Measuring Up

“A true friend is with you on the way down as well as the way up”

I read this quote on a small Captiva monitor as I rode up the elevator to Peppercom’s offices the other day. It is quite strange, mainly because this is copy for a Chivas scotch advertisement. Since I was a captive audience in that elevator, I read the copy again and scratched my head trying to understand why Chivas would possibly use this line based on the product that it produces and distributes. 

Are you thinking the same thing? My most immediate reaction is that Chivas is making a connection to people who are crashing in life (that they need friends). And I’m thinking that it’s because they drink way too much. But, why in the world would a spirits maker want to tie its brand to such an awful concept? Especially considering how careful the entire industry needs to be about responsible drinking behavior.

So being the curious fellow that I am, I decided to check into this further: http://www.chivasbrotherhood.com.  The Chivas Brotherhood is a testosterone-driven, male bonding site. It aims to connect the Chivas brand with sophisticated and affluent men who clearly like the finer things in life, including relaxing in cigar smoke filled billiards rooms, sipping scotch and eating a tasty steak, all while telling chummy stories with their buddies.  The opening manifesto says it all:
     “There’s a certain bond that can only be attained by a group of men…These men belong to the brotherhood”

There’s a special concierge which offers specials, contests and giveaways to its members and an “Agenda” section that highlights upcoming events that its members could be interested in attending. And, the library is a real treat because the quotes and stories are made up of such macho content that just by reading them, members are sure to grow more hair on their chest as well.

Ok, I get it. I’m a marketer. This is Chivas’ cute approach to building a deeper relationship with target men drinkers. It’s also a smart means to generate lots of email addresses to enhance the beverage maker’s growing database. All of that makes total sense. But, the ad still doesn’t. I only went to this site because the advertisement was so bizarre and was curious. I also wondered if I did my homework, would I have new blog material. Clearly, that’s now a reality.

There’s no doubt that a good ad can and should lead the target audience to do something. But in this case, I just continued to connect Chivas with “on the way down.”  There is nothing enticing or remotely positive about that.

Fifty five and finally relevant

I never got this one. Ever since TV advertising began some 50 years ago, the 55 and above age group was considered completely unimportant to advertisers. Actually, those who weren’t in the main 20-something to early 30s, didn’t matter much either.

The backwards thinking behind this focus stemmed from the perception that younger audiences are extremely malleable and more apt to become loyal than their older generational counterparts. Just as importantly, these pre-middle aged audiences possess a much longer tail of purchasing power across their lifetime, so marketing to them made a lot more sense. Finally, when it came to what’s cool, hip and in, it was all about what younger audiences wanted at any particular time versus the tastes and preferences of the older folks.

Guess what, that’s all changed. According to this article (link to NY Times Sunday article: In shift, TV and Marketers try to entice over-55 set), Network executives have all together changed their thinking, largely because of the lingering bad economy (many young people have no purchasing power because they have no job) and the reality that there is a very large and important 55-plus baby boomer audience. Now, for the first time, they’ve created entire fall series lines aimed at 55-plus audiences. This is so they can directly build lots of advertising $$$ from sponsors who create products for middle aged and senior audiences.

It’s nice to see that a giant constituent base that was once completely forgotten has now become mainstream. But, I truly never understood why they were ignored for decades. For a brief period, we represented one of the networks. Any idea that we developed which wasn’t exclusively focused on hitting young, hip adults was instantly thrown in the garbage. What killed me was that no one even gave a second thought to going beyond what the industry accepted blindly.

If they stopped acting like robots to understand real demographics, someone would have changed this mindlessly accepted industry norm a long time ago. Fifty-five and over audiences have always held enormous sway over so many different components of our society— from determining the fate of national and regional political contests, to playing roles in how entire towns and communities are built and developed, to brand loyalty and purchasing power on thousands of products and services. Add in the fact that the affluent 40-something crowd plays a key role in deciding what’s accepted (or not) from a luxury brand standpoint (mainly because younger audiences can’t afford these products yet) and we’re talking about a significant consumer base that should have been targeted through television advertising from the beginning. Lastly, because these audiences are more mature, they will be less fickle in becoming loyal to any particular brand. One would think that would actually be a very appealing reality for any marketer.

 Because public relations is a much more cost-effective medium that can be very flexible for marketers, our industry has always been able to segment and target different audiences very naturally.  If a luxury watch brand is largely bought by wealthy individuals in the 50+ range, then our campaign can focus exclusively on reaching those people by marketing to the media and channels that influence them (and that includes network shows and news).  We’d take a similar approach with a health or security product aimed at senior audiences, as well.  

Unlike the networks, our industry has always welcomed all marketers, regardless of the age group they focused on. The irony is that every fall the networks live and die with advertisers based on their new season line ups. If at least a few shows don’t appeal to the younger, erratic and unpredictable audiences, you can bet that this will have a direct impact on advertising revenue. Life might have been a lot less stressful many moons ago for them, if they had just evolved their programming to include middle aged and older audiences. It’s just a lot easier to comprehend how more mature people will react to any given story, show or brand. But, no one ever thought of that.

 

 

 

Give me sun, beaches and warm blue skies…

I am sick of winter. Let me restate that differently– I really hate this winter.

In the Northeast, we’re having record snow (and ice) falls. It feels as though the temperature never rises much above 25 degrees. And, I can’t remember the last time the wind wasn’t pushing me a step or two backwards. In my mind, this all adds up to misery.

I’ll be honest. As I’ve gotten older, the cold has become less and less appealing. And, my family just isn’t enthralled with all those things most people do during the winter to have fun. We’re pretty bad skiers (remind me to tell you about the time I broke a rib attempting to ski in the frozen tundra of Canada). We don’t really enjoy skating and, overall, we typically cry bah humbug during each subsequent snow fall that takes place.

Yes. I’d like to be living or at least visiting somewhere warm right about now. But like many, I also have a day job in New York City. And, my kids are tied to their schools in New Jersey. So, what can a guy do?

Not much. Except, I can focus (for the rest of this post) on how so many feel the exact opposite way I do. There are thousands of industries/companies/brands that simply love frozen weather like this. The colder and longer it endures, the happier they become. That’s because they feast on every consumer whim and need to make scores of $$$. It isn’t hard to find them. The smarter companies have found ways to market themselves online, in commercials and just about everywhere else we go or turn to.

In no particular order, here’s  a bunch that exploit my misery in every way:

-    Cough and cold medications – I don’t think there’s one person in the Northeast who hasn’t gotten some cold, cough, flu or stomach bug or some viral ailment that has spread rapidly because of the cold. I went to the drug store yesterday to get a new supply of day and nighttime cold medicine. It might just be my perception, but it looked like there are two or three additional shelves filled with two to three times more products. I just checked some research online. Seems that over the counter cold products have increased their sales by 30 percent over this time last year. Bad winter means great seasonal sales for these companies.
-    Resort vacations – Turn on the TV, or click onto a popular online news site. You can’t miss all the promotions for vacation spots to warm places. Just this morning, I saw ads for: The Breakers, Sandals in Jamaica, Barbados, San Diego, The Keys and the Cayman Islands.
-    Public utilities – Have you looked at your heating bill for December yet? Ouch! It’s about 110 percent higher than it was in November. Sure, it’s supposed to be higher… but that is a gigantic increase. This winter should prove to be one of the most profitable on record for any utility in this neck of the woods.
-    Snow removal products – Ice melting salt, shovels, scrapers, snow blowers, snow throwers, etc….They are all selling like hotcakes. This weekend, I happened to be in a Lowes. A shop person told me that they had to replace these products three times as quickly as normal because the turnover is just so high.
-    Winter apparel manufacturers- By now, one would think that most people have bought their heavy winter coats, gloves, scarves, hats, etc. Not true. Or, maybe they just want to have reinforcements. I actually went looking for a new winter coat the other day. The department in this store was mobbed with many doing just the same.
-    Hot cocoa brands – Kids love hot cocoa during the winter. After a little sledding or fort building, that’s the go-to drink for any kid. I bet Nestle and other category brands are making out like bandits these days.
-    Soup brands – Same goes for soup. A little research shows that the soup industry has unusually high sales of their soup products now. Nothing like a good ol’ bowl of Chunky Chicken Noodle for lunch to warm the bones.
-    Vitamin companies – Vitamins are products that consumers turn to during times when sickness is everywhere. We’re seeing serious sales of vitamin C now. I’d say the overall desire for any pill that can increase the body’s vitality and offer help in warding off colds has risen greatly.

Do you miss Hooters Air, too?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

What do all of these have in common?
•    Hooters energy drink
•    Colgate Kitchen Entrees
•    Google Print Ads
•    Willie Nelson biodiesel fuel
•    Ben-Gay aspirin

That's an easy one. They are examples of brand extensions gone horribly wrong. Yes, these are real products and services that once upon a time came to market. Thankfully, we've forgotten most of them. But imagine the millions of dollars and thousands of hours wasted on these.

From a PR perspective, it is one of the most difficult challenges: helping a client with a trusted brand break into a new market. Public relations is essentially based on trust. When a PR agency is tasked with promoting a brand extension, the first questions to ask are: Why should key influencers trust that our client knows enough about this new market to succeed? Why should key influencers trust that the brand really cares about the end-consumer?

As a former journalist, whenever I was pitched by a PR agency about a brand extension or partnership, my B.S. meter lit up like a Christmas tree. Any smart journalist believes that a brand extension has one, and only one, ultimate goal: to make even more money for the company behind the successful brand. So, as a reporter, I was always loathe to give any of these companies what amounted to free advertising.

So how to convince the ever-skeptical journalist that your client's brand extension is worth covering? Check out Procter & Gamble's latest foray: Tide-branded dry-cleaning stores. P&G's PR machine landed the project on the front page of the New York Times business section in what William Randolph Hearst used to call a "puff" piece. What made P&G so successful?

1. Don't tell me, show me: P&G already has four Tide stores up and running. What better proof of concept is that? A press release announcing a brand extension filled with nothing but projections, hopes and dreams isn't worth the digital ink it's written with, so have some real-world evidence ready to go.

2. Let me experience it: It’s clear from the NY Times article that the reporter visited a Tide store and had unfettered access to customers and neighboring businesses. No press junkets here. There’s nothing like firsthand experience to get a reporter on your side.

3. Lift the lid: Clearly, P&G walked the reporter through the entire process of choosing the dry-cleaning industry for their latest brand extension. “Four years ago, FutureWorks began considering franchise opportunities…,” the journo writes. That type of background gives the reporter the perception that he is getting the scoop on his rival scribes.

4. Push the benefits, not the brand: When you pitch, forget for a moment that you’re pitching a well-known brand. Pitch the project as if it is a stand-alone program. That means emphasize the benefits of the new product or service over the brand. The NY Times’ coverage of Tide Dry Cleaning notes features like 24-hour pick-up, drive-through windows and eco-friendly cleaning products. The Times bought it hook, line and sinker.

While no one can predict whether or not Tide Dry Cleaning will end up in the dustbin of marketing history alongside Donald Trump steaks, no one can argue that they’ve achieved a PR coup.

Entirely new ways to reach captive audiences

We all know that the power of advertising has shifted forever because of the current DVR and Internet age.

What I mean is that while advertisers still leverage traditional print and broadcast media options to reach target audiences, we (consumers) turn those ads off as often as possible. The Internet provides an entirely new channel of reaching us. But again, all it takes is one click to bypass that banner ad or video commercial. Doesn't it feel great to be in control?

Well, that may be a fleeting feeling. Some of the savvier marketers responded to this challenge. Over the last few years, they have leveraged many non-traditional, never before thought of (and some that are just a tad strange) mediums to present brands in an entirely new fashion. The kicker this time is that in all of these cases, consumers are once again captive audiences. So, that puts the power right back into the marketers hands. I'm really impressed with just how creative the marketing world has become. Many of these approaches smack you right in the face as you go about daily travel, work and personal routines. And, they definitely influence their target audiences, although I bet most wouldn't even know they are being marketed to. Here's a few I've experienced over the last few days that are worth noting:

* Airport security bins - As I went through the airport security line the other day in Newark Airport, I couldn't help but notice Zappos advertisements on the bottom of every single clothes/baggage bin. What really made me smile (though) is how the same ad showcases two colorful shoe prints (where participants were supposed to place their shoes). What a great way for Zappos to reach every person who needs to fly anywhere.

* Airline seat trays - I boarded my Continental flight and quickly realized that commercial marketing efforts weren't going to be limited to the in-flight magazine or videos. No, as I happened to look straight ahead to the folded up tray attached to the seat in front of me, a large offer from MasterCard stared me down. As much as I tried to look away, three hours later the ad was still squarely in front of me.

* Videos in elevators - Most higher-end commercial office buildings in New York City have installed video monitors in elevators where tenants, employees and anyone riding up and down can catch news tidbits and brief stories. Of course, every news story is surrounded by an advertisement that fully supports the topic being covered. Talk about a captive audience -- we're all stuck in the elevator with nothing else to look at or do.

* Supermarket carts - Who would ever have thought that supermarket chains could sell advertising on their carts the way newspapers do with their print editions? The other day, my cart (yes, I go food shopping every once in a while) had a large ad on the inside back of the cart for AMC movie theaters. After seeing this, I walked over to all the other carts to find out that at least 20 in a row showcased that same ad.

* Gas station pumps - Now, this is a new one that I couldn't even imagine could be real. But, it was. I went to pump my gas at a service station in Connecticut. Upon selecting my gas and picking up the pump, a McDonald’s advertisement appeared magically. Of course, this rest area included both McDonalds and Exxon/Mobil offerings. Talk about a real co-branded initiative.

* Toll plazas - That's right. I mean highway tolls. This week I was in Florida and saw any number of advertisements on the toll gate (Coca-Cola ad), actually on the toll booth (beneath the attendant) was a Florida orange juice ad (now, that makes sense). And, a sign running across the top of the entire toll booth area promoted some sort of Internet search engine.

I bet there are scores of other approaches that focus on captive audiences (too bad they don't actually captivate us, though) that should be mentioned in this post. I would love to hear any that you've experienced or heard of, as well.

A Darker Shade of Pink

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

There’s been a fascinating public relations battle waging this month, one that bears watching by all PR  professionals.

As we all know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For three weeks now, we’ve been swimming in a sea of pink, let loose by breast cancer advocates all over the country to remind us that this disease still affects far too many women and their families. NFL players have donned pink cleats. APG is marketing a pink Snuggie sleeved blanket. KFC is selling pink buckets of chicken.

But there’s another side to this pink PR crusade that has been quickly creeping up on the national agenda. Let’s call it a darker shade of pink. On blogs and social media networking sites, people are starting to question the appropriateness of this plethora of pink. Megan Casserly on Forbes.com called it, simply, “crap.” One blogger on the Washington Times site called it “sickening.” Another green blogger questioned the true intentions of companies that make pink products for the cure while simultaneously fostering environmental and human rights abuses.

The anti-pink tide is rising.

So how is the other side reacting? Susan G. Komen for the Cure (SGK), the 800-pound pink gorilla of breast cancer foundations, has gone on the offensive. SGK founder Nancy Brinker is taking on the critics. She recently blogged that there “still isn’t enough pink.” It’s an interesting PR tactic. Brinker acknowledges the messages from the detractors, but quickly discounts them. She tugs at our heartstrings, reminding us that we need more and more pink because a woman dies from breast cancer every 69 seconds.

But does this really explain why SGK lists nearly 200 for-profit “partners” on its website, from Microsoft and Deluxe Checks to Otis Spunkmeyer and Payless ShoeSource? How many pink products does it take to cure breast cancer?

Clearly, it’s not as simple as selling pink products to fund a cure. Breast cancer death rates have slowly decreased over the years, but, strangely, the number of women getting mammograms has also decreased, despite all the pink products. How effective all this awareness really is should be deliberated every October.

How this public relations battle will shake out is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for certain: when it comes to women’s health, healthy debate is a good thing.

Who really cares?

The debate between advertising, digital and PR professionals regarding who should lead digital engagement for   clients has grown tiresome.

Witness another piece of propaganda (this one from PR Newswire). This white paper focuses most of its effort (to no one’s surprise) on the opinion that PR professionals have a better mix of ‘the right’ skills to consult and execute client digital campaigns. The argument isn’t necessarily wrong (yes, I am a PR man at heart). Public relations professionals have a certain type of DNA that pushes them to communicate in a non-commercial, typically transparent way. If we hadn’t operated this way for the last 50 years, media wouldn’t accept our client stories or use them as sources for interviews. And, non commercial, organically created humor/news/stuff is typically how real digital engagement works best on the Internet today. But, that certainly doesn’t always mean that PR professionals or their agencies are best suited to follow these rules.

Sam Ford, Peppercom's Director of Digital Strategy wrote a Chief Marketer piece on this titled 'Get Advertising and PR to Work Together on a Spreadable Approach.'

I’ve listened to and read of countless articles and debates from the digital and advertising professions as well. Their belief is that creative concepts, sustainable campaigns and the high quality graphics and use of content that are key to making brands appeal to online consumer audiences have always been owned by them. So, naturally those that have always led traditional brand building through advertising, direct marketing and now digital content development,  are better positioned to be the lead dogs in showing clients how to build their brands and create better online engagement. Objectively, it’s hard to argue the rationale behind some of this thinking as well.

Anyone in the marketing agency business can understand why this debate is growing louder and louder. A lot is on the line because the reality is that all of these ‘sister’ industries are undergoing a seismic paradigm shift that hasn’t been seen since… well, maybe never. The lines of who is responsible for creating anything digital are completely blurred. Because of this, these agencies with different traditional disciplines now (for the first time) view each other as encroaching on eachother’s turf. The result is that they aren’t playing nicely in the sand box together anymore. And, that is becoming a real problem for clients everywhere.

So, who do I believe should own the digital landscape. To me, it’s always come down to the actual people who live within each individual agency  versus the discipline or brand differentiator that any agency possesses. There are some hot digital agencies that have very mediocre executives. In those cases, any client accounts those professionals work on will probably choose their more strategic PR and/or ad agency brethren to lead digital efforts. I’m sure the reverse holds true with public relations firms offering less than stellar PR executives up to clients as well, because when there is risk involved (and digital engagement is still an unknown risk to most), clients turn to who they trust most  for direction. Not, the PR guy or advertising account leader because of some discipline specialty.

In the end, those agencies in the know are now attempting to morph into much more of an integrated marketing model, which can offer clients as much as possible under one roof (and most importantly, a real digital solution). The real question isn’t which discipline is better positioned to lead this fast growing digital landscape. But, it’s about which agencies can build the most talent to show clients how to do it right.

In this case, a D+ is a failing grade

The photo to the right illustrates Drake University’s recently developed marketing campaign. According to this blogger, the marketing folks at Drake created the D+ positioning for this campaign because they wanted to ensure it “caught target audiences attention” and “stood out from the rest”. There’s no doubt that they’ve met those key objectives (in spades).

Sorry, but this is a moronic positioning for any type of higher education institute. When I first spotted it, I actually thought it was a joke. But, the D+ positioning supports what the University refers to as its unique and compelling advantage over other competitive schools (i.e. D=Drake and + is all about being superior and providing real opportunities to students). OK, the meaning behind this campaign is just fine. But, didn’t anyone with half a brain think for two seconds about how end users would first react when seeing that visual next to the university name and logo? Especially considering the obvious point that higher education brands and academic grades are intrinsically tied to one another.

I guess it could have been worse. If Drake University actually had the name Frake University (instead), then the campaign would be highlighting an F+.  That would nicely equate the Drake experience to pure failure. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself…

There are some obvious rules of thumb that smart marketing professionals think about as they develop new campaign positioning statements or slogans. The first is that words, phrases, pictures and visuals all typically have multiple meanings when used in various contexts. Used within any marketing or communications context in a higher education setting, D+ means something close to failure. It’s really hard to miss that one. But, understanding that quite often a phrase with multiple meanings might not be so blatantly obvious, it’s important to research, analyze and then scrutinize that phrase to ensure it won’t (at worse) offend a specific audience, or simply not resonate with others.

Because universities are fairly bureaucratic organizations, I would think that any new campaign would need approval (before going live) from a host of committees or trustee groups. Going through all of these channels again typically increases the chance that someone with any sense would challenge how D+ might be perceived by high school parents who are wondering whether they should spend a few hundred thousand dollars over four years on this school or another private university.

I’ll use a gun metaphor to put this campaign in perspective. In my mind, its positioning can’t even be considered a misfire. Instead, it feels more like someone loaded up a semi-automatic and put his/her face in front of the muzzle while pulling the trigger just to make sure it would work. There’s no doubt that the marketing professional(s) who helped Drake create this campaign should be taking a bullet right about now…

The best television has to offer

When I flick on the remote control these days, there aren't too many shows that get me excited. Typically, I'll find an interesting documentary on The History Channel, or just watch a ball game, or one of the few unique HBO or Showtime series. But, that's about it, except for AMC's 'Mad Men', that is. I really love this show. And, the highly anticipated season opener this week did nothing to change that.

Two or three specific scenes made me feel like someone had secretly taped actual experiences from Peppercom's early days and recreated them to become Mad Men, 60s advertising world-centric. That's because this episode showcased all the challenges that a new upstart firm in the marketing world goes through. And, these pains were magnified that much more because all of these executives were used to having the cushiest, most sophisticated resources available to them in their previous agency lives. Yes, the show's writers found a way this week to make a unique personal connection with me like I haven't experienced in years.

For starters, the conference room table mini-plot had me laughing out loud. That's the scene where we see the firm's executives presenting to a prospect while sitting on chairs in a circle in Don Draper's office with the painfully barren void that exists because there isn't any conference table to present on. The background here is that Don Draper won an internal battle among his partners to take far less space in swanky mid-town location offices versus being satisfied with much cheaper (but spacious) digs in the lesser appealing downtown area. Thus, no space exists for a conference room (or a table for that matter). Steve and I faced an almost identical dilemma with our first space in Manhattan's famous Graybar building. By no means was this first office grand (like that of the new Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce firm). The parallel is that we had no available space for a conference room and my office had to constantly be transformed into such a meeting space when any new prospect or client came to talk with us. I remember (so vividly) the quick 10-minute shuffles to clear out all my personal objects from my office as we did a 180-degree move with my desk and accompanying chairs to create a small conference room-like atmosphere in our humble abode. After coming to our offices 4-5 times, one former client actually commented to Steve that he knew the conference room was actually Ed's office, and we weren't fooling anyone. Unfortunately, this reality existed for us for the better part of a year until we were able to grow and afford more space on that same floor down the hall.

Another striking similarity (that many upstarts can probably relate to) is that bad feeling that hits your gut when you hear the news that an initial first client is terminating the relationship. For Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce it was the little known Jai Lai account which had run out of advertising money. Account executive Pete Campbell delivered the news to the partners. Naturally, acting as a typical creative director who doesn't spend any time caring about finances, Don Draper said, "Good, we're better off without them." Yet, CFO Pryce was startled and offered up that the firm can't afford to lose many more accounts or it won't be in business much longer. He also mentioned his concern that one giant account, Lucky Strike, now made up 72 percent of the firm's billings and that is a very scary reality.

Peppercom faced the exact same dilemma within 18 months of opening up our doors. One of the big-four accounting firms (although back then it was the big-six) had grown so large (that was good) that it actually equaled more than 75 percent of our firm's revenues (that was bad). And, at that time, there were constant rumors on the streets that our firm would be acquired by another large competitor. I remember waking up early on a Saturday morning to pick up the New York Times at my local news stand to see in front page headlines, "X firm looking to merge with Y firm." Y firm happened to be our client, and I was absolutely sick to my stomach for the entire weekend. Needless to say, our top priority over the next six months was focused on growing and winning other business so that this client's importance was minimized greatly.

I could go on and on about how so many other mini plots on this show were so similar to my experiences in our early days (but I won't). 'Mad Men' proves one important cliché- as much as things change, they tend to always stay the same. 'Mad Men' is clearly head and shoulders above almost anything else on TV these days.

How do you measure PR success?

That’s a never ending question for my industry. Ask 100 executives and there is a chance that you might actually hear 100 different answers (well, maybe 75 would be closer to the truth).

I’ve found that too many professionals continue trying to isolate the public relations discipline (or the value it provides) from the rest of the communications/marketing mix. In this day and age, this makes little sense. I’ve also continued to watch with amazement how more often than not, the discipline (itself) is still only equated to “old time” media relations concepts…especially as it refers to measurement.

Like many others, I joined a few Linkedin industry group discussions a while back. Usually, there are too many topics covered to actually keep up on a regular basis. But, every once in a while a thread of a conversation or debate catches my eye. Here’s one professional’s take on the issue at hand How Do You Measure Your PR Success? . While he makes some valid points, I’ll refer back to the problems I just laid out to respectfully disagree with many of Drew’s assertions. 

For starters, I disagree with his theory that PR campaigns cannot be measured based on sales achieved or rate or return. I’m paraphrasing, but Drew elaborates by stating that PR is a long term investment that can increase awareness of a product/service/expertise. But, that doesn’t mean skyrocketing sales will be the result.

There’s no doubt that PR professionals need to be careful when over promising that any individual campaign/program will lead directly to sales. This is especially the case if the product/service being marketed is not really unique, or the market is already saturated with competitive look a likes, or if the company behind it has almost no visibility (which means a lack of credibility with target audiences). That said, I’ve witnessed many recent campaigns leverage the integration of very creative social media, traditional media and experiential disciplines to generate real, honest to goodness sales.

One great example from a few years back is Crocs- children’s rubber shoes that have became a huge phenomena. I remember when the company made a tremendous outreach to mommy bloggers and national media years ago. If memory serves, the specialists behind Crocs created some type of online contest to draw moms in…and it worked! At that early point in the company’s growth, it spent very little on advertising. So, public relations really helped to directly impact the bottom line, as well as create a longer term, trusted reputation with moms everywhere.

While it’s often hard to separate where public relations and other marketing disciplines begin and end these days (because of the Internet), my point rests on the fact that the digital world has created real sales opportunities for companies that leverage PR the right way, where they never existed before.

Drew also tries to provide clarity on the difference between the value of an ad and an editorial article. I agree with his premise that an article tends to be more credible, but I’m not really sure how he came to the scientific number that it’s worth 3 to 10 times more than an ad Regardless, I think this debate should be put to rest for ever. Because it simply isn’t relevant anymore.

Today, communications disciplines (and what their end products create) matter much less than making sure that target consumers are communicated with when they want and how they want it. Again, the Internet creates a real blur between disciplines and the channels we use. The value of an article versus and ad isn’t relevant anymore. Now, we should only care about how a client’s messages might resonate. If that means combining a steady blogging campaign, with hard hitting in-market events, where target media might then write about your product (because they saw it talked about in blogs and through online media buys), so be it.

The latest buzz phrases in our industry are “channel and discipline agnostic.” The premise is spot on. We need to worry less about defending public relations against advertising because we’re all treading on each other’s turf now anyways. The article, by itself, is dead (as is the ad). Reaching the consumer through messages that are indeed in motion are what matter now.