Corina’s Concerns Be lowly wise, think only what concerns thee and thy being.– John Milton, Paradise Lost

Seth Godin writes about the difference between PR and publicity, in a week old post that has somehow escaped my notice until now. His style, always incisive, sharply divides the two, classifying publicity as the process of getting media coverage, and PR as the art of crafting the message (story) of the organization.

Some of his brief comments on the strategic role of PR have an echo in my own beliefs.

Many companies, especially in Romania, believe that PR is merely publicity (or what we call media relations here). Those more advanced understand that PR is more than a layer applied to the organization’s activities for inspection purposes, being in fact integral, rather than external, to the business goals. Still, they see PR as a support function, a tool, which, just like IT, or HR, enables to organization to succeed, by making its communications run smoothly, within and without, and making sure that interactions with the stakeholders generate trust and goodwill (various forms of CSR are often involved).

I have long held that PR should be, and should consequently be perceived, as more than that. PR should advise the organization in defining itself, in improving its activities and processes to better respond to public expectations. For example, PR should be able to influence the organization in becoming green, rather than either promoting the company’s new green products to the media (product PR, a.k.a publicity), or sponsoring green CSOs (a.k.a. traditional understanding of PR). PR pros should be able to stand up in a board meeting and recommend that the company truly embrace green, because that is the stakeholder’s wish rather than recommend a communication plan based on green values, and when they do that, their word should carry as much weight as that of the Operations guy, or finance director, and be given the same consideration.

I’ve yet to learn of a company that does that.

Then I’ll apply there

Posted under PRealities

Two things converged to create this post: a weekend course in “Managing Intangible Assets” and the ongoing debate about rate-card equivalency at www.strategic.ro (that I’ll read only after I write this post, to keep my ideas untainted by those of others).

The one thing that most intangibles (whether they are human capital, brand, or reputation) have in common is the difficulty in measurement (and, not incidentally, valuation). And since the end product is difficult to measure, the organizational functions used to generate these, similarly struggle with determining their own ROI. But because measurement and metrics are the mantras of the modern management milieu (hey, this is a fun involuntary alliteration), various metrics must be created, some recording transactions, some based on surveys or evaluations, and some based on benchmarking.

PR is in a particularly precarious position (yet another involuntary alliteration) because most of its activity is related to generating and managing intangibles (trust, reputation, goodwill). In times of crisis, these apparently “fuzzy”, hard-to-monetize activities are most threatened by budget cuts or redundancies.

The defense is measurement, and one of the metrics PR uses for that purpose is the ad value equivalency, or AVE. It is applied to the print, TV or radio editorial coverage, whose value is estimated using a combination of the costs of purchasing advertising of a similar size, positioning or length.

It has some positive aspects:

- compares PR output with a type of cost that is intelligible upper management
- it’s valuable when doing comparative analysis with your competition, because instead of comparing different outlets and different sizes of coverage, you compare the overall value of their and your earned news

But here are the negatives:

- the impact of news and stories is demonstrably higher than that of paid advertising (hence the rise of the advertorial)
- dilution or distortion of the message occurs in PR, while advertising guarantees the accuracy, because it does not change your message for publication purposes
- the rate card is used to estimate the value of the PR coverage, while in real circumstances advertisers would seldom pay rate-card values. Thus it appears that PR grants higher values, whereas in fact, it does not.
- AVEs treat all media equally, regardless of the prominence and credibility of one outlet over another (for Romanians, think being disussed on OTV, rather than ProTV), and also regardless of the preference of your audience (you may get high AVE values, but on publications that your target group doesn’t read).
- There is no repetition. The impact of advertising is amplified by frequency and spread, and indeed that is part of how a media plan is designed. For earned news, even syndicated, there is no frequency amplification. Using a measurement designed for a tool that builds explicit awareness over a limited time, for a tool that generates implicit trust on the long-term is confusing, rather than helpful.
- there’s no measure for lack of coverage, meaning problems that aren’t exposed, difficulties that aren’t covered, in other words, what the PR has managed to keep out of the press for the good of the company.

I don’t think AVEs are thoroughly wrong. When you balance PR investment with advertising investments, there is the need for a tool that allows you to decide or allocate between the two. But advertisers themselves don’t measure solely the cost of inserting an ad, but instead the sales resulting from it, the leads, the comments etc. so PR needs to find a measurement that treats earned editorial coverage similarly.  And yes, they can borrow some of these metrics from marketing.

Now I’m going to read the debate on Strategic, and see if others agree with me. I suggest you do the same

Posted under PRealities

A few days ago, prior to the big Steelers vs. Ravens game that I know about because some of my American friends on FB are fans ( I can’t tell American football from rugby – or mashed potatoes for that matter, except that some players look hot, definitely hotter than New Zealanders doing some tribal dance in all-black outfits), the Mayor of Pittsburgh changed his name from Ravenstahl to Steelerstahl (since the Ravens are the rival Baltimore team, and the Steelers the local idols). This gutsy move (which is, as far as I can see, temporary) earned him a lot of positive coverage, including a spot on the Yahoo home page.

The recognition is enormous. Think about it. Even here in Romania, someone has heard and wrote about him. I can only guess what levels of sympathy he has garnered in his home town. Wonder if he’s up for re-election?

I’d like to meet his PR guy. He deserves congrats.

Posted under Marketing vibes, PRealities

If you’re in marketing or PR, chances are you’ll be working with at least one agency, at least once. Heck, it’s part of the job description. Whether that agency is providing you with creative services, media buying, event or PR services, there are 5 things a good agency should do for you. If they don’t, ask them to. And if they still don’t, change them. I can recommend a few

1. Insight

Your agency should provide you with insight. By default, they’ve had more exposure to the ins and outs of their specific field, and they should be able to guide you. For example, I was recently organizing an event to open a new premise, and it was my agency that guided me on start times (I was thinking of a different hour, which was Bucharest-appropriate, but not necessarily appropriate in that particular city.) They advised me on press gifts (what is customary there, what would be best received) and the timing of the food service. This is not rocket science, it’s just insight into how people act (and react) in specific circumstances. But it can make or break an event.

2. Competence

A good rule of thumb is that your agency should know more than you. If it doesn’t, you’re in for a rough time. For example, you can’t become a marketer without knowing at least the basics of media buying, understanding some measurement, and some terms. Your agency should be way beyond that. The merest junior should know more about all of these things than you, or your whole department combined. You are trusting your brand, and a whole lot of money to your media agency, and you’re relinquishing a lot of control over the audience for your message. They’d better be competent to handle it, from the strategic to the execution. They should be able to see flaws, if the campaign is not gelling correctly, they should be able to balance frequency and visibility for your messages, and they should be able to see what you want, rather than what you ask for. This leads me to the next must:

3. Creative execution

Few marketers or communicators are excellent in any one, let alone all, the skills needed to conduct good marketing activities. Sometimes, you have vision, but you have no idea how that vision can be executed. This is what your agency should do for you: take that vision, and turn it into actionable material. If your vision is for quirkiness and unconventional media, the agency should translate that into fact. They should scout unusual opportunities, create some new ones, integrate them and deliver on your vision creatively. If you come up with a concept for a design, your agency should be able to deliver a design that embodies your message, and incorporates your requirements without compromising their creativity and design knowledge (which is, or should be, as per point 2, superior to yours).

4. Reach

It’s not difficult to explain this one, although it has a double meaning. Your agency should be able to tap into a pool of contacts, suppliers, media outlets, journalist etc. that is much wider and more diverse than yours. In addition to its wider reach, your agency should be able to actually reach the people you need: contact them, and get them to act or to respond in ways you cannot.

5. Strategy

If needed, they should be able to strategize on your behalf. If that is not needed, that they should understand your strategic imperatives, and make sure that their part of the campaign, event or project, is in alignment with those objectives you set forth. The biggest fault of an agency is being an island, where all it needs to do is respond straightforwardly to client requests. If you communicate your strategy, your strategic concerns, and your strategic constraints to the agency, it should be able to work to accomplish them.

I am fortunate that all the agencies I work with meet these 5 requirements. And how could they not, when they employ this caliber of people.

Posted under Marketing vibes

When not to issue a press release?

1. When you’ve got nothing to say.

It’s amazing how many companies miss the mark on this one. I’ve learned from another blogger (can’t quite remember who) that the litmus test of a press release should be: “If this were an article, would I forward it to a friend to read it?” and if the answer is no, then don’t send the press release. Why do we then still send them, when it’s clear that we’ve got nothing to say?

Partially, it’s the client’s fault. Many expect their PR department or agency to show evidence of their work. The principle is that if you’re salaried or on retainer, you should do something to earn your money. Sometimes the client desires exposure for something that the PR knows does not have mass appeal, and pushes for a press release. Many PRs comply.

Partially, it’s the industry in Romania. I’ve spoken to several PRs who say that pitching individual stories to journalists is something they seldom engage in, because there’s not a lot of response. The media is rather generalized, with limited trade media in which to place a story without universal appeal.

Partially, it’s the PR him or herself, just phoning it it. In the hands of an expert, drafting a press release is a 30 to 45 minute tasks, provided you have the right quote, the leeway to create one, or access to a quotable source.  Developing a story individually for a media outlet takes much longer.

And sometimes, the cause is just ignorance.

2. When you’re whitewashing.

Recently, there was a major screw-up at an opening event for a new company. It was covered in the press and on the main blogs (as evidence of bad organization and self-promotion), but what struck me the most was that the day after the screw-up, which made many laugh and many cringe and was, by that time, public knowledge, the company’s PR agency sent a blithe after-the-event release counting participants and saying how much they enjoyed themselves. The contrast between what others reported and what the press release revealed was very sharp, and to the detriment of the client. In crisis situations, a press release is never recommended, personal contact being preferred, but a press release explaining the screw-up and company assurances that it was a one-off wouldn’t have been entirely amiss. A whitewashing press release in the face of glaring evidence is never a good idea. Other means of restoring the tarnished reputation must be employed.

I’m sure there are other situations in which sending a press release should not be considered, but these are my top two. I’d be curious what others think on the subject.

Posted under PRealities