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.

Gullibility… media is thy name

The stunt worked and that’s what’s so pathetic

Face it. We all got sucked into the drama last week played out on the nation’s TV screens. Those at home paused to listen or watch. Those at work were interrupted by co-workers either attuned to breaking alerts on the Internet or an office television. But we all paid attention…even if just momentarily. We all paid attention. Why? It was a hot breaking news story with all the elements that we’ve learned make our senses prick up. It had a child in terrible, immanent danger. It had distraught parents. It was highly visual and perfect for television. And, it had gained the instant gravitas of CNN and Fox, with the other networks soon to follow. Perfect!

Except for one minor problem… it wasn’t true.

Then, of course, came the backlash of what Frank Rich in Sunday’s NY Times (In Defense of the ‘Balloon Boy’ Dad) referred to as, “a warm bath of moral superiority. No matter our own faults, we could never top Richard Heene, who mercilessly exploited his child for fame and profit. Nor as craven as the news media…”

I don’t believe the broadcast news media to be that craven. Gullible, sloppy, and driven above all else for the scoop in this age of the 24/7 news cycle, yes. Open to exactly this kind of a misfortunate publicity stunt by the same kind of individuals that are pathetic in this instance (and yes, smart) enough to feed off their kids to satisfy their and the media’s needs, yes. But I do agree with Rich in his Times piece, that we in the watching audience must share in that gullibility. Did we all suspend all sense or common sense while watching that over-sized Jiffy Pop floating over Colorado? The answer to that is also, yes. And it’s that secret knowledge of our own gullibility that adds to our outrage. “A massive fraud!” so thundered Bill O’Reilly.

However we in the business of publicity must also applaud…no, not the sad use of one’s own kid to exploit for fame and profit…but the execution of the stunt to gain the incredible primary coverage as well as the secondary and continuing coverage. This story has great legs…not in spite of its falsehood, but now because of it. Amazing! The media can’t help itself.

“They put on a very good show for us, and we bought it,” the local sheriff said last weekend.

And, we are continuing to do so.

Is it blessed to receive?

From random fax-spam to blogger freebies …

There’s something strangely comforting about still receiving faxes in the age of the Internet and email…even if the faxes are solicitations of the absurd. My favorite this week was from Presidential Who’s Who, addressed to “Dear Company Owner” and exclaiming that “my information had been reviewed and accepted for inclusion in the 2010 edition.” Hot Damn! After forty some years I am finally being recognized for “outstanding business and professional achievements.” Well ok…it’s about time.


But wait. It then went on to ask me to fill out and return an attached form that asked my name and title, my company’s name, its industry, our principal product or service, and personal specialty. Hmmmm…just a random thought, but if my company and me have “reached the distinguished level of success in my chosen profession,” as stipulated, and I’ve already been reviewed and accepted to be in this fine edition, why ask? On further review, I choose to continue in anonymity.


Of far greater import than my personal recognition in yet another bogus edition of Who’s Who, was the piece in the New York Times Ad and Media section this week, "Soon Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure", that the FTC has decided to crack down on bloggers plugging products sent to them by companies hoping for a favorable review. The FTC rules governing endorsements and testimonials in advertisements are going to be studied and possibly expanded to cover bloggers and social media like Facebook and Twitter. This kind of “freebie spam” has been a stable of marketing for just about forever; and certainly long before the invention of the Internet or social media. According to the Times, “For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print."

We all know that one of the beauties and really cool things about social media and blogging in particular, is the freedom of everyman or every woman to express themselves without the impediment of commercial or organizational restrictions…other than their sense of good taste and social mores. But all the FTC is now institutionalizing is what we’ve all known for some time was destined…that the Internet and social media have become tools for enterprise. Yes, on a macro level it’s still a great new way to communicate, share, and expand our worlds, and without doubt the phenomenal transforming tool of at least the early Century. All well and good…but it’s also a great way to push diapers or a cell phone. And it’s probably time to recognize that as well.

As one mommy blogger said, “I think that bloggers definitely need to be held accountable. I think there is a certain level of trust that bloggers have with readers, and readers deserve to know the whole truth.”

Accountable….there’s that word again.

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.