Any journalists who were hoping the push-push-push style of public relations might recede are dreaming. Now we have Power PR promising "60 published articles per year" for its clients.
I hope they screen their clients well, because I'm pretty sure there are some organizations out there that couldn't achieve that volume of media coverage without kidnapping editors' family members and holding them hostage.
From the news release:
"Power PR achieves this high volume of published articles because it employs metrics and adheres to well-documented processes that help ensure results. For example, statistics are tracked for the number of: outgoing calls to editors, editors actually contacted, those considering placement of a story, and many other parameters. It is the constant monitoring of these numbers against set benchmarks that turns publicity from an art into a science."
And they're not talking about 3-paragraph items in the local paper, either. For the most part they go after feature-length pieces.
If you multiply the number of companies in the world by the 700 to 1,000 pitch phones calls it probably takes to achieve that kind of volume, and you begin to understand the dilemma facing news organizations and public relations people (whether on staff or on contract). They both need each other in order to achieve their goals.
But the more media relations people who use this one-target-fits-all approach, the more likely you are to have editors and reporters being harassed in order to flesh out the quota of calls and placements for the month.
Is this pay for performance or promising coverage? It sounds like the latter, which is far outside the realm of PR ethics. I'm sure they do a bang up job on ad equivalency too.
Posted by: Kevin Dugan | January 16, 2006 at 03:56 PM
Yeah, I'm not too impressed with the idea that you can guarantee placement. Plus, the assumption that placement will help a particular client achieve its business goals that year is a huge assumption. What if their goals would be better met in some other way?
Posted by: Eric Eggertson | January 16, 2006 at 07:03 PM
Two very funny posts, Eric. They reference something that is all too sad, as well. Puffery without substance in PR. Always sad to see and never does anything good for the discipline.
The key questions, as always, are 'where' the articles will be published. 'Who' will they reach. And that is followed by the 'what' will the placements do for the client. I note they do not make any promises there.
How convenient.
Posted by: Robert French | January 17, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Well, they have their work cut out for them.
Posted by: Allan Jenkins | January 22, 2006 at 08:13 AM