Pr Plan for the Launch of Inscope Produced for Belcher Rollins by Cloud Public Relations
In:
Submitted By MeaghanC Words 12728 Pages 51
| |
|Assumptions |
| |
|Please note that a number of assumptions have been made in response to this assignment. These include the size of the Belcher |
|Rollins business and its operations, its international locations, its listings on international stock markets and its |
|financial reporting process. Assumptions have also been made about the product development process and pricing. All of these|
|are as realistic as possible, having been established through detailed research of the current market leader, Reed Elsevier, |
|and its major competitors. |
| |
|As InScope is directly comparable to the Reed Elsevier ‘Scopus’ product, it has also been assumed that Scopus does not exist |
|at time of the InScope launch. |
INSCOPE: A NEW GENERATION OF RESEARCH
PR PLAN FOR THE LAUNCH OF INSCOPE
PRODUCED FOR BELCHER ROLLINS BY CLOUD PUBLIC RELATIONS
APRIL 2009
CONTENTS Page
| | |
|Executive Summary |4 |
| | |
|Background to the Brief |5 |
| | |
|Situation Analysis: |6 |
|Macro-environmental issues | 7 |
|Review of the organisation and product | 7 |
|Key stakeholders and publics | 9 |
| | |
|Strategy: |11 |
|Aims and objectives |11 |
|Key messages |12 |
|Strategic approach and timescale |13 |
| | |
|Campaign Tactics |14 |
|Pre-Launch: May to September 2009 |14 |
|The Launch Itself: October and November 2009 |16 |
|Follow-up: November 2009 to April 2010 |19 |
| | |
|Resources |20 |
| | |
|Evaluation |21 |
| | |
|Appendices: | |
|Appendix I: Belcher Rollins mission, vision, values and strategy |22 |
|Appendix II: Detailed situational analysis |24 |
|Appendix III: List of competitors |30 |
|Appendix IV: Examples of stakeholders |31 |
|Publics: Interest/Power Matrix | |
|Potential Issues Management Stance | |
|Appendix V: Activity Schedule and Budget |36 |
PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMARY
This report has been prepared in response to a brief from Belcher Rollins and proposes a public relations strategy for the international launch of ‘InScope’; a new academic abstracting and indexing tool for libraries, which will be launched in October 2009.
It sets out the market position of Belcher Rollins and the potential impact of InScope, providing context in which to view PR plans and budgets. It also analyses both macro-environmental and internal factors, focusing on the key issues which may impact on the launch: the pace of technological development; the lobby for open access publishing; worldwide economic conditions and shifts in the market for scholarly publishing.
Secondary research has allowed stakeholders to be reviewed and key publics to be identified. This has resulted in clear, achievable campaign objectives and targeted messages, which focus on InScope while underpinning the company’s mission, vision and values. Issues management is proposed alongside the launch campaign, to ensure that industry issues do not detract from a focus on the product.
The recommended strategy is based on a 12-month plan, with three strands of international activity: pre-launch awareness-building; integrated communications focusing on the launch itself and follow-up to maintain momentum.
Activity focuses on the primary publics of librarians and the wider academic community, but considers strong influencing factors from other groups. In order to optimise customer-facing communication, it aims to harness: internal communications; investor relations; lobbying activity and issues management.
At the heart of the campaign are: a series of high profile events in six major cities followed by roadshows and sponsored events; a programme of international media relations; launch of the ‘InScope Challenge’ to celebrate a new generation of researchers and a strong link with financial reporting.
The report concludes by outlining the required resources, potential budgets and evaluation criteria. Recommendations are made on necessary internal structure to manage the multi-national nature of the campaign.
The campaign theme: ‘A New Generation of Research’, draws heavily on stakeholder opinion and product features. Ongoing testing of messages and material with customers will ensure the integrity of this approach.
BACKGROUND TO THE BRIEF
Belcher Rollins, the world’s largest academic publisher, is headquartered in London, England and has 7,000 employees in 25 offices, led by teams in: the US (Washington); Canada (Montreal); Australia (Sydney); New Zealand (Auckland); Japan (Tokyo) and China (Shanghai). It is listed on the London, New York and Tokyo stock exchanges.
The company has a clearly stated corporate strategy (see Appendix I).
The annual economic impact of academic publishing within the UK alone is £7.7 billion[1]. Internationally, scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing dominates the sector and generates in the region of $19 billion (£13 billion)[2]. With an annual turnover of £5.5 billion, Belcher Rollins is the market leader.
The company serves over 30 million scientists, academics and information professionals worldwide, and works with global academic communities to publish over 5,000 journals and 1,900 books per year. As with all major academic publishers, around a third of subscriptions are sold in Europe, a third in North America, and the rest elsewhere[3]. Competitors include commercial publishers, learned societies and university presses3.
After two years of development and testing by 20 university libraries, Belcher Rollins will launch its innovative new resource, InScope, in October 2009. This user-friendly search engine is dedicated to finding peer-reviewed, academic research among Belcher Rollins’ publications, back-dated to 1960. This equates to 27 million document entries.
InScope offers competitive advantages over existing resources: citation searching; a catalogue covering all academic fields and potential cross-pollination of different research areas to produce innovative publications. With a competitive annual operating cost of £20,000, InScope provides significant added value compared with other electronic products.
The potential market for InScope is substantial, with the combined number of universities in its geographical markets approaching 10,000[4]. As little as 10 percent market penetration would produce annual returns of £20million, before considering additional revenue from individual article sales and new subscriptions.
Launch plans and budgets should be viewed in the context of the potential impact of InScope on the sector. External analysis reveals estimates of 15 to 25,000 peer-reviewed titles published worldwide, growing by 3-4 percent per year. Sixty percent are published on-line, with10 percent available free via an open access model[5].
Through InScope, a quarter of the world’s most prestigious academic titles will now be available to researchers in one place.
SITUATION ANALYSIS
Understanding of the external environment stems from an EPISTLE analysis, reviewing seven areas: economic; political; information; social; technological; legal and environmental. This has been informed by secondary research, reviewing activity from competitors (Reed Elsevier, Springer and others), industry bodies and Governmental groups, and media coverage.
Significant issues appear in the table overleaf and are expanded in Appendix II, while a list of competitors can be found in Appendix III. Internal and external factors have also been summarised within a SWOT analysis, developed by reviewing the Belcher Rollins/InScope strategic plan and discussions with company specialists.
Macro-Environmental Issues
These are diverse (see Appendix II).
|Economic: |Shifts in international markets as US declines and Far East opens up |
| |Worldwide recession and lower value of sterling |
| |Declining library budgets cw increasing subscription costs |
| |More free online services becoming available |
| |Costs of software reducing annually |
|Political: |Globalisation leading to international collaboration |
| |National prosperity dependent on knowledge economies |
| |Debate around open access: call for Government strategies |
| |Benefits of electronic publishing for low carbon agenda |
| |Potential issues re overseas censorship |
|Information: |Huge growth in Internet use and accessible information |
| |Until now, few arts and humanities journals available electronically |
| |Printed copies of journals underused cw electronic |
| |Electronic publishing appeals to wider learning styles |
| |Speed of access and diversity of sources |
|Social: |Greater collaboration across geographic boundaries |
| |Researchers eager for more digital content |
| |Demand for 24 hour availability and greater accessibility |
| |Democratic nature of e-communication and social media |
| |Lobby for free availability of research (open access) |
| |Need for librarians to adopt new skills |
| |Potential for ‘digital divide’ |
|Technological: |New global research community |
| |Internet seen as a medium for research and collaboration |
| |Huge increase in peer reviewed electronic journals |
| |Demand for more sophisticated search tools – Web 3.0 |
| |Threats from hacking/piracy and technological failure |
| |Future subscriptions may be electronic only |
|Environmental: |Potential environmental benefits – reduced printing/distribution |
| |Less travel for international collaboration |
| |Reduced storage, less library visits, efficiency benefits through speed |
A Review of the Organisation and Product
(See Appendix II).
|Strengths: |A quarter of the world’s peer reviewed journals in one place |
| |Meeting customer demand through innovation |
| |Competitive benefits: citation search; ‘one stop shop’ of all titles; cross- pollination of |
| |research |
| |Competitive price position/ significant added value |
| |Corporate reputation and stature |
| |Existing stakeholder relationships |
| |Accessibility for researchers |
|Weaknesses: |Criticism for high margins |
| |Worldwide recession and strength of sterling |
| |Need to charge VAT within UK |
| |Own publications only |
|Opportunities: |Access to new markets |
| |Improved value for money through speed, breadth and reduced storage |
| |Potential for global, cross-discipline collaboration |
| |Improved university performance, grant income and reputation |
| |Better tools for librarians to evaluate returns on investment |
|Threats: |Development of academic buying consortia |
| |Support for the ‘open access’ model |
| |Decline in traditional markets |
| |Hacking/piracy or technological failure |
| |Commercial pressure to comply with national censorship (reputation) |
Key issues stem from: • Huge shifts underway in scholarly publishing, through technological advances and demand for innovative solutions. Growing competition in the development of Internet-based delivery platforms, with all major STM publishers active in the field[6]. Research portals fulfil demand for innovation, providing wide opportunities for global, cross-discipline collaboration and accessibility
• A growing academic/Governmental lobby for open access to research, criticising commercial publishers for high profit margins.
• A worldwide recession, combined with depleted library budgets. American libraries recently publicised evidence[7] of double-digit budget reductions for 2009/10, criticised rising publishing costs and predicted discontinuation of print in favour of electronic resources
• Shifting markets, with reduced US dominance and the increased academic strength of Far East, plus wider use of English as the language of academia[8]. However, political censorship in countries like China has restricted commercial development and affected the reputation of providers
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND PUBLICS
The market for academic journals is largely circular. Academics and other researchers write articles, colleagues peer-review them and libraries supporting the research community buy subscriptions6. However, stakeholders are diverse (see Appendix III).
As the campaign is executed, stakeholders will need to be identified geographically in terms of: UK and Europe; The US; Canada; Australia; New Zealand; Japan and China.
|Enabling Stakeholders: |Belcher Rollins shareholders/analysts and stockbrokers |
| |Government departments and agencies in target countries |
| |UK Government Select Committees |
| |European Commission |
| |HE and FE-funded bodies |
| |Research Councils UK (RCUK) |
|Functional Stakeholders: |Employees |
| |Existing and potential service-users (academic librarians and researchers) |
| |Academic budget holders – university administrators and computer departments |
| |Teachers/lecturers |
| |Researchers submitting papers |
| |Editorial Boards |
| |Reviewers |
| |Clinical, professional and industrial researchers/users |
| |National/International research bodies |
|Normative Stakeholders: |Competitors – commercial publishers, learned societies, university presses |
| |Open access services |
|Diffused Stakeholders: |Research foundations |
| |Academic coalitions |
| |Alliances of academic and research libraries |
| |Publishers’ associations |
| |Professional associations |
| |News/media organisations |
| |Specialist bloggers |
| |Booksellers |
| |Funding bodies/Trusts |
| |Subscription agents |
| |Document suppliers |
| |Copyright granting/royalty collection organisations |
| |Trade unions |
Stakeholder mapping allows identification of publics (stakeholders who are active or aware of ‘live’ issues). These have been categorised using an interest/power matrix (see Appendix IV).
The following publics have been identified as critical to the success of the launch. Some groups and individuals will belong to more than one public.
Primary Publics: • Academic Librarians • Academic Researchers • Clinical, professional and industrial researchers • Academic budget holders • Academic coalitions • Alliances of academic and research libraries • Contributors to scholarly journals: researchers, reviewers; editorial boards • Employees • Shareholders • Competitors: commercial publishers, learned societies; university presses • HE and FE funded bodies • News and media organisations/commentators
Secondary Publics: • Government departments/agencies • European Commission • Research Councils
Publics are cross-referenced with their key information sources in Appendix IV.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The campaign has four core aims: • To generate substantial interest in InScope from academic librarians, in order to support sales: positioning it as the best in the market and ‘a new generation in research’
• To generate understanding and support for InScope among industry influencers and opinion leaders
• To strengthen Belcher Rollins’ position as the brand leader in international academic publishing, underpinning its reputation for innovation and quality
• To manage communications around contentious issues within scholarly publishing: (a) pressure on academic financial resources and criticisms of profiteering by publishers, (b) the lobby for open access publishing and (c) international censorship
Objectives
The communications objectives underpin the business objectives. They are to: • Develop activities which ensure that Belcher Rollins’ entire current audience of academic librarians is provided with clear, accessible and engaging information on InScope and its benefits, within the campaign period
• Create communications activity that demonstrates the competitive advantages of InScope, focusing on cross pollination of research across disciplines
• Ensure cohesive planning and management by establishing communications teams in each target country during May 2009
• Ensure that Belcher Rollins employees and the academics involved in producing its journals understand InScope, and are empowered to act as ambassadors for the product during the campaign launch
• Reassure shareholders on the success of the company’s investment in product development and its role as market leader, by linking the launch to investor relations
• Counteract potential cost criticisms by communicating the wider values of InScope to opinion leaders, promoting its efficiency, widened depth of information and innovation through cross-pollination of disciplines
• Manage ‘noise’ around open access: being prepared to promote the benefits of commercial scholarly publishing, alongside Belcher Rollins’ commitment to work with academics to trial open access
• Develop a position on political censorship, in case this should arise as an issue during the campaign
KEY MESSAGES
Campaign messages have been developed in line with business objectives and strongly underpin the company’s mission, vision and values (see Appendix I):
• Belcher Rollins’ new product, InScope, represents a ‘new generation’ in research. It is the most innovative on-line research tool available
• InScope will provide major advantages for libraries: o efficiency through speed o volume and quality of information o cross-referencing o reduced storage space o cost efficiency – competitive annual cost and one-off charge for unsubscribed papers o new skills for librarians • InScope will provide major advantages for researchers: o A quarter of the world’s peer-reviewed journals in one place, covering all academic fields o Citation searching o Potential innovation through cross-pollination of research disciplines o Potential for enhanced academic recognition, thereby attracting funding
• InScope illustrates Belcher Rollins’ commitment to its shareholders: o investing in new sources of content o expanding into new markets o improving cost efficiency o driving ‘added value’ online solutions
Further, detailed messages will need to be developed within issues management plans, in relation to agreed policies and positions (see Appendix IV).
STRATEGIC APPROACH AND TIMESCALE
The 12-month campaign has four distinct elements: • Pre-launch activity, May to October 2009, building awareness and expectation in advance of the launch • Intensive, integrated communications in October and November 2009 focusing on launch events in six international locations • Follow up activity, November 2009 to April 2010 • Issues management planning, to ensure that stakeholder focus remains on the product, rather than tangential industry issues
Integrated activity will include: • Internal communications to generate pride and equip staff to act as InScope Ambassadors • Proactive, two-way customer-facing communications to create product interest and demand among academic librarians, and to build awareness among the 250,000 academics involved in producing Belcher Rollins’ journals • Investor relations to dovetail with financial PR activity, to reassure shareholders of the investment value of InScope and the strength of corporate strategy • Lobbying activity to reinforce Belcher Rollins’ reputation as a responsible, quality business, and build understanding and support among influencers and policy makers • Issues management planning to prepare for contentious industry issues which may deflect from the product strategy
CAMPAIGN TACTICS
A schedule of activity can be found in Appendix V. This is based on the following tactics, some of which may be shared activity with the marketing team:
Pre-Launch Activity: May to September 2009
Testing of Messages and Campaign Theme • Final testing of visual identity, campaign theme and messages using customer focus groups from pilot universities • Focus group testing of customer-facing communications material
Resources and Procedures • Establishment of an international New Generation PR Team led by Belcher Rollins Director of Public Relations and Cloud PR Strategy Director. Involving national office directors and designated PR ‘champions’ • Agreement on regular face-to-face updates with the Chief Executive, and board reporting • Creation of a campaign tool kit, based on a bespoke, secure Extranet for use by the PR team • Establishment of a formal link with directors and teams in marketing, HR and finance departments • Sign-off of activity plan and budget • Media training for spokespeople
Internal Communications • Link with existing company briefing system (weekly and monthly team meetings, monthly e-bulletin from the Chief Executive) • Features in monthly e-newsletter • Production of a staff DVD • Regular updates on Intranet including podcasts and ‘Ask us a question’ • Basic product training for staff, via the HR department • Work with HR to include InScope briefing in the induction of new staff • Staff competition based on product knowledge, allowing four employees (Europe; North America; Australasia; Far East) to attend the InScope national launch of their choice
Customer-Facing Communications: • Use of existing databases to send a series of e-alerts to librarians/budget holders and academics (using appropriate languages as ‘gatekeepers’ may not be as fluent in English as the academics they support[9]) • PR-led tactical advertising in Belcher Rollins 100 highest circulation magazines – full back page in May to September editions • Liaison with editorial boards to feature news in all Belcher Rollins publications May to September • International media relations to build interest/comment in advance of the launch, beginning with a product announcement and including product benefits and feedback from trials. Placement of expert interviews on ‘the future of academic research’ • Regular updates on corporate and national websites • Regular features in the monthly customer e-newsletter
Investor Relations: • Updates to be included in existing communications with shareholders, stockbbrokers and analysts • Liaison with the financial PR team to link with the October interim results announcement
Lobbying Activity • Inclusion of InScope messages within public affairs activity • Liaison with national teams to inform opinion-leader briefings • Briefing for Research Councils UK to agree advocacy within launch activity (RCUK is Government-backed and the UK’s biggest funder of research. It aims to create worldwide partnerships and has overseas offices, most recently including Shanghai[10])
Issues Management • Work with the Board and communications team to quickly develop positions and responses to questions of a) open access publishing, b) rising publishing costs and c) overseas censorship of search engines • Monitoring of media, competitor and public comment • Media training of spokespeople
The Launch Itself: October and November 2009
Internal Communications • Staff briefings immediately prior to the first launch event in London, on 7th October • Distribution of merchandising material including New Generation tee shirts, USB sticks and pens • Special edition of the monthly staff newsletter • Intranet update • Use of information screens at company offices
Customer-Facing Communications: • Use of existing databases to target librarians/budget holders and academics with an e-announcement, i-brochure and access to a trial site. Plus a downloadable screen saver and on-line quiz • PR-led launch advertisements in Belcher Rollins 100 highest circulation magazines – full back page in October editions • Liaison with editorial boards to feature the launch story in all Belcher Rollins October publications
• Launch flashed on corporate and national websites. Launch of dedicated InScope website • Special edition of the monthly customer e-newsletter • International media relations programme: launch events (see overleaf); media briefing pack including access to a trial site; individual briefings and interviews; photography; comment from customers and other advocates; a video and audio news release, aimed at news and business broadcasting. Announcement of the first InScope customers (universities which have signed up during the pilot period) • Use of social media – InScope updates via FaceBook and Twitter, linked to the website • Announcement of the ‘InScope Challenge’ to find the ‘New Generation of Researchers’, open to teams collaborating internationally or across disciplines, with a funding prize of £30,000
Investor Relations • London, Washington and Tokyo events will provide an opportunity for financial analysts to attend on day two, prior to the issue of interim financial results
Lobbying Activity • Liaison with national teams to inform opinion-leader briefings • Briefings to UK consuls in all target countries • House of Commons reception hosted by David Lammy, MP, Minister for Higher Education, in association with RCUK
Issues Management • Monitoring of media, competitor and public comment • Ability to move quickly to implement the issues management plan
| |
|The Launch Events: |
|Held at iconic locations, which reflect learning and collaboration: |
|London |
|Washington |
|Montreal |
| |
|Tokyo |
| |
| |
|Shanghai |
|Sydney* |
| |
|7th October |
|14th October |
|16th October |
| |
|21st October |
| |
| |
|28th October |
|4th November |
| |
|The Science Museum |
|US Library of Congress |
|The Montreal Biosphère (Canadian Environment Museum) |
|Miraikan – The National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, |
|Tokyo Academic Park |
|Science and Technology Museum |
|Sydney Observatory |
| |
| |
|Event format: morning press briefing and lunch, with the opportunity to trial the product and hear comment from key senior |
|spokespeople, a leading national academic and a speaker from RCUK. Evening stakeholder event (targeting librarians and |
|academic budget holders) with the opportunity to trial the product, and hear presentations from national directors plus a |
|keynote speech from a local academic team, demonstrating innovation through cross-pollination of disciplines, for example: |
| |
|London |
| |
| |
|Washington |
| |
| |
| |
|Tokyo: |
| |
|“Unwrapping a 3,000 |
|year-old mummy” |
| |
|“Successful treatment |
|of stroke victims using |
|music therapy” |
| |
|“Preventing Childhood Injuries through web- |
|based sensing |
|technology” |
|Egyptology/ |
|Simulation technology |
| |
|Medical science/the |
|semiotics of music |
| |
| |
|Psychology/physiology/ computational |
|intelligence technology |
| |
| |
|Distribution of media/product information packs and merchandising material |
| |
|* Combined event for Australasian audiences due to restricted size of market |
Follow Up Activity: November 2009 to April 2010
Internal Communications • Inclusion of InScope updates within internal briefings/ communications • Follow up coverage of launch activity and staff competition winner within the monthly staff newsletter
Customer-Facing Communications: • Regular e-newsletters to librarians and wider academic community, ‘call to action’ to visit the InScope website for news, information and skills updates • PR-led advertising and editorial in Belcher Rollins publications • Media relations: regular media releases on new contracts and product developments/uses • Ongoing use of social media • Support for the InScope Challenge – media relations around entries, judging, short-listing and winners • Roadshows in target countries which did not host a launch event • Sponsorship/speaker opportunities at key sector events: see Appendix IV for full list:
Investor Relations • Liaison with financial PR team on issue of financial results and Annual General Meetings in April/May 2010 • InScope feature within the annual report
Lobbying Activity • Continued liaison with national teams
Issues Management • Continued monitoring of media, competitor and public comment • Ability to move quickly to implement the issues management plan
RESOURCES
Many of the activities outlined can be handled within the company marketing and PR teams, with support from: finance; HR; technical and customer care departments. The campaign demands the creation of an international PR team, (see page 14), appropriate protocols, procedures and reporting. The team will be managed by the Belcher Rollins PR Director.
Budgets have been compiled to cover the input of the Cloud PR team, in terms of strategic advice, media relations and event management. Cloud’s personnel are based in: the US; Canada; Australia; New Zealand; Japan and China and are senior strategists with expertise in technical public relations. The consultancy’s Strategy Director will oversee the Cloud team, with overall accountability to the client.
Budget
A detailed budget can be found Appendix V. This outlines the potential costs likely to be incurred by Belcher Rollins with various specialist suppliers, along with contributions from current marketing and HR budgets. Potential consultancy fees for support over 12-months, across seven countries, are also outlined.
The budget, at £2.1milllion, is a substantial one and can be viewed as a ’menu’ for discussion. However, this equates to a national budget of £300,000 per target country and is comparable with Belcher Rollins’ expenditure on wider product PR.
EVALUATION
Evaluation should be built on a four-step process, reviewing:
• Inputs (background information and research; pre-testing; brief and planned activity)
• Outputs (message, exposure and audience reach) o Milestones achieved (see the activity schedule, Appendix V) o Media coverage: opportunities to see; key messages; positive vs negative comment; thematic breakdown of stories o Social media coverage, using a specialist agency to identify and score influential sites o Event attendance o Customer panel/focus groups
• Out-takes (awareness, understanding and response) o Response to advertising in Belcher Rollins journals o Website hits; e-newsletter and i-brochure responses (pages viewed, information forwarded) o Requests for information, reviewed weekly
• Outcomes (change in awareness, opinion and/or behaviour) o Sales figures, reviewed weekly o Feedback from customer focus groups o Results of 2010 customer satisfaction survey o Response to 2010 staff satisfaction survey
3,870 WORDS
APPENDIX I
BELCHER ROLLINS: MISSION, VISION AND STRATEGY
Our Mission
Belcher Rollins aims to be the indispensable partner to our customers in the science, medical, legal, risk management and business sectors, by providing them with the online professional information and workflow solutions they need.
We create authoritative content delivered through market leading brands, enabling our customers to find the essential data, analysis and commentary to support their decisions.
Our content and solutions are increasingly embedded in the workflows of our customers, making them more effective and Belcher Rollins a more valued partner.
Our Vision Statement
We are passionate about understanding and responding to customer needs. We provide authoritative information and technology based solutions across key stages of our customers work flow. Our products are demonstrably superior, or distinctive to our competitors.
We achieve this through relentless focus on innovation and content development, and mastery of digital technology.
We proactively manage our portfolio of businesses. We expect each business to deliver superior, long term growth and added value. We look globally to enter faster growing adjacent sectors. We are committed to building sustainable, leadership positions.
We are dedicated to creating a great place to work for all employees. We are a high performance driven organisation. At all levels we demand the highest standards of ourselves; we are driven by strongly held values; and we take our social responsibilities seriously.
We are one company, benefiting from shared philosophy, skill sets, resources and synergies. Each of our businesses is stronger through belonging to Belcher Rollins.
We deliver long term superior value creation for our shareholders through outstanding execution and delivery of our vision and strategy.
Our Values
At Belcher Rollins we have a clear set of values for delivering our vision. These are:
Customer Focus
Everything we do is driven by our customers' needs. We want to be their indispensable partner. We have a passion for understanding and exceeding our customers' expectations. We are committed to providing demonstrably superior products and services with the highest level of quality and excellence. We are professional in all our customer dealings. We are highly valued and respected by our customers.
Valuing Our People
We put the highest priority on recruiting, developing and retaining outstanding people. Our managers are directly responsible for the development of their people. We recognise and reward achievement. We enjoy what we do and we celebrate success. We empower our people to maximise their potential and contribution. We respect our people and believe in open and honest communication. We behave in an ethical and principled manner.
Passion for Winning
We are determined to outperform and beat the competition. We always want to be the best. We are a high energy, fast moving, decisive organisation. We have a strong propensity for action. We always execute well and deliver. We set aggressive goals and strive to beat them. We hold ourselves and each other accountable for outstanding results.
Innovation
We welcome and push change; we challenge the status quo. We encourage our people to be entrepreneurial, take some risks and learn from mistakes. We are ready to make bold moves and decisions. We constantly look for new ideas, and value 'out-of-the-box' thinking. We keep things simple and minimise bureaucracy.
Collaboration
We welcome the global nature of our business and encourage people to work collaboratively across business units, hierarchy and functions. We constantly strive to break down barriers between organisations. Our people are supportive of each other. We seek partnerships with customers and suppliers.
Our Strengths
We hold leadership positions in large global markets sustained by the increasing demand for professional information.
We deliver authoritative content of the highest quality through market leading brands, enabling our professional customers to find the essential data, analysis and commentary to support their decisions.
Our content and solutions are increasingly embedded in our customers’ workflows making them more effective and Belcher Rollins a more valued partner.
We generate a large part of our revenues from subscriptions and other recurring revenue streams.
Our focus on operational efficiency allows us to deliver continuous margin improvement while funding investment in new products.
The quality of our profits is underpinned by strong cash flow generation.
We recruit and cultivate the best talent to serve our customers and manage our business with enterprise, professionalism and exceptional commitment.
Our Strategy
We have a clear, investment led business strategy which has four main elements. These are:
Deliver authoritative content through leading brands
We invest in new sources of content to widen and differentiate the product offering to our customers, expanding into new segments and geographic regions.
Drive online solutions
We leverage our leadership brands and authoritative proprietary content to deliver innovative, solutions-orientated products that become embedded in customers’ workflows and enable Belcher Rollins to move up the value chain.
Improve cost efficiency
We harness our scale, skill sets, technology, resources and collective experience across the business to improve cost efficiency.
Reshape and strengthen portfolio
We allocate capital and resources, both through internal investment and acquisition, to pursue opportunities that accelerate our strategic and business progress and create a more cohesive business.
Note: Information adapted from published Reed Elsevier corporate information 2009. www.reedelsevier.com
APPENDIX II
DETAILED SITUATION ANALYSIS
Macro-Environmental Factors
| | |
|ECONOMIC |POLITICAL |
| | |
|USA’s dominance in science and engineering eroding –US share|Globalisation - pressure for increased global and |
|of worldwide publications in decline1 |interdisciplinary collaboration |
| | |
|More players entering the market (researchers and |Governmental view that within a knowledge economy, innovation and|
|publishers) |information determine prosperity4 |
| | |
|Potential reduction in revenue due to increasing trend and |Demand for new scientific solutions to leverage new technologies |
|funding for open access to research | |
| |European Union now issuing grants for inter-disciplinary projects|
|Current worldwide recession and changes in purchasing | |
|power/interest rates |Growing debate around open access to research within Governments |
| |and European Union5 |
|Reduced value of sterling | |
| |Individual Government strategies on academic research/digital |
|High levels of competition from traditional and new |development within target countries |
|electronic publishers | |
| |Benefits of electronic publishing for green agenda |
|Declining university library budgets cw increasing | |
|publishing subscription costs2 |Search engine censorship by political regimes (eg China censors |
| |Google, Yahoo and Altavista and blocks some US University sites6 |
|Researchers struggle to secure financial support for library| |
|resources. 9 | |
| | |
|Funding strained and materials costs rising in libraries3 | |
| | |
|Taxation issues eg UK tax charged on electronic publications| |
|but not on print = tax benefits for UK libraries | |
| | |
|More free online services becoming available | |
| | |
|Cost savings for libraries: ease of storage, low cost per | |
|view, ease of monitoring usage | |
| | |
|Costs of software reducing annually | |
| | |
|As electronic service becomes the norm, difficulty in | |
|sustaining a link with pricing of print-only journals | |
| | |
|INFORMATION |SOCIAL |
| | |
|Growth in Internet use. |Geographic boundaries diminished by electronic publishing |
| | |
|Huge rise in accessible information – more journal articles |New countries becoming established as research centres, eg 505% |
|now read than ever before7 |increase in articles published in China 1997-20078 |
| | |
|Researchers expected to digest more information on regular |Researchers have adapted readily to the availability of digital |
|basis |content and are eager for more9 |
| | |
|Journals act as impartial arbiters to help establish |Strong trend towards researchers using technology 24 hours a day |
|priority in new areas of research |instead of visiting libraries9 |
| | |
|Development of electronic portals is a catalyst to the way |New pressure for academics/specialists to stay up to date with |
|journals are now distributed and accessed |current thinking |
| | |
|On-line provision of arts and humanities journals lags |Anyone with a computer can contribute to the global dialogue |
|behind sciences9 |(leading to issues of quality control) |
| | |
|Readers more conscious of publisher identities, rather than |Doubling of international collaboration between 1990 and 200510 |
|just titles | |
| |Over half of information specialists in academia and government |
|Hard copies of journals are underused because of location or|believe social networking will shape the future of research11 |
|being inadequately catalogued9 | |
| |Industry associations campaigning internationally against |
|Appeal to different learning styles by inclusion of |commercial publishing |
|visual/audio techniques including animations and simulations| |
| |Focus attention on new areas of research |
|Speed of access and diversity of sources | |
| |Librarians need new skills to guide researchers. Majority believe|
| |they now have to be a ‘technology specialist’9 |
| | |
| |Potential ‘digital divide’: poor access from developing countries|
| |and/or poorly equipped researchers |
| | |
| |Electronic publishing gives greater access to disabled |
| |researchers through resized text/specialist software/off-site |
| |access |
| | |
| |Greater accessibility via potential for on-line courses |
| | |
|TECHNOLOGICAL |LEGAL |
| | |
|Internet now seen as a medium for collaboration by |Patterns of access arising – consortia such as the National |
|researchers |Electronic Site Licence Initiative (NESLI) in the UK now |
| |negotiating access rights with publishers |
|Library expenditure of peer reviewed electronic journals | |
|increased by over 400% 1995-200212 |More mergers and acquisitions/commercial partnerships as smaller |
| |publishers are absorbed into large portals |
|New technology offers more effective ways of publicising and| |
|sharing research |Legislation differs within different geographical target markets |
| | |
|Internet has changed the make-up and norms of the Global | |
|research community | |
| | |
|New tools and technologies now seen as critical to | |
|academic/research success | |
| | |
|New opportunities for publishing means greater volume of | |
|information and competition | |
| | |
|Researchers require more sophisticated search and mining | |
|tools | |
| | |
|Need for tools to capture content and context – trend will | |
|accelerate with Web 3.0 | |
| | |
|New streams of information require managing | |
| | |
|Future subscriptions likely to be electronic only | |
| | |
|Possible threats from hacking/technological failure | |
| | |
|ENVIRONMENTAL | |
| | |
|Potential environmental advantages through less printing and| |
|physical distribution | |
| | |
|Some specialists consider environmental load of reading | |
|e-papers is equivalent to traditional versions | |
| | |
|Less travel required for international collaboration | |
| | |
|Less storage space required | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
A Review of the Organisation and Product
| | |
| | |
|STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |
| | |
|Corporate reputation and stature |Open to criticism for high margins |
| | |
|Existing relationship with researchers and librarians |Launching in worldwide recession, as librarians struggle to |
|worldwide |secure funds/ some universities see number of students decline |
| | |
|Meeting demand for new, effective ways of publicising and |Reduced value of sterling |
|sharing research | |
| |Need to charge VAT on electronic journals |
|InScope provides researchers with details of citations | |
| |Access to Belcher Rollins publications only |
|InScope offers a ‘one stop shop’ for all titles published by| |
|Belcher Rollins |Access to subscribed journals only within fee: extra cost for |
| |additional sources |
|Ability to promote cross-pollination of different areas of | |
|research | |
| | |
|Improved value for money. Cost savings through speed, low | |
|storage, diversity of titles | |
| | |
|A quarter of the world’s scientific, technical and medical | |
|peer-reviewed articles available in one place | |
| | |
|Reduced search, discovery and access time | |
| | |
|Lower fixed costs for web-based publishing and costs of | |
|software reducing | |
| | |
|Accessibility for remote students and those with | |
|disabilities | |
| | |
|Bringing arts and humanities into line with developments in | |
|scientific research (previous search engines have failed to | |
|access this area) | |
| | |
|Potential environmental benefits of electronic vs | |
|traditional publishing | |
| | |
|24 hour access | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|OPPORTUNITIES |THREATS |
| | |
|Production of innovative publications by collaboration |Development of more powerful academic buying consortia, leading |
|across disciplines |to aggressive consortia licensing |
| | |
|New tools and technologies now seen as critical to |Threats by libraries to demand electronic-only journals, forcing |
|academic/research success |publishers to ‘unbundle’ current offers |
| | |
|Potential to leverage emerging and collaborative |Widespread academic support for the open access movement – and |
|technologies |growing availability |
| | |
|Open channels for communication among stakeholders, |Decline in traditional markets (eg US) |
|enhancing communication between scientists, librarians, | |
|research administrators and academic administrators |Competitors will follow quickly – need for fast, continued |
| |innovation |
|Librarians can now become global knowledge manager for their| |
|institutions |Decline in demand for print-based journals |
| | |
|Improved systems means improved research productivity, added|Potential hacking/piracy or technological failure |
|grant income and improved reputation for universities | |
| |Site censorship/blocking by political regimes |
|Potential for instalment plans, discount programmes and | |
|customised pricing plans for academic libraries |Commercial pressure to comply with political censorship – |
| |reputation damage |
|Better tools to evaluate research-driven returns on | |
|investment | |
| | |
|Low cost access to previously-unused publications | |
| | |
|Potential to focus attention on new areas of research | |
| | |
|New markets opening up (eg Far East) | |
| | |
|Greater recognition of Belcher Rollins name rather than just| |
|journal titles | |
| | |
|Potential acquisitions through demand from smaller | |
|publishers | |
APPENDIX II: REFERENCES
|1 |Klavans, R and Boyack, K. |2009. Cited in Katzen, J. Technology brings challenges and opportunities for information. Research |
| | |Information Magazine. February/March 2009. Available from www.elsevier.com |
|2 |Hood, A.K. |2007. SPEC Kit 300: Open Access Resources. Resource for librarians. Kent State University. Available |
| | |from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), North America. 2000. www.arl.org. |
|3 |McGuigan, G. and Russell, |2008. The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing |
| |R. |Industry and its Impact on the Future of Scholarly Publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and |
| | |Special Librarianship. 9 (3). Available at www.southernlibrarianship.icaap.org. |
|4 |David, P and Foray, D. |1995 cited in Houghton, J, et al. 2009. Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing |
| | |Models: Exploring the cost and Benefits. JISC, London. www.jisc.ac.uk/publications |
|5 |House of Commons. |2004. Scientific Publications; free for all? 10th Report of the Science and Technology Committee. |
| | |Available from www.publications.parliament.uk |
| |Dewatripont, M. et al. | |
| |2006 |Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe. |
| | |DG-Research, European Commission. Available from www.ec.europa.eu/research |
|6 |McCullagh, D. |2006. Google’s Chinese Firewall Blocks More than Yahoo. Webwatch news 27.1.06. |
| | |www.networks.silicon.com/webwatch. |
| | | |
| |Computerworld News. |2006. Researchers: Search Engine Censorship has Impact. 15.3.06. www.computerworld.com. |
|7 |Tenopir, C and King, D. |2008. Electronic Journals and Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns. D-Lib |
| | |Magazine. 14.11/12. November/December 2008. |
|8 |Katzen, J. |2008. Managing China’s Research Strategically. Internal power-point presentation. Elsevier. Available|
| | |from www.china.elsevier.com. |
|9 |Brown, S. and Swan, A. |2007. Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and their Services. Report commissioned by the Research|
| | |Information Network and Consortium of Research Libraries. Available from www.rin.ac.uk. |
|10 |Wagner, C. and Leydesorff,|2005. Network Structure, Self-Organisation and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science. |
| |L. |Digital Library of International Science and Technology. 34 (10). Available from |
| | |www.dlist.sir.arizona.edu. |
|11 |Elsevier. |2009. 2collab Reveals that Scientists and Researchers are ‘All Business’ with Social Applications. |
| | |Press release. 9 June 2009. Available from www.elsevier.com. |
|12 |Case, M.M. |2004. A Snapshot in Time: ARL Libraries and Electronic Journal Resources. Paper presented at The New |
| | |Challenge for Research Libraries: Collection Management and Strategic Access to Digital Resources, |
| | |conference sponsored by the University of Oklahoma, March 4-5, 2004. Available from the Association |
| | |of Research Libraries (ARL), North America. 2000. www.arl.org. |
APPENDIX III
LIST OF COMPETITORS
International Competitors Publishing over 30 Academic Titles
|Publishers of ISI-rated STM Journals |Type |
|Reed Elsevier |Commercial |
|Wolters Kluwer |Commercial |
|Springer | |
|Wiley/Blackwell |Commercial |
|Bertelsmann |Commercial |
|Taylor and Francis |Commercial |
|Sage |Commercial |
|Karger |Commercial |
|Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers |Society |
|Cambridge University Press |University Press |
|Oxford University Press |University Press |
|Marcel Dekker |Commercial |
|Holtzbrinck |Commercial |
|American Institute of Physics |Society |
|Scandinavian University Press |University Press |
|University of Chicago Press |University Press |
|Mary Ann Liebert |Commercial |
|Institute of Physics Publishing Ltd |Society |
|American Chemical Society |Society |
Source: Internet research, April 2009
Competitive On-Line Services
|On-Line Services Used by University Libraries |
|Science Direct/Scopus (Elsevier) |American Chemical Society |
|IEL (IEEE/IET Electronic Library) |Ingenta/UnCover |
|Kluwer Science |Ovid/Silver Platter |
|Wiley Interscience |JSTOR |
|Oxford Journals |Web of Science |
|UCP Journals Division |Embase |
|Nature |MathSciNet |
|American Society or Microbiology |Chemical Abstracts Service |
|Highwire |Swetset Navigator |
|Pubmed Central |ECSCO Online |
|Synergy |Association for Computing Machinery |
|NASA Astrophysics Data System LINK |Google Scholar |
Original Source: Reed Elsevier and Harcourt General. A report on the proposed merger. Competition Commission July 2001. Updated via Internet research, April 2009.
APPENDIX IV
STAKEHOLDER LIST
PUBLICS: INTEREST/POWER MATRIX
POTENTIAL ISSUES MANAGEMENT STANCE
Examples of Stakeholders
These individuals/organisations are provided as examples and are currently weighted towards a UK audience. However, support from Cloud PR national teams and Belcher Rollin’s national offices will inform the urgent development of a detailed, nationally-targeted stakeholder list.
|STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY |EXAMPLES |
|Enabling Stakeholders: | |
|Belcher Rollins shareholders, stockbrokers |Banks, Insurance Companies, Pension Funds; other institutions; Individuals |
|and analysts | |
|Government departments, committees and |National Governments: UK and target countries: |
|agencies |eg: UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS); Department for |
| |Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and others eg Department for |
|Government-funded non-departmental bodies |Energy and Climate Change (DECC); |
| |Foreign and Commonwealth Office Science and Innovation Network; Department for |
| |International Development |
|(policy and/or funding role) | |
| |Specialist Committees, eg House of Commons Select Committee on Science and |
| |Technology: Select Committee of Innovation, Universities , Science and Skills |
| | |
| |Government Agencies: UK and target countries: |
| |eg British Library; National Organisation for Adult Learning; National Statistics|
| |Office; National Archives; British Education and Communications Technology Agency|
| |(BECTA); Higher Education Funding Council, UK (HEFCE) |
| | |
| |UK Government Global Science and Innovation Forum |
| | |
| |The British Council |
| | |
| |Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) |
| | |
| |European Commission: Education and Culture Department; Directorate General for |
| |Research |
| | |
| |Research Councils UK (RCUK) |
| | |
| |Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) |
| | |
| |United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) |
|FE and HE- funded bodies |Joint Information System Committee |
|Functional Stakeholders: | |
|Employees |Across the Belcher Rollins organisation |
|Existing and potential service-users |academic librarians and researchers; clinical, professional and industrial |
| |researchers/users |
|Academic budget holders |University administrators, libraries and computer departments |
|Teachers/lecturers |Professionals setting research briefs/reading lists |
|Authors |Academics and researchers |
|Reviewers |Review panels of existing Belcher Rollins publications |
|Editorial Boards |Editorial boards of existing Belcher Rollins Publications and competing |
| |prestigious titles (who may defect to BR as a new publisher) |
|National/International research bodies |Eg SURF Foundation (Netherlands); German Research Foundation (DFG); Denmark’s |
| |Electronic Research Library (DEFF); Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique |
| |(CNRS); |
| |European Space Agency, CERN – international particle physics laboratory, European|
| |Southern Observatory, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility; US National |
| |Institutes of Health (NIH) |
| | |
|Normative Stakeholders: | |
|Competitors |commercial publishers, learned societies, university presses (see list) |
|Open access services |New services such as Electronic Theses Online Service (Ethos); Major players |
| |including: Bentham Open; BioMed; CoAction Publishing; Hindawi Publishing; |
| |Ivyspring; Libertas Academica; Medknow, the Public Library of Science and |
| |Scholarly Exchange |
| | |
|Diffused Stakeholders: | |
|Academic coalitions and professional |Association of American Universities |
|associations |Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee |
| |Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; National Association of State|
| |Universities and Land Grant Colleges; American Educational Research Organisation;|
| |Canadian Association of University Teachers |
|Alliances of academic and research libraries|Research Libraries UK (RLUK); Standing Conference of National and University |
|– national and international |Libraries(UK and Ireland – SCONUL); US Association of Research Libraries (ARL); |
| |US Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL); International Coalition |
| |of Library Consortia (ICOLC); US Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC); |
| |Research Information Network (RIN); the Scholarly Publishing and Academic |
| |Resources Coalition (SPARC); Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL); |
| |Japanese Library Association; Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER);|
| |Joint University Librarians Advisory Committee China (JULAC); Council of New |
| |Zealand University Librarians (CONZUL); Council of Australian University |
| |Librarians (CAUL) |
|Publishers’ associations |The Publishers Association; Association of Learned and Professional Society |
| |Publishers; International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical |
| |Publishers; Association of American University Presses |
|News/media organisations |National/international business and financial media; specialist publishing; |
| |academic and IT media. Industry focus relating to key titles |
|Specialist bloggers |Eg: The Scholarly Kitchen; library blogs and specialist scholarly publishing |
| |bloggers |
|Booksellers |Eg John Smith and Son, Blackwells, Barnes and Noble, Amazon |
|Trusts providing research funding |Eg Leverhulme Trust, Wellcome Trust, Carbon Trust, Fulbright Commission, Bill and|
| |Melinda Gates Foundation |
|Subscription agents |Eg: WT Cox (USA), DA Information (Australia), EBSCO (Europe), INGENTA (UK), |
| |Sunmedia (Japan) |
|Document suppliers |Eg British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) |
|Copyright granting and royalty collection |In all target countries |
|organisations | |
|Trade unions |Eg University and College Union (USU), Association of Teachers and Lecturers |
| |(ATL) |
|Primary Publics |Information Sources |
|Academic Librarians |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; alliances of academic and research libraries; |
| |academic coalitions; academic budget holders; researchers; media |
|Academic Researchers |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; formal and informal research communities; |
| |media |
|Clinical, professional and |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; formal and informal research communities; |
|industrial researchers |media |
|Academic budget holders |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; alliances of academic and research libraries; |
| |academic coalitions; media |
|Academic coalitions |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; alliances of academic and research libraries; |
| |member universities; media |
|Alliances of academic and research |Belcher Rollins and other publishers; academic coalitions; member libraries; media |
|libraries | |
|Academics contributing to scholarly |Belcher Rollins and other publishers: formal and informal research communities; |
|journals: |media |
|researchers, reviewers | |
|and editorial boards | |
|Belcher Rollins employees |Board/Internal communications department; colleague ‘opinion leaders’; customers |
| |including libraries, contributors, reviewers and editorial boards; media |
|Belcher Rollins shareholders |Board/Internal communications department; legal and investment advisors |
| |(analysts/stockbrokers); media |
|Competitors – commercial publishers, |Belcher Rollins communications; customers including libraries, contributors, |
|learned societies and university presses |reviewers and editorial boards; library alliances and academic coalitions; media |
|HE and FE funded bodies |Government departments and agencies; academic institutions; academics including |
| |budget holders; media |
|News and media |Belcher Rollins communications department; competitors; customers; academic opinion |
|Organisations/commentators |leaders and organisations acting as pressure groups |
|Secondary Publics |Information Sources |
|Government departments |Belcher Rollins communications department; competitors (lobbyists); customers; |
|and agencies |academic opinion leaders and organisations acting as pressure groups |
|European commission |As above |
|Research councils |As above |
• Open access: Belcher Rollins believes that the existing system of peer-reviewed journal publishing is the strongest option and that a short-term switch to open access would place the quality of published data at serious risk. However, the company is working with universities to trial new methods of publishing including an ‘author-pays’ and a ‘sponsor-subsidised’ model
• Rising cost of commercial subscriptions: The increased drive for electronic resources mean that costs are predicted to fall over the next 10 years due to the impact of advancing technology
• Political Censorship: Belcher Rollins believes that products like InScope have a part to play in increasing openness and prosperity in the world. Development plans, including those for China, have not identified the probability of censorship. Such a move would be a serious matter for the company, potentially at odds with its mission to an indispensable partner to the academic community. If the situation arises the Board is committed to discuss it openly and transparently, and to consult with the relevant academic communities in order to agree an appropriate way forward
APPENDIX V
SPEAKER/SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
SCHEDULE OF COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITY AND BUDGET
• Research Libraries UK – annual conference. Leeds, November 2009 • Japanese Library Association – All Japan Library Conference. Yokohama, December 2009 • LIBER: Association of European Research Libraries – Innovation Conference. Geneva, January 2010 • CARL: Canadian Association of Research Libraries – annual conference. Ottawa, January 2010 • JULAC: Joint University Librarians Advisory Committee – AGM. Hong Kong, February 2010 • US Association of College and Research Libraries – annual conference. Seattle, March 2010 • CONZUL: Council of New Zealand University Librarians – AGM. Wellington, March 2010 • CAUL: Council of Australian University Librarians – AGM. Sydney, April 2010
| |May 09 |Jun 09 |
| | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|PRE-LAUNCH ACTIVITY | | |
| | | |
|Testing of visual identity/campaign messages with pilot focus groups |0 |Existing BR budget |
| | | |
|Production of virtual toolkit and pass-worded intranet pages for New | | |
|Generation communications team |£5,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Media training: 7 locations @ £3,500.00 per session |£24,500.00 | |
|Internal Communications | | |
| | |Existing BR budget(HR) |
|Newsletter/briefings |0 | |
| | | |
|Production of 6-minute staff DVD including all European, Japanese and | |Using internal translation |
|Chinese language versions |£30,000.00 |service |
| | | |
|Production of monthly podcasts for intranet x 5 |£5,000.00 | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Staff product training/inductions |0 |(HR) |
| | | |
|Staff competition prize: travel and accommodation allowance: £2,500 x 4 | | |
| |£10,000.00 | |
|Customer-Facing Communication | | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Database creation and issue of e-alerts |0 |(Marketing) |
| | | |
|Tactical advertising in 100 BR journals x 5 editions: creative and |£30,000.00 | |
|production costs only | | |
| | | |
|Photography/product animations |£10,000.00 | |
| | |Management only – see |
|Media relations |- |consultancy cost |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Website updates and e-newsletter |0 |(Marketing) |
|Issues Management | | |
| | | |
|Media, competitor and public comment – monitoring services x 5 months x 7|£70,000.00 | |
|locations | | |
| | | |
|EXTRAORDINARY BUDGET FOR PRE-LAUNCH ACTIVITY PHASE. SUB-TOTAL: | | |
| |£184,500.00 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |* BR = Belcher Rollins Group |
|LAUNCH ACTIVITY | | |
| | | |
|Internal Communications | | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Staff Briefings |0 |(HR) |
| | | |
|Merchandising material (7000 staff) |£75,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Staff newsletter, special edition: Print and e-version including | | |
|translation and photography cost |£35.000.00 | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Intranet update/use of information screens |0 |(HR) |
| | | |
|Customer-Facing Communications | | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Database management/ distribution/e-newsletter |0 |(Marketing) |
| | | |
|Creation of e-announcement and i-brochure with appropriate functionality,| | |
|video streaming etc. Versions in European languages, Japanese and Chinese| | |
| | | |
| |£25,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Creation of trial site capability, screensaver and quiz. Multi-languages | | |
| |£50,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Tactical advertising in 100 BR titles. Creative and production costs | | |
|only, October editions |£15,000.00 | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Creation of InScope website and social media sites |0 |(product/marketing) |
| | | |
|Media relations: | | |
|production of audio and video news releases (multi languages) |£40,000.00 | |
|photography for press packs | | |
|Production of press briefing packs |£10,000.00 | |
| |£25,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Launch events: | | |
|Venue hire, staging, room dressing and audio visual x 6 locations | | |
|Catering: press breakfast x 50, dinner x 100. 6 locations |£78,000.00 | |
|Information packs | | |
|Merchandising material |£38,000.00 | |
|Photography/filming of events | | |
|Travel and subsistence for BR demo team |£10,000.00 | |
| |£23,000.00 | |
| |£25,000.00 | |
|Lobbying Activity | | |
| | | |
|House of Commons reception: room hire, catering and information packs | | |
| |£3,500.00 | |
|Issues Management | | |
| | | |
|Media, competitor and public comment – monitoring services x 2 months x 7| | |
|locations |£28,000.00 | |
| | | |
| | | |
|EXTRAORDINARY BUDGET FOR LAUNCH | | |
|ACTIVITY: SUB-TOTAL: |£470,500.00 | |
|FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITY | | |
| | | |
|Internal Communications | | |
| | |Existing BR budget (HR) |
|Ongoing briefings, newsletter etc |0 | |
| | | |
|Customer-Facing Communication | | |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|Monthly e-newsletters x 6 |0 |(Marketing) |
| | | |
|Tactical advertising in BR journals. 100 x 6 editions, as before | | |
| |£70,000.00 | |
| | |Management only –consultancy |
|Media relations | |cost |
| | |Existing BR budget |
|InScope website/social media sites |0 |(Marketing) |
| | | |
|Communications activity for the InScope Challenge – information pack, | | |
|liaison, judging, award event. Including £30,000 prize | | |
| |£80,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Road shows x 10 international locations. Venue hire, room dressing, | | |
|audio-visual, travel costs |£150,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Sponsorship of 7 sector events including travel cost for speaker, room |£150,000.00 | |
|dressing and communications material | | |
| | | |
|Issues Management | | |
|Media, competitor and public comment – monitoring services x 6 months x 7| | |
|locations |£75,000.00 | |
| | | |
|Evaluation | | |
|Traditional and social media monitoring and evaluation (international). |£150,000.00 | |
|Monthly reports x 12 months | | |
| | | |
|EXTRAORDINARY BUDGET FOR FOLLOW-UP | | |
|ACTIVITY: SUB-TOTAL: |£675,000.00 | |
| | | |
|CONSULTANCY SUPPORT: 7 NATIONAL TEAMS | | |
|Pre-launch strategic input and media relations management: | | |
|Fees | | |
|Potential disbursements |£200,000.00 | |
| |£20,000.00 | |
|Launch support including strategic direction, international event | | |
|management, and media relations management : | | |
|Fees | | |
|Potential disbursements |£350,000.00 | |
| |£35,000.00 | |
|Follow-up support including strategic direction and media relations | | |
|management | | |
|Fees |£200,000.00 | |
|Potential disbursements |£20,000.00 | |
| | | |
|BUDGET FOR CONSULTANCY SUPPORT. | | |
|SUB-TOTAL: |£825,000.00 | |
| | | |
|OVERALL CAMPAIGN BUDGET |£2,155,000.00 | |
Consultancy Charges
Note that consultancy fees are based on the rates agreed within Cloud PR’s contract with Belcher Rollins. These are per eight hour day: • Strategy Director: £1,500.00 • International Account Directors: £1,200.00 • Management support: £800.00
Disbursements including travel, accommodation and subsistence are charged in addition as per the agreed terms and conditions. Specific national day rates will be agreed with the client and may be subject to fluctuations in exchange rates.
The working budget within this report is for initial planning purposes only, and a detailed consultancy support budget will be discussed and agreed with the client.
RATIONALE
Introduction
The plan’s foundations lie in an appreciation of PR theory, ranging from systems management to the global dialectics of international PR.
PR is defined as: “… the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill between an organisation and its publics.” (CIPR, 2008)
Gregory (2002, p.3) comments:
“Implicit in all this is that PR practitioners carefully consider how programmes need to begin, and continue in a structured way to the benefit both of their organisation and to the ‘public’ their organisation interacts with.”
She summarises planning as: focusing effort; improving effectiveness; encouraging long-term thinking; demonstrating value; minimising mishaps; reconciling conflicts and facilitating pro-activity.
International Dimensions
Globalisation has impacted hugely on PR (L’Etang 2008), but while PR is considered to be present everywhere, Western notions may be inappropriate in many countries (Curtin and Gaither 2007).
Hofstede’s (2001) theory of national culture cites differences in cultural relationship constructs. Huang (2001, cited in Curtin and Gaither 2007, p.12) demonstrates these in renquing, a set of social norms which must be negotiated in Chinese society. Indeed, culture can impact on even basic PR tactics (International Communications Consultancy Organisation 2004, cited in Curtin and Gaither 2007).
This potential for “Anglophone dominance” (L’Etang 2008, p.253) and for societal culture to challenge the success of international PR (Taylor, 2001) illustrate the inadequacy of a central approach to campaign management.
The alternative of ‘dual responsibility’ (Burns, cited in Taylor 2000) supports the creation of a PR team, including national representatives from the company and consultancy. This supports the trend towards ‘glocalisation’, (Maynard 2003, cited in Curtin and Gaither 2007, p.117), tailoring marketing to local circumstances. Meanwhile, effective global PR encompasses: “explicit conversation about cultural and regional differences.” (Hirsch and Shaukat 2008, p.16).
Dedicated resources for the team, such as an extranet, are endorsed by Morley (2002, p.40) who identifies prerequisites for practitioners including in-depth understanding of culture and similar practical solutions.
Systems Theory
Systems Theory suggests that organisations can be recognised by interaction with their environments (Cutlip et al 2000, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006) and are considered ‘open’ or ‘closed’ systems. The former have permeable boundaries and wide exchange, while the latter have closed boundaries and minimal exchange. (Gregory 2002, p.35-51).
Assumptions were made regarding an open systems approach and were considered realistic, being based on approaches to communications taken by the current market leaders[11]. The report recommends an international PR team, however, it is acknowledged that taking this approach in a closed system, may not succeed.
An open systems model of PR links to the planning process, through a four-step approach. (Cutlip et al 2000, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006): defining problem(s); planning; taking action and communicating, then evaluating.
This approach was expanded, based on Gregory’s planning model (Gregory 2000, p.44), beginning with analysis and objective setting (reflecting organisational objectives), progressing to message creation; strategic approach and tactics, supported by timescales, resources and evaluation.
Wilson’s (2001, p.218) Planning Matrix was also a useful reference, similar to Gregory’s (2002) approach but assessing the ‘central core of difficulty’ prior to identifying public, goals and objectives.
This was not considered to enhance the plan. However, on reflection the production of a single sentence encompassing the ‘heart of the problem’ may have helped to define messages.
Excellence
Within PR models, such as the typologies of press agentry/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetric and two-way symmetric (Grunig and Hunt 1984 cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006), the latter has been described as an ‘ideal’ approach (Fawkes 2002). This aims for mutual understanding with publics. The assumption of an open system establishes the potential for symmetrical PR.
However, critics see this is an idealised approach (Leitch and Neilson 2001, cited in Grunig et al 2002). Furthermore, international research challenges the applicability of generic models (Diaz et al 2009), suggesting that culturally-pertinent alternatives may be more suitable.
Grunig et al (2002) define “excellent PR” as involving symmetry, strategic management and direct involvement with the ‘power-base’ of the organisation. This group is known as the ‘dominant coalition’, and the information needed for decision making is provided by ‘boundary spanners’: “Individuals who interact with the organisation’s environment and gather, select and relay information from the environment to the dominant coalition” (White and Dozier 1992, p.91).
Vecic et al (1993, cited in Diaz et al 2008) identify generic normative factors of excellent PR, applicable across cultures, including: involvement in strategic management; a place in the dominant coalition; internal and external symmetry and PR as a management function.
The recommendation to establish a PR team, headed by the PR Director enables environmental scanning and issues management within the dominant coalition. Links to other functions illustrate a boundary spanning role, allowing the team to influence strategy, manage issues and interface with marketing activity, financial reporting and internal communications.
Some tactics could be considered a remit of marketing. While certain theorists believe in separation between PR and marketing (Grunig 2001), PR is often viewed as an element of marketing communication (Black 1995).
Alternatively, Wakefield (2000) proposes that international effectiveness stems from factors like ‘dual matrix’ PR reporting to national leaders and head office; overall coordination of PR and close cooperation with (but not subordination to) marketing and other teams.
The legitimacy of a dedicated PR team managing the launch, envisages PR and marketing as separate but overlapping functions (Kotler and Mindak, cited in Moss 1995). PR’s potential to be the dominant function in a company like Belcher Rollins is considered unlikely. It is also accepted that an alternative, marketing-dominant model would restrict the proposed level of PR planning and control.
Situational Analysis
Systems theory led to environmental analysis, using the EPISTLE[12] technique, followed by a SWOT[13] analysis, based on a wide range of industry and pressure group reports; individual company websites; Governmental activity and media coverage.[14] Additional assumptions were made regarding availability of wider research, including personal discussions and focus groups.
Such ‘environmental monitoring’ (Lebringer 1972, cited in Tench and Yeomans 1996), usually called ‘environmental scanning’ (Grunig et al 2002), identifies environmental actions which may force reaction from the organisation, and allows strategic adjustments.
According to Simcic Brønn (2001, p.321), this is key to the strategic process and a pre-requisite to ‘being invited to the management table’ (Cutlip et al 1994 cited in Simcic Brønn 2001), supporting the belief that continuous scanning is necessary for effective PR (Gayeski 1994 cited in Simcic Brønn 2001).
Situational analysis not only informed the identification of stakeholders and subsequently messages, but highlighted issues.
Some theorists (Gregory 2002); Cutlip et al 2000) envisage the correct approach being to analyse the situation before defining publics and objectives. In reality, practitioners are often presented with objectives at the outset and this was partially evident within the brief. In such cases, scrutiny is required to ensure appropriateness (Tench and Yeomans 2006).
The next step was to identify and map stakeholders. Kramer (1999 cited in Welch 2006), describes stakeholders as “intuitive scientists”, highlighting that they are holders of information and attitudes, even before the relationship with an organisation begins. Meanwhile, PR’s role in: “Changing or neutralising hostile opinion, crystallising uninformed or latent opinion and conserving favourable opinion.”(Cutlip, Center and Broom 2000, cited in Gregory 2002, p.79) appears to support the validity of environmental scanning within the planning process.
Identifying Audiences
Stakeholder theory comes from a Kantian perspective, demanding that management gives regard to stakeholder interests, arguing that affected groups should have a role in determining organisational policy (Evan and Freeman 1993, cited in Somerville 2001). Stakeholders are: “People in a category affected by decisions of an organisation, or if their decision affects the organisation” (Grunig and Repper 1992, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006).
Meanwhile, publics are active rather than passive: “Groups of individuals who develop their own identities, and perhaps representations of their collective interests, in relation to the system” (Leitch and Neilson 2001, p.131).
Involving stakeholders in setting objectives results in a better-conceived programme and organisational development. (Coalter 2006 and Stroh 2007, cited in L’Etang 2008).This approach is useful when managing issues (Grunig 2002, cited in Deegan 2001, p.19) and is evident within the ‘trialling’ and feedback elements of the plan.
Stakeholders are identified through their relationship to the organisation, and classified as ‘enabling’; ‘functional’; ‘normative’ or ‘diffused’ (Esman 1972, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006). This sets the scene for the next important decision: the identification of publics.
Initially, situational theory was considered (Grunig 1997, cited in L Grunig et al 2002), using predicted communication and behaviour to segment publics into ‘latent’, ‘aware’ and ‘active’ categories, with ‘active’ categorised further into ‘apathetic’, ‘single-issue’, ‘hot-issue’ and ‘all-issue’ groups. This was judged inappropriate due to the need for a culturally-sensitive approach to classification.
Instead, a power/interest matrix (Johnson and Scholes 2002, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006) defined the level of stakeholder interest, and the likelihood of action. This attributed level of strategic importance highlighted key publics.
Setting Objectives
Organisations are effective when their goals are important both to the organisation and its stakeholders (Grunig 2001). The aims and objectives support this assertion, and the belief that the achievement of objectives is enhanced by: choosing the preferred outcome with care; choosing targets with advocacy in mind and remembering that a minor change in the organisation’s stance can bring positive effects (Grunig and Hunt 1984, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006) The latter point is relevant to the issues management element of the campaign.
The report also supports Gregory’s (2002) view that objectives can be cognitive, affective, or conative and: must support business objectives; be achievable through PR; precise and specific; quantified as far as possible and set to budgets, timescales and priorities. In short, they are SMART.[15]
Constraints such as timescale, resources and decision-making capability are considered within the wider report.
Messages
The messages support the campaign objectives and the corporate strategy. Pratt (2001, p.355) asserts that success is achieved when formative research is used to direct message components, commenting: “Messages can be clever and attention getting but they must also represent the organisation, and match and enhance the audience’s multiple and varied images and public positions regarding the organisation.”
Such strategic direction is at odds with traditional PR (Heath 2000, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006), possibly as a result of many practitioners coming from a journalistic background.
Messages are critical as they: assist in awareness and attitude forming; demonstrate the success of communication channels; are critical in evaluation and summarise arguments. However, they may be overly simplistic in situations where there is an intended two-way dialogue. (Tench and Yeomans 2006).
Messages are defined in terms of specific publics and thought is given to Wilcox et al’s (2005, cited in PR Academy 2009) adoption process: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. This raises the question: “What do I want the audience to do with the message and will the audience understand it?” Content is determined by considering existing perceptions, defining realistic shifts and considering suitable elements of persuasion. Delivery via a PR-led campaign is also considered an advantage (Tench and Yeomans 2006).
Strategy and Tactics
There is much discussion on the meaning of ‘strategy’ and a literature review reveals many definitions.
Smith (2005, p.349) describes it as: ”[the] organisations’ overall plan, determining what it wants to achieve and how it wants to achieve it, offering direction in both proactive and reactive organisational activity and messages: theme; source; content; and tone”. He describes tactics as vehicles of communication: in short, strategy is the foundation on which tactics are built.
The report provides a menu of activities, based on an integrated approach to: internal communication; customer communication; financial PR; lobbying and issues management. Activity streams are mutually supporting. The approach is based on a 12-month campaign of pre-launch, launch and follow-up activity.
While the brief requested ‘activities designed to manage relations with the most important public, the situational analysis proved there was no ‘most important’ public. To focus solely on the prime customer group, would not be a realistic approach without (a) considering the potential influence of wider publics and (b) outlining the opportunities for a more holistic campaign.
One consideration was internal communications, based on the workforce’s role as a key public. Staff have a direct effect on customer loyalty (Theaker 2002) but internal communications brings particular challenges to an international company (Wakefield 2001) However, effective global internal communications result from a senior management commitment, a communications network and empowerment of local managers (Mounter, 2003); all of which fall within the plan.
Issues management is included as the situational analysis identified key issues. Gregory (2002, p.144) states that: “All good PR plans cater for the unexpected” and Lauzen (1997) says that practitioner involvement in issues management increases their chances of implementing excellent communications campaigns.
Financial PR activity was considered integral to the campaign and part of overall reputation management (Hong and Ki 2006, Tench and Yeomans 2006). A 12-month campaign for a publicly-quoted company inevitably requires a link with the established investor-relationship calendar (Middelton 2002).
Widespread Governmental activity was identified around academic research, requiring relationships with policy-makers. This is reflected in proposals for public affairs activity; the recognised “operational side of issues management” (Tench and Yeomans 2006, p. 448).
Tactics: “events, media and methods used to implement the strategy,” (Cutlip et al 2000, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006, p.197) are closely aligned to the situational analysis, objectives and strategy. The approach is cognisant of appropriateness and deliverability, as: “Too often, the techniques themselves become the focus of attention rather than the objective they are meant to achieve.” (Gregory 2002 p.121)
Secondary research of the academic publishing market ensured that tactics were as realistic as possible[16]
Timescale and Resources
The schedule specifies monthly activity including pre-launch and post-launch phases. Many activities will require bespoke action plans to be developed by the team. Project management applications such as critical path analyses could be useful in this respect. (Tench and Yeomans 2006; Gregory 2002).
Staff skills and competencies are critical to success. Human resources required to support the campaign are outlined in terms of the proposed PR team, links with other company specialists and consultancy support.
A detailed budget outlines potential implementation costs. This supports an optimum communications programme, however, there is likely to be a compromise between this and the actual budget allocated (Beard 2001, cited in Tench and Yeomans 2006).
Evaluation
Pavlik (1987 cited in Watson and Noble 2007) suggests that measuring the effectiveness of PR has proved almost as elusive as finding the Holy Grail. This may be due to lack of knowledge (Dozier 1994, cited in Watson and Noble 2007).
Watson (2001, p.264) finds many barriers to the widespread evaluation of PR activity, quoting Bell’s (1992) view that: “… too many clients are still not willing to allocate realistic budgets to pay for the process.”
The approach taken is based on the ‘measurement pyramid’ (MacNamara’s Macro-Model 1992, cited in Watson 2001 p.265; IPR 2003 p.18). Evaluation is based on four steps, rising from ’inputs’ to ‘objectives achieved’. An equally useful alternative would have been the PII model (preparation, implementation and impact), (Cutlip et al 1994, cited in Watson 2001 p.264). However it was decided to follow IPR (2003) recommendations in utilising the MacNamara model.
Evaluation has a dedicated budget and resource, and will benefit from: setting SMART objectives; planning for evaluation; monitoring/evaluating throughout the campaign; objectivity; efficient management and transparency around evaluation results (Tench and Yeomans 2006).
Conclusion
Planning is seen as widely beneficial. Shaffer (1997, cited in Cropp and Pincus 2001) posits: “The reinvented communication function should be strategic, focused on solving business problems and integrated with business processes.”
Tench and Yeomans (2006, p.205) add: “[Planning] clearly demonstrates to organisational peers and employers that PR can make a real, measurable difference.”
However, it: “Will not make a poorly conceived programme successful”. (Tench and Yeomans 2006, p.183). Planning simply makes it more likely that a programme will be appropriate from the outset.
2230 WORDS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|CIPR |2009. Chartered Institute of Public Relations 2009. Factfile [online]. Available from |
| |www.cipr.co.uk. [accessed 28.3.09] |
|CROPP F. & |2001. The Mystery of Public Relations: unravelling its past, unmasking its future. In Heath, R.L. |
|PINCUS J.D. |(ed). Handbook of Public Relations. London. Sage Publications pp 189-204. |
|CURTIN, P.A. & |2007. International Public Relations. Negotiating Culture, Identity and Power. Thousand Oaks, |
|GAITHER, K.T. |California. Sage Publications. |
|CUTLIP, S. M., |2000. Effective Public Relations. (Seventh Edition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. |
|CENTER, A.H. & BROOM, G.M. | |
|DEEGAN, D. |2001. Managing Activism: a guide to dealing with activists and pressure groups (Second edition). |
| |London. Kogan Page. |
|DIAZ V., ABRATT |2009. PR Practitioners in International Assignments: an assessment of success and the influence of|
|D., CLARKE R. |organisational and national cultures. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol 14 |
|& BENDIXEN M. |(1). pp 78-100. |
|FAWKES, J. |2002. What is Public Relations? In Theaker (ed). The Public Relations Handbook. London. Routledge.|
| |pp 3-12. |
|GREGORY, A. |2002. Planning and Managing Public Relations Campaigns (Second Edition). London. Kogan Page. |
|GRUNIG, J.E. |1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Lawrence|
| |Erlbaum Associates. |
|GRUNIG, J.E. |2001. The Role of Public Relations in Management and its Contribution to Organisational and |
| |Societal Effectiveness. Speech delivered in Taipei, Taiwan. 12 May [online]. Available from |
| |www.iabc.com. [accessed 29.3.09] |
| | |
|GRUNIG, L.A., |2002. Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organisations: a study of communications management|
|GRUNIG, J.E AND DOZIER, |in three countries. New York. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
|D.M. | |
|HIRSCH P. & |2008. My Country is Different: defining drivers of excellence in the global communications |
|SHAUKAT, N. |organisations of large multinationals. Journal of Corporate Communications: An International |
| |Journal. Vol 13 (1) pp 11-17. |
|HOFSTED, G.H. |2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations.(Second|
| |edition). Sage. Thousand Oaks, California. |
|HONG Y. & KI, |2006. How Do Public Relations Practitioners Perceive Investor Relations? An Exploratory Study. |
|E.J. |Corporate Communications: An International Journal. Vol 12 (2). pp199-213. |
|IPR |2003. IPR Toolkit: Media Evaluation Edition. London. Institute of Public Relations. |
|LAUZEN, M.A. |1997. Understanding the Relation Between Public Relations and Issues Management. Journal of Public|
| |Relations Research. Vol 9 (1). pp 65-82. |
|L’ETANG |2008. Public Relations Concepts, Practice and Critique. London. Sage Publications. |
|LEITCH S. & |2001. Bringing Publics Into Public Relations: new theoretical frameworks for practice. In Heath, |
|NEILSON D |R.L. (ed) Handbook of Public Relations. London. Sage Publications pp127-138. |
|MIDDLETON K. |2002. An Introduction to Financial Public Relations. In Theaker (ed). The Public Relations |
| |Handbook. London. Routledge. pp 160-172. |
|MORLEY, M. |2002. How to Manage Your Global Reputation. A Guide to the Dynamics of International Public |
| |Relations. Basingstoke, Hampshire. Palgrave. |
|MOSS, D |1995. Public Relations and Marketing. In Black, S. (ed) The Practice of Public Relations. Fourth |
| |edition. Oxford. Butterworth Heinemann. |
|MOUNTER P. |2003. Global Internal Communication. A Model. Journal of Communication Management. Vol 7 (3). pp |
| |265-268. |
|PR ACADEMY |2008. Planning, Objectives, Strategies, Tactics, Messages and Measurement. CIPR Diploma Course |
| |Wiki [online]. www.ciprlearning.co.uk. [Accessed 10.4.09]. |
| PRATT, C.B. |2001. Issues Management: the paradox of the 40-year US tobacco Wars. In Heath, R.L. (ed) Handbook |
| |of Public Relations. London. Sage Publications. pp 335-346. |
|SIMCIC BRØNN, P. |2001. Communication Managers as Strategists? Can They Make the Grade? Journal of Communication |
| |Management. Vol 5 (4). Pp313-326. |
|SMITH, R.D. |2005. Strategic Planning for Public Relations. (Second Edition). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum |
| |Associates. |
| | |
| | |
|SOMERVILLE, I. |2002. Public Relations, Politics and the Media. In Theaker, A. (ed). The Public Relations |
| |Handbook. London. Routledge, pp.24-34. |
|TAYLOR, M |2001. International Public Relations: opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. In Heath,|
| |R.L. (ed) Handbook of Public Relations. London. Sage Publications. |
|TENCH, R. & |2006. Exploring Public Relations. Harlow, Essex. Pearson Education. |
|YEOMANS, L. | |
|THEAKER, A. |2002. The Public Relations Handbook. London. Routledge. |
|WAKEFIELD R.I. |2000. World-Class Public Relations: a model for effective public relations in the multinational. |
| |Journal of Communication Management. Vol 5 (1). pp 59-71. |
|WATSON, T. |2001. Integrating Planning and Evaluation. In Heath, R.L. (ed) Handbook of Public Relations. |
| |London. Sage Publications. |
|WATSON, T. & |2007. Evaluating Public Relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research |
|NOBLE, P |and evaluation. (Second Edition). London. Kogan Page. |
|WELCH, M. |2006. Rethinking Relationship Management: Exploring the Dimension of Trust. Journal of |
| |Communication Management. 10 (2), pp.138-155. |
|WHITE, J & |1992. Public Relations and Management Decision Making. In Grunig, J.E. (ed). Excellence in Public |
|DOZIER, D.M. |Relations and Communication Management. New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp 91-108. |
|WILSON, L.J. |2001. Extending Communication Planning to Communication Tactics. In Heath, R.L. (ed) Handbook of |
| |Public Relations. London. Sage Publications. pp 215-222. |
-----------------------
[1] Houghton, J, et al. 2009. Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the cost and Benefits. JISC, London. www.jisc.ac.uk/publications Oppenheim, C. 2006. UK Scholarly Journals: An Evidence-Based Analysis of Data Concerning UK Scholarly Publishing. Produced on behalf of the Research Information Network, Research Councils UK and the DTI. Available from www.rin.ac.uk.
[2] McGuigan, G. and Russell, R. 2008. The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry and its Impact on the Future of Scholarly Publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. 9 (3)
[3] Clothier, A, Shovelton, H and Stark, D. 2001: Reed Elsevier and Harcourt General. A Report on the Proposed Merger. UK Competition Commission, London. Available from www.competition-coommission.org.uk
[4] Europe 4,000; US 2618; Canada; 90; Australia and New Zealand 45; China 2236 and Japan 507. Total 9496. Sources: www.wikianswers.com; www.voanews.com; www.canada-city.com; www.studyabroad-cis.com; www.en.wikipedia.org [5] Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory quoted in (1)
[6] Clothier, A, Shovelton, H and Stark, D. 2001: Reed Elsevier and Harcourt General. A Report on the Proposed Merger. UK Competition Commission, London. Available from www.competition-coommission.org.uk
[7] Association of Research Libraries. 2009. ARL Statement to Scholarly Publishers on the Global Economic Crisis. 19 February 2009. Available from www.arl.org
[8] Stanley, A. 2007. The ‘Wild, Wild East’: Reaching the China Market. Society for Scholarly Publishing News. 25.7.07. Wheat Ridge Colorado. Available from www.sspnet.org/news
[9] Stanley, A. 2007. The ‘Wild, Wild East’: Reaching the China Market. Society for Scholarly Publishing News. 25.7.07. Available from www.sspnet.org/news
[10] RCUK. 2009. International Research: A Strategy for UK Research Councils. Research Councils UK, Swindon. Available from www.rcuk.ac.uk
[11] See references throughout plan.
[12] EPISTLE analysis considers: economic; political; information; social; Technological, legal and environmental factors.
[13] SWOT analysis reviews internal strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
[14] References can be found throughout the launch plan
[15] SMART objectives are defined as: specific; measurable; achievable; realistic; time-bound
[16] See references throughout PR plan
