I'm not sure it falls all the way down to only placing media. Public relations is about relationships and many of these companies value having friends. It comes down to having a professional who can help you communicate your messasge to the media or to the niche group that reads a blog.

I do agree with you that the PR industry is changing, but perhaps it is returning to its roots and relying less on media relations to drive success.

Tom, this is a good overview of a situation that I think has a lot of people scratching their heads. I agree with a lot, but not all, of what you're saying. My initial reaction is here and I'm definitely interested to read how both sides of the aisle respond to you.

Interesting thesis but I think the demise of the traditional media has been called a little too early. Most people still get their information from these sources, even if rabid blog users forsake them. So the old methods are still powerful for reaching many people. Further, I think the usefulness of traditional media outlets depends on what you're selling. If I'm selling a new beverage, probably the mainstream media works better, why assume it doesn't without any data to back up the assertion? How else can one explain the richest country in the world drinking watery beer without mainstream PR working its magic? :)

Disruption or Groundswell?

Yesterday’s post about media and PR is packed with questions and a few points worth challenging. First, why no disruption in PR if there’s such a disruption in mainstream media? Well, maybe it’s not a disruption, but there’s certainly a groundswell building in PR. We’re all growing, but not just in response to a demand for old-school PR. Instead, many of us have expanded our services to include new media advocacy, creative services and even interactive design, so we’re eating a bigger piece of the marketing pie. We’re all hiring because we’re doing new, more and better things and looking for the people with the appetite and aptitude to do those things. And don’t forget that PR is not limited to media relations – we guide companies through major business changes; we work with investors, analysts, customers, partners; we help companies slice the hype and talk in terms that the world at large will understand (rather than speeds, feeds, features and jargon).
Second, to your question “if companies know that mainstream media is inefficient at advertising and therefore of less value in helping to drive revenues…why do they believe there is great value in being mentioned in the mainstream media?” What’s ignored here are the differences between advertising and PR. Yes, advertising dollars may be going more to search engine marketing than traditional print media. But after finding a company through a search, most people will still look for some kind of third party credibility in mainstream media whether it be a respected blog or a print article. PR is also heck of a lot cheaper than advertising. And mainstream media coverage is not just about selling more products and services. Mention in the mainstream media influences investors, challenges the competition, contributes to overall awareness, and you’re right, it feeds the ego a bit too.
Finally, to your comment that “at some point companies will realize that the ROI on being mentioned in a story in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, or in trade publications, makes little difference to their bottom line.” It’s always been tough for the PR industry to tie results to revenue – often because companies don’t have the measurement systems in place. But we have companies that can tie a prospect or new deal to a specific article, and of course metrics that show huge spikes in website traffic following a print article.
Good stuff Tom, you got us going. I would argue that we’re not all going about our business the same way we were a year ago. I can’t think of one agency that hasn’t built a new practice, hosted a workshop, started a blog, hired an “expert” or at least scratched their heads in response to the groundswell. That’s almost a disruption – just not the kind that eliminates jobs or threatens margins. Stay tuned – the groundswell is building. Shannon Latta, Horn Group

As I pointed out to Jeremy Pepper on his blog, the suggestion that there should be a direct correspondence is logically faulty.

Saying that because there are fewer mainstream media outlets there should be fewer PR people is like saying that because we have the same number of Senators in Washington as 100 years ago, we should have the same number of lobbyists.

THAT obviously isn't the case.

Disruption or Groundswell? Your post packed with questions and a few points worth challenging. First, why no disruption in PR if there’s such a disruption in mainstream media? Well, maybe it’s not a disruption, but there’s certainly a groundswell building in PR. We’re all growing, but not just in response to a demand for old-school PR. Instead, many of us have expanded our services to include new media advocacy, creative services and even interactive design, so we’re eating a bigger piece of the marketing pie. We’re all hiring because we’re doing new, more and better things and looking for the people with the appetite and aptitude to do those things. And don’t forget that PR is not limited to media relations – we guide companies through major business changes; we work with investors, analysts, customers, partners; we help companies slice the hype and talk in terms that the world at large will understand (rather than speeds, feeds, features and jargon).
Second, to your question “if companies know that mainstream media is inefficient at advertising and therefore of less value in helping to drive revenues…why do they believe there is great value in being mentioned in the mainstream media?” What’s ignored here are the differences between advertising and PR. Yes, advertising dollars may be going more to search engine marketing than traditional print media. But after finding a company through a search, most people will still look for some kind of third party credibility in mainstream media whether it be a respected blog or a print article. PR is also heck of a lot cheaper than advertising. And mainstream media coverage is not just about selling more products and services. Mention in the mainstream media influences investors, challenges the competition, contributes to overall awareness, and you’re right, it feeds the ego a bit too.
Finally, to your comment that “at some point companies will realize that the ROI on being mentioned in a story in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, or in trade publications, makes little difference to their bottom line.” It’s always been tough for the PR industry to tie results to revenue – often because companies don’t have the measurement systems in place. But we have companies that can tie a prospect or new deal to a specific article, and of course metrics that show huge spikes in website traffic following a print article.
Good stuff Tom, you got us going. I would argue that we’re not all going about our business the same way we were a year ago. I can’t think of one agency that hasn’t built a new practice, hosted a workshop, started a blog, hired an “expert” or at least scratched their heads in response to the groundswell. That’s almost a disruption – just not the kind that eliminates jobs or threatens margins. Stay tuned – the groundswell is building. Shannon Latta, Horn Group

Tom sorry but you have gone completely down the wrong path. First, You equate public relations with media relations. We are doing much more than pitching stories to reporters in mainstream media. In fact, we are involved in counselling, strategy, outreach to key stakeholders including critics like NGOs. Second, smart companies are diversifying their marketing spending away from sole reliance on advertising and toward PR. Why--in a time of lack of trust and dispersion of audience, PR is fast, credible and flexible.
I will write at length in my blog this afternoon on this subject.

I agree with you, Tom, that both media and PR are changing - and must change more. And I think it's going to happen quickly. As media is becoming a conversation with readers, PR is becoming a conversation with media and the market. You can't just drop a press release, do some briefings, and move on. You need to have regular dialogue, talking about what the company is doing. All within SEC guidelines, of course. We at Novell (where I do PR) have tried to start doing this by launching an official PR blog (http://www.novell.com/prblogs/). We think this is a start toward moving to the sort of dialogue we need.

Tom, the influencer continues to change. While I am not sure all media is going the way of the white buffalo, your point is valid. There are fewer points of influence and those reference targets are constantly moving. The PR firms and the journalists who not only understand this but also accept it as the new reality are, and will continue to be, far ahead of the pack. Clay Christensen, author of the Innovator's Dilemma and the person who coined the term "disruptive technology" made an interesting comment last year that fits, "Companies succeed when they develop a product that successfully matches a circumstance that customers find themselves in." In this case our customers (consumer or reader) are increasingly going to unique referral sources to make decisions. Therefore our product (approach) should be tailored to reach those new sources.

If consumers are finding alternative channels of influence, journalists had better evolve to become those sources. The effective PR consultants will be able to find you and engage with you in your language.

Tom,

Rick Murray from Edelman here.

I agree with you that there will be (indeed, already is) widespread disruption in the mainstream PR industry; however, I disagree with you on the reasons behind this seismic shift. In a nutshell, you paint a picture of an all or nothing “either – or” world, where you are either abandoning your traditional approach to marketing in favor of blogs and seo; or, you’re sticking to those traditional guns, and as a result essentially wasting your client’s or shareholder’s money.

In contrast, I firmly believe we’ve entered a time of “and – but.”

“And” readily acknowledges that there are new forces at play, and that all marketers need to adjust their thinking with regards to how they spend their money. “But” is a warning to all who think they can apply the old rules to today’s game. You and I no doubt agree on this one; you can’t. The disruption I’m seeing is a shaking out of those who accept and embrace this and those who don’t. Edelman is in the former camp.

That said, I want to go to out on a limb and defend the value of advertising. It works. Not as efficiently as it used to, but it still reigns supreme when you need to create rapid awareness of and interest in a brand across a broad geographic and/or demographic target. And in certain businesses (e.g. retail), advertising can have a very direct and oftentimes immediate impact on a brand’s sales. I love great advertising (but there’s not enough of it). And I hope and fully expect it is far from dead.

Next limb. No surprise: I have pretty strong opinions about the continued value of PR as well. It works too. All the CEO’s we work with are long past wanting the ego-gratification that an above-the-fold feature in the WSJ delivers. They want results, and the only reason they’re increasing their investment in PR these days is because they know it works. We have all kinds of research that shows it still does for a brand’s credibility what advertising still does for its interest. PR is also a whole lot more today than pure publicity. But that’s a whole different post.

And that brings me to my last point: the increasing power and influence of blogs, social networks and word-of- mouth on how we marketers actually communicate with the people that matter most to us. I’ve got to tell you, it’s been a fascinating and humbling ride thus far. New technologies, new rules and done right, a whole new world of opportunity. We don’t profess to have all the answers, but we are absolutely convinced that this change – the transfer of power from marketer to “marketee” – is permanent. And we’re equally committed to leading the acceptance of this change within our agency, our client companies and our industry.

The only thing that won’t survive is the way we’ve always done it.

Tom:

I think that this is a very worthy debate to have, and I do think that PR firms will greatly evolve in the coming decade.

However, before I get to that point of agreement, I think there are some fundamental flaws in your diagnosis of PR's disease.

You say: "There has always been a close correspondence between the fortunes of (PR and media) in the past. This could be seen in the dotcom dotbomb fallout."

I say: Nearly everyone in the tech industry was impacted by the bubble burst. I don't think that there was any direct tie between the Industry Standard going under and PR people getting laid off. If you were at a start-up, people got laid off because they ran out of money. If you were at an agency, you got laid off because your start-up clients ran out of money. I never heard of any executive say that they needed less PR people because there were now less sources to pitch.

You say: "Every PR firm I know has many vacancies, and there is a very short supply of experienced PR practitioners in the 5 to 8 year experience range."

I say: This is tangential to my overall point, but I believe that the dearth of good PR people in the 10-15 year range of experience is even more acute.

You say: "On the one hand, companies recognize that the mainstream media is not an efficient advertising vehicle to help increase revenues; yet on the other hand they believe that being mentioned in the mainstream media, via PR spending, is an efficient vehicle to help them increase their revenues."

I say: You've set up a false dichotomy. Just because search ads are cost effective and buying a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal is, supposedly, less cost effective, this does not suddenly mean that a favorable review by Walt Mossberg or a mention in a Kevin Delaney piece does not have a significant ROI. You can get five months of good PR services from an agency for the price you pay for a single print ad. Multiply that several times if you are talking about TV.

You say: "At some point companies will realize that the ROI on being mentioned in a story in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, or in trade publications, makes little difference to their bottom line."

I say: There's a pretty good reason that the PR industry has done so darn well in Silicon Valley. It's because this area is run by cold, calculating capitalists who largely makes decisions based solely on the bottom line. Of course, there are notable exceptions and the bubble days were not a halcyon era for PR, but when you aggregate the collective PR spend decision making of the entire Valley for the last 11 years, it's hard to say PR is merely a tool for vanity and egos. And, more specifically, there has been plenty of research that shows that CIOs, for example, rely on what they read in important trade pubs in order to make buying decisions. Same goes for the mindset of a CEO who reads big business press. Same for a consumer who (still) watches the evening news.

You say: "Spending large sums of money on mainstream public relations is the equivalent to spending large sums of money on advertising in mainstream media: it is inefficient in driving revenues."

I say: This gets to the core of the matter and where we can start agreeing. If you are talking about spending big dollars on old-school PR that is 100 percent focused on rote media pitches to the same old sources, than, yes, of course, that is a model that will die sooner than we all think. However, that still doesn't mean that a story in the New York Times or eWeek doesn't have bottom line value. You also fail to mention all the other services that a company gets from their PR team. Even in the worst hypey days of the bubble, there were still plenty of great PR people in the Valley who didn't buy into the flavor of the moment.

What I hope you explore further as you continue this conversation is how the smart, evolved PR people will (and plenty currently do) see that NYT piece as just one tactical result from a much more holistic strategy that includes many other audiences. In fact, getting that NYT story will likely be part of a multi-pronged effort that may never include direct contact with the reporter to spur the story. They might read a post by you, for example. Or they might learn that a company has an important perspective on a piece of legislation. Or they might pick-up a streamed video feed of an executive insta-press statement.

The larger forces at play in the world of PR is how new communications mediums create forums for ongoing dialogues between companies and their audiences. It means that living press release to release and trade show to trade show means you are reactive and likely irrelevant. It means that creating credible relevant messaging that stays consistent is more important as you become more transparent. It means that the value of strong crisis communications skills increase. It means that creativity to communicate in words, images and multimedia should flourish. It means that those who can lead debates in the always-on, always-talking world will beat those who only participate in the conversation. It means that those who can get John Markoff interested in writing probably showed vision endorsed by influential third parties and didn't rely on a phone pitch.

The PR firms and teams who do not get this will go away. Those who do get it will prosper. New agencies will be created that can run circles around the big, slow firms that spend half their days counting billable hours. The smart tech PR firms will invest in honest research that justifies spends, provides insight into the value of various diffused audiences and the power of word-of-mouth by a select few.

More than anything, the change will be fun, and I look forward to it. So does all the smart PR folks I know who proudly work in the Valley.

I look forward to continuing this conversation, my friend.

True -- there has not been much disruption in the PR world, because most PR pros have not yet felt the pain. Samuel Johnson: "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it clarifies his mind wonderfully." When the final hour draws near, we'll see lots of change.

But there's something else: the media landscape may be changing, but the stuff of real value in PR -- content -- will remain constant. If you are a PR pro who only likes networking, it's time to hit the books. And if the new BusinessWeek cover story is right, you might want to pick up some math skills while you're at it. The whole world of business is about to get tougher.

I admit that I have grown tired of the blanket, "PR is dead and media relations is irrelevant" opinion. Things ARE changing to be sure, but one placement in the RIGHT vehicle (one that actually captures the public you are trying to reach), be it blog, podcast or "mainstream" media, can make a great deal of differnece. It's all about targeting and strategic PR efforts.

Intriguing, Tom.

You wrote, "And that is why the mainstream PR industry will give way to a new communications industry in the same way that the mainstream media industry will give way to a new media communications industry."

I've been thinking along related lines for some time, but that statement of yours just made something click.

Over at RightConversation.com, I've been covering the emergence of "conversational media" -- not just blogs, but all forms of conversational media, from e-mail lists to talk radio.

It seems to me that smart PR companies are playing a strong but sometimes unwitting role in the fast evolution of this new type of media (well, newly robust and accessible, anyway). And that, I think, concerns people, because PR has a reputation (warranted or now) for being nothing but a spin machine, untrustworthy or not credible.

Credibility is indeed a key concern. Personally, I'd like to see PR adopt more journalistic ethics as it moves forward in this field -- but that's just my take.

What are your thoughts?

- Amy Gahran
RightConversation.com
Contentious.com

Hi again, Tom

I just stumbled across this announcement: "Scooop.net (www.scooop.net), a media site based on citizen journalism and voting by its members, released the results of its weekly hot topic poll regarding what form of advertising is most effective. Those who were surveyed told Scooop.net that television advertising was still the most effective means of promotion available today. The survey contained every type of major advertising available to business owners today."

- http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb333728.htm

Now, I have no clue as to the credibility of this study, but since it just popped up and since that site is pretty popular, and since it seems to contradict the point of your article, I thought I'd mention it to see if you care to comment.

- Amy Gahran
Contentious.com
RightConversation.com

Amy: You've hit on some key points. PR companies are associated with "spin" but that is not their desire. It is because PR is organized under marketing rather than communications. No one wants to spin a story that isn't there, everyone in PR would rather tell a truthful story. Sales people also want to tell the truth because "spin" doesn't sell products or services.

This is why PR should not be organized as subservient to the marketing department.

And as for asking people what they think is the most effective form of advertising, that is not the same as asking advertisers what is the most effective form of advertising?

What type of advertising converts into sales? TV advertising can be fun to watch, but that doesn't mean it is the most economically effective at driving sales. TV is a scattershot approach that is good for large brands and doesn't target nearly as well as online advertising.

I agree that the Internet is changing cultures. I bet horses had a problem when the steam train arrived. Horses survived and so will the printed press. And like horses, will always be much loved.

A world away from the PR you comment about is a movement that seeks to optimise the relationship management domain of public relations practice.

It is an important development because this area of practice has such breadth and depth that it HAS to work with both existing and emerging cultures both inside and externally to the organisation.

This is a much more serious business and so there will be some old PR practitioners who will continue to pet and pat the journalists and the response will be grumpy old men appreciation. But mainstream communication will be elsewhere.

Tom,

Your obituary for the "mainstream PR industry" is way premature. It implies a very narrow definition for what we do as a profession. Helping clients move products and services by courting mainstream journalists is but one dimension, albeit a rapidly changing one. I don't subscribe to your premonition, but I do agree that there are disruptive influences afoot to which practitioners must pay heed.

Tom,

I beg to differ - spending money on PR is not the same as spending money on advertising. Everyone knows that an ad is an ad; it is a company saying good things about itself. PR, on the other hand, is others saying good things about you. This is perceived to be more credible.

PR creates an environment that is conducive to selling. Although it can, in some cases, lead to sales, this is not its primary function. PR positions and brands companies.

Ego boosting media coverage is a waste - I agree with you. I have publicly criticized PR companies that emphasize media impressions over impact on sales.

However, coverage that positions your company and your offering and establishes you as a leader is extremely valuable; it affects your bottom line for years.

As a former Regional Sales Manager for a leading SW firm, I can tell you that there are tremendous advantages to being positioned as the leader in your industry. In the B2B world, decision-influencers and decision-makers routinely go with companies that are positioned as the leaders. Is it because those companies have the best offerings? No. It's because you don't have to justify your decision to buy from the leader. You know the old saying, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

Your piece caused many discussions - which is good for the PR industry.

Wayne E. Pollard
Author, MINDS BEFORE MARKET SHARE: THE ART OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

A company mention in a story is worth 3 times the cost of an advert in that publication, that is a rule of thumb PR agencies use to justify their activities.

BTW: You all make excellent points and thank you for spending the time. However, what is the whole point of the activities of a company? It is to sell products and services and make money for the owners and employees. That is the whole point of PR and all the other stuff that companies do.

PR must return to its sales roots
Op-Ed
Wayne Pollard PR Week USA Mar 6 2006 00:00

From the very beginning, PR and sales were connected. Edward Bernays' campaigns were designed to help sell everything from cars to soap.

Over the years, however, PR's connection to sales has been questioned. Not surprisingly, PR's value has also been questioned.

The PR industry must take the blame for this; building reputation and increasing visibility have been promoted as PR's primary strengths while its ability to impact sales has suffered. Media impressions and clips became the measurement of success.

To have PR valued for its contribution to the bottom line, it is time for it to return to its sales roots by implementing a new practice: sales relations (SR).

Sales relations is the use of PR as a sales force multiplier. In the military, a force multiplier is a capability that, when added to and used by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force. In turn, it enhances the probability of the mission being successfully accomplished.

A sales force multiplier is a capability that, when added to and employed by the sales force, greatly increases the potential of that sales force to get sales. That, in turn, enhances the probability of successfully closing deals.

As a former sales trainer, I can tell you that it is better to handle objections before they come up. That is what SR enables you to do; it addresses value, need, and credibility, and creates an environment that is conducive to selling, enabling salespeople to close more deals in less time and effort.

Sales relations is for companies whose primary objectives are generating sales and increasing market share. These organizations aren't as concerned about reputation management and media impressions that boost egos - but have little effect on sales - as others are.

Sales Relations is not a new concept. Even the term "sales relations" has been used by others. And there are PR firms that already embrace and promote PR's impact on sales.

Now is the time to name this practice and distinguish its objectives from those of other PR areas, while at the same time, working with them. Sales relations is an additional offering; it is not intended to replace other PR services. In PR and marketing we know the importance of a good name. "Sales relations" enables us to clearly and specifically communicate what service we are offering clients and it enables the client to ask for a specific service. It also indicates how our success should be measured, which is not solely by SR's impact on sales (because closing deals is sales' responsibility, not ours), but also by its impact on the sales process. If PR is not related to sales, PR pros will continue to be treated as stepchildren. However, by implementing SR practices, PR firms can return to the days in which clients clearly understood PR's impact on sales.

Wayne Pollard is president of Hunter-Pollard and the author of Minds Before Market Share: The Art of Public Relations.