PR's Great Reporting Gap

Media: "Don't bring me no stinking nuance...."


It struck me this last week watching the State of the Union address and later the President's give and take at the annual Republican Retreat, the rather enormous gap between reliable reporting and the communications of the complex issues being reported. We live in a world of nuance, both singularly and plural, but the media does not...particularly the broadcast media. Subtleties, complexities, enigmas...? Media's got no time for them and no budget to cover them...just bring them straight facts based on some kind of convenient authoritative source in the form of a talking head, or short of that they'll settle for a good repeatable short sound bite.


And, it's not always based on which side of the political spectrum the media is suspected to lie. The truth be told, except where openly stated, the largest percentage of the media likes to believe they are "independently centered" because they believe that is not only being "unbiased" but also where the largest audience and therefore the most advertising dollars linger.


This President, not as unlike his predecessors as we'd like to believe, is extremely difficult to define through simple labels like left, right, liberal, conservative, etc. This lack of a simple definition certainly adds to the difficulty of the media reporting on his presidency and his own inability to simplify his narrative to quick sound bites. "Change" and "Yes We Can" were simplistic campaign slogans, not detailed policy statements. Now we're into the real world of governing and legislating where simple is impossible and nuanced compromise reigns...not exactly the forte of the modern media. The instances I cite above are the latest but perhaps clearest examples of why it's still good to hear the long form position from the source, agreeable or not, rather than just its simplified reported interpretation.


We in the PR world unfortunately seldom have the advantage of presenting our clients, unadorned and transparent, direct to their chosen audiences like the President. We must rely on gaining the attention of the media through cleverly worded pitches and releases that pique their interest and turn their budget and time conscious bosses into backers. And remembering that it's the simple, not the complex, the clever sound bite, not the nuanced long form statement, is what is desired and used, we adhere to this formula. The sad, but good thing for us in PR, is that this formula continues to work at least with most modern broadcast outlets where time and cost are at such a premium. The sadder thing is that these same broadcast outlets do so at the behest of their audiences...us.

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"

Time to Reinvent Our PR Selves

Yet again...

The beauty of the end of the old year and the beginning of a new one is that it gives a perfectly good and timely excuse to do something for ourselves and our profession that we should have been doing on a continual basis all along...re-evaluation and reinvention. Forget the clichéd New Year Resolutions thing...they never seem to stick beyond a few days or weeks at best regardless. We're talking wholesale reinvention, not some minor personal tweaking like quitting smoking or losing ten pounds. (For the sake of honesty, I must fess up to the fact that twenty-three years ago, a new year resolution to quit smoking not only held but also was the best thing I ever did for my personal health. Now, that ten pounds thing has been a bit tougher...)

Re-evaluation? Reinvention? Ok, the re-evaluation is the easier of the two...but not always. It's tough to take a hard look at ourselves and how we've conducted ourselves professionally...and be brutally honest in the examination. The PR profession is an easy target for others and most of us are used to being on the defensive against criticism. However most of this criticism comes from outside our professional ranks from those that have the least knowledge of either the business framework or the processes employed. The criticism generally falls in the category of some kind of "devious manipulation of the truth or the public good" through some nefarious campaign designed and executed by a bunch of suits in a corporate boardroom. There are times that every PR pro wished that that kind of absolute control were possible, but in my forty years I've never seen it...zip, nada.

But on a smaller more individual scale there is not one of us that cannot look back on shortcuts we've made, clients we've taken with less than noble causes to promote, disingenuousness (lies?) to get a reporter interested, or my continuing favorite...client fees (both hourly and otherwise) inflated for the bottom line (ours, not the clients'.) These, plus the one most abused...an exaggeration of our own self-importance...are the critiques we need to make upon ourselves and note. Ah, but correcting them, therein lies the real problem. Making and committing to that effort in a tough economic time when clients are scarce and PR budgets even scarcer is no easy challenge.

Given that each new year and decade opens with an attitude of self-renewal and a positive vibe for what can yet be accomplished, and that this year being even more so because of the depths of negatively from whence we have just come, why not give it a shot? I'm personally betting on the future more than ever... that my and our collective actions together can influence change this year. That clients, the media (old and new) upon which we depend for so much, and others in this profession will respond to difficult, but oh so simple, changes... like fairness in billing and in payment, promotion and coverage of real news not opinion, and a little humility and civility in our interaction with each other.

As my favorite politician said a long time ago...."Some men dream of things that never were and say, why? Others dream of things that never were and say, why not?"

Sounds like a good way to start this new year.

Failing Up

Some of our best and the brightest…

The monthly jobless report came out again this week and the picture was bleak enough to flatten the earlier upward movement of the markets. Double-digit unemployment…ten point two percent…not since Reagan was well into his second year had we had this many of our citizens standing in line or looking for jobs. And many of those standing outside looking in are us…journalists, agency types, marcom pros, PR practitioners, and even whole small firms just not able to withstand the tightened or withdrawn budgets or credit squeeze. And while I’m enough of an optimist to believe that I see a faint glow at the end of this nightmarish tunnel, it still is a personal tragedy for those directly among the “jobless.”

But then I read a piece in the Sunday NY Times and was reminded again that sometimes real positive growth comes from being forced to re-evaluate our circumstances of employment…nice way of saying, “being canned.” Or, as the Times puts it, “The Benefit of a Boot Out the Door.” In the column, Jeffrey Katzenberg, elaborates on how his forced departure from Disney “fueled him to get on…etc.” Hey, I recognize that most of us that get laid off or fired, do so without the warm fuzzies of a Disney multimillion-dollar severance package to help us cope. But the point that being fired, whether from a seven-figure position or twelve-buck an hour job, is not necessarily always a bad thing…and good things can actually come of it.

Before someone out there says, “sure, easy for Mr. CEO to say,” it’s best for me to come clean. I’ve been fired, terminated, laid off, and generally just jobless on not just a couple of occasions, but several. And I’d like to believe that each time I’ve learned something about myself, and others. I also learned that losing your job whether self inflicted or not, is only failure if you fail to grow from it. I had a boss once, a man that had started three companies with the first two ending upside down…the third, highly successful. He believed strongly that only those that have tasted failure were worthy of employment consideration. His reasoning was that sooner or later most of us will stumble and fall, and he wanted to surround himself with those that had that out of their system and had grown accordingly.


I’m not sure I would go that far, but I certainly understand his thinking. My hobby is motorcycling and I must admit I prefer riding with those that have respect for the inherent dangers of the sport and ride accordingly. And more often than not, this respect is gained through a close call or even an accident…’going down’ as we say. The same can be said for a business enterprise…be it a news organization, corporation, or agency. Having a couple of close calls or even a job loss on your resume’ can be a positive…if you can demonstrate how you’ve grown from the experience and gained respect for the warning signs moving forward.

Yes, some may skate through life perfectly attuned to success and never be bothered with life’s annoying little stumbles…never being tested by a touch or two of failure and self-doubt. But come on, how many people really fit this description, and those that do…do you really trust them…or even like them? Me…I prefer to see a few scars on my associates and employees. To me, these are by far the best and the brightest.

What's in a name?

Shakespeare might have got it wrong …

As Juliet says to Romeo: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Well…maybe. I’m not sure Shakespeare would be so sure of his prose if he were to deal with today’s law firms, advertising agencies, and PR firms. I was reminded again of the difficulty and the egos involved when I recently read Stuart Elliott's
 In Advertising column in the New York Times. He answers a reader’s question Q&A section about the famous ad agency, BBDO, and its name being associated with a famous quote that the original name of the agency -- Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn -- “sounded like a trunk falling down a flight of stairs.” Indeed.

The story reminded me of the name of my second place of employment, N.W. Ayer & Son, often referred to as the oldest advertising agency in America…or affectionately (and despairingly) as “the old gray lady of Philadelphia.” The story goes that when the agency was founded in the late nineteenth century, yes, in Philadelphia, old N.W. had nothing to do with it. In fact, he was already deceased. His son, whose name escapes me as well as most advertising historians, decided that an enterprise as auspicious as America’s original ad agency needed more gravitas than his name alone bestowed. Thus, he gave the lion’s share of the letterhead to his deceased father and he took up anonymous residence to the right of the ampersand.

Naming an advertising or PR agency with just the right combination of gravitas and ego…mixed with trendy creativity is not an easy task as I learned when faced with just such a task a few years ago when I founded my own firm. (I cannot speak for law firms since they seem to be dedicated to gravitas and ego alone.) I ran through the usual boring suspects like…RH Grove & Associates, Grove Communications, and my personal favorite, Gordon, Geotz & Grove (or G3 as in “cubed”.) Gordon and Geotz, both being deceased high school friends, to add “size” and the gravitas while the “cubed” hit a note of ultra cool creativity. Thank goodness my daughter and experienced communication professional herself, stepped in to save me and the new firm from such an embarrassment. Her frank assessment…”why not just name the company for what it does, not who founded it. Call it, INK…that’s what you do for clients…get them ink.” Indeed.

Not as much gravitas, little to no ego, trendy creativity…maybe. But INK by any other name after all these years wouldn’t smell nearly as sweet.

So, where’s the value?

PR is worth real dollars, but only if it’s accountable …

I recently read an interesting blog post by Chris Brogan titled, "The Audacity of Free", wherein he expounds on the notion that in today’s tough economy, many people behave as if “free” is the watchword of the day. That the imparting of knowledge and information… in his example, it’s through conferences… somehow is often expected to be given away. “The sense of walking into somewhere and listening to sage words doesn’t seem like it should cost money….” But he argues, and rightly so, to, “Never apologize that something costs money if you’ve determined the value of it.” And, to not “ever feel embarrassed to charge for value.”

Well normally you won’t hear me do much supporting of something that seems to be closely related to charging for pure consulting, which can lead to hourly fees, which in my opinion can lead to nothing but mischief. But Mr. Brogan makes a point about what appears to be a trend in companies today believing that they and not the vendor (another term I dislike almost as much as hourly fee) are the sole arbiter of whether a service should have a charge attached, i.e., they determine the cost based upon their interpretation of value received. While I understand why today’s dreary economy and years of malfeasance and overcharging have brought us to this point, it is still a frightening thought… the inmates in control of the asylum? If only clients determined the price of our services, oh what a scary world this would be.

Or would it be? Maybe we deserve to have the moneychangers driven from the temple so that clients can once more believe that the cost of PR is directly related to value received. And most importantly, that this perceived value be determined on tangible results and not smoke and mirrors or spoken words alone. That kind of accountability leads not to mischief, but to a compensation model that is credible and just.

That is not to say that the clients determine the price of such compensation. I haven’t given total leave to my senses or control of the asylum. I agree again with Mr. Brogan when he says, “it’s not your buyers who decide this, no matter what we like to think in social media kumbaya-ville” We in PR must not be embarrassed to charge real dollars for the services we provide. But make sure these services are tied to the tangible, measurable results that our clients desire…not just our words. If we’re going to charge for “knowledge” be willing to demonstrate just how that knowledge provides such results. Once again to paraphrase Mr. Brogan with a modicum of literary license… “Free is beautiful, and costs are part of life.” But please… based on accountability.

The Clients Are Now in Charge...for real

And some of the big ones are real monsters…

If fighting for every client dollar amongst our own industry wasn’t enough, now we are fighting the clients themselves for theirs… as well as ours. A couple of stories this last week really brought this fact home. The Wall Street Journal "Thrift Darkens Industry Hopes" once again reported that this recession is causing big companies like American Express and Shell to cut back on the fees they pay their advertising agencies and thus, asking for equal or more service for the same or less. And "Advertising Age" reported this week that the biggest of all companies, Walmart, is actually asking many of the consumer companies marketing through this behemoth to divert some of individual marketing budgets back into Walmart’s budget…or else! (Walmart of course, doesn’t state it so overtly. They simply hide the threat with a wink under the guise of a “simultaneous push to clear their shelves of underperforming brands.”

So why should this concern me, a CEO of not an ad agency, but a PR firm that specializes in clients much smaller than any of the above? Because in this business of marketing and influence, what happens at the top eventually filters down…and in this current recession and 24/7 trade news cycles, that eventually is shortened to ‘very quickly.’ The big clients are now firmly in charge.

Yes, I know, we have all played to the cliché, “the client is always right” or some such platitude. But that usually only went so far as to acknowledge a client’s right as the “spending partner” to have final say in friendly, professional disagreements…sometimes financial, sometimes creative. This is a different animal entirely, and worst of all it appears to be a trend. Companies that only recently spoke of and often treated their ad and PR agencies, not as vendors, but as marketing partners, now in this buyer’s market have shifted completely into the “you’re a vendor” gear and are driving hard compensation deals where only they are the winners.

What’s an agency to do that wishes to work with the big boys and girls of the Fortune 500? Not much, unfortunately. You could always just keep quiet and go along believing it’s only temporary and once the economy has righted itself the compensation and partnership equilibrium will be restored. Do I hear snickers out there? You could of course, speak out and up at the injustice of it all…using what’s left of the media, trade or otherwise, to state your case. The end result unfortunately isn’t likely to be any more satisfying and, even more damaging to your bottom line.

Or, you can concentrate like many of us in this business have on the smaller entrepreneurial companies as clients. But you better know how to work smart… and for less here as well. Yes, we’re seeing even ‘more for less’ client demands among the smaller companies as well; but since we’ve never really dealt with monster budgets, incrementally it doesn’t seem as bad. And smaller companies don’t have the bureaucratic layers of internal marketing, advertising and PR managers professing to have the knowledge and wherewithal beyond that of their vendor agencies. Our clients, (well ok, most) actually act like they really respect and need what we bring to the partnership.

At least for now.

Words of Wisdom

The commencement address for PR grads…

It’s been over forty years since I was preparing for my “orals” at the University of Kansas... in the dark ages of a collegiate post graduate education we were required to undergo both a written and oral exam for graduation…and I still remember sweating out the possible questions that I might have to answer ‘face-to-face” from my professors. Ironically, after these all-to-brief four decades, I only remember one question, delivered straight to the heart by my professor of ethics… “Grove, with all your journalistic education over the last six years, why would you possibly want to become a flack?”

Interesting question…particularly given the reasonably high level of esteem that PR was held in those days. We were actually taught, for example, that another definition for the acronym, “PR,” was performance and recognition, and that journalism and the newsworthiness should be the basis for PR coverage. “Spin” was of course reserved for records (remember those round pieces of vinyl with a hole in the center?) and “counselors” were for legal advice or career guidance.

My professor may have been simply trying to warn me, though. Manipulation of the media had been going on for decades of course, and shortly thereafter, we all lost our PR naïveté’ and learned of “spin” in the worst way during the war in Southeast Asia. But at that time and even today, I continue to believe that it’s not necessary to practice or make a career in PR by having to sink to that level. PR is no different than other professions where tough choices must be made daily to keep focused on what is right and not what is expeditious…what serves your client and yourself with the greatest respect, not gratuitousness. And to do so in a partnership with the media, not as an antagonist.

Granted, today’s media megasphere is vastly different than the simple printed black and white and analog broadcast world of the late sixties. But isn’t today’s electronic, satellite transmission, Internet enabled social media-crazed global communications world really just an extension of that simpler time? Has the very essence of news, including business news, changed along with the speed in which it is transmitted? Will there be any less of a demand to compromise journalistic as well as ethical principles for short term benefits simply because terms are becoming shorter by the day? Because enterprises are now global (and called “enterprises”) rather than regional or national companies, has it made them any less in need of recognition for good performance? The answer is no… and when the PR class of 2049 graduates, my bet is it will still be no.

My response, by the way, to my professor, was simple… "I didn’t plan on becoming one.” Still don’t.

If the Traditional PR Happy Meal Leaves You Still Hungry…

…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…

The new PR economy…let’s make a deal

I was recently in a luggage specialty store shopping for a rolling carry-on (one of the greatest inventions of the latter half of the 20th century…should any of us have thought of it first, we’d never be laboring in the PR mineshaft again.) As I asked the store clerk about various brands and sizes, I was struck by his not only giving me this information, but his insistence on disclosing the discounted price for each as well. I inquired as to why; and he said, “no one is paying retail any more, so why chance losing the sale. Better to cut to the chase.”

Indeed. Are we are all looking to play “Let’s Make a Deal” in our daily lives these days, even when it comes to PR?

The evidence is certainly pointing in that direction particularly in light of the fact that money is harder to come by (unless of course you’re a major financial institution) and therefore each dollar must stretch further in spreading your good word. The good news, if there is any, appears to be that the need and desire for PR is staying strong to a degree because of the recession, i.e., PR is often considered a credible promotion tool of lesser cost than advertising. Advertising Age magazine recently stated…“While the recession showed its teeth in December—the U.S. economy shed 577,000 jobs—the public relations industry added 1,200 jobs. Meanwhile, advertising and media companies eliminated 18,700 jobs in December. Ad and media industry job losses total 65,100 since the recession began” according to the publication.

And while PR is demonstrating a resurgence in attractiveness in these tough times, (if not in quality…please refer to my earlier rants on the PR’s wastefulness of the media’s time on Blago, Jessica, et. al.) the industry’s costs of providing it’s services are seeing a downward pressure commiserate with it’s increase in need. In many cases this is absolutely justified and is a natural reaction to years of bloated hourly fees and retainers. But I believe it is more than a natural pushback to traditional PR firm’s charging for their own self-designated importance than their client’s actual needs. This drive for a “deal” when discussing PR compensation is becoming part of the fabric of the recession itself. “Everyone is dealing these days, from auto dealerships and luggage stores to the government itself…so why not PR?”

It’s a valid question and is particularly relevant given the often abstract and obtuse nature of the service our industry provides. Thank goodness that there continue to be enough media left to receive our outreach, and we still seem to be a better “deal” than wasteful advertising. And those of us that have been preaching accountability while being compensated under a “pay-for-performance” structure all along, it’s even smugly gratifying to see clients demanding more “value” for their tightening budgets. But we can’t get too complacent congratulating ourselves with how much better our accountability factor is over those fat hourly fee folks. Value as it’s now being defined in recessionary terms means less cost but with the same service/result.

“Pay-for performance” PR may have to make a few deals of its own to survive.