I have no objection to adverting sales people selling into content.  For example, if a medium is planning to run a piece on golf, then approach golf courses, equipment manufacturer, retailers, etc., about adverting in that issue or during that episode.  Also, I think it is smart marketing to copy your advertising sales rep with any press release you are sending to a particular medium.  (I don’t mind another voice bringing a good story to an editor’s attention one more time.) What I do fervently object to is the creation of seemingly editorial content strictly for its sales value as well as tolerance of the unfettered quid pro quo where advertisers get positive and pronounced editorial coverage despite the quality of the product or service in question.  Running editorial and advertising as one unit where advertisers are “partners” is ethically dubious and it destroys the credibility of real PR in that medium, and perhaps across all media.  The wall between editorial and advertising has always had a degree of fluidity, but I fear it is now no more than a gauzy veil.  Editors, producers, journalists-rebuild this wall!

Check out this segment from NPR’s On the Media for an example of such a conflict.

Click here and join the MPR Fan page on Facebook.  You’ll be glad you did.
 
Applied Woo 01/27/2010
 
In their book, Art of Woo (Penguin 2007), authors Richard Shell and Mario Moussa present “the selling of ideas”  from a sales/negotiation perspective.  Despite their rather broad framing of the subject  their discourse is highly instructive for Marketing Public Relations professionals.  One of several points that are worth noting is their discussion of barriers to woo.  Shell and Moussa consider relationships, credibility, communications mismatches, belief systems, and interest and needs to be the major obstructions to successful persuasion, and, I will argue, they are the same hurdles faced by marketers when pitching journalists and other connectors. 

 Clearly, relationships are critical to PR.  The better we know our connectors and the better they know us, the more likely our chances of getting media mentions  from connectors picking up our stories, or by their coming to us for assistance on something they are already working on. 

Credibility is obvious, but the key to being a trusted source and strengthening the newsworthiness of a pitch. 

Communications mismatches manifest themselves in the mundane and operational side of PR when marketers forget to pitch connectors in the format and in the timeframe that suits the connector best.  Is a journalist more receptive to a phone call, email, or a letter in the mail?  Is there a certain time of day week, or month that is typically best?  Communications mismatches also occur when styles clash.  For some editors and journalists bold, over-the-top pitches work really well, for others, they do not. 

A match also needs to exist between the story you are pitching and the belief system of the connector.  In the case of pitching in PR it is more about knowing the mission and audience of the connector’s medium than understanding the socio-cultural profile of the connector himself, although both are important. 

The last barrier is one that MPR pros are keenly aware of-interests and needs.  Connector are charged with producing content that is interesting to their audience, is in line with the mission of their medium, and supports their editorial calendar.  If you can show how it will also please their advertisers or help their medium’s sales people sell into a specific issue or episode, you’ve struck gold.

Check out Art of Woo.
 
 
It is somewhat ironic that I found out about the Tribune’s planned one week fast of Associated Press (AP) wire material from an AP article in the New York Times.  If you haven’t heard, the Tribune, parent of the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and other regional newspapers, announced that it will not be using AP content next week.  There has been much analysis of what this means for the media, particularly newspaper industry, but I think this shift might signal opportunity for MPR pros. 

As mission driven (ethnic, religious, etc.) and locally focused media are the bright spots in a rather gloomy forecast for traditional media, I think it is reasonable to suggest that audience focused content will replace national news in many outlets.  While it will take more work for MPR folks to identify and pitch a growing number of news channels, it will lead to a more direct and meaningful dialogue between those with a story to tell and those eager to consume it.  Rather than saying “this is why our (company, brand, product, etc) matters to the world,” you should be saying “this is why our (company, brand, product, etc) matters to you.”  Since the big media companies and new aggregators will continue to cover national and global events, it will still be useful to tie larger trends to the interests of regional audiences and affinity groups.  To make this connection valuable to the audience, medium and firm, savvy MPR pros will have to use stories relating their brand’s value in terms of reputation, relationships, experience, or symbolism as the conduit.

I am interested in hearing what you think.  What effects with the changing media industry have on those of us on the marketing side of the PR fence?
 
 
Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning something for something.  I mention this because recently I saw a Twitter post from Richard Laermer (author of 2011: Trend Spotting for the Next Decade & Full Frontal PR) stating, “Another topic colleges never seem to teach kids: ‘quid pro quo.’”  So, I figure I am the person to right this wrong, at least from a public relations standpoint.

When I hear this term it usually has a negative connotation and often has to do with a marketer trying to use the fact that his or her company advertises with a particular medium in order to get some publicity.* Any editor or journalist with a shred of professional credibility will tell you that this is never to be done and breaches the church-state wall that exists between editorial and advertising.  They believe this when they say it, because they should, and I applaud them for it.

The problem is the wall is often more like a veil.  Frankly, media companies like their advertisers.  Ads pay the bills, and it’s nice to give some legitimate mention to deserving customers.  What’s more, media sales folks love feature stories they can “sell into.” When a medium is running a piece on golf, you can bet that the sales team is dialing golf courses, golf retailers, and golf equipment makers as soon as they know the feature is going to run.  Is the former scenario any more or less ethical than the latter? Is there not some form of quid pro quo at work in both instances?

Reflections:

Is there much difference between receiving editorial coverage as a reward for placing advertisements and just paying cash for editorial coverage? How do these practices differ from paid product placement?

Is it unethical for an MPR professional to copy their advertising sales representative with a press release and pitch letter being sent to the editor of their medium?

*Another, more basic, example of quid pro quo is commercial broadcast media.  Viewers and listeners get access to television and radio programming with the understanding that there will be advertisements mixed into the content.
 
 
There are things I wish I had included in the text, but just didn’t have the room for them.  The MPR campaigns executed by Diageo in support of their Captain Morgan brand rum and themed around the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections are an example.   They incorporated social media by having www.captainmorganforpresident.com link to a Facebook fan page, and they used traditional media by distributing some great press releases, albeit tongue-in-cheek to the mainstream press.  In 2008 the release they spelled out the “Captain’s” platform and posted a YouTube video.  In the 2004 release they promoted an event during the Republican convention giving rides to the Hamptons to people who wanted to get away from Manhattan and the bustle of the convention.   Really a great concept with strong execution.

Reflections:

What makes a great press release?  What elements of greatness does the 2004 Diageo release show?

What are the common threads that tie traditional media, social media, and event PR together?