Blogging on the agenda
In a recent series of talks I gave concerning PR on the Internet, there was a distressing lack of knowledge and awareness of weblogging among the audience. However, after doing some research on Daypop this morning I noticed that some ‘bloggers’ are indeed getting pitched by PR pro’s. I think that’s a positive development – for PR anyhow!
###
When PR people become the story
My belief has always been that PR people shouldn’t get in the way of the story and by extension should do their best to not become the story. My mini-rant about ‘Political spin doctors’ earlier today is a great example of the dangers of PR people getting in front of the story. I can only reason that these people cross/annoy too many journalists so that the wronged decide to wreak some revenge. Of course I could be wrong.
Another example of a PR person becoming the story is this piece on Donna Morrisey who is the PR handler for Cardinal Law in the midst of the horrible revelations in Boston (and elsewhere). This is a very strange piece moving from positive to negative about Ms. Morrissey and including some bitchy remarks from those ‘brave’ unnamed sources – why journalists allow us to provide these comments is beyond me – but that’s another day’s rant. Have a read of the Morrisey story and see what you think. My mother always complained “but you’re never mentioned in the papers”, reading this I’m very glad!
###
Marketing is about online AND offline
A study released last week by the Online Publishers Association confirmed there is a benefit to a mix of online and TV advertising.
This study is equally applicable to Public Relations, where it is already clear from campaigns I’ve been involved with, that there is a dual role between online and offline media – and of course this is extended to any 1-to-1 communication the PR campaign carries out with other audiences online.
As we’ve been saying for a long time, the Internet isn’t a replacement media – it’s a supplemental media just like radio and print, and TV and radio.
###
Does size matter?
I’m sure if you regularly read the PR/Marketing press you will come across op eds written by agency owners about why large/small/integrated PR agencies are the best kind. The quality of argument in these articles makes me question the quality of the author’s work.
There was a great example of this earlier in the year on The PR Network mailing list where one week a small agency owner penned a piece (I am puposely not naming him) on why small is better and the next week a senior executive in a large agency published a line for line rebuttal.
It strikes me that if the best justification for your business is a ‘my daddy is better than your daddy’ line then what are you doing on behalf of your clients?
The simple fact, in my opinion, is that companies chose large/small PR agencies in the most part, based on the personalities they have met at those firms. PR is a people business. Good people deliver good results and poor practitioners don’t. That’s the bottom line. There is no golden rule. The core is if the PR investment is making a contribution to the business objectives it doesn’t matter whatsize or type of agency it is. On the other hand if it’s not contributing – look out….
###
The chickens are coming home
Following on from the story about the Advertising groups not enjoying much return from their PR investments, Euro RSCG is announcing a widespread re-structure, combining many of the PR subsidiaries into smaller groups. The PR agencies on roster will join either Euro RSCG MVBMS Partners or Euro RSCG Tatham Partners.
Two (not necessarily relevant) thoughts pass through my brain at this news. Firstly who comes up with the naming conventions for these conglomerates?
I realize that they try and keep their traditional names or heritage, but ‘Euro RSCG MVBMS’ is absolutely ridiculous. What is that all about?
Maybe I am on my own, but I find trying to understand the holdings of these marketing services groups unintelligible – and ironically its BAD branding and bad communications.
The second thought is that while merging these agencies makes a lot of sense in terms of administrative cost and streamlining services, it does present an issue in terms of the types of new business that can be tackled by these larger entities.
The days of clients accepting ‘chinese walls’ as an argument for hosting competitive accounts under the one roof has long since gone.
Murphy's Law 