Why the 'Old PR' Game is Broken. Spend Wisely

Why the ‘Old PR’ Game is Broken. Spend Wisely – Online PR Rules…

POSTED BY: Roger Warner / CATEGORIES: Branding, Content Optimisation, Keywords, Online PR Agency, SEO, Social Media Agency, Social Media Marketing
POSTED ON: 19 Nov 2008
TAGS: Branding, Content Optimisation Agency, Content Optimization Agency, Keywords, Online PR Agency, SEO, Social Media Agency, Social Media Marketing

At C&M we work with a bunch of up and coming firms who have completely turned their back on ‘old PR’ as a means of driving awareness and revenue. The reason for this isn’t just because we’re a great Online PR Agency. It’s also because these companies are of a specific size and maturity and they’re simply not a good fit for ‘old PR’ tactics.

Here’s our (semi-controversial) hypothesis on what’s at play…

‘Old PR’ tactics and large PR Agencies no longer work as a revenue and brand building outlet for certain types of small to mid-sized companies who have a limited profile and budget…. The reason for this is because the ‘old PR’ game doesn’t scale very well.

I’ll explain why in a moment. First off….

Here’s a quick review of the mechanics of ‘old PR’

Acme Corp will pay PR&Co a monthly retainer to help convince reporters to write about them in print and online news media. PR&Co may offer additional services such as writing press releases and positioning and message consulting, but this is a second order of business to generating press interview opportunities – as it’s really only here where this stuff can be put into practice.

So, the primary function of ‘old PR’ is to act as a broker of relationships between Acme Corp and a set of reporters. And the reason that Acme Corp pays PR&Co a retainer to do this is because PR&Co – because of it’s track record in press relations – is able to do it better (and on a more flexible basis) than Acme Corp could in-house. In other words, Acme Corp is paying PR&Co to trade on its database of press contacts and relationships.

(At this point I should say that this stuff really does work extremely well in the right circumstances. The Acme Corps of this world can’t do this work effectively themselves unless they employ an army of PR consultants in-house – and even in this case a ‘old PR’ agency will tend to do a better job because they have a greater variety of experiences and reporter relationships by virtue of working on more than one account. And there are stacks of really great ‘old PR’ firms out there. Plus the flip side of this client/agency relationship is the relationship between ‘old PR’ agency and the media, which is also invaluable because reporters rely on good ‘old PR’ relationships to supply them with decent content to write about.)

As such, this setup tends to work best when Acme Co is either ‘hot’ or ‘loaded’ – ie, when it’s…

…an established brand that reporters really care about

…an innovative company that has ideas that reporters want to learn about

…a wealthy company capable of spending large amounts of money to convince reporters (and their agencies) that they really ought to care

But if your company doesn’t fit this description then there can be problems. You may be either a start up or a smallish fish in a big pond that struggles to be noticed. You may also have good ideas and products that don’t quite sit in the ‘killer’ category. And, of course, like many of us in today’s climate, money may be tight.

As such, I’m suggesting that these types of ‘contender’ firms shouldn’t spray their money on ‘old PR’ with a traditional PR agency in an effort to become ‘hot.‘ (Typically, I’m talking about those firms who are plugging away with a spend of £3k per month or less on ‘old PR’ services)… because the cards are stacked against them.

Here’s why…

‘Old PR’ Agency Service Models Don’t Scale Well to Accommodate Smaller Fish…

As mentioned, ‘old PR’ agencies trade on their relationships with reporters. These relationships are treasured, polished and nurtured over time. They are of incredible value to PR&Co – they’re the Coca Cola formula that the company sells to its clients; and they’re the assets that Acme Corp is really buying when it buys ‘old PR’.

The trouble is that they’re finite and that PR&Co also works with other – often bigger – clients. There are only so many relationships that PR&Co can establish within a given market, because there are only so many magazines and reporters that really matter. And it’s PR&Co’s express objective to nurture and protect these relationships by providing reporters with a steady stream of helpful, smart comment and ideas that will help them to write better stories and advance their careers (this is the end game for ‘old PR’ – the brokerage service). As such, the ability for PR&Co to provide a good service to reporters is dependent on its roster of clients and the quality of these company’s stories/pitches/ideas etc.

Now, this is all fine if Acme Corp is ‘hot’ or ‘loaded’ – because its commercial interests are perfectly aligned with the agency’s. But if you’re not so hot or not so flushed with cash, then the ‘old PR’ model gets a little bit broken because it doesn’t scale to accommodate your needs.

Look at it this way: if PR&Co has X number of clients (or more, if it’s a good agency), then every day it will make decisions that enhance its core assets (its media relationships) at the expense of some of its lesser clients interests – since some of its clients won’t possess powerful (or helpful) enough stories/pitches/ideas.

Or, to put it another way, how willing is PR&Co to pitch your story over and above any other story that it may be responsible for pitching? Are you ‘hot’ or ‘loaded’ enough to compete in this finite market of ideas and relationships?

An Alternative Way to Drive Your Brand: the Online PR Agency…

Alternatively, you could invest your time and money in an Online PR Agency. In fact, if you’re not currently ‘hot’ or particularly ‘loaded’ we’d say it’s the best thing to do right now.

Here’s why…

Great Online PR is primarily concerned with making you more noticeable in and around the web – via search engines like Google, and within the right online communities and blog networks and such. It aims to:

Generate real Online PR buzz when and where its needed most… (eg, a blog- and Twitter-torrent and Google stardom at the moment you’re pitching the big deal)

Get important people to do the things you really want them to do… (eg, drive people to crucial events, have them put their hands up, declare love for you and even buy stuff off the page)

And, as a healthy byproduct, this activity will tend to radically improve your PageRank (by using smart Content Optimization, SEO and link generation techniques).

Great Online PR is all about raising your brand awareness and driving web site traffic in an very tangible and measurable way via smart online networks.

Importantly, Online PR doesn’t have to maintain a set of relationships with a finite number of human beings. (It can do if you want to use Online PR tactics to feature in online news stories (ie, by doing media relations, online); but in order to generate the type of outcomes outlined above, traditional PR techniques aren’t really necessary). Instead, successful Online PR is driven via a different mechanism where search engines and other web-based networks are the middlemen. In other words, Online PR Agencies are in the business of convincing Google rather than reporters.

And this is the critical difference, because there’s no real concept of ‘scalability’ in Online PR. Unlike a reporter, Google can’t get enough of your content. In fact, the more the better. And unlike a traditional news media outlet, the web possesses a myriad of platforms that will all welcome your contributions. As such, a sensible spend with a good Online PR Agency ought to enable you to create great (well optimized) content and seed it in such a way to create buzz, excitement and, most importantly, search engine visibility. (And you don’t need to be burning ‘hot’ or ‘loaded’ to do it – you just need to be SMART. Check out this case study as a good example.)

(Note: I’m not talking about ‘content spamming’ here! I’m talking about smart generation, distribution and seeding of good content in the most appropriate outlets to drive quality traffic and boost your Google rankings on a set of pre-determined keywords.)

Conclusion: Think About Online PR First, ‘Old PR’ Second

Don’t get me wrong: my intention isn’t to rubbish ‘old PR.‘ I’d be a fraud if I did. This is my background, and I know that it works extremely well given the right client/agency fit – and there are many, many great ‘old PR’ agencies out there that do super work on behalf of their clients and their reporters.

My point is that in some cases ‘old PR’ simply won’t work because of the mechanics described above ….and yet many companies seem hell bent on spending their way out of this dilemma. (Believe me, lots of firms continue to burn cash in this way – as there are no shortage of agencies waiting to pick up the cheques….)

So if you’re looking to drive awareness, sales, signups and general web site traffic, my advice is to check out Online PR first. It’s an extremely simple way of standing out in a noisy marketplace. It may not buy you a framed reprint of an FT centre spread feature, but it’ll probably help you to drive sales via your web site in an extremely measurable and cost-effective way.

Besides, there’ll always be time for an executive press breakfast briefing after you’ve made your first £15 million….

Bookmark/Share

Jenny@DownloadGames

You have posted a very nice argument.
Roger Warner

Hi Andrew - thanks for your comment....

I was musing on this sort of thing this morning. I was framing it in a different, more basic way though. Essentially, the P in Online PR is all about Public - so, as you say... it's all about lead gen - ie, driving people to a place on the web where you're asking them to do stuff (sign up for a paper, buy, etc). Whereas the P in trad PR is often just Press - in your terms, a brand building exercise....

This is where I think trad PR has gone a little screwey. It's become all about Press - whereas its original mission was all about Public (lead gen). Which is a roundabout way of saying, yes, clients are asking us to do lead gen over brand work... because they're starting to shift spending away from the fluffy stuff and on to things that are either directly or indirectly responsible for a sale.... and are measurable....

Does that sound sensible, or have I completely mangled your comment and spewed out a bunch of nonsense!!?? : )

Cheers

Roger
Andrew Findlater

Roger, really interesting stuff. To what extent are you seeing the purpose of online PR extending from branding to lead generation? It seems to me there that some aspects of online PR are coming together with Content Marketing and Lead Management. Are you finding your clients asking for lead generation before brand awareness?

Andrew Findlater
Reed Business Information
Stetcoige

The good resource is informative and actual
Roger Warner

thanks for all your comments on this one - all great stuff. i've written a follow up piece to boil all this down... had some really interesting client conversations this week about the merits of Online PR vs trad PR... You can check it out here: http://www.contentandmotion.com/blog/tradional-pr-is-broken-vol-2-the-online-pr-bullet-list/
Roger Warner

Hi Robin. Not sure I follow you (although it is early on a Monday AM!!??!) My point is that the 'Public' in PR also use Google... and so an initial remit for PR ought to be Online as a more cost-effective and immediate means of making waves and driving interest - via SEO and any other Online PR...
Robin Grant

Roger, although there's nothing I'd disagree with in what you've said, your definition of online PR is an extremely narrow, search focused one. Remember that PR originally stood for "Public Relations"...
Roger Warner

hey david. spot on... i couldn't agree more. search (and being found) is one thing, validation and confidence is another - and this really needs the quality stamp of the WSJ.... my basic point is that securing the latter is expensive, and (per Ian's comment) it's risky. so, for a certain profile of company, money is better spent doing Online PR.... For Cisco, however, it's a must-do.
David McCulloch - CIsco PR

You make an interesting argument, Roger, but you can't afford to ignore that we're in a social transition here. When and if that transition is ever completed (another 25 years until my generation gets to retire?) we might see the demise of ‘old’ PR everyone is so fond of predicting. Until then, making the assumptions that (a) mainstream media is dead (b) everybody knows exactly what they're looking for, are risky. High Google rankings are great if customers are actively looking for you. If you're the type of start-up you say are your clients, then often you'll be selling something that people don't event know exists yet. Similarly, Twitter might help secure some early-adopters or triallists, but research consistently shows us that buyers of technology products (my industry) want third party validation from the media – or a referral from a company who has used the product – before they make a purchase. 140 characters may get their attention, but it won’t convince them to buy. A story in the Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, delivers both credibility and awareness in one swoop. Yes….I know that trust in mainstream media is eroding, but it hasn’t eroded yet. Twitter may have had 5.7M unique visitors last month but the UK's Sun newspaper and the New York Times get 3.5M and 1.5M every day. More importantly, those 5.7M Twitter visitors aren't all following each other and getting the full purview of all Twitter feeds. Every Sun and NYT reader, on the other hand, gets the same newspaper/online experience. A mass audience still counts for a lot in my book.

Ultimately, Cisco, and I personally are huge believers in Web 2.0, but there’s a reason customers of ours like Procter and Gamble only spend 2% of its advertising budget on online advertising….an awful lot of people still watch TV and read the paper!
Doug Kessler

I've always felt there were major inefficiencies in traditional PR (at least in 'Big PR'). Your thoughts on Online PR are a breath of fresh air.
Ian Delaney

It's about 'risks vs rewards', isn't it? Traditional PR hazards a larger amount of money against being picked up by Charles Arthur or someone. If they do pick you up, then that's genuinely worth 1000s of hours noodling away at content and Google. But the chances are slim.

If your company has a real press-friendly story, then traditional PR is quite possibly the quickest way forward. However, many small companies believe they have such a story, but don't - I delete 95% of the press releases I receive. Being very close to your business leads people to believe they are far more interesting than they are to other people.

For most companies, thinking carefully about *really* interesting subject areas that they can map onto and then creating useful, spreadable work around that subject - blogs, applications, widgets - will do them more good. The difficulty is that companies often believe they are far more newsworthy than they actually are. That's when money is wasted in traditional PR.

There's also the lasting value aspect. Great content on your own site yields rewards forever, but probably on a drip-drip basis. Hitting the front page of the Technology Guardian subsite lasts a few hours but can create massive traffic, and a promotion of your site from Google. Decide on the curve and expenditure you want.

Lastly, are you talented enough to create content that will attract readers and links on a long-term basis? Most of us aren't, or are too busy, and that's the reason PR firms exist in the first place. The answer might be a content and seo agency (or agencies).

blog comments powered by Disqus

RSS

What’s a Social Media Agency?

Rocket science not included. Proceed at ease...

Get the Scoop on Social Media PR…

Been there, seen it, bought T-Shirt, wrote it up....

What the Hell is Social SEO?

Clue: it's not spammy and it adds value to users....

ONLINE PR & SOCIAL MEDIA AGENCY KNOW-HOW

Roger Warner, Managing Director

Rowan Stanfield, Director of Creative and Planning

Michael Wilkins, Head of Social SEO & Analytics

Online PR & Social Media Blog /// MORE

Say Hello to Paul, Our Very Affable New Head of Accounts

As our original ad for the role stated, Paul’s job is to be more Mad Men than IM, Twitter, Foursquare and the rest. His job is to talk to all of our clients – preferably at a distance of three paces, and to get the Martinis in whenever they’re needed. Oh, and to always have a glowing report to hand.

POSTED ON: 01 Sep 2010 / POSTED BY: Roger Warner

Why do 95.769% of Social Media Projects Fail? PLANNING!

In C&M’s experience, failure to deliver value on Social Media projects is 95.769% down to the lack of a plan. Why? Because 95.6579% of the time Social Media is seen as free