Comments on: The PR industry desperately needs PR

By: gregorylent

gregorylent — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:58:47 +0000

marketing and pr are scams, period. greed in silk.

unless, and this is nearly impossible…

you actually stop thinking about getting, and start thinking about actually giving something to customers, targets, markets, demographic groups.

because energy follows intention, hyper-connectivity increases transparency, and people can see your motives from miles away.

and everybody hates selfish people. without exception.

enjoy, gregory lent

By: mavennyc821

mavennyc821 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:59:32 +0000

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/04/want-good-publicity-forget-techcrunch-get-good-morning-america

By: shannonpaul

shannonpaul — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:20:03 +0000

I really appreciate everyone’s thoughtful responses. I am glad this is striking a nerve. I hate the thought of pay for play becoming the norm.

Shawn – Thanks so much for stopping by! I agree, that honesty is always best. The truth has a pesky way of coming out in the eventually anyway.

Beth – I think you’re right that responsibility lies with editors making the best choice to maintain the integrity of their publication and that people assuming the role of PR should drop the advertising mindset and work to earn coverage with the media instead.

Jeremiah – I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with running video footage pulled together by the company with the station’s bumper and graphics as long as the coverage wasn’t aired as news as a direct result of purchasing ad spots.

Tim – I’m sorry I made you nervous. : ) However, I really appreciate your candor. Thanks for helping to provide some perspective on the matter. I think what you describe probably happens a lot and it’s a great thing to keep in mind — as much as marketing and PR are interrelated as job functions, both sides could really benefit from a little education about what the other actually does.

By: Tim Marklein

Tim Marklein — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:24 +0000

Interesting post, Shannon. I got nervous when I saw the headline, of course, but think the premise of what you’re saying is spot-on advice. After 17+ years of in-house and agency experience, I find that too few PR people invest the time and effort in building relationships and understanding across the *rest* of the marketing mix. Understandably, we’re all busy “getting it done” on the front lines — and not enough time advocating for our function, and educating executives on how it really works.

Looking at the survey data, I’d bet there’s a big gap between the “reality” of what’s happening vs. the perception from CMOs. I’ve seen plenty of media sales reps who imply that advertisers will get some sort of coverage or access that they would not have otherwise — when the reality is that their PR team is already working with the front-line editors who have no idea what is being “promised” or implied. Since the ad/marcom team is then working very closely with the CMO on customer engagement, and the PR people aren’t talking about the same things, the CMO credits the success to someone in advertising or marcom rather than PR.

By: Jeremiah Staes

Jeremiah Staes — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:55:43 +0000

Good post.

I know of quite a few publications that play this way – and some of them are major outlets. I’ve been pitched quite a few times – you pay X for an ad or appearance, and we’ll cover you for a week. It’s that clear by the ad reps nowadays.

This is most prevalent in business news and tech coverage.

It’s pretty common, as well, that large companies’ PR groups create whole “news” packages about their product with a reporter, and leave it without graphics – and then provide it to local stations who gladly run it throwing their own bumpers on either side and graphics over the top.

With budget cutting, many producers just want to fill content and if someone wants to give it to them, they take it. It’s one less reporter they have to hire.

By: Beth Harte

Beth Harte — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:17:16 +0000

Hi Shannon, insightful post, thanks. You are right, there is a lot of focus on education between PR folks and journalists, but marketers who may end up taking over the PR responsibility never seem to educate themselves once in these new roles (and I think it is their responsibility to do so). I think a lot of it is because they look at PR with an advertising mindset—anything can be bought. Part of the ethical responsibility lies then with the editor/reporter/journalist to just say no. If you say no enough times, eventually marketers will catch on that editorial can’t be bought. Good PR is just like good marketing, you *have* to provide good, valuable content and products/services. It’s just that simple.

By: shawn smith

shawn smith — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:07:45 +0000

Great Post Shannon. cool to see you blogging too! I’ve had my share of work convincing people that marketing and PR is still a good profession, but I’d say a large number of people just don’t trust it from the beginning. People are skeptical of just the words themselves. I think much of the perception is that PR and marketing is manipulation of peoples’ thoughts. Only through transparent and honest communication can marketing get its good name back. I think it can happen, but the communicators have to tell it like it is to their audiences at all times.