One of the truly great things about the Internet, and specifically the social media revolution, is the instant sharing of imaginative pieces that you wished you had created yourself. Pieces that express your sentiments, but written or produced with talent beyond our own. This week, two such rolled across my computer screen, that when their vastly different content is combined, eloquently state the real problem with American business today. No, I’m not speaking of recessionary pressures, bankruptcies, or even bailout phobia. I’m talking about timidity and price respect.
Mike Hegedus, the former CNBC correspondent and now media consultant, writes in his blog this week, “This timidity is in full blossom now thanks to the current uber recession.” He goes on to surmise that it’s not just the tightening of budgets, but the simple act of making the decisions to spend what is left that is the real problem. Hear! Hear! As the head of a Pay-for-Performance PR firm that oozes value and accountability compared to the traditional hourly fee model, I can’t begin to state the days and weeks we’ve spent waiting for companies to “meet to discuss,” to “get their ducks in a row,” to “pass this around the management team,” etc. etc. If anyone thinks that the most elusive thing in business today is a profit, you’re wrong…it’s a decision.
As a small business owner, I have complete empathy and respect for the process of expenditure evaluation and prioritizing those services that will provide the greatest return. But I also recognize something my wise grandmother (aren’t they all…) used to say, “you actually going to get something done today, or just sit around and think about it?”
But once that rare decision to move forward is finally made…then comes the real fun…”let’s see if we can squeeze even more out of that tightened marketing or PR budget…let’s make a deal.” This YouTube piece would be hilarious if not so true.
Has this ugly recession driven companies to the point of treating vendors like used car dealers? Of trying to squeeze and manipulate pricing…often even after the service has been provided? And we in the PR industry are even more vulnerable to this practice because of the subjectivity of the product…and the vagaries of those aforementioned hourly fees.
Yes, I understand the need to derive the most value for least outlay. But if a PR company has actually delivered a tangible result as specified and agreed, not just an invoice for hours in trying to achieve the result, then respect the pricing and don’t ask us to choose what may be behind door number three.
There is not a moment in my professional life these days that I am not faced with how important social media now is to the planning and execution of any program that dares to call itself, public relations. While that may well be true given that both clients and practitioners are demanding its inclusion in all RFP’s and resulting proposals, it’s being done so with or without much knowledge as to exactly what it is, how it works, or most importantly…what it accomplishes.
Well ok, if that’s what the clients want then those of us on the agency side will be happy to oblige. After all, we’ve heard about it for at least nine months now and it’s been covered in hundreds of “how to” books, and corporate CEO’s refer to it almost offhandedly as an extension of their dependence on their Blackberries. It’s not only the flavor of the year, but apparently may linger now that Oprah, Ashton, and even the Obama administration is utilizing it to readjust our dependence on prosperity to, well…less prosperity.
And while I find it amazing that this demand and fulfillment (at least in the proposal stage) continues to expand at cyber-speed it seems, I also am curious as to how this all started to have such industry significance in such a short period of time. Was it literally someone in the media, a young reporter perhaps used to conversing over the internet rather than over a water cooler or expensive lunch, that first suggested he be pitched via a crowd of his ‘friends and followers’ instead of directly. Or was it some industrious agency type that first realized that this same reporter is probably joining some of these online social communities for personal reasons, and therefore a wandering, open, and vulnerable target for his pitch. Or perhaps it was nothing more a chance meeting online between like minded souls…the reporter doing research, the PR person fishing, and a couple of shareholders and customers ranting or praising, finding themselves in a room together, all listening and talking at the same time… eureka, a new form of communication is born.
And of course, once it was determined that not only reporters and producers communicate and socialize on the Net, but our clients’ customers and stakeholders do the same, often at the same time, that “social media relations” as a brand new PR practice was born. Like much of PR, it’s a little subjective and usually difficult to describe why it’s important beyond, “everyone is doing it.” That’s ok as well. We’ll soon enough all get around to thoroughly understanding social media and its execution in a well structured public relations program. However, measuring its tangible benefits and developing fair compensation may take a little longer. Let’s hope this happens before we aging PR types have to face the next all important thing.
Recently I noticed an article in "The Columbia Journalism Review” expounding on the theory that newspapers can only blame themselves for their imminent demise…and that blame lies with their preoccupation of “chasing the false idols of fame and fortune.” The article goes on to define this “chase” as public relations…and furthermore it states that even while chasing good PR, newspapers have fallen victim to becoming nothing more than shills (my word, not theirs) for PR professionals. That’s it, my fellow PR pros, we’re to blame. We’re killing the American Press.
Well, well, well…so many things wrong with this thesis from this prestigious publication that it’s difficult to summarize them all. Let me try just a couple…
First and foremost to define “chasing false idols of fame and fortune” as public relations is so odd as to be laughable. Newspapers in this country may well have decided that winning awards was important both for its readership as well as its business side, but only a first year journalism student not listening in class would refer to that as “public relations.” As far as “reporters making television appearances”…huh? The few reporters I see on the air tend to be connected to and reporting on a big story (that’s called journalism.) Does the author actually believe that with TV air time so precious even for their very own TV reporters, that broadcasters would relinquish it to a newspaper to promote it’s own? Not.
And the idea that public relations is creating the news everyday for America’s newspapers…and not the editorial staffs, who are preoccupied with advancement up the ranks rather than news gathering…well, we in the PR ranks should be so lucky. Blaming PR however ill defined, for newspapers’ diminishing size, circulation, and influence, is simplistic, and frankly beneath such a prestigious publication. An added insult is the article’s contention that are not enough good reporters with “expertise’ at the bottom rung and therefore newspapers are easy prey for the evil PR types waiting to infiltrate with “worst of all, snappy comments by spokesmen or experts.” Oh God, not that!
If ever an article deserved to be given a toss to the proverbial ‘round file’ or at minimum, a hearty, “Give me a break!” it’s this one. The real reasons for the American newspaper’s demise is both economic and technological and to a great degree, demographic. The Columbia Journalism Review may not be aware, but newspapers and all of journalism share a mutually beneficial and synergistic relationship with the PR profession. We need each other and depend on each other. We share our people and background, we share a desire to maintain journalistic integrity, i.e., news must be news worthy, and we share a distribution system for our product.
…Is it too much to ask for a little media with that order?
We’ve been asking ourselves for a long time now why so many really smart companies put out the big money to their traditional PR firms for practically nothing of substance in return…like ordering a Happy Meal™ at your local fast food stop and not getting fries…or even the Big Mac™!
We decided it might make for some interesting video to tell the “Pay-for-Performance PR” story in a series of vignettes. Who knows, it might even make you hungry for something other than a fat juicy invoice every month…
It was announced in the "New York Times”last week that the venerable (hey, ten years in the this modern communication age qualifies…) weekly public relations news magazine, PRWeek, was becoming a monthly…but still keeping the same name.
Not only is this industry tabloid reducing the number of issues, but its physical size as well…shrinking down to standard magazine size. Oh great…now, it will no longer stick out on the reception area coffee table, but now will get shuffled amongst the other media rags relegated to the seldom read, but purely authoritatively decorative category. More importantly however is whether this size and frequency metamorphosis will alter the content, and thus affect its interest and value to the PR industry, i.e., its ‘brand.’ The publisher of course, says no…but only in time and a few issues will ultimately come the answer. It raises an interesting issue, however. Just how important is a name in branding a company’s product or service? And if circumstances, economic or otherwise, dictate a shift in how those products or services are delivered, should the name change as well? In most cases, I would say no, not as long as the product or service itself does not change. But, in PR Week’s case, I’m not sure it matters since it is doubtful that the name has little to do with the content and a lot more to do with its time of delivery…and frankly, most of us are already getting our PR industry news and gossip on a hourly or minute-by-minute basis on line or by tweet. So, I can certainly understand the reluctance by the publisher to rename it, “PRMonthly but a little smaller.”
I like to believe that a company name can and should be very much a part of its ‘brand. ‘ When I founded my company twelve years ago, I pondered a variety of names…from ego-centric initials to multiple names (some even fictitious, but with great gravitas) before being advised by someone younger but much wiser than myself to keep it simple…”just name it for what the company does then you’ll never have to change it…or forget what you’re good at.” It was a good exercise to go through, and one I’ve advised to other entrepreneurs and spin-offs. Find your core competency and embrace it. In our case, we named ourselves INK inc for what we deliver to our clients, nice and simple. Over the years our ‘brand’ hasn’t changed…either in essentially what we do or in what we call ourselves.
Ok, maybe in today’s fast paced world we should change it to INK/Video/Social Media/Tweet inc. After all, that’s what we now do….nah, it doesn’t seem to be quite as catchy.
I am a public relations pioneer known for my unique performance based compensation model and non-traditional agency. http://www.inkincpr.com/.
My experience and frustrations with traditional firms drove me to start INK inc., with the idea that firms should share the financial risk of the client by providing a more accountable method of compensation based on actual media results.
It’s called ‘hide and seek’
Posts
