The Fall of The House of Burson

Mark Penn has found yet another way to embarrass his storied employer...

A story in this week’s New York Times, "Wall St. Journal Gives an Ethics Green Light to a P.R. Executive's Column" , reminded me again as to how far the practice of public relations has changed (and not necessarily in a good way) since I first entered the profession forty-one years ago fresh out of grad school as an assistant account executive on third avenue in New York. A naive kid from Kansas, I’d been offered a job with what was considered at that time the largest and most prestigious PR firm in the world, Burson-Marsteller…and boy, did I have a lot to learn.

I learned almost immediately that the hard work of PR, media relations or press coverage as we called it then, was the backbone of any good PR campaign, and it was done in the trenches. That good press coverage, positive press coverage, was the measurement of successfully serving your client. I still vividly remember those weekly “bogie meetings” with the GM of the New York office to see whether we had individually met goals for column inches of coverage for our clients. Almost of equal importance to new recruits to the Burson team, were the admonitions to learn to write a great lead for every pitch or release we drafted, as well as keep a low profile, i.e., never become part of the story.

Times have obviously changed. Burson-Marsteller, which long held out its independence and practiced both the art and science of PR at the highest level, has been bought and sold a couple of times into the mega-world of communication conglomerates, and is no longer the largest, nor the most prestigious public relations agency in the world. The firm now promotes itself for its “PR consultancy” not its press capabilities. And by the looks of it, Burson-Marsteller’s latest president and CEO, Mark Penn, continues to find ways to abdicate his responsibilities of both sound judgment as well as that old company admonition about becoming a part of the story.

Penn has not only become part of the story, his ego seems to demand he become the story itself. First, it was the fiasco of his inept creative leadership of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign (high-profile firing, anyone?) and now he’s writing a regular column for the WSJ with Burson staffers contributing for their mutual clients (high-profile conflict, anyone?)

As both a former “Burson-person” (yes, that’s what we were proudly called) and a current agency CEO, I can’t think of many more ways for Penn to exhibit his ineptness in leadership or professionalism. With my apologies to great historical quotes… “I know Harold Burson, I served with him; and he’s a friend of mine. And Mark Penn, you’re no Harold Burson.”

It’s bad enough that this proud old agency that has served so many clients so well over the last fifty-six years no longer practices nor uses “positive press coverage” as it’s modern day metric for success; but to have Mark Penn as its standard bearer, doubles the embarrassment.

Is PR 3.0 a Trojan Horse?

Finding a new way to charge those big fees for little results...

In the same manner and vein that Wall Street is finding it impossible to move far from its old compensation model of extravagant bonuses to those pitifully poor executives laboring away in the trenches of bail-out supported derivatives, the traditional PR industry is discovering new ways under the guise of PR 3.0 to continue to convince clients to pay out fat monthly charges for everything and anything… except of course, real media coverage.

I understand that as part of any client’s efforts to increase its online presence, engage its online audience, and have a much greater handle on the online conversations about the company and its industry, the client has to look for a public relations firm that can develop social media strategy and execute a plan that targets the public influencers while monitoring and tweaking the engagement process as well as traditional media outreach.

But too many old guard traditional PR firms as well as a few boutique shops that were never able to consistently deliver media coverage are finding a client’s desire to engage in the new PR 3.0 as a means to disguise this incompetence and once again justify the fat hourly fees and monster retainers. As far as traditional media coverage…say, that story in The Wall Street Journal, on CNN, or the local media… it’s subjugated to ”oh, we’ll get that as well, and under the same (enormous) fee we’re charging you to know what the public is saying about you on Twitter.” Right.

Hey, I’m not so old or old fashioned not to recognize that the Internet has changed both the rules of PR and the game itself in such a dramatic fashion that any program not acknowledging its influence is obsolete before it is launched. But I’m also old enough to recognize the old shell game once again being played by many in this industry… dazzle clients with new and mysterious ways of understanding and communicating with their stakeholders and customers, then charge them like crazy every month whether or not there’s been any tangible results. Actual media coverage…”it’s coming… maybe next month.”

No question PR 3.0 is vital. It’s imperative for clients to understand and address their online presence when creating an overall comprehensive PR program. And online presence no longer just means a client’s web site design or simple search engine optimization. It means understanding and developing a strategy that takes into account the online media; and utilizes the correct channels that will reach your public, such as blogs, community forums, video channels and using micro-media tools with some form of measurement for ROE (return on engagement).

But don't dismiss the value of a great story on CNBC or in The Journal or even the local small town gazette, to put your company on the public radar and bring a smile to the CEO’s face. Now that’s worth charging for.

Does technology take the common sense out of brand marketing?

Written by Cindy West, Guest Blogger

I was reading a blog post over the weekend on Chris Brogan.com titled "The Myth of Brand Loyalty" and his post struck a nerve. Chris talks about his long relationship with Apple as a satisfied customer. His recent purchase of the 15" MacBook Pro, a good choice I might add, was another example of his loyalty to Apple. So you can imagine his slight annoyance when he received an email from the Apple Store, trying to sell him the very same laptop that he purchased a month ago...as if he were a newbie to the brand. Where was the brand loyalty to the consumer and are we just fooling ourselves into thinking that our loyalty matters?

I remember my days in retail, when learning about your customer through the act of conversation was the way we built trust in our customer relationships which evolved into brand loyalty…yes, the old fashioned way. We didn’t have computers back then, we had handwritten customer profile cards. The comments we added to those cards provided analytics in the most archaic form, but it worked. We knew their fashion preferences by design, style and color, that worked with their lifestyle. We knew about those special occasions to assist their partners with gift ideas. By keeping a list of previous purchases we were able to coordinate new arrivals with their existing wardrobe. Every customer was sent a personalized thank you note.

Those days have somewhat evaporated, and with the type of technology today and massive amount of information available, it makes me wonder if we are dismissing the human element in our strategic marketing? Is face time less valuable than a database full of information? Or are we just using this information to strategically analyze for mass marketing tactics that frankly leave us feeling under appreciated?

I can’t begin to tell you how often I get a call from a vendor soliciting my business only to inform them that we are current customers. Oops!!! I’m not sure why they don’t know that I have been a customer for 10 years, but it always ends in a repetitive excuse like “I am so sorry, they must not have updated this record. I will take care of that now”. Hmmm...

So my question is this, “Is technology the culprit and does it interfere with developing brand loyalty or is it how we manage the information we get?”