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.
 


Comments

Warren Whitlock

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:14:53

The rules and standards you refer to were created for the days of old media when we had to worry about centralized control, monopolies, etc.

With the diverse media available today, the question is INTENT. A back room deal that pretend to be something other than quid pro quo can be perceived as unethical.

Meanwhile, bloggers are posting with discloser that they were paid to review an item and disclosing the details of anything they do. Transparent and ethical.

In "Influence" Dr. Robert Cialdini shares the most powerful marketing law.. the Law of Reciprocity. Rather than make a deal for coverage, you just give them whatever value you can (ads, information, advice, good will) without expectation of return. Human nature will be to help you back.

I once sold advertising at a small radio station. The news people were recent grads of the Watergate era journalism style and we've have many discussion about what they would or wouldn't do.

I gave them ideas, leads, contacts, and treated them as friends. They often chose to use my advertisers as sources.

It's ethical to give. Even ethical to make a deal. Questionable to hide it, and just plain ineffective to demand coverage.

Like most other areas of life, I've found that success lies in 'find out what they want and getting it for them'

 



Leave a Reply