In part three I touched on Situation – this what PR Smith grouped what Wadds called ‘Publics or Audience’, ‘Research’ and ‘Insights’. In this part I want to look at strategy. This sets the tone for everything else following in the plan it is the essence of how the plan will meet or exceed the objectives outlined at the beginning.
I don’t want to get too hung up on what strategy is, there are differing opinions. The traditional view would be a high level, long term plan. Chinese strategist Sun Tzu looked at it more in terms of competitive methods or bing fa. This is much more about guiding the correct (set of) responses to a given situation. This isn’t that far away from the way that game theorists approach strategy. My personal preference is for an emergent approach closer to Sun Tzu’s view rather than a high level, long term plan.
Appraising the strategy in a PR plan
- Is it clear?
- Is it unambiguous in nature?
- Is it reasonably concise?
- Does it get into tactics?
- Does it consider a channel to be a strategy? (No is the right answer).
- What are its weaknesses?
- What factors would cause the strategic approach to change?
Is your PR plan good enough (part three)?
Is your PR plan good enough (part two)?
Is your PR plan good enough (part one)?
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Stephen Waddington’s original post on ‘how to write a PR plan in ten steps’