The Pay For Play Conundrum, from Marketing Daily

The following piece was published in MediaPost's Marketing Daily on August 25, 2010

For the past few weeks, I've been following a discussion thread on a LinkedIn group for public relations professionals. The topic? Pay for Placement, which is really an offshoot of the pay-for-performance model.

In much of the business world, pay for performance (PFP) is quite acceptable. Attorneys do it with high-stakes cases. CEOs and executives' salaries are linked to their companies' and departments' overall performance. I've worked with ad agencies that have adopted (or least experimented) with PFP. Even the humble car salesperson operates this way.

Yet for most of the PR industry, PFP is considered a very bad concept.

That's because the perception of PR is not finite, at times ill-defined and intangible in many instances -- in contrast to, say, creating an ad campaign or defending a legal matter. In both these examples, there are tangible deliverables, an assumption of costs and an element of control.

Ad agencies will create ads and place them. They know exactly when and where their work will appear. Attorneys will build a strong case, prepare bulky legal briefs, go to court and win -- or lose. But in the case of PR, what responsibilities and tasks must a PR agency assume that go into scoring ink? Is it just one description, one objective -- to get placed "somewhere"?

Where does one PR campaign end and another begin when the client brief is simply to increase brand awareness and visibility? And what good is "buzz" when there isn't a strategic approach to managing a company's reputation and visibility? Because you have to assume that a company fixated on a PFP arrangement is not thinking about strategy as a priority.

But that really isn't the point. PFP may have been relevant 10 years ago before social media, blogs and free news content existed. It may well have worked when clients had a very limited choice of national broadsheets, and only a handful of print publications as their holy grails.

That model may have worked when we used to send press releases via fax, but this is now. And PFP doesn't work in PR and media now.

I would be a hypocrite if I didn't admit to toying with the idea in the past. I have been approached by companies burned by previous agencies to work on this basis. Their argument is always "you'll get paid if you get our name in print. That's what you do, right?"

Wrong. We do a whole lot more.

So here are a few arguments for why PFP doesn't work in PR and why you should scurry for the hills if a company asks for it.

1. We don't own media and can't guarantee you a placement in any publication because what we do is earned. We don't live in reporters' pockets -- we "earn" the right for your company or brand to appear in a given outlet. That's why you pay for advertising.

2. We can use our talents, storytelling and creativity to change perception and influence media (and readers), but we cannot force an article to appear no matter how relevant, timely or brilliant you think it is -- ever.

3. We work as much behind the scenes in getting media to pay attention to us and your story, i.e., researching trends, competitors, following reporters for months and of course creating an angle -- or several -- that is newsworthy. This doesn't happen overnight.

4. If we operate with a mindset that is focused on one fixed outcome only -- the proverbial ink -- doesn't it completely miss the point of integrating communications to deliver better ROI and results, which is what businesses are demanding of us now? And how does this affect the rest of the PR/marketing ecosystem; events, articles, surveys, whitepapers, social media and overall representation? Because we usually handle of all those, too.

5. And most importantly, how do we differentiate the value of placements? Is an online article that's been retweeted 4,352 times and lives in perpetuity more or less valuable than a mention in Inc. that is put out in the rubbish next month? Is the print version of The New Yorker more or less valuable than online? Or what about articles that get syndicated: does this mean you will pay for every article that gets republished once or 100 times? Is broadcast more or less valuable than print or online? Or what happens if the company is only mentioned and not "featured"? And what about social media -- is this not a placement as well?

There are so many questions in this case, but only one answer: No to pay for placement in PR.

In the words of Paul Del Colle, a fellow PRNews member: "If PR were a science, then PFP would make sense. If there were immutable principles and predictable outcomes, then PFP would be not only logical but the sole way of doing business." But it's not.

PFP is unethical; it lessens the overarching value of PR as a whole, and makes bad business sense for our industry on every level.

To read the article in Marketing Daily, click here

What Is The New Normal?

Reading an article in the New York Times last week called “But Will It Make You Happy?” struck me as sad, when it should have been uplifting (I think).

Cocooning is nothing new and a return to basics isn’t either. I lived through those phrases during the last recession and look how that turned out. But good on Wal-Mart for finding a way to capitalize on Americans’ desire to stay at home and spend more time with the family. Cha-ching. It seems no matter what the economic climate, most Americans will continue to find fulfillment via way of external sources, i.e., shopping, shopping and shopping. While it’s admirable that people like Tammy Strobel and Logan Smith can downgrade their living needs to just a couple of plates, a cup and a pair of shoes, that is hardly doable for the majority of American families. Besides, where is the balance in that?

And while it’s great to read that “current research suggests, unlike consumption of material goods, spending on leisure and services typically strengthens social bonds, which in turn helps amplify happiness,” will the focus on creating experiences versus the accumulation of material goods continue once the good times roll round again? I am undecided.

Which brings me to the V-shaped economic rebound.

Forbes analysts Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein recently launched a new column. Their prediction, which was released in advance of the official GDP stats last month (read here), told us that we are well on our way to a robust recovery, a V-shaped economic rebound. Their diagnosis included two generally held predictions: that we are bound to slip into another recession, or Depression Part 2, or that the economy is recalibrating to a ‘New Normal’ marked by anemic growth and persistently high unemployment. The latter sounds more like it.

Given that the vast majority of economists and analysts were caught unawares by the global financial meltdown and the severity of the recession that followed, the temptation to avoid the appearance of Pollyannaism at all costs is great. It is hard to argue with the unemployment numbers, which have shown precious little signs of improvement. And it is hard for me to conceive of a robust recovery without a substantial uptick in the number of Americans gaining full-time employment.

I’m no economist, but I think I am seeing more of the New Normal out there than anything else right now.

And then I have to ask myself, what exactly is the New Normal anyway?

You're In the News Baby!

Just about every business thinks theirs is newsworthy. That's why companies like ours exist.

But the problem with establishing what's newsworthy and what isn't comes down to perception, objectivity, good storytelling and knowledge (of media) - which is very hard to do when you're in a vacuum or if you really have no idea about the expectations and needs of media outlets.

My colleague at TravelInk'd, Jennifer Rodrigues, wrote a great piece this week called Is Your Hotel (News) Worthy?. While aimed at the hotel industry, the 10 tips that Jenn writes about can be applied to almost any business.

You can read the entire article at Hotel Interactive here.

From MobileMarketer - 5 Arguments On Why Mobile is Indispensable To Marketing Plans

As the readers of this column will certainly agree, mobile marketing is no fad.

Rather, I believe that mobile marketing will – and must – become a central part of every successful marketing and visibility strategy, and I think it is well on its way to becoming just that.

However, the integration of mobile marketing into existing marketing strategies on a large scale will not happen spontaneously.

Instead, it will come about through a concerted effort to educate companies and other organizations about the benefits and unique qualities of mobile outreach.


This is not to say that the mobile marketing industry will somehow foist preferred tactics on unsuspecting businesses. The integration of mobile marketing will occur – and is occurring – naturally, organically.

Teach reach
Enterprises across the nation and the world are already realizing the tremendous reach and penetrating power of leveraging the mobile device for marketing purposes, and they are coming to this realization by discerning the trends and facts on the ground.

Hundreds of millions of Americans – nearly 90 percent of the country – use their mobile devices every day, and a solid majority of them express a desire to receive marketing messages of some sort through their mobile.

Redemption rates for mobile initiatives dwarf those of traditional marketing programs. Indeed, the cost per impression of a mobile campaign is often far lower than that of a mainstream media advertising campaign.

But you know this already.

The role we must play as marketers and mobile industry professionals is that of educators for the rest of the business community that has not yet fully embraced mobile marketing, or that portion which subscribes to the notion that mobile is somehow just a flash in the pan.

It is our job, in other words, to convince organizations that sitting on the sidelines of mobile is not an option, and that doing so carries an opportunity cost too high to sustain.

More constructively, it is also our job to continue touting the best practice and most effective strategies to get the most out of mobile communications.

Since standing on the street corner wearing a sandwich board is out, this proselytizing starts at the level of existing and potential clients.

In that vein, here are five effective arguments to present to clients on why mobile marketing ought to be an indispensible aspect of their marketing plans.

It is where your customers are
As I mentioned, mobile phone saturation is nearly complete in the developed world, and the use of mobile devices is on the rise just about everywhere.

This makes the mobile landscape the place of residence for most – not many, most – of the world’s consumers. Engaging in a mobile strategy opens up this vast market to any business that wants to participate in it.

To continue reading, click here.

Wikileaked. Now What? / from Mediapost

A little more than a year ago, I kicked off this column with an article called "Journalism Rocks." Now, after the Wikileaks fiasco, that headline could read "Journalism Rocked."

Wikileaks' "sharing" of some 90,000+ classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan has raised many sensitive issues, politically and from a media perspective. The most obvious of these is whether it is ethically correct to publish classified materials -- particularly if they could compromise national security. This is a polarizing question and one that divides journalistic opinion as to the very existence of sites like Wikileaks, which strives to remove all barriers to information (even the barrier of military classification).

Although the materials released by Wikileaks don't appear to have compromised national security -- yet -- they have cast a bigger shroud over the continued conduct of the war in Afghanistan, and likely further eroded public support for a desperately unpopular conflict. They have also highlighted the nature of media today and the role sites like Wikileaks play within it; the output of traditional media outlets and the so-called unvarnished, undigested, and importantly, un-vetted material put forward by new media and the blogosphere.

I see this contrast in terms of slant and opinion versus independently verifiable news, with accuracy and neutrality as valuation (and valuable) metrics. In this respect, information "dumps" like Wikileaks avoid the objection of being opinion masked as news and score high on neutrality, unlike the left-right media bias that has been swelling since the before the last election.

But as this leak has demonstrated, ensuring accuracy is a huge concern for news organizations everywhere. Wikileaks may twinkle with the glorification of democratized journalism, but it suffers from a profound lack of editorial superstructure that helps ensure accuracy and relevance.

Which is precisely what we have come to, and should, expect from our news sources.

To continue reading, click here.

Not for Love and Money

Earlier this week, I shared a link on my facebook page: “A Fool And His Money Are Soon Parted” after reading a ridiculous article in TIME Magazine about high-rollers stumping up $50,000-$100,000 to find a mate. Can money buy love? Ask any celebrity.


The service's pitch claims that the matchmaking “investment” could prevent them from a costly divorce, and that today people are just too busy to look for a mate. Personally, I find these arguments inherently flawed, for two reasons;

1. Anyone who lists income as a criteria for being matched (or not), is paving the path for a gold-digger. Show me a wealthy man who has found a match with a woman NOT looking for a wealthy mate. True love? Show me the pre-nup, I say!

2. Furthermore, if you are too busy to find a mate yourself, you are probably too busy to have a healthy, fulfilling relationship – mentally, spiritually and physically.


Finding a life companion isn't about matching multiple choice questions and answers, or colour by numbers. Paying someone to take away the responsibility (and in many cases, heartache) of finding the right partner is a guaranteed way – in my mind at least – of NOT finding the right person.


Of course, this is just my opinion. I have not polled any high-rollers or couples who have met through elite matchmakers. But still.


And for the rest of you without a spare $100,000 to spend on lurve, there is MeetMoi, http://www.meetmoi.com/welcome - a new “proximity based dating application.” Proximity may be a criteria to interact, but it really doesn't sound very sexy, does it?


Okay. I am off to contact the MeetMoi founders about helping with their messaging (read the press release they issued yesterday and you'll see what I mean). Then I’m going to test out this concept on my phone - for research purposes only as I’m married.

On 'The View,' Obama courts approval in an uncommon setting

Communicator-in-chief puts forth key goals and successes to an essential demographic

President Obama sat down with the ladies of "The View" yesterday in what has been reported as the first appearance by a sitting U.S. president on a daytime talk show. We are not talking about a “ladies who lunch” session or something as base as a Jerry Springer production, so why the big deal?

There is, of course, some hairsplitting in that reportage: President Bush actually claims first digs at this title, as he taped a segment at the Crawford ranch with Dr. Phil back in 2004. But there is a distinction between a president who allows an interviewer to bring the production to him, and one who physically goes into a studio and engages in lively dialogue with five TV personalities.

Why that distinction is gaining so much traction in the media is a function of some familiar factors.

The left/right ping-pong match

Conservative media outlets have seized upon Obama’s appearance as a denigration of the presidency, contending that an interview on a show that might next week host a teenager starring in a movie about vampires is somehow beneath the commander-in-chief. This sells short "The View"; the recently returned Barbara Walters conducted the bulk of the questioning, and she was as incisive and insightful as she has been with just about every other head of state over the past 30 years. The rest of the cast were as engaging, and the studio audience utterly respectful. So it’s hard to see any harm done to the office simply by virtue of the platform. Had the segment been hosted on Fox News Network, what would the argument have been? And tell me how this appearance differs from one on Dr. Phil?

"The View's" format provided Obama the opportunity to present his policy goals and administration’s achievements in a plainspoken and tangible way. As the world witnessed during 2008, Obama thrives in this environment, distilling complex questions and ideas without oversimplifying them and without bewildering average citizens with his Ivy League intellect. Delivering his message in this way on "The View" struck a decidedly populist note, which I am sure contributed to both conservative media’s outrage and to the mainstream’s fascination with this appearance.

‘Getting’ media

Obama and his administration’s approach to media have exhibited plenty of populist moves, including making the first appearance by a sitting president on a late-night talk show (actually, President Dwight Eisenhower taped a segment for Ed Sullivan, but let’s just go with it) and executing the most wide-ranging social media and grass-roots online outreach campaigns of any administration.

One could argue, therefore, that Obama’s appearance on a daytime chat show is simply an extension of his administration’s media and outreach strategy—and very illustrative of its media savvy. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs put it, “People have busy lives, and it’s best to go where they are.”

Is it a populist tactic? Sure it is. Is it realistic and reflective of our times and the role in which media plays? Absolutely.

Click here to continue reading.