,44
Top management of our company has the complete trust
in the strategy of public relations of our company. 5,73 1,30
The public relations strategy arises from the corporate
business strategy. 5,57 1,30
The public relations office holds a consultation with the
managing board or the top management of our company. 5,43 1,98
Public relations manage build and manage relationships
with company’s strategic publics. 4,90 1,92
The public relations implementation is centralized in our
company. 4,88 1,91
The control of public relations activities is centralized in
our company. 4,79 1,85
We are planning all public relations activities in our
company. 4,76 1,92
The public relations office takes part in strategic
decisions in our company. 4,51 2,12

Results from the Table 2 shows that the mean scores regarding different types of
companies effectiveness are in the interval between 4,50 to 5,04. And also standard
deviation results shows, that many standard deviation scores are achieved on the
interval between 1,22 and 1,50 about mean.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

 Table 2: Mean scores regarding different types of company’s effectiveness

Type of company effectiveness Mean SD

scores
Other types of company’s effectiveness 5,04 1,22
Market effectiveness 4,91 1,40
Financial effectiveness 4,47 1,50

One of the objectives of the paper is concerned about the correlation between different
statement of public relations and company's effectiveness exists. Accordingly, we
make the hypothesis as follows:
Null hypothesis H0: There is no correlation between public relations and company's
effectiveness.
Alternative hypothesis H1: There is a correlation between public relations and
company’s effectiveness.

Table 3: Correlation matrix between public relations and company's effectiveness

Public relations statement Company’s effectiveness

correlation
r p
Top management of our company has the complete
trust in the strategy of public relations of our
company. 0,378(**) 0,000
The public relations strategy arises from the corporate
business strategy. 0,384(**) 0,000
The control of public relations activities is centralized
in our company. 0,326(**) 0,000
The public relations implementation is centralized in
our company. 0,225(**) 0,000
The primary function of public relations is to increase
the company’s reputation. 0,263(**) 0,000
The public relations office takes part in strategic
decisions in our company. 0,222(**) 0,002
The public relations office holds a consultation with
the managing board or the top management of our
company. 0,245(**) 0,001
We are planning all public relations activities in our
company. 0,361(**) 0,000
Public relations manage build and manage
relationships with company’s strategic publics. 0,279(**) 0,000

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

r = Pearson Correlation Coefficient
p = Statistical Significance

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

The test statistic presented in Table 3 exceeds the critical value so we reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant correlation between all tested public
relations statements and company’s effectiveness.

Because the pair wise correlation is found to be significant the relationship between
the variables will be investigated by producing a regression model in the form of a
linear equation. The independent variables (public relations statements) have been
constructed on the basis of questionnaire items, detecting the distinct potential impact
on company's effectiveness. It is important to note that all the variables have been
measured on a seven-level Likert scale. For each independent variable, the average
value and the standard deviation have been calculated.

We would like to test if is the regression model with one predictor variable (e.g. public
relations) significantly related to the criterion variable Y (e.g. company's
effectiveness)? We test the equivalent null hypothesis that there is no relationship in
the sample between dependent variable and independent variable, but we found
significance level at impact of public relations on company’s effectiveness.
Accordingly to this, the null hypotheses, which we tried to reject by means of
regression analysis, could be formulated as follows:

Null hypothesis H0: There is no relationship between the dependent and independent
variables, e.g. The correlation coefficient between the dependent and independent
variables equals 0 (H0: Rxy = 0).
Alternative hypothesis H2: There is a positive relationship between the dependent and
independent variables, e.g. The correlation coefficient between the dependent and
independent variables is significantly higher than 0 (H2: Rxy > 0).

For the tested relationship, we selected the regression model with the highest
significance, i.e. the model with the significance closest to the significance level of
5%. To investigate the hypothesis, entering all variables in a single block, we found
that the proposed model explains a significant percentage of variance in the company's
effectiveness. Table 4 shows that 17,4 per cent of the observed variability in
company’s effectiveness is explained by the one independent variable i.e. public
relations (R2=0,170; adjusted R2=0,174).

Table 4: Relationship between public relations and company’s effectiveness

Independent Dependent R 2
Adjusted Model (Sign.) α
variable (x) variable (y) R2
Public Company’s 0,174 0,170 Lin: 0,000
relations effectiveness y = 3,340 + 0,331x

We assume that, in addition to public relations impact on the company's effectiveness,

other unexplained effects which are not the subject of this research may have and
impact on company's effectiveness. Many authors have studied the impact of different
constructs on company's effectiveness. However, it we can conclude that the
percentage of explained variance (17 %) of public relations in company's effectiveness
is high if excluding other influences. Although the empirical results do not provide a

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

high level of support to the conclusion, we believe that the positive relationship
between the public relations and its company's effectiveness can be still accepted on
the basis of the available data. Such a result is in accordance to the findings of other
authors (Spanos, 2001).

Table 5: Results of regression coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Model B Std. Beta
Error
(Constant) 3,340 0,273 12,222 0,000
Public relations 0,331 0,051 0,417 6,455 0,000 a
a
Dependent variable: Company's effectiveness

Results from Table 5 indicate that we can reject the null hypotheses that the
coefficients for public relations (Beta = 0,417, t =6,455, p =0,000) are 0. The beta
weight (Beta = 0,417) shows that the public relations has a significant influence on
company's effectiveness.

4.3. Managerial implications

We argued and documented empirically that the public relations had a significant
impact on company's effectiveness in the sample of Slovenian companies.
Additionally, each company may choose to have a unique public relations strategy but
it should consider its unique characteristics when developing successful public
relations programs. We identified these characteristics as public relations factors
which can affect the company's effectiveness. Knowing these characteristics in
developing public relations programs can provide competitive advantages over
competitors. This article examines the important contribution that public relations
practice provides to company’s overall effectiveness. And finally with public relations
we are able to improve company's productivity, reach a high quality of services and
products, and consequently these will lead to overall company's effectiveness.

4.4. Limitations and future research

There may be a concern that used measures for public relations will not represent the
whole spectrum of public relations activity. The absence of validity and reliability of
tested concept in the literature, we have been viewed and measured public relations
concept as the management function that establishes and maintains a mutually
beneficial relationship between an organization and its publics (Hunt and Grunig,
1995). A qualitative research with public relations professionals and academicians
would be helpful to develop a theoretical framework for finding the most effective
measure for public relations concept.

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

5. CONCLUSION

The accountability of public relations expenditure has been an important issue in

public relations practice. As media circumstances have changed, corporations
recognize the importance of effective communication with their relevant publics;
public relations have been recognized as a vital component for achieving business
goals and improving organizational performance. This paper examined the impact of
public relations on company’s effectiveness. Thus, public relations and company’s
effectiveness are the main interests of this paper. We provide additional insight about
public relations effectiveness and its contribution to overall company’s effectiveness.
This paper concluded with identifying positive relationship between two concepts.

In the theoretical part of this paper models of public relations evaluation were
discussed. We concluded that is impossible to impose a single measure of research
concepts. Individual organizations have different constituencies, different objectives,
different culture, and their communications practitioners will need to develop a unique
product to measure public relations.

This paper also presents the results of a study that examines factors of public relations
affecting the company’s effectiveness in the sample of Slovenian companies. The
study confirms that there is a positive association between all statements of public
relations and company’s effectiveness. One regression model was established for
testing hypothesis: 1) a model for public relations – company’s effectiveness
relationship. For this relationship the major finding of this research is that public
relations have positive and significant effect on company’s effectiveness and we can
suggest that public relations influence the company’s effectiveness.

A paper provides a perspective of how to analyze the factors affecting the overall
company’s effectiveness. The guidelines that emerge from this approach should be
particularly relevant for public relations managers in industry.

REFERENCES

Anderson, F. W. and Handley, L. (1999), Guidelines for setting measurable public relations objectives, The
Institute for Public Relations, 1-14.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Papastathopoulou, P. (2000), Marketing communications and product performance:
innovative vs non-innovative new retail financial products, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 18 (1), 27 – 41.
Barry, T. E. (2002), In Defense of the Hierarchy of Effects: A Rejoinder to Weilbacher, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 42 (3), 44-47.
Barry, T. E. and Howard, D. J. (1990), A review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in
Advertising, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 (2), 121-135.
Beerli, A. and Santana Josefa, D. M. (1999), Design and validation of an instrument for measuring
advertising effectiveness in the printed media, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
Vol. 21(2), 11–30.
Belch, G. E. and Belch, M. A. (2003), Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communication
perspective, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston.
Bendixen, M. T. (1993), Advertising Effects and Effectiveness, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27,
19– 32.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

Benkahla, S. M. (2006), A study of the history and use of integrated marketing communications within
publications form 1991–2005, Master Thesis – abstract, Retrived January 1, 2007, from West Virginia:
Isaac Reed School of Journalism at West Virginia University, Web site
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview_all/1436603
Churchill, G.A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 16, 64 – 73.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M. and Bergh, J. van den (2004), Marketing communications: European
perspective. Financial Times, Harlow.
Delahaye, P. K. (2003), Guidelines for Measuring Trust in Organizations, The Institute for Public Relations,
1-13.
Dozier, D. M. (1990), The innovation of research in public relations practice: Review of a program of
studies, Public Relations Research Annual, Vol. 2, 3 – 28.
Fairchild, M. (2002), Evaluation: An opportunity to raise the standing of PR, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 6 (4), 305–307.
Gregory, A. (2001), Public relations and evaluation: Does the reality match the rhetoric?, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 7 (3), 171–189.
Grunig, J. E. and Grunig, L. A. (2002), Implications of the IABC excellence study for PR education,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 (1), 34–42.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. and Dozier, D. M. (2002), Excellent Public Relations and
Effective Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Hayes, R. (2008), Reframing public relations via dialogue and diplomacy to build relational value for
business and society in the globalising world, Paper presented at International Public Relations
Research Symposium, 15th Bledcom.
Henderson, J. K. (2005), Evaluating Public Relations Effectiveness in a Health Care Setting: The
identification of communication Assets and liabilities via a Communication audit, Journal of Health &
Human Services Administration, Fall 2005, 282-322.
Hunt, T. and Grunig, J. E. (1995), Tehnike odnosov z javnostmi, Državna založba Slovenije, Ljubljana.
International Public Relations Association (1994), Public relations evaluation: Professional accountability –
Gold paper, No. 11, IPRA, Geneva.
Jerman, D., Završnik, B. and Žabkar, V. (2008), Model uspešnosti tržnega komuniciranja na
medorganizacijskih trgih – dissertation, Ekonomska fakulteta, Ljubljana.
Kim, K. (2007), The Effects of Advertising and Publicity on Corporate Reputation and Sales Revenue: 1985
– 2005 – dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Lavidge, R. J. and Steiner, A. (1961), A model for predictive measurement of advertising
effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 (6), 59–62.
Leckenbay, John (2003), Public Relations Effectiveness, Advertising & Brand Communication, Fall 2003.
Web site http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/fall_03/adv392/jang/
Lindenmann, W. K. (1998-1999), Measuring Relationships is Key to Successful Public Relations, Public
Relations Quarterly, Winter 1998-1999, 18-24.
Lindenmann, W. K. et. al. (1997), Guidelines and Standards for Measuring and Evaluating PR Effectiveness,
The Institute for Public Relations.
Lindenmann, W.K. (1993), An Effectiveness Yardstick to measure public relations success, Public
Relations Quarterly, Vol. 38 (1), 7-9.
Low, G.S. (2000), Correlates of Integrated Marketing Communications, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 40, 27 – 39.
Macnamara, J. R. (1997), Research in Public Relations, CARMA International Asia Pacific.
McArthur, D. N. and Griffin, T. (1997), A Marketing Management View of Integrated
Marketing Communications, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 37, 19 – 26.
Phillips, D. (2001), The public relations evaluationists, Corporate Communications, Vol. 6 (4), 225 – 237.
Pickton, D. and Broderick, A. (2001), Integrated marketing communications, Financial Times, Prentice Hall,
Harlow.
Radford, G. P. and Goldstein, S. Z. (2002), The role of research methods in corporate communication,
Corporate Communications, Vol. 7(4), 252–256.
Schultz, D.E. and Kitchen, P.J. (1997), Integrated marketing communications in US advertising
agencies: an exploratory study, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 37, 7 – 18.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970

Spanos, Y. E. and Lioukas S. (2001), An Examination into the Causal Logic of Rent Generation: Contrasting
Porter's Competitive Strategy Framework and the Resource-Based Perspective, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 22(10), 907-934.
Sriramesh, K. (2002), International Public Relations and Research – Material from the IPRA Conference
Cairo 2002.
Walker, G. (1994), Communicating public relations research, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 6
(3), 141–161.

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238970