Archive for the ‘Grove Report’ Category
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
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
Dick Grove
Social Media Has Made Us One Big Community Again
06.13.10
But many of the doors are now locked…
I come from the Midwest and grew up in a place and a time that symbolizes both in fiction and reality a simpler way of life and a more trusting way of life. It’s actually true, you know, we knew most of our neighbors…the good ones and the bad ones…by their first names. Communication technology was so advanced when I was a kid in that small town that most families even had a telephone…only one of course, and centrally located in a foyer or main hallway. We even knew the local operator by their first name and she (yes, sexism was rampant at the local telephone exchange) would listen in, as all of us would periodically, on a party line to catch the latest gossip. “Party line”…that’s similar to an online forum for you folks of less advanced years. And it’s also true that locks more often than not went untested and unused. It wasn’t a matter of naïveté’ but rather of trust amongst us that our neighbors within the community wouldn’t breach our privacy. And if the need to do so arose, there must be a pretty damn good reason…not for their personal nefarious gain but usually for our own safety or protection. We actually looked out for each other in those small communities.
But that was a long time ago in a place now far away. Communities are no longer defined by geographic and cultural borders nestled against a river or mountain or seashore, and held together by a common goal of common interests, good will and advancement. Communities in today’s Social Media age are virtual without physical borders. And while still bound together with common interests and advancement, good will isn’t a key element any longer except as a courtesy to not impede the advancement of the common interest or knowledge. Facebook, Linked in, Twitter, et.al. are the new “hometowns” of everyone, everywhere…hundreds of millions of human beings connected with other hundreds of millions of human beings sharing everything from the mundane of pet food recipes and relationship gossip to the importance of intricate technological formulas and global business strategies…and literally everything in between. Staggering! .
And “privacy”…well ironically that’s gotten a little more complicated. On one hand on the personal side we can’t wait to reach out and expand our network of relationships with others of similar interests, goals, and commonalities. But to do so, we must by definition relinquish that same information to the Internet abyss as the bait to attract others to join our community network. But isn’t that the point of using social media to expand and grow your community…to open ourselves up?
It’s on the business side however where the irony of social media privacy is even more prevalent. Networking as a business tool is as old as social mankind itself. Learning of someone or something new from another is the very essence of building or maintaining a successful business. I believe it’s called progress. And obviously one of the real business advantages of the Internet and social media in particular is its networking capability. Why then if networking is so important to success, do so many businesses and business executives decide to go “stealth” i.e., make themselves difficult or impossible to contact by others that might greatly expand their business acumen? It’s like locking your door with a triple lock within the business community you’ve chosen to live. My favorite is the private email or non-existent email address…but with an added layer of an old-fashioned receptionist gatekeeper to keep it even more secret. Or on Linked in for example, one is forced to play a game of “Six Degrees of Separation” just to hopefully make contact…not to invade someone’s privacy but to simply network for positive results.
Modern technology…the Internet…social media…If you’re going to enjoy the benefits, get used to a few inconveniences. Even in a small town in a time long ago, we knew that hiding was a dumb way to grow a community or a business.
Categories: Grove Report
Dick Grove
The Lord Arrington Strikes Again
04.19.10
But gets the silent treatment…
It’s almost an embarrassment of riches when I receive an email containing not one but multiple examples of people, supposedly professionals…either as “journalists” or as senior level public relations practitioners, performing in ways that continue to reinforce my own admittedly somewhat self-righteous notions of bad PR and clueless conduct. The Lord Arrington, an easy target on any given day, for boorish bourgeois behavior, has struck again…this time his target was someone who at first seemed ill prepared to do combat with the mighty wordsmith.
“Oh, Lord Arrington, how terrible and swift thy sword of smugness and rapier wit…particularly when aimed at defenseless and clueless PR-types.”
But alas, just when I was about to feel deep sympathy for the poor silent lass in the video for being overwhelmed and under prepared for a videotaped interview with the master tech blogger himself… i.e., no matter how dumb she looked refusing to answer questions it must be better than going off-script and suffering the wrath of her absentee bosses…I clicked on her resume’.
Far from being the naïve young PR rookie as first she appears, she is indeed a seasoned PR pro…at least on paper. She came to MySpace a few years back from senior level stints at Edelman and Hill & Knowlton where she had supposedly overseen PR strategy for some pretty big name clients. She carries the title of VP of global corporate communications and manages the PR strategy of MySpace and its various PR firms. Not exactly a novice in this business and certainly someone that should know better than to put herself in a position of allowing a pompous pseudo-journalist like Arrington to embarrass her on camera by giving him the silent treatment on an easily answerable question…even if off the script. It’s certainly no secret that Arrington loves to come across as the probing investigative journalist who manages to divulge the story behind the story and not just reprint corporate press releases…even if delivered in person by the global VP of corporate communications, herself. It’s also no secret he loves to attack PR-types, a breed he seems to consider only slightly more useful than a food server in a fast food restaurant. Why then put herself and her company in such a likely no-win situation? But at the very least if she actually believed there was some benefit to be derived from such a live interview, why not professionally answer his question with a gentle deflection that surely she must have learned in all those years of big agency PR media training. Instead…a video moment of deliciously awkward silence.
The result…an embarrassing unprofessional performance for herself and MySpace that will live on in cyber-land far longer than any innocuous answer to the question… and the Lord Arrington has yet another flak to hoist on his petard.
Categories: Grove Report
Subscribe to P4P!
Videos
INKster Photos
Via our RSS Feed.