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.

Hey… This PR stuff actually works!

And size doesn’t always really matter…


It may seem odd or ironic, but after all this time in the PR business and all the preaching and pontificating I’ve done over the years on the value of media outreach, it still brings a smile to my face (as it would any appreciative client) when I see the results of a good solid publicity placement in a medium that is directed at a key audience. And once again, it’s proved that this kind of strategic hit with the right message doesn’t have to be lengthy…just focused. In this instance, a few lines about INK inc. at the bottom of a column What Have You Done for Me Lately? by Geoff Williams in the October issue of Entrepreneur magazine.


The results thus far after only a week of publication…five strong new client prospects have contacted us inquiring about INK’s pay-for-performance PR services. This, I believe, proves at least two things…the economy is beginning to recover…and, this PR stuff actually works!


As mentioned, the piece is short but it covers succinctly what we at INK refer to as “the why.” That is, the reason or “the why” that a prospective customer or investor will be interested…the essence of a company that will drive a prospect to immediately pick up the phone, or at minimum commit it to memory for future action. It’s what gives a publicity placement value. Without it, it’s just a nice story.


In our case, it’s the line, “Clients pony up only when they get media coverage, and if the exposure is small, the client pays less.”


Obviously a few clients are getting the message. Enough said.

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.

Welcoming the New and Improving the Old

It’s time for us PR types do what we supposedly do best…just spin, baby, spin.

“Enough of the negatives…can’t you and all the other bloggers say anything positive for a change?”

As we all look forward to the last quarter of an absolutely dreadful economic year and summer winds to an end, isn’t it time we all took a little accounting of the good, even great things, that have happened over the last few months or year…and give it our best spin.

On a macro level, this country has made some incredible strides.We’ve elected our first African American president who seems to be young enough and hip enough to connect with most Americans, even those that may not agree with all his policies.We’re recognizing the major problems of the country…the endless wars, healthcare, the housing and credit crisis…even if we aren’t yet at solutions.That will come.The positive is a universal recognition of the problems and airing the grievances. We’re all Americans and we’re all patriotic. And we always eventually figure a way to meet somewhere toward the middle to move forward. Are we better off than last year at this time? Not necessarily…but do we feel better about progress toward solutions? I, and a lot of others do.

What about all this business and social technology that seems to be causing such consternation…will it cost me my daily newspaper, my job, my very sanity as I try to keep up? Yes, it could, and much more.Is that all bad? No (well, not sure on the sanity issue…) There are some real positives to be taken from our rapid march to an all-digital world. We are far more cognizant of our neighbor next door as well as across the globe. We know more about what they’re thinking, how it might affect us personally or professionally, and we know it almost instantly.We can communicate in a nanosecond what used to take us hours or days. And in spite of all the inane and silly tweets, texts, posts to the contrary, this is a good thing. Ask the paramedic or even your CFO if they’d prefer the old way…no way.

But one of the real positives of what’s new is how it affects what’s old…. like responsibility. Not only do fresh ideas and fresh technology offer obvious advances in that which they replace, but they also offer the opportunity to reevaluate that which is indirectly affected, and how to make it better. If we now have the capability of communicating what we are doing instantly to a million “followers” and “fans,” should we not also consider now what it is we’re communicating…and more importantly the positive effect that communication might impart?Cool, huh.

Where do we PR types fit in this new world? Well, we get to live in it and enjoy it, and experience it… and we get to use the new stuff; and we get to do what we do best… tell others about it.The possibilities are endless… and that’s the biggest positive of all.

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?”