-
Opinion
How to debunk media myths
In this post, UWS’s Ullrich Ecker, John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky argue that cognitive science can help PRs form strategies in managing media misreporting.
A growing cohort of commentators has bemoaned the descent of contemporary political “debate” into a largely fact-free zone.
How about simply focusing on what consumers want?
In this guest post, Peter Mountford argues that brands should think more about what is really going on for consumers
Who here is hoping their favourite brand of toilet paper is going to be organizing a flash mob on their way home from work today?
What the Optus web copyright victory means
In this analysis first published on The Conversation, RMIT’s Marita Shelly examines the implications of Telstra’s defeat over the online rights to the AFL broadcast deal
This week’s Federal Court ruling that Optus customers are able to view sporting matches minutes after they are streamed live without breaching copyright is a landmark decision that alters our understanding of copyright law, and has significant implications for the AFL’s broadcasting rights deal.
Does Gina Rinehart’s bite of a chunk of Fairfax make her an oligarch?
In an article that first appeared in The Conversation, Mark Rolfe wonders whether the mining magnate’s move could turn Fairfax into something resembling America’s Fox network.Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart has moved to increase her stake in Fairfax Media, owner of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and a number of radio stations. Rinehart has already shown her desire to play a role in public life, campaigning against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s aborted mining tax. She has also demonstrated a willingness to make media investments to ensure her pro-business worldview is promulgated.
What does this latest move by Rinehart mean?
Gillard's Australia Day crisis
PM Julia Gillard’s media adviser Tony Hodges has been forced to resign over the Australia Day tent embassy debacle.
It came after it emerged he had revealed opposition leader Tony Abbott’s whereabouts, leading to both politicians being rescued by police in ugly scenes.
Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes and advertising practitioner Jane Caro debate the topic on Weekend Sunrise’s masters of Spin segment:
The biggest cock-up I made in business
In this guest post, Chris Savage urges agency staff to live the brand.I still shudder when I think about how incredibly stupid I was when I made the biggest stuff up of my career. And then, 18 years later, I did it again. Do not make this mistake with your clients. Ever.
Hey Groupon. Thanks for fucking up email
In this guest post, Daniel Monheit warns that group deal overload is devaluing email marketingEmail marketing used to be fabulous. Back in the heady days of 2010, brands would work hard to build up well qualified databases, upon which they’d bestow carefully crafted correspondence filled with information, offers and incentives. The recipients, of course would be delighted: “Oh look! An email! From one of my favourite brands! And it’s 40 cents off at Woolies this week!”.
The staggering sway of Harold Mitchell
The Power Index today names Aegis Media chairman Harold Mitchell as the most powerful person in Melbourne. Andrew Crook profiles him.
Harold Mitchell takes pride in dispensing with the niceties. When The Power Index visited his South Melbourne private office before Christmas, fresh remains were scattered all over the boardroom table.
Share a Coke with… the moronic masses
The most-read story on Mumbrella last year, with not far off 100,000 page views, was a fairly humdrum yarn about the launch of Coca-Cola’s name-on-a-bottle campaign.The headline, “Coca-Cola puts people’s names on bottles in ‘Share a Coke’ campaign”, though hated by any self-respecting sub-editor, was loved by Google. And in rushed what can be politely described as the public.
Assumptions kill creativity
In this guest post, Gual Barwell disagrees that the sales success of the Old Spice social media campaign was overstated.Yesterday’s post from Cathie McGinn suggested the Old Spice campaign failed to connect with consumers. Based on the facts and figures, I disagree.
What Old Spice and Wieden + Kennedy has done and done phenomenally well is to create a franchise.
The SMH's readers (are wrong) editor
We are now about five months into the reign of Australia’s first readers’ editor. And I don’t think it is working.
It struck me at the time of Judy Prisk’s appointment to the Sydney Morning Herald that the fact that her boss was editor-in-chief Peter Fray was not going to be ideal if she was going to be the independent voice of the reader.
The emperor's new fragrance: Old Spice’s campaign failure
In this guest post, Cathie McGinn slays a sacred cow of 21st century marketing – the highly awarded Old Spice campaign.One of the biggest myths of recent times (by which I mean a story of great heroism and triumph we’d all like to believe but deep down know to be untrue) is the Old Spice social media campaign. It’s been much lauded and awarded as an example of outstanding content, a creative and collaborative way of connecting with consumers and driving a record increase in sales.
How reliable are radio ratings?
In this guest posting, Jason ‘Jabba’ Davis wonders how accurate radio ratings can be, since the data is collated from handwritten diaries.
So, the radio ratings season gets underway tomorrow. After a well-earned break, Australia’s commercial radio stations will renew their obsession with figures to see how many of us are listening. Are they winning or losing the ratings war?
The much feared radio survey is the only way to measure the success or failure of a station’s playlist, talent, promotions or even good old Black Thunder crosses. With six-figure salaries riding on the make-or-break nature of ratings, just how accurate are Australia’s radio survey results?
One-eyed Willy’s rich stuff: brands as movie heroes
I have just spent an entire day on a plane. I can’t sleep on flights, even after heavy sedation. So I watched seven films, back to back. Most of the new ones were truly awful and I couldn’t finish them. So I watched an old favourite, The Goonies. I have probably watched this film more than 200 times since I was a kid. But this time, with work in the back of my mind, one thing stuck out – how much brands were the stars of the film.The gospel of participation is making brands forget about mass reach
In this guest post, Simon Lawson argues that brands are becoming obsessed with getting consumers to participate, rather than remembering to deliver mass exposure.I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a lot of brands are wasting significant amounts of time and money on ineffective marketing. Large sums are being put behind tactics which end up being too small to have much chance of influencing total brand preference.
PR agency guarantees: media coverage or your money back
A PR agency is making the controversial move of promising “to secure media coverage for clients in newspapers, magazines, television or radio within three months of being engaged” or it will work for free.
The move comes from Brisbane-based PR agency Publicity Queen. According to the agency’s Sally Romano: “The guarantee of media exposure takes the perceived risk out of PR and therefore can be viewed as a failsafe option.”
However, the promise seems to conflict with the Public Relations Institute of Australia’s code of ethics which states: “Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the achievement of specified results.”
Romano’s press release is accompanied by a biography in which she describes herself as a pioneering Australian marketing blogger. Her blog has had one update since last November.
The issue was first raised in a posting on Dynamic Business. In it, editor Jen Bishop said:
“While I see what they’re doing and admire it as a business tactic, as a journalist, I’m not sure it sits well with me, which is why I didn’t agree to run it. The media is-or should be-independent, so you cannot guarantee anything to your clients in terms of coverage. And as an editor, the thought of having stories pushed on me because the PR’s not going to get paid unless they’re published within 3 months, makes me a bit uncomfortable.”
She added: “I ran it past another PR contact who said: ‘The only way you can ‘guarantee’ coverage is if you are placing an ad.’”
March 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- Account Director - Sydney
- Exhibition Manager - Sydney
- Online Media Sales Executive - Sydney
- Software Architect (M2504) - Melbourne VIC
- Digital Producer - Sydney
- Innovation Project Leader - bringing ideas to life! - Sydney
- Ruby on Rails Web Developer - Sydney
- Ruby on Rails Web Developer - Sydney
- Solutions Architect - Sydney
- Digital Account Director - Sydney
Comments
27 Mar 09
12:01 pm
Membership in Public Relations Institute of Australia is not compulsory, nor is Publicity Queen a member. Not really a valid argument.
27 Mar 09
12:08 pm
You can’t even guarantee coverage if it you advertise. The two are and should be kept completely separate. If you have a high quality product or service, it should speak for itself – you shouldn’t have to promise to work to free until you get coverage. PR constantly struggles with people who don’t understand its purpose or its ability; that includes the fact that NO PR is guaranteed. It’s not an ad. You pay for an ad, you’re guaranteed coverage, you don’t pay for editorial, you’re not guaranteed coverage. It’s not that hard people!
27 Mar 09
12:13 pm
Is it April 1 already?!
27 Mar 09
12:15 pm
Publicity is not PR. Publicity is a small element of the PR process. Publicity Queen is obviously as publicity shop, not a PR firm.
It’s like calling a TVC producer an “Ad agency”.
27 Mar 09
12:15 pm
AnonymousCoward – not a valid argument? Of course it is. It actually shows that the agency isn’t willing to live up to industry accepted standards and respect the ethics of PR. Membership is not expensive and it adds a signicant level of credibility to an organisation.
27 Mar 09
12:17 pm
I agree Laura – there is still a complete misunderstanding about the workings of PR in the wide arena, and this sort of business tactic continues the perception that all PR people do is pick up a phone and an article appears. As PR professionals know, it takes so much more than that, especially now. I’d be interested to see what the fee structure is with this agency?
27 Mar 09
12:19 pm
My company IMPACT Communications Australia has offered a service guarantee since we formed ten years. It is designed to offer accountability to the clients. We don’t offer a media coverage guarantee as we can’t (nor do we want to) control the media.
My concern is that such placement guarantees drive PRs to get any ‘clip’ rather than strategically acting on behalf of their clients. PR shouldn’t be able numbers of articles but about strategic communication that drives the audiences’ understanding and perception of a company and/or brand.
27 Mar 09
12:19 pm
It’s a shame that PR agencies have to resort to this level to get their own publicity. If you’re a good agency, you’re going to get coverage for your clients. Why take on a client that doesn’t have a good story to tell and will be horrendous to get results for??? It’s common sense.
27 Mar 09
12:20 pm
Unfortunately this perpetuates the myth that PR is all about media coverage. Fortunately most clients are sophisticated enough to know this is not the case. This will, however, generate some debate which is never a bad thing for an industry.
27 Mar 09
12:22 pm
I always say to clients, i can guarantee i will work relentlessly for them, but i can’t guarantee media coverage will come of it. I also tell them that anyone who says they can guarantee coverage is an editor, a producer, or a liar.
27 Mar 09
12:23 pm
In all honesty it’s not going to be that difficult to get a PR run within 3 months and Publicity Queen would know that. From her perspective she’s put herself out in the market place, made a bit of noise and has secured a pile of clients for at LEAST 3 months. From an industry perspective it takes away from our credibility and confuses what we do and how we do it – and there is enough of that as it is. But its tough out there so you can’t blame her for trying.
27 Mar 09
12:31 pm
Give the gal a break.
Those capable of gazing beyond their navels might agree that she’s not guaranteeing media coverage so much as guaranteeing her fees.
Having worked in the Australian media [News Director, Network TEN], advertising [Executive Director, Australian Association of National Advertisers] AND PR [Multi-Media Communications], can I suggest those who give PR a bad name are not those offering to prove their professional worth.
‘PBR’–payment by results–is spreading through the advertising industry, where it is helping to kill off sharks and shonks.
Would it be so bad to apply it to PR?
Or would the majority of the industry go broke?
CollinS
27 Mar 09
12:32 pm
she got you talking, didn’t she? And can you remember the company name? job done!
27 Mar 09
12:32 pm
I’m puzzled as to why the PRIA should consider it unethical that memebers link renumeration to results?
27 Mar 09
12:39 pm
PR or Publicity is about meeting a client’s brief and proposing their key messages to the target audience in an attractive light. Promising to ‘deliver’ media coverage just highlights the naivety of many practitioners in the industry. I would ask Publicity Queen when measuring the publicity achieved for these clients she would be comfortable using a system like Carma to evaluate whether she has actually achieved a positive and on-message outcome for her clients rather than column centimetres or 30 second ad rates. Guaranteeing something you are not the gate keeper of is dangerous territory for the individual and the industry as a whole.
27 Mar 09
12:44 pm
It’s like an accountant guaranteeing you a certain tax return if you go with them.
Appealing but illogical.
Actually, does anyone know where i can find an accountant like that?
27 Mar 09
12:51 pm
This was trialled with various agencies in the UK a number of years back when several large clients started putting ad agencies onto contracts that only paid them the cream of their fees when they could guarantee positive results of their campaigns…it didn’t sit well then and it still doesn’t now…
To be honest, even though there are a number of factors that might get in the way of media coverage, if you can’t get something (I notice there’s no specifics as to how much and where) in 3 months in some sort of medium, you probably shouldn’t be doing PR anyway and you definitely shouldn’t have taken on that client! If you think the product or service just isn’t going to cut it publicity wise (if that’s what the client’s after), then you should front up to the client, have a frank conversation, and a serious strategy rethink, not offer a no coverage, no fee as a fall back. There’s no harm in being honest and managing expectations and it’s bad business to hold yourself to ransom.
27 Mar 09
12:55 pm
About time a PR agency who understands ROI. Go Queeny
27 Mar 09
1:01 pm
Here’s the problem- Any publicity is NOT good publicity! She’s promising coverage that she’s going to have to comprimise the truth to get. Moulding your clients story to suit what a journalist is writing just to get a run, could’nt be more wrong! Every journalist I have ever worked with has appreciated the transparency of stories and client information we offer. When your client is’nt suited to something it’s better to back down and wait for an opportuntiy where they will add value.
Rather than approaching the project stategically (which takes time) , she’s going to throw her client’s in at any cost. What’s the benefit to the client? A few words contributed to their name. A picture of them in a magazine. A heading with their company name in it. PR specialists work tirelessly to drive positive awareness of their clients products and services, through customised campaigns. Here is a woman working at driving our industry values into the ground!
27 Mar 09
1:28 pm
LOL – always good to get some Friday Mirth Tim. Jen, you are spot on. It’s a lame idea, and so wrong for many reasons. But here’s a thought – would the Publicity Queen invoice for negative coverage
27 Mar 09
2:03 pm
The scary thing about all this is that Publicity Queen may well have the last laugh. Clients (especially the vacuous 20-something marketing managers) are so cost-driven they might actually like the idea. It won’t produce good pr but it will give all those dreadful people in the procurement departments a warm inner glow!
27 Mar 09
2:08 pm
I think this is fabulous news. There seems to be a lack of accountability in the PR industry. While ‘coverage’ may not be the absolute measure of success, it’s certainly a respectable start.
27 Mar 09
2:20 pm
I agree, it’s bad business and it goes against PRIA’s and my ethics – I think this will flop. I would however be interested to know how they will charge clients when they score some coverage (and good point Graham about negative coverage!). If they happen to get a whole heap of coverage I imagine the fees may go through the roof, then ‘those dreadful people in the procurement departments’ and bosses will be fuming! And it will serve them right for not thinking through their PR strategy with a credible agency!
27 Mar 09
2:26 pm
I have just spoken to Sally of Publicity Queen and she will be posting a response on my original blog. Great to see such debate with so many different and valid opinions!
27 Mar 09
2:28 pm
Short-sighted clients who measure an agency’s work on coverage alone fail to understand the potential of public relations. If the the only objective for a client is coverage, and you don’t get it, you’ll probably be sacked anyway. On that assertion Publicty Queen isn’t really going on a limb…
27 Mar 09
2:47 pm
If you CAN’T get coverage for your clients within 3 months – what the hell are you doing? OF COURSE you should have coverage within 3 months.
27 Mar 09
3:49 pm
Apologies to anyone who has posted a comment on this thread, or another between about 12.30 and 2.30 that isn’t currently visible.
Once again we had a big traffic surge, which saw us need to upgrade our server on the fly. Which was fun.
We’ve saved all your comments and they will go back up again shortly.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
27 Mar 09
3:55 pm
A Sydney-based PR company called MediaJuice did the same thing a few years back and attracted the same furore. From my understanding the company no longer exists. Proof is in the pudding
27 Mar 09
4:53 pm
Being accountable to clients and delivering a measurable ROI is certainly a positive business approach and one that I’ve built thrive pr + communications on, but the tactic of guarantees with media relations is a disturbing. A great agency delivers more than publicity/media relations and therefore the picture of success may have nothing to do with media coverage.
There are several agencies I know of who offer a ‘money back’ promise so it’s not a first.
Our challenge as agency owners is that companies are already confused about PR and what it can deliver so this doesn’t do much for the credibility of our industry.
Ultimately, this agency is saying “We’ll deliver and get you immediate traction” which is what clients want – but there are other ways to go about it.
27 Mar 09
5:09 pm
She’s dreaming unless of course every single client has a breaking news story to tell! I agree that this can only happen if she’s buying advertorial. No self-respecting journalist will publish a story unless it has weight or is of current interest so, it depends really of course who her clients are.
27 Mar 09
5:12 pm
Hi all, it’s the Publicity Queen here.
Well it’s great to see this debate continuing but to be honest, I can’t see what all the furore is about!
Perhaps some of your fears will be allayed when you read my comments that I’ve just posted on the original dynamic business blog (the link is at the top of this page).
This guarantee is not about undermining PR, it’s about adding value – as you will see from my post.
This is great stuff…
Sally
27 Mar 09
7:39 pm
This approach inevitably leads to quantity not quality of coverage and perpetuates the old school myth that all publicity is good publicity. In this day and age fewer articles, better written, strategically placed in the right media benefit clients, agencies, readers and journalists alike.
27 Mar 09
8:39 pm
Nick – some of us ‘vacuous account managers don’t have a choice but to be cost driven. But thanks for giving us an insight into what agency staffers think of their clients.
27 Mar 09
10:56 pm
In my PR life my agency guaranteed coverage for media briefs that we accepted. These briefs were subject to our judgment on whether or not they had legs. If they didn’t, they weren’t accepted under the guarantee deal. Sometimes they were accepted on the premise of best effort and let’s see; plus fees in advance (I had a lot of children at expensive schools). That way our agency won a strong record of success, a cast-iron reputation for honest dealing and met normal business practice of standing on our results. Normal, that is except for poseurs masquerading as PR people. Have you noticed, by the way, how many spelling+grammatical errors and typos there are among the commentators on this subject? What ad agency or publication could hire them? – Archie Bayvel, freelance writer (Ex: Bayvel PR, Golden Target winner, Melvel Advertising, The Australian, The Daily Mail, etc, etc.)
27 Mar 09
11:19 pm
Jen forgot another way which is to pay the concerned editor or journalist to publish the material. It’s not as though everything in PR is hunky dory over the table, it’s been done before …
28 Mar 09
12:07 pm
PAY the journalist? Surely that doesn’t actually happen in this country?!
30 Mar 09
8:52 am
While I agree that PR is not just about media relations, I believe a results based pay structure to the media relations element of the campaign is admirable.
Having worked in agencies for many years I was subjected to pressure from senior management to put forward media relations ideas that were hardly worthy of getting editorial coverage and was many times faced with a disappointed client. Yes, they did get the benefits of PR beyond media relations but unfortunately the poor media results tarnished the rest of the campaign.
While I myself would prefer a bonus based system – the agency has a retainer fee and if they achieve above and beyond the coverage agreed to by client and agency, they get a bonus fee – I believe either system will help weed out bad media relations ideas.
30 Mar 09
12:10 pm
It’s understandable that clients want measurable results from any spend on PR, and clearly PR agencies need to measure their results and NOT their effort. Who cares if a lot of effort is made without the desired results being achieved? But guaranteeing media coverage is problematic. Any half competent PR professional can usually secure some sort of publicity or media coverage for a client, that is not the main difficulty. The challenge is to make sure that any media coverage is the sort that achieves the client’s objectives. Is it going to lead to improved reputation, increased sales, and happier clients? It’s never true that there is no such thing as bad publicity as clearly some is most undesirable, or it may be totally irrelevant to achieving the strategic goals of the client. It’s getting measurable results that achieve the client’s goals that really matters.
31 Mar 09
2:28 pm
The PRIA specifically requires its members not to base remuneration solely on achieving results because they are not in a position to guarantee those results. Guaranteeing a certain level of media coverage is impossible because of the wide range of factors outside of the PR professional’s control. These can include the news value of the story and competing issues of the day/week/month.
What our members can do is provide professional advice on the best way to achieve results based on our professional training and experience. We should also temper that advice by pointing out the limitations of our power. We will do everything we can to build good relationships with your publics but in the end it is the quality of your product and its value to the target audience that determines whether it gets a run in the media.
Can you trust a doctor that guarantees a cure for cancer that all other medical practitioners have found untreatable? Would you believe an accountant who promises you will make a profit? PR is a professional service, not a product that can be made to specifications.
Tracy Jones
National President
Public Relations Institute of Australia
9 Apr 09
12:01 pm
Bold move, and has certainly succeeded in stirring the pot, however I prefer to operate in a more transparent, open-handed way and explain the way the PR-media relationship works, and that there are no guarantees when it comes to media coverage, even when the editor says you’re getting run, it can still get bumped at the 11th hour. Clients usually respond well to honesty and a straightforward approach. It also opens up the question as to what is considered valid, relevant or valuable coverage.
9 Apr 09
10:03 pm
This is a great site!..just stumbled across it via googleista. Good to see a new PR discussion site coming through.
Anyways, i promise my clients coverage all the time. come on! we all do in some way or another…its all about how you present it. Doesn’t always work but hey.
We have also set up a new social media division…so hello, no problems getting coverage there! facebook group and youtube page here i come.
Can we charge the same though? thoughts?…I am still trying to work out how to bill my clients on CPM instead of a full page ad.
17 Apr 09
3:19 pm
isn’t that the purpose of engaging with PR agencies – to get coverage? PR agencies should be accountable and have metrics like coverage. while it shouldn’t be the sole determinant of success or payment of fees, it plays a large part in a successful PR campaign.
kudos to them for trying this. especially in such a tough economic environment, their clients will feel their fees are well spent.
23 Apr 09
11:42 am
Methinks some PRniks protesteth too much…go Queeny!