PR vs Advertising debate
The pitch blog by Marketing Magazine posted an interesting argument between the merits of public relations and advertising.
Here’s an except.
From The Pitch :
- Advertising person: What’s so good about PR?
PR person: Coz it’s the most economical way to reach mass audiences.- Advertising person: So you mean advertising is expensive?
PR person: Erm, oops, no. But, erm, PR attracts public interest.- Advertising person: Isn’t that what advertising does?
PR person: Hold on, PR creates long-term results.- Advertising person: And advertising is a short term thing…?
PR person: Well, people regard companies more favourably when they read about them in a positive editorial spread and that pays off in the long term.- Advertising person: Now you’re insulting me. Are you saying advertising is biased? But advertising is based on truth!
PR person: [sigh] That’s not what I mean.
themediaslut thinks the PR person has failed his/her duty to PR the Advertising person because the Advertising person is unimpressed with the way the PR person communicated the merits of PR.
However, the PR raised more questions than answered.
(Note: themediaslut has a background in the technology field, so lots of the reference will be on the tech industry.)
Point 1. PR is the more economical way to reach mass audiences.
The normal practice for PR to reach out to the mass audience is to do it via traditional mainstream media.
To do so, PR send out press releases, organises press conference and launches, etc..
Thought PR is more about press releases, press conference and launches, how often does a PR agency pitch to a client to guarantee press coverage?
And how often do every single press release gets published in the main stream media? How many journalists can afford the time to attend press conferences and launches these days?
What if the journalist receives the press release but does nothing about it? Or attend a press conference and not feature it?
All an advertiser would have to do is go to the sales person, agree on the price of the ad and presto, the ad is printed the next day. In fact, the advertiser has full control on what appears on the page and the size.
The PR person can only call the journalist, ask if the press release, conference or launch will be featured and pray when it comes out.
Point 2. PR attracts public interest
From experience, press events are press events. How many events have there been that are organised by PR for the public?
It seems PR here attracts press interest rather than public interest.
Point 3. PR creates long-term results.
What long-term results? The PR person should have elaborated on the long-term results rather than give a general statement.
From a business perspective, it makes sense and dollars for a PR agency to be interested in the client as long the the client continue to pay the bills.
Most of the PR activities that themediaslut have very short term goals.
For an example, in the technology space, most of the PR activities are for the launch of the particular gadgets. Gadgets, unfortunately, have very short live span and before the dusts settle, a new gadget is geared for launch.
Seldom do themediaslut come across PR activities that looks at establishing a particular vendor as the thought leader in the technology behind the gadget.
For an example, there was once a homegrown product that tripled up as a storage device, MP3 player and Bluetooth headset.
Unfortunately, the PR activities were targeted at the features of the product because of it was a three-in-one device.
Because MP3 players were the rage, thanks to the iPod, the device was compared to the iPod and it then fail miserably.
themediaslut felt that the PR activity should have focused the spokesperson on being the unofficial spokesperson of Bluetooth, explaining its benefits and uses.
Feedback from resellers also highlighted that when the device was pitched as a Bluetooth device with additional features, rather than a three-in-one device, it immediately turned into an easy sell.
Point 4. People regard companies more favourably when they read about them in a positive editorial spread and that pays off in the long term
Of course, a third party write-up is more believing than it coming from the horse’s mouth.
Unfortunately, too much of a good thing is too much of a bad thing too.
If everything is positive and favourable in the editorial spread, page after page, issue after issue, volume after volume, readers tend to believe that has a positive biasness towards that company.
This in turn results in the people not believing in the publication and articles any more. How can this pay off in the long term?
In fairness, the journalist have a tough time in finding a balance not to write something too bad about a company which might scare away future advertising opportunities or something too good that the readers do not find the story credible at all.
In the real world, publishers tend to reward their writers who impressed the advertisers, not the readers.
Nothing much in Point 5, but a good PR person would have bridged the subject and not cause animosity between the public, in which this case here is the advertiser.
themediaslut invites her PR readers to comment on this post.
Technorati Tag: public relations
Indeed, and while PR people are busy congratulating themselves on saving money and advertising dries up, the number of titles evaporates and so does your readership/audience for whatever segment you are PRing to. Any wonder why so much reader mindshare is moving to blogs and messageboards? Funnily enough they are media that advertisers and PR people will have much less influence over.