The Stones got it wrong….
“No flacks were injured in the filming of this video.”
Showing posts with label Bad PR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad PR. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Time is Not on Your Side!
“No flacks were injured in the filming of this video.”
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
No such thing as a free lunch…or free PR
It’s always amazing to me that even the most knowledgeable people associated with the marketing industry seem to periodically fall into the semantics trap of referring to public relations, publicity, press coverage…call it what you may…by preceding it with the adjective, “free.” As in “no cost.” Even veteran New York Times columnist, Stuart Elliot trips occasionally...A Deluge by NBC to Promote Leno's New Show.
The thought that the vast $10 million that NBC supposedly has squandered on pushing this rehash of Leno’s later night persona into primetime, strictly on paid advertising…with not a penny going to secure the publicity bonanza of magazine covers on Parade, TV Guide, and Time, is laughable. Why, those cover stories came about without a penny of cost…strictly because the editorial sides decided entirely on their own that Jay Leno and NBC were newsworthy. Right! And of course all the PR hacks in the background, either hired agency hands or internal NBC publicity staffers, that have toiled away behind the scenes for months making sure all the details were covered, did so for no pay. Right!
The false and silly declaration that all advertising and direct marketing is paid for in real dollars, but that publicity campaigns and PR (good and bad) is free is yet another reason that PR doesn’t really get its rightful due in the marketing mix. How can a marketing and communication discipline as important as PR ever get to sit at the table with its more expensive cousins, if it is forever referred to as something that “just happens” spontaneously, like a miraculous conception? Never mind how this perception affects budgeting priorities and allocation. Does the image of short sticks and suckling toward the far end of the sow come to mind?
I’m also not going to let my fellow professional (as in…paid) PR practitioners off the hook easily on this costly misrepresentation…particularly those in traditional pay-by-the hour agencies. By lumping all services including media outreach under a single, but ever expanding fee, the individual tactical processes, like great media placements, i.e., magazine covers, are demeaned. “Hey, that cover just happened as part of our overall ‘consulting services’…like, it was free. Pay by the hour or monthly for our consulting and messaging expertise, and get all that other stuff for nothing.” Really? How much better to break out the real effort of making that magazine cover happen…and charge accordingly.
Nothing easy or free about it.
The thought that the vast $10 million that NBC supposedly has squandered on pushing this rehash of Leno’s later night persona into primetime, strictly on paid advertising…with not a penny going to secure the publicity bonanza of magazine covers on Parade, TV Guide, and Time, is laughable. Why, those cover stories came about without a penny of cost…strictly because the editorial sides decided entirely on their own that Jay Leno and NBC were newsworthy. Right! And of course all the PR hacks in the background, either hired agency hands or internal NBC publicity staffers, that have toiled away behind the scenes for months making sure all the details were covered, did so for no pay. Right!
The false and silly declaration that all advertising and direct marketing is paid for in real dollars, but that publicity campaigns and PR (good and bad) is free is yet another reason that PR doesn’t really get its rightful due in the marketing mix. How can a marketing and communication discipline as important as PR ever get to sit at the table with its more expensive cousins, if it is forever referred to as something that “just happens” spontaneously, like a miraculous conception? Never mind how this perception affects budgeting priorities and allocation. Does the image of short sticks and suckling toward the far end of the sow come to mind?
I’m also not going to let my fellow professional (as in…paid) PR practitioners off the hook easily on this costly misrepresentation…particularly those in traditional pay-by-the hour agencies. By lumping all services including media outreach under a single, but ever expanding fee, the individual tactical processes, like great media placements, i.e., magazine covers, are demeaned. “Hey, that cover just happened as part of our overall ‘consulting services’…like, it was free. Pay by the hour or monthly for our consulting and messaging expertise, and get all that other stuff for nothing.” Really? How much better to break out the real effort of making that magazine cover happen…and charge accordingly.
Nothing easy or free about it.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Good PR, bad PR…or not PR
Those of us in this profession that have made the decision to make a living the hard way by asking to be paid only if we actually land positive press coverage for our clients rather than ‘counsel’ them, may be passing on some good income these days. I hope it’s not a sign of the dour economic times, but it’s apparent there are a lot of clients out there in need of some solid counsel rather than publicity. Do Michael Phelps, A-Rod, Jessica Simpson, and continuing fan and press fav, Blagojevich, come to mind?
Maybe it’s a backlash to the seeming adulation and feel-good nature of the coverage of the historic inauguration and charismatic new president, but we, as represented by the media we subscribe to (and ingratiate ourselves to as PR people) lately seem to have veered toward a fascination to report and elevate the weaker and sillier side of our nature. It’s as if we needed a good old-fashioned, what my grandmother used to say, “come-uppence” for being so smug in our reporting of real news that seriously affects our lives and incomes. “Enough” said the media kings and the publicists that feed off of them…"bring back the court jesters!” And of course, there are those amongst us, more than happy to do so.
The fact that we’re in the midst of an important debate with valid issues on all sides of the aisle that will affect all of us in the most personal ways over the next few years does not preclude us from the enjoyment of entertainment news, of sports, of even some fluff to lighten our day. Not at all. We all need and deserve a guilty pleasure or “silly fix” once in a while. But to be transfixed on it, to have it become a story with legs is an embarrassment to the media covering it, the audiences into it, and to the PR-types behind the scenes promoting it for income and profit.
Having been the PR renegade for most of my working life, it’s not entirely comfortable for me to wear the cloak of professional indignation in discussing my brothers and sisters in the business. The battle I’ve waged against fat retainers and hourly fees versus a pay-for-performance model is not the issue here, however. Public relations and specifically media relations under any compensation model can be a really tough business with more than enough justified criticism from within and especially from without. But for that very reason, it’s especially important to note and separate the pros from those that simply feed off the weaker side of our and some of the media’s nature. Too many of us have worked way too hard for way too many years fighting to squeeze in some justified media attention for clients deserving of the public’s attention, to be lumped together with the self-anointed “PR Gurus” or “PR Impresarios.”
Call it and them what you may, but please don’t call it “good PR.”
Maybe it’s a backlash to the seeming adulation and feel-good nature of the coverage of the historic inauguration and charismatic new president, but we, as represented by the media we subscribe to (and ingratiate ourselves to as PR people) lately seem to have veered toward a fascination to report and elevate the weaker and sillier side of our nature. It’s as if we needed a good old-fashioned, what my grandmother used to say, “come-uppence” for being so smug in our reporting of real news that seriously affects our lives and incomes. “Enough” said the media kings and the publicists that feed off of them…"bring back the court jesters!” And of course, there are those amongst us, more than happy to do so.
The fact that we’re in the midst of an important debate with valid issues on all sides of the aisle that will affect all of us in the most personal ways over the next few years does not preclude us from the enjoyment of entertainment news, of sports, of even some fluff to lighten our day. Not at all. We all need and deserve a guilty pleasure or “silly fix” once in a while. But to be transfixed on it, to have it become a story with legs is an embarrassment to the media covering it, the audiences into it, and to the PR-types behind the scenes promoting it for income and profit.
Having been the PR renegade for most of my working life, it’s not entirely comfortable for me to wear the cloak of professional indignation in discussing my brothers and sisters in the business. The battle I’ve waged against fat retainers and hourly fees versus a pay-for-performance model is not the issue here, however. Public relations and specifically media relations under any compensation model can be a really tough business with more than enough justified criticism from within and especially from without. But for that very reason, it’s especially important to note and separate the pros from those that simply feed off the weaker side of our and some of the media’s nature. Too many of us have worked way too hard for way too many years fighting to squeeze in some justified media attention for clients deserving of the public’s attention, to be lumped together with the self-anointed “PR Gurus” or “PR Impresarios.”
Call it and them what you may, but please don’t call it “good PR.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
