Media coverage or your PR for free?
I’m all for reassessing how you do business in the light of a recession and maybe offering your customers something different/more affordable that will work better for them in these challenging times.
Today I received a story pitch from a PR agency (not surprisingly) about the PR agency itself (a bit different). It was about its decision to work for clients for free unless media coverage was achieved for them in 3 months. It’s a bit like those ‘no win, no fee’ legal firms and it went like this:
“Australia’s favourite PR agency, (name here) is helping businesses in these tough economic times by launching a national marketing stimulus package that guarantees media coverage or they work for free.
In a bid to encourage Australian entrepreneurial growth companies to make continued investments in marketing, (name here) guarantees to secure media exposure for clients in newspapers, magazines, television or radio within three months of being engaged or they will work for free until this goal is achieved.”
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.
Perhaps I’m overreacting and this is in fact a very clever strategy. I’m interested in your opinions. What are other PR companies doing to stay in business when it’s often one of the first things companies drop when times are tough?
I ran it past another PR contact who said: “The only way you can ‘guarantee’ coverage is if you are placing an ad.”
I deliberately haven’t named the agency in question but if they want to ‘fess up, I’d be happy to see their comments below.
This does not sit well with me! The only way you can ‘guarantee’ coverage is if you are placing an ad. The media landscape is independent – which means at the end of the day whether a story runs depends on the editor. To say to your clients that you are guaranteeing coverage is rubbish – if that was the case then the integrity and independence of media goes out the window!
We’ve certainly been asked by potential clients if we’d consider being paid for coverage – a success fee they call it – but we’ve always turned them down.
We believe that our work goes well beyond column centimetres and actually consider it an insult to be asked that question.
As you rightfully pointed out there is definitely no guarantee when it comes to editorial coverage and I’d hate to think of any of our people desperately calling anyone and everyone just so we can get paid.
Thumbs down from us.
I think the PR company, rather than implying they have some sway of the media, are really just trying to illustrate how good they are at what they do. Any PR would admit they can’t ‘make’ a journo run something on one of their clients BUT if their relationships (and calibre of clients) are good enough, they probably can guarantee coverage.
Also, how are they quantifying ‘coverage’? A one line mention in some obscure news brief is very different to a full-page feature! I would hope their potential clients are clarifying this with them before they sign on the dotted line!
Hmmm – seems a bit of a odd proposition! And a disservice to the corporate/business communications industry – never mind journalists. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the end of the three months when the negotiations starts. “Well we could of, but your spokesperson wasn’t available…” “We had the media’s interest, but you couldn’t provide a customer to comment.” The list of arguments is probably as long as the decimal of pi…
Or maybe they are signing up the NRL – plenty payment coming their way then… Or maybe they have Pacific Brands as a client? In that case all the staff are getting bonuses and this year’s Christmas party will be the best one ever!
Anyway, good on you for not running the story as it smacks of cheap publicity – and I think the model suggested may even be in contravention of the PR Code of Conduct – which yes, I suspect some may find a paradox – but there is a framework that many do adhere to.
Anyway, if anyone wants to guarantee coverage – no need to buy advertising. Just get the CEO to dance nude across the stage at the next industry event – I’m pretty certain it will generate coverage. OK, maybe not at Sexpo…
BTW – I work at Hill & Knowlton – need to tell you this, a requirement of our social media principles. Love a good debate – but still prefer it over a beer rather than the Internet.
This old chesnut comes around every seven years/downturn and goes to show how little the outside world values media relations (after all, this is only one element of true PR) and how the inside world denigrates its own reputation.
Would a business consulting firm offer no fees for three months if it didn’t help get a sale or a customer interaction at the end of it?
What happens to existing clients? Can they claim three months free? What happens post-downturn?
Where’s the ‘what if’ planning in all of this? Any business must do the maths and identify how to mitigate risk before desperation kicks in.
An interesting point on the code, Jorn. You’re probably referring to this section of the PRIA code?:
# Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their
consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the
achievement of specified results.
I agree that we cannot control the media…I had a situation where it looked as though we had a good turn out of TV reporters to an event but unfortunately it coincided with the Victorian bushfires and many journalists ended up cancelling. There are always factors beyond your control despite having an interesting story with substance and contacts but the best thing to is move on and continue to look for opportunities. Still, I’m not a fan with the ‘coverage or you don’t pay model’ because you need that cover. This agency, I hope they’re at least getting reimbursements for resources used.
Jen – Let me preface my remark by saying that I am not writing on behalf of the PRIA but simply as a PR professional who cares a lot about my profession.
I think you are right – I feel that ‘no win, no fee’ services compromise professionalism (would you ever ask your doctor or accountant to charge on a success basis?). PR should be charged on hourly rates or set project fees quoted in advance to do the job, whatever the result.
Media coverage cannot be guaranteed and the outcomes achieved may not reflect the amount of work that has gone into the media relations process. Measuring the success of public relations on the basis of media coverage is reminiscent of the days when Advertising Value Equivalence was a common evaluation method (now deemed by the PRIA to be unethical).
Let me also point out that Item 6 of the PRIA Code of Ethics, states that “Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the achievement of specified results.”
Interesting comment Llyod. You’re quite right in that media coverage doesn’t always reflect the work that’s gone into it…It should be about outcomes and not output and it’s our job to remind our clients of that. Many clients are process-driven.
Good food for thought. I think it underminds what PR essentially (should be) about… and there are definately no guarantees. That\’s the beauty of PR – and what sets it apart from advertising. Some clients really do have compelling stories to tell, in which case this could be a valid idea from a purely \’PR-business perspective\’ (i.e. minimal time to achieve outcome). But there is nothing worse than being a PR person who knows it\’s a non-story but has to pitch it anyway (nor the journo at the other end)… because the client desperately wants coverage in XXX. At least if you are paid for your counsel, not just media hits, you can manage expectations and advise \’no\’. But something I find a little more concerning is the lack of \’bigger picture\’ thinking for the client – what does the coverage say? how does it help/hinder the client\’s business/cause? Was it achieved based on the merit/news value of the story, or because you \’pulled a favour\’ (which could be considered as being on par with an ad).
But, on the flip side, the sheer desperation to get coverage may very well see some super creative media releases come out of the agency! Or some super stunts at least. Lets hope, anyway.
These are my personal views, but for the sake of transparency, i\’m at PPR.
To be honest it’s a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of clients who set targets in their contracts, so if you don’t reach the goals that are expected or that you promised at the beginning, then you probably won’t be paid.
I think the fact that they have used the current in-word ‘stimulus’ shows this as another company jumping on the GFC bandwagon.
I think the real question here is are they helping companies, or harming them? If you have budget for a PR campaign then shop around and go with the agency that you believe can do the job for you, not the ones that say they won’t charge you if they bugger things up.
In most cases you going to get one chance to launch or announce the service / product / etc you are offering, and if you get it wrong then that opportunity is lost. Not having to pay for the mistake is little recompense when you consider the overall damage this failure might cause to the long term.
I’m at PPR Sydney.
Laura I’m with you on this one. They are guaranteeing coverage because they are very confident in their ability to deliver results. I really don’t see the big deal here. Good business strategy that other PR agencies aren’t willing to embark upon because they obviously don’t believe strongly enough in what they do.
To the PR people – You shouldn’t be so skeptical and cynical. Also you should see this as a good thing. Marketing dollars go first, followed by marketing/PR job. As such these types of strategies will keep more of you in the office than in line at Centrelink. Regardless of whether you’re the best PR peep in the country if you don’t deliver for whatever reason you are in trouble. This will give you more of an opportunity to deliver in difficult times.
This is a win for the client and a win for the PR agency. They should be commended for taking a risk in this environment and safeguarding more jobs as a result. I’d like to know who it is so i can employ their services!
putting the ethics aside, yes it’s a clever ploy – the PR firm may even get themselves some valuable coverage out of it, but it’s also a gamble.
my policy is if it’s not a story I don’t release it. this is the boy who cried wolf principle. if you keep crying news, then releasing rubbish, journalists will ignore you and the genuine stories start to suffer.
your job as an intermediary between an organisation and the media is to make sure you’re helping that organisation find stories that will work, rather than harassing journalists to run stories on the new ‘superwidget 2.0′, which is something any idiot could do.
having said that, finding an angle that will work is often not that hard.
Doug Johns – I like the way you dissected that and have to agree with you from a performance target point of view.
What about this scenario: You have a company with no PR budget but see this campaign as a safe opportunity to get involved. The agency has then won a client that was other wise non-existent. Thoughts?
I was interested to learn about the PRIA code because I don’t think it’s a bad idea to remunerate on results. The idea of ‘guaranteeing’ results is the sticking point in most of the comments here, but I say why not try the model? I really think this debate has become about the guarantee of results, not the model.
When Lloyd says “would you ever ask your doctor or accountant to charge on a success basis?” I don’t think he is comparing apples with apples. Medicine and accountancy are both professions, which means ordinary and unqualified people cannot undertake the work; this has a legal element to it as well, as any judgements must be made by a body of their peers.
As it stands, anyone can hang a shingle outside their shop and call themselves a PR person. (Just to be fair, as it stands, anyone can hang a shingle outside their shop and call themselves a journalist too).
So, my point is, if this incentive makes the PR firm work harder for a business and be more creative then I see no problem with it. If you think PR is just about hours, not results (direct or indirect as those results may be) then become a marketing consultant. If you have PR but nobody hears or sees it, is it really PR?
Richard – is that not called pro bono?
Adeline – Yes anyone can hang a shingle and be whatever they want. Funny enough as more and more journalists lose their jobs they are hanging a shingle and calling themselves PR consultants – but PR is a lot more than a 30 second grab or a headline. Journalists do not qualify as members of the PRIA.
To qualify for membership for the PRIA you must have worked in PR for more than 5 years full time or have done an accredited degree – which brings the time served down to 3 years.
We might not be having this discussion if more organisations insisted that their PR people were signed onto the profession’s code of ethics and were properly qualified.
If I had a passion for brain surgery but no qualifications – I doubt anyone would let me drill a hole in their skull and play with their brains.
Just because you can someone will employ you to do PR doesn\’t mean you can. The profession has channelled 60 years of learning and experience into university degrees – degrees which are often harder to get into than medicine or journalism.
For transparency – I am the National Info Officer of the PRIA – but my views are entirely my own and do not represent the PRIA.
Jorn – Sorry you must have misunderstood. Pro-bono would be free work altogether, I’m talking about a company that had no PR plan and budget in place or who didn’t plan on spending any money at all. However, with this deal they saw a safe opportunity and thereby decided to spend $$ in PR that otherwise would not have been spent. This PR agency have thus converted nothing into something.
Anyway if you PR people can’t achieve one little mention in 3 months in the massive amount of magazines, journals, newspapers, radio stations etc etc etc that abound these days, then you should be out of a job.
I’m not denigrating PR, or PRIA or what it takes to be a good PR person. I think it is admirable that an organisation like PRIA exists. I am, however, saying that there is no legal or competency prerequisite to go into PR and I can tell you that I know just as many good PR people who have never completed tertiary study and are not members of any organisation, than have.
What this PR firm is trying to do may be against the PRIA code (and I would actually love to find out why that particular clause exists if anyone could enlighten me), but it is not against the law and I don’t see it as unethical.
I would compare it to a freelance journalist trying to sell a story on speculation – if it doesn’t get published, they don’t get paid. True, the savvy journalists don’t do it this way because it is a scattergun approach that rarely works, but if that is the risk the PR firm wants to take, that’s their decision. It may be a bad idea, but it’s not illegal, it’s not unethical and if it works, congrats to them.
Adeline
You are joking! Let me point out that you ARE denegrating 60 years of this profession’s drive to be ethical, professional and well educated.
What you HAVE demonstrated is a window into the mind of a journo: “it’s not unethical (sic) if it works”.
The fact you even mention the “scattergun approach” shows the true nature of journalism and why unethical PR wannabees can even think of getting around you with non-stories that might gain some traction in a ‘no win, no fee’ campaign.
Which part of my post: “Let me also point out that Item 6 of the PRIA Code of Ethics, states that “Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the achievement of specified results” didn’t you understand?
You see PR people HAVE to listen to their constituents because public relations is about having a relationship with your stakeholders – which means not just talking – but listening. Something that journos are just starting to learn how to do…
I am sure my profession will appreciate your admiration but will want you to start thinking a bit more deeply about the FACTS: http://www.alliance.org.au/resources/download/code_of_ethics/
Again for transparency – I am the National Info Officer of the PRIA – but my views are entirely my own and do not represent the PRIA.
Lloyd, as Adeline’s colleague I can assure you she has respect for and great relationships with a lot of very professional PR people and it would never be her intention to denegrate your profession. I also appreciate your input to this blog as someone with a lot of valid experience and information, so thank you.
Jen with great respect – one of our competencies is to listen – and when you listen you can often tell what other people are actually saying. One of our founders is Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud – who invented psychoanalysis).
So you should be sure what Adeline is actually saying before you defend her.
When we are looking into the eyes of a CEO in a crisis we need to know that what they are saying is the truth – because we often have to advise an organisation to do things shareholders loathe. In a democratic society, Journos are tasked with finding the truth – and if we don\’t know the truth then we cannot represent our clients.
Journos have an ethical responsibility to seek the truth. In the end it is your readers that will decide if you are transparent and honest. My view is that Journos are becoming less reliable – and the decreasing number consumers of news are evidence that your readers also feel you are not achieving the Journalistic aspirations as stated in your code of ethics. Take a long look at yourselves before turning your gun on PR.
http://mumbrella.com.au/naked-publishes-names-of-the-journalists-it-hoaxed-2142
For transparency – I am the National Info Officer of the PRIA – but my views are entirely my own and do not represent the PRIA.
Lloyd, I’m from the UK, home of the trashy tabloid, so I know all about unreliable journalism. But that’s a whole other issue to the one being discussed here. I’m sure Adeline will defend herself tomorrow
Morning Jen – you are right – sorry for my completely off topic rant! I have bitten my tongue for so long while journos, politicians and social commentators use public relations (and their favourite term “spin”) as some coverall scapegoat for bad behaviour (often their own) and I snapped last night and probably over reacted!
Adeline – I am sure you are a fine upstanding example of the journalistic craft – and let’s agree that neither journalism nor public relations can truly define themselves as a profession. Largely because we do not have legislation that gives us a license to operate.
That being said – on the PRIA’s 60th birthday I think we are driving hard to ensure that despite not having black letter law to govern us – we draw up strong professional principles that we adhere to.
Jen your article is a good example of something that is probably a breach of our code of ethics and we take it very seriously – in fact we are amongst the only professional body to fight an ethics case all the way to the High Court.
Adeline I will seek to come back to this blog with an explanation of why that clause exists from our College of Fellows sometime next week.
Again for transparency – I am the National Info Officer of the PRIA – but my views are entirely my own and do not represent the PRIA.
Can I redirect the discussion slightly away from the merits of a good PR person and look at this on a business level for a moment?
Anyone who has worked in a senior level in a PR agency (or indeed any services supplier) for any length of time will know it is not uncommon for clients to try to avoid contractual obligations – notice periods are abused, unpaid invoices stack up… any loop hole that can be found to wrangle on a contract when the company decides (for any number of reasons) not to continue investing in PR is identified and leveraged.
I would be loath to adopt this payment by results approach because it would negate one of my basic checks on any prospect before I invest my team’s effort into working for them. Are they serious about this?
Richards comments seem to me to boil down to a basic premise of ‘any business is good business’ but that is not the case. The safety of a PR professionals job does not hang on whether they have lots of work to do, but whether the agency is making any money from that work.
In good times and bad it is best practice for any services company to credit check a prospect, and if the results look shakey ask them to pay in advance. Our ability to deliver should be proved through case studies and references as well as concessions on trial projects – it should not manifest itself in a payment-by-coverage model. It demeens our work (which is about much more than even the broadly defined ‘media relations’) and ultimately will leave an agency in a precarious position.
In the interests of … (because everyone else seems to be saying this!) I work for Kinetics.
Lloyd, you are taking this to a PR vs journalism debate and that is not my argument at all. For the record, I never wrote “it’s not unethical if it works”, I wrote “it’s not unethical AND IF IT WORKS CONGRATS TO THEM” (emphasis added) because, returning to the issue, I don’t think getting payment for results is unethical at all.
Now, that’s ME. However, what I haven’t yet discovered, and maybe as PRIA’s National Info Officer you can explain this to me, is why Item 6 exists. I’m perfectly prepared to listen to/read what you have to say if you promise you’ll stay on the argument rather than talking about something else (some of which I agree with on many levels).
I’ll give you an example to start you off: donation of blood must be voluntary to ensure safe blood supply ie if you start paying for blood, people would start to lie about the safety of their blood to attain payment.
So, finish this sentence: “Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the achievement of specified results” BECAUSE..?
I also reiterate that neither PR nor journalism are professions. The three criteria for a profession are: lack of specialist legal procedure (if a doctor malpractices, s/he is judged by a jury of his/her peers, this does not occur for those in PR or journalism); lack of mandatory membership to a recognised profession body (as yet, it is not compulsory for PR reps to join PRIA before they can call themselves PR reps); minimum standard of education or competency (as yet, it is not compulsory for PR reps to undertake any specific form of qualifications to call themselves a PR rep).
Lloyd, I recognise your passion for PR but legally speaking, PR is not a profession. You can be professional in your work, but that does not make your vocation a profession.
So, in all, my point is that since PRIA membership is not compulsory, this PR firm does not need to adhere to the PRIA code of ethics and therefore does not need to be judged by said code when running their business. You think it’s unethical because you are judging their actions by the code. As someone who is not applying the code, I see no problem with their tactics.
Adeline – I have already agreed – please read my previous post. As mentioned – I will come back with the “BECAUSE” as soon as I can.
So PR = publicity only?
This level of naivety misrepresents what we do in PR. Publicity is one aspect, but influencing and conditioning markets and audiences is not a one-dimensional exercise, as simple as just placing stories.
Frankly, the offer from this agency and this online debate is off-track. True PR is not transactional but it can be measured in the attitudes it changes and perceptions it alters. Media placement is just one aspect of what we do. If you think that’s all we do, then you work in a one-dimensional agency, with uni-dimensional management and are ill-serving your clients.
Disclaimer: I work at Ogilvy PR (Howorth Communications) and this is my personal opinion, not my company’s.
I have spoken to the agency in question and they will be commenting here later today or tomorrow.
I’m not a big fan of this concept – particularly as a means of recruiting new clients. It is difficult enough to educate clients who are new to the concept of PR that payment is not result based! Having said that, if it is only one piece of coverage in a 3 month period that they are promising, I doubt any journalists have to worry about the PR reps twisting their arm or compromising their integrity… If they can’t achieve any coverage at all in 3 months then they need to re-evaluate their strategy! As I said though… I still don’t like the concept.
I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.
Richard et al – I’m being pedantic. Given that one better have budget in this model – else the firm delivers and then there’s a massive scramble to pay the bill. Anyhow – was hoping someone would take me up on the beer offer given I speak faster than I type – and the enjoyment is in the talking. But nice to see the passion and opinion out there – maybe we can take it verbal at the next industry gig – if there’s any money left to host a ‘gig’
Hello all, my name is Sally Romano and I’m the Founder and PRincipal of Publicity Queen and it is indeed our offer of getting media coverage for our clients or we work for free that’s causing this glorious PR frenzy!
Firstly let me say, that even though I’m somewhat taken aback that Publicity Queen is at the centre of this debate, can I say how pleased I am that there is a passionate, public discussion about PR, its methods and merits.
OK, now the guarantee…
I’m a fully qualified, highly experienced PR professional who is a PRIA member (and I know Lloyd and bless him for his valour) but in reality we’re not contravening any code – we are simply saying that if we do not get traditional media coverage for a client who has engaged us for a period of three months, we will voluntarily withdraw future invoices until we fix the problem.
I completely agree with Bazza and Brooke, if we can’t drive those results for a client within that timeframe, then seriously, we need to be doing something else for a living!
This guarantee is based on offering our two stakeholder groups, clients and journalists, greater value and is based on a two-fold premise:
1. We choose to work with clients who are entrepreneurial, ambitious and have the commercial acumen to carve a clear point of differentiation in the market (we often help them with that) and in working closely and intrinsically with these clients we can then identify and prepare high quality content for journalists; and
2. We also work very closely with journalists so as to understand their needs and preferences, to build rapport and trust so that over time, they know that can rely on us for high quality content and ideas.
I’m a loyal supporter of journalists, their integrity and their independence (without it there would be no PR industry) so it’s counter-intuitive to pitch a dud story into a journalist out of sheer desperation for payment – that is ludicrous and would surely damage your reputation in a nanosecond.
The media guarantee under much debate here is actually the culmination of more than two years’ work – we have a unique PR methodology, TRUEpublicity which was trademarked in 2007.
Through TRUEpublicity we are committed to driving the accountability of PR and to this end, we have developed a number techniques and tools to achieve this.
I am a passionate entrepreneur myself, so in actuality, I’m only doing what I like to see my clients do!
The other interesting point is that Publicity Queen is in fact a client of Publicity Queen – we want to experience our own TRUEpublicity service so that we have first-hand experience of it and can continue to improve our processes and outcomes for clients – we are actually practising what we preach.
And to Laura and Richard – you got it straight away – thank you.
And I’m with Adeline, I too want to know what’s behind Item 6 in the code – I look forward to your comments Lloyd.
Sally Romano BA BBus (PR) MPRIA
After some years in the communication/pr industry I certainly disagree with the no coverage ne fee approach. As others have mentioned it is very simplistic and gives a simplistic view of what pr professionals do.
For example some pr professionals work within crisis management and issues management area – in fact NOT getting a story in the media may in fact equate to a successful outcome in some particular circumstances.
We have moved away with good reason from AVES to more sophisticated ways of measuring success it would be disappointing to go backwards. The development of an industry from ‘outputs’ to ‘outcomes’ shows the industry maturing – ‘no media no fees’ flies in the face of that.
Cheers
I think we’re all in violent agreement on the fact that debate about these issues is a good thing.
A couple of quick points:
Emilio’s points about PR being more than publicity are spot on.
I’m surprised that Sally thinks the offer doesn’t contravene the PRIA’s Code. My initial reaction was that it might. Even if it does, as far as I know, the PRIA doesn’t have a strong record of enforcing the Code anyway (to the detriment of the craft I think).
I look forward to reading more about this from the agency, and PRIA.
Sally, congratulations for your innovative approach to your industry. Clearly I am not in PR however as a new business I have to say that handing over large retainers each month for a service that doesn’t guarantee a minimum result is very daunting. Particularly if you are new to it, you certainly question it’s overall value (not the value of the work itself) Your guarantee reassures the client essentially that you have experience and the right relationships in your professional field – I am assuming you are not working for free too often. There are many guarantees like this around in other industries. Good for you!
I own a small business and have been a client of a PR company in the past and from where I sit, this sounds like a wonderful promise.
I think one of the greatest fears as a client is that you will be handing over a relatively large amount of the business’ money for potentially no benefit at all. The spend on PR can be a huge risk/gamble. Obtaining a mention/story/product image in a magazine or newspaper does not necessarily guarantee sales but what if your PR company does not achieve any mention at all? Even if the guarantee does little more than reassure the client that their money will not be totally wasted, what is wrong with that? The client already has an expectation that at least some PR will be secured or else why would they be parting with their money?
And as a PR company if you are not confident that you can secure at least one piece of PR for the client in 3 months then is it not unconscionable to accept the brief in the first place? I’m sure the client would rather keep their money if you think it is impossible to achieve some PR.
Perhaps my view will be considered naive and I acknowledge that I have not read all of the comments preceding but from a client’s perspective I think Publicity Queen’s strategy is a good one. It is an appealing and reassuring commitment that the PR company is going to do everything they can to get you PR – isn’t that what the client is entitled to expect anyway.
What a toss.
Well, the hardest thing for a PR agency to do is to generate PR on themselves! Well done, Sally.
I think what Sally has done is a clever way of generating some awareness of her own business simply by communicating very effectively what most agencies do – commit to generating publicity for an agreed fee with a client.
Unfortunately there are a number of agencies out there who promise the world and then severely under-deliver and hence are doing a great job of destroying the reputation of other PR agencies to clients as well as media. As the saying goes – once burned, twice shy.
I don’t believe I would agree to work with a client who I wasn’t confident I could generate publicity for or successfully deliver a PR campaign for them as it would only be doing myself and the industry a disservice. I’ve even recommended potential clients to other agencies/consultants who I think would be better suited to them.
While I think our industry has come a long way in communicating the importance of effective PR to potential clients, I think we have minimised our potential for more far-reaching work that goes beyond media relations and generating stories.
Jen, I agree that the only way you can guarantee coverage is through placing an ad. But as I mentioned before, if I don’t think I can achieve the results a client is looking for, I’ll quickly tell them. My skills are based on my knowledge of my media contacts and what they look for in a story. My pet hate is PR professionals who flog a dead horse on a story that’s got no legs and then feel they can “pull favours”. It’s those sort of PR hacks that clients need to be wary of.
Sally, I hope the campaign is successful for you! Would be interesting to hear some stats when you have them.
Lloyd from PRIA, we’re still waiting for you to get back to us as promised
The PRIA specifically requires its members not to base remuneration entirely 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.
This is the basis of Clause 6 of the PRIA’s code of ethics, which specifically states: “Members shall refrain from proposing or agreeing that their consultancy fees or other remuneration be contingent entirely on the achievement of specified results.”
Tracy Jones
National President
Public Relations Institute of Australia
Thanks so much Tracy, for taking the time to comment and expand on clause 6 of the PRIA’s code of ethics.
Hi all. Thanks Marissa. We ended up getting broadcast coverage in 36 radio programs and television news programs, that includes the ABC and Channel 9. In terms of print, we achieved over 90 articles in mainstream and regional media. In terms of output we achieved our goals, but in terms out outcomes we did see fulfillment of some immediate goals but it was beyond the scope of the campaign to measure the longer term picture. I am fresh out of uni so I feel I did a good job and so did the client.
thanks all – i learned a few things from this discussion – one being that dynamic business managed to stimulate a discussion that the PRIA hasn’t recently. Another is the distinction between a profession and a professional – obvious to some, but I’d never thought of it like that.
Thoughts about distinguishing the craft into specializations – so that the publicists can focus on publicity, communicators on communication, media trainers on training, lobbyists on lobbying, …
No more jack of all trades, master of some…
Thank you – good work.
Sorry Marissa. Just realised that post was to the other Sally (Sally Romano of PR princess or something), not me. Goodluck to you all and goodbye.
Dear Jen,
I was just looking at your blog regarding media coverage or pr for free,well jen what our pr lady does for us in the UK and Ireland is paid for results.
She does very well doing it this way and she does get us some very good coverage, we are happy with this arrangement as is our pr lady,and it gives us as a company a lot of faith in our pr.
We are looking for pr in different countries as we have people joining us and running their own business, our products are amazing and coverage is not hard to get for us.
So it would be silly not to go down the road of paid by results as coverage is so important to the business seeking it, and no doubt businesses will stick by you if you went down this road with them.
If you are trully good at your job you will know that you will get the results for your clients, however you might not get it for all of them, but i am sure that most of them you will.
This is the road that pr is going now in the UK and Ireland, which i am sure these pr people going down this road are the ones getting the business now.
Kind regards
William
I just got the following press release, more than a year on. Is this the same as Publicity Queen’s idea? Your thoughts?
Free PR for any company in Australia!
Until I get you results…
N O W! Communications is launching an innovative business model, where companies only pay for Public Relations on results!
Monthly retainers will be nonexistent.
It will be a very simple formula- N O W! Communications will get a client coverage on TV or radio, in newspapers or magazines and if they don’t…companies don’t need to pay.
This new PR model will allow smaller companies to enter the PR market to build their business. They won’t need to pay big monthly retainers, they’ll simply just need to pay once results are achieved.
This new PR model is so flexible it can fit in with large corporations who already have an existing PR agency. The agency which the multinational company have employed can continue to build long term strategic plans while N O W! Communications work with them to gain instant coverage in their chosen medium.
N O W! Communications will work collaboratively with all companies-no matter how big or small they are- and there will be complete transparency in preparing prices for specific pieces of coverage.
All costs for each piece of coverage will be outlined initially and it really does become a win-win situation. The company gets the exact coverage they desire to fulfill their objectives.
There’ll be no fluffy reports, no mention of “this coverage is in the pipeline” and no timesheets.
All companies will have different targets-ranging from community stories for small local businesses, editorial or product placement in high circulating magazines or newspapers or on television.
Goals and monetary rewards will be worked out on a bespoke basis for each and every client.
Small companies who haven’t used PR before, can try PR for the first time and they won’t lose out on start up costs, they will just pay when coverage appears.
This new way of PR for businesses comes with no risks…apart from the risk of getting coverage!
Clients who have already successfully used this new PR model include Christopher Hanna Hair, Phytologic, Direct Factory Outlet (DFO), Bumpology, Freestyla and Pharmacy Online.
If you want publicity for your brand or service, give N O W! Communications a call…N O W!
To interview Jothy Hughes on this Public Relations business model, which is one of the first of its kind in Australia, please do not hesitate to contact Jothy on 0423 491 808 or jothy@nowcommunications.net