Dick Grove
Pay for Performance PR
No conundrum, just misinformation…
08.31.10
Where to begin when there is so much with which to disagree. I am referring to the recent article on MediaPost by Vanessa Horwell .
I could start with the overall condescending attitude of the piece…”even the humble car salesman operates this way.” Or, “you have to assume that a company fixated on a PFP arrangement is not thinking about strategy as a priority.” Or better yet, “That model may have worked when we used to send press releases via fax…”
I could attack it on the attempt to give credence to weak arguments based on redundancy alone; or I could point out emphatic statements without any supporting evidence…”PFP is unethical.” Ms. Horwell’s personal opinion that ‘it lessens the overarching value of PR as a whole, and makes bad business sense…” does not make it unethical. Paying for a tangible, measurable result instead of just ‘effort’ might be considered highly valuable, much more ethical, and extremely good business sense to most clients in today’s recessionary times.
Perhaps the best approach however is pointing out Ms. Horwell’s weak logic and naïveté on her way to determining her one answer, “No to pay for placement…” For example, her contention that, “We don’t own media and can’t guarantee you a placement in any publication because what we do is earned. We don’t live in reporters’ pockets — we “earn” the right for your company or brand to appear in a given outlet. That’s why you pay for advertising.” Ok, so? Doesn’t a client also pay for PR? And shouldn’t they expect some minimum measurable deliverable like an editorial placement in return? Our firm, INK inc., doesn’t guarantee placements of any given size or length in any given medium, only that a client won’t be charged unless such a placement occurs. Thus being paid for something of tangible value. And if a PR person ‘earns’ the right for their client to appear in a given outlet but it never actually appears (which is often the case,) where is the logic in having the client pay the PR bill regardless? Clients have a right to demand more for their PR budgets than the raw effort, relationship building, or endless strategic meetings at hundreds of dollars per hour all under the guise of “we earned it.’ Ok…then prove it.
Advertising agencies as well as law firms are exemplified as institutions where PFP might be acceptable to Ms. Horwell. But her argument is that PR is ‘not finite’ in contrast to “…creating an ad campaign or defending a legal matter. In both these examples, there are tangible deliverables, an assumption of costs and an element of control.” Is this comparison really valid? You might be able to buy an advertising placement, but if the ad agency is paying for the effectiveness of the ad, there’s no way to force or control people’s buying behavior. And law firms cannot control a jury or a judge’s ruling technically either. They can just do a damn good job pushing it in the right direction … sounds almost as “in-finite” as PR.
Where Ms. Horwell and I do agree is that the changing media universe today that includes blogs, social media, and other vehicles that completely alter how a company or institution interacts with its audiences and constituencies, is affecting both the value proposition of PR overall and traditional compensation structures…both retainer-based and pay-for-performance. As a PFP Agency, we learned to put values on and differentiate between the New Yorker print article and its online cousin years ago. We know how the value in dollars between an appearance on CNBC and a short industry trade mention, and for over twenty years we’ve understood how to charge for syndicated and wire story pick-ups. We’ve also understood that there are time-intensive PR services that don’t blend themselves to a pure pay-for-performance model but have developed performance-based compensation fees nonetheless. Yes, today’s changing media landscape is a challenge to delivering measurable metrics under performance-based compensation, but it should not be an excuse to continue or even expand the frankly condescending traditional PR of “pay us for our hours, our knowledge, and our effort even though we may not be able to deliver something tangible and measurable in return.”
Categories: Grove Report
Ryan Gerding
Crisis PR for PR
08.23.10
Don’t blame the message, blame the PR messenger…
As sure as day follows night, the critical focus of the media has turned from straight news coverage of the sad national crisis’s of the last several months to how much better the key players in these crisis’s could have handled their PR responses. Ironical as it may be that it’s this same media that is both the recipient as well as the conveyor of the professional PR’s criticized efforts or lack thereof. It’s as if the media is saying, if you had done a better job, our coverage would have done more to better your company’s reputation. In Case of Emergency: What Not to Do
I don’t believe any professional PR practitioner with a modicum of good business sense or social conscience could universally applaud how BP, Toyota, or Goldman Sachs have handled their recent very public troubles over the last year. And while I expect it does give a valid reason to trot out the old guard “crisis management” gurus or “public relations luminary” for a little authoritative tongue lashing, doesn’t it seem odd for the media to be seemingly chastising PR for not “managing a crisis” better with the result being more positive news coverage? Or perhaps it’s simply a matter of the media smugly stating, “we got it right in spite of your inept or lack of manipulative efforts.”
The end result of such a critical article however is probably far less a course correction by the companies involved as it is a stream of new client leads for the quoted PR gurus firms. The article points out that many of those contacted for comments “required elaborate promises that would not be portrayed as speaking about any particular company.” Never directly criticize another firm or a possible new client…heaven forbid.
Actually, one of the most refreshing and telling quotes in the piece is from Goldman’s head of communications, Lucas van Prang. “The issues we have aren’t rooted in bad communications,” he says. “They’re a direct function of our business model. One of the things we’ve learned is it may be perfectly legal but if it’s too complicated to explain to ordinary, rational people, then maybe it’s a business we ought not to be in.” A lesson he’s often preached but I guess he forgot, when Warren Buffet sank $5 billion into Goldman. However, it’s a lesson many traditional PR firms could learn as well.
A similar, parallel lesson could be adopted by clients and their PR firms alike in all their dealings, not just in a crisis, “Keep your communications honest and simple and don’t try to manage the unmanageable. Lead by surprising even the media, through rising above your history, your special interests, your pollsters, and the current circumstance…and just do the right thing.
(My apologies to Nelson Mandela.)
Categories: Behind the scenes
Cindy West
Dr. OZ stood me up today but I still enjoyed the episode
08.13.10
My home town of Peculiar posted on their Facebook page that the Dr. Oz Show was coming to Peculiar to ask people about their most “peculiar” medical questions for an upcoming show. Most of the people who read the post thought it meant the good Doctor was going to show up, too.
Our local restaurant “PATS” in downtown Peculiar, was buzzing with excitement, some people were dressed up in their Sunday Best, shorts and tank tops, ready for their debut. OK well no instructions were given on dress code.
I was excited because I might be able to get an autograph on his book “You Staying Young”… Don’t judge! And I actually wanted to observe a national show being orchestrated in a little town like ours. I of course started mingling with the crowd, many anxious to get a glimpse of the celebrity. Many had their questions written down, and I must admit, that Peculiar folks are quite interesting from some of the questions they shared with me. ( My lips are sealed)
When someone asked the mayor when they expected them, he said they’re here and started handing out the talent agreement for those who wanted to ask Dr. Oz their strange medical question. But then someone asked him the question, where is Doctor Oz? “Oh he’s not coming, they are just shooting your questions… for a segment of the show”.
Not a pretty site in a 100 degree weather with elderly people that got out of their AC risking heat exhaustion, to see someone who wasn’t going to show up. There were a few grumblers, but there were still about 25 who wanted their 10 minutes of fame. And you know these types of events, always bring out the unskilled, who think it is ok to pitch their products to a producer who is there for a very specific segment.
I am the curious type so I hung out for a while, listened to 5 minutes of media training from the producer while the cameraman set up and I caught the mayor out of the corner of my eye, quietly escaping to a location where there was shade.
Sure, there were a few disgruntled people out there and while I actually think they could have been more transparent in their facebook event posting, he actually persuaded a National TV Program to come to this, blink of an eye town called Peculiar, which will put us on the map for discussion, for a day. It probably won’t have the same effect Twilight had on Forks but then again, the only vampire’s I have met in this town are the ones that show up at my annual Halloween Party. And none of them sparkle.
So I am interested in hearing how you would grade the marketing efforts of Peculiar? And please refrain from using terms like “strange” or “odd”. We know all those jokes.
Categories: Behind INK
Dick Grove
Good Journalism and Racism
07.26.10
Where truth and justice become as incompatible as oil and water…
It’s a sad state of affairs when the most truthful bit of reporting is now coming from the Opinion and Op-Ed pages rather than the news side of the media. “The Shirley Sherrod Affair” as it has become known, has highlighted once again two continuing truths in our society…racism with all its ugly connotations still lingers near the surface within this country’s fabric, and…the once proud news media has lost its soul to rumor, innuendo, and its own version of “gotcha politics.” Somewhere Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley are rolling over.
Frank Rich in his New York Times column, Op-Ed Columnist: There’s a Battle Outside and It Is Still Ragin’ said it best, “…we reached a new low last week. What does it say about America now, and where it is heading, that a racial provocateur, wielding a deceptively edited video, could not only smear an innocent woman but make every national institution that touched the story look bad? The White House, the N.A.A.C.P. and the news media were all soiled by this episode. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans, who believe in fundamental fairness for all, grapple with the poisonous residue left behind by the many powerful people of all stripes who served as accessories to a high-tech lynching.”
What a debacle…but it’s one that was bound to happen. People are quick to assume speculation for facts especially with today’s ability to put edited video’s up on YouTube and amateur “i-journalism” becoming a real news source to many news agencies in these recessionary times. And what is most disturbing is news agencies taking this edited video and its “summation” without really doing their due diligence as journalists. What ever happened to fact checking before reporting? Just because it is online doesn’t mean it is credible…really? However, it is almost like a feeding frenzy takes over in the media and sensationalism precedes the truth today. What’s perhaps most disturbing is that the news agencies know this, but many, particularly in the broadcast arena where the 24/7 news cycle dominates and dictates, have purposely set aside good journalism for silly showmanship, ratings, and “gotcha politics.”
In my office I have a TV tuned to one of the cable news channels all day…but with the sound off and closed captions filling the void. This allows me to notice a potentially impactful story without being verbally accosted. Recently on a road trip I tried just the opposite. I listened, without visuals…without the faces of the anchors and endless pundits…to the same cable broadcasts on satellite radio for an extended period. I don’t recommend this for those that care about journalism as it once was. Rather than using the extended time of a 24-hour cycle to develop any stories in depth or with clarity, the networks have sunk to an endless fifteen to twenty minute repetition of the same headline often based on speculation or rumor or sound bite, and usually preceded by a promo prior to a commercial break based on the same rumor or speculation…seldom on verified facts.
Is it really any wonder that Shirley Sherrod’s heartfelt speech or her own esteemed background in the Civil Rights movement was compressed and regurgitated as a five-second cable news promo of “What Racism Looks Like.”
Some might say that as a PR professional, I have to take at least some of the blame for turning broadcast journalism into quick sound bites and authoritative pundits crowding our airways. Perhaps, but I’m just old fashioned enough to know I prefer, and our clients greatly prefer, a story in-full, fleshed out, with details and facts checked. Even in this egalitarian age where everyone can be heard, read, and even seen on the Internet…equal and heard doesn’t always mean correct.
Categories: Grove Report
Ryan Gerding
Sure, Blame the PR Guy
06.22.10
The saying goes that in war, the first casualty is truth. And when it comes to embarrassing or unflattering media coverage, the first casualty is usually the PR guy.
At least that’s the case in the current dustup over a Rolling Stone profile of General Stanley McChrystal, the US Commander in Afghanistan. The profile, titled “The Runaway General” portrays McChrystal and his subordinates as derisive toward Obama administration officials.
Hours after word of the story got out to the national media, McChrystal’s press aide resigned. From today’s Washington Post
Duncan Boothby, who has been on McChrystal’s staff for roughly a year, was the first casualty of a controversy that prompted White House officials to summon the general to the White House to explain the remarks in the profile that will appear in this week’s issue of Rolling Stone.
Boothby was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff this year so Hastings could write the profile, titled “The Runaway General.”
Aside from having a name that sounds like the evil fraternity guy in a Revenge of the Nerds film, I think the only thing Mr. Boothby is guilty of is doing exactly what he was asked to do. Sure, he may have arranged for the journalist to have access to McChrystal and his staff. And at the time, he probably got a pat on the back for what could have been a pretty substantial profile.
But ol’ Boothby didn’t do the interviews. He wasn’t the one criticizing the administration. That was McChrystal and his aides. Did they not think that the things they said–over and over–to a journalist writing an article for Rolling Stone might actually, you know, show up in the article in Rolling Stone? Didn’t they see the reporter scribbling furiously with pen and paper as they ridiculed their Commander In Chief and his representatives? When we do media training sessions for our clients, we make it pretty clear that NOTHING IS OFF THE RECORD. If you say it anywhere near a reporter or a microphone, expect that it will be reported. Just ask Carly Fiorina.
Now, should the PR guy have noticed when the things being said before the reporter were inflammatory? Yes. Should the PR guy have directed the conversations–and there appeared to be many–away from disparaging the administration? Without question. In that regard, the PR guy failed his client.
But blaming the PR guy for this fiasco is like blaming the guy who sold you your car when you get a speeding ticket.
Categories: Behind the scenes
Subscribe to P4P!
Videos
INKster Photos
Via our RSS Feed.