Healthcare Reform Has Nothing on PR

You think the healthcare debate is polarized...try pay-for-performance PR

I recently joined what I thought would be a reasonable sedate professional group on LinkedIn, the Public Relations and Communications Professionals. I thought it might be another way to expand my company's network for both discussions and recruitment. After all, we're always looking for professionals in this industry that might be in a position to join our virtual world in sharing client experiences, media tips, or even some insight on exactly how each of us define being a "professional. And given that I represent one of the largest PR firms specializing in being paid for results and not just billing hourly for effort, I thought it appropriate I join in on a group discussion centered on a group member asking about firms utilizing the "pay-for-performance" model.

That's when sedate became debate.

I've been practicing the model successfully for nearly twenty years so I've obviously known for a long time that pay-for-performance PR is the ugly stepchild of the profession and considered by a few in this industry as akin to selling tin siding to the elderly on a pension.But I guess I didn't realize the depth of both the misunderstanding of the model or the resentment and anger that it can foster in a "professional discussion. After one or two comments to the group extolling the benefits to the client of paying for tangible results after-the-fact, I soon found out. The level of the discussion quickly went to the shouting level of a town hall meeting last August on healthcare reform.The pay-for-performance model was labeled with everything from "devaluing PR," "being dishonest" and of course, "unethical." The only thing missing was an analogy of "pulling the plug on grandma."

I sensed real fear of a threat of the unknown. But isn't that always the case.We tend to fear that which we don't understand. The PR establishment of which I was and continue to be a part of over the years has done an excellent job of downgrading pay-for-performance PR firms as little more than ambulance chasers in a world of professional consultants. After all, we now can even be certified with initials following our names.

After a brief defensive stand where I raised my own voice in protest, I realized that as in most arguments, you're not going to change anyone's mind with a point, counterpoint kind of debate. And I know this may come as a shock to my fellow professionals and group members, but what we're talking here is PR, not rocket science or cancer cures.We provide a service.Sometimes there's a science in it and sometimes there's a lot of creativity in it; but mostly it's just using good sense to assist our clients to reach their communication goals...whether commercial or altruistic.And since we all proudly carry the label of professional, that assumes we charge for this service.If we're providing this service successfully and consistently, then how we charge should not be that big an issue as long as our clients believe they've received value.

But value is in the eyes of the client whether we like it or not. And in this age of tight budgets and reduced spending, accountability is very much a part of the client's evaluation of our services.To believe that different compensation models like pay-for-performance or a small base retainer plus bonuses for benchmark achievements, that appeal to these clients, are a threat to standard billing rates is accurate. But if a traditional billing firm can objectively demonstrate the value in their model to their clients, it has nothing to fear.

To all the others however, that rant against accountable billing in this profession, to borrow a phrase, "me thinks you doth protest too much"