I’m here to defend the profession of public relations, which isn’t about stunts, but about building and maintaining relationships using 2-way communication. I gotta keep beatin’ that drum.

I do understand that your book doesn’t promote outrageous stunts for the sake of outrageous stunts. Andrew told us that in the second paragraph of his review — the one where he says the title is “a bit misleading.”

All I said was that I didn’t read your book because I was insulted by a title that advocates outrageous stunts. But I guess the book doesn’t really say that. See why I’m confused?

Like it or not, we DO judge books by their covers, Peter, and I’m tired of being fooled. Your cover suggests PR will benefit from more “outrageous stunts.” I disagree with this PT- Barnum approach to PR, used all too often by marketers and promoters to generate buzz and manipulate news coverage.

If your book isn’t about “outrageous stunts,” then perhaps it should carry a different title. For what it’s worth, I felt same way about Seth Godin’s “All Marketers Are Liars.” In the first chapter of that one, Seth tells readers that isn’t really what he believes. Fooled again.

My post titled “Why I don’t trust marketing,” spells out my thinking a little more clearly. I don’t expect you’ll agree, but that’s why these conversations are so interesting, eh?
http://tr.im/EWD1

Bill: While I appreciate your candor, I also advise against commenting on something when you flat out admit you haven’t taken the time to understand on what you’re commenting on the first place. Fact is, one of the very first things I say in the book is that a stunt for the sake a stunt is pointless. You want to produce a stunt? Fine – Go for it – But it better tie back to the brand, the product, and actually provide revenue-enhancing opportunities not only during the stunt, but long after the stunt is gone. The problem with your comment is that you aren’t aware that I wrote that, because, as I said, you chose to comment without reading the book. Can I send you a copy? I’d be curious to see, assuming you read it, if you keep the same comments on my book – fact is, each stunt came with measurable action, and measurable results. Without them, there’s no point.

Beth: Agreed – Timidity is death.

Thanks for the comments, all!

I haven’t read Shankman’s book, as I was turned off — no, I was insulted by the title. While sometimes and “outrageous stunt” does fuel a marketing effort, it can also bring with it great risk to corporate reputation. In addition, the mainstream news media can be easily turned off by flacks who create psuedo events for the sole purposes of manipulating news coverage. (Of course, Balloon Boy has me rethinking that one! But again, that’s flackery, not PR.)

The PR textbooks all point to P.T. Barnum as one of the first users of outrageous stunts to gain publicity. Barnum was a flack who would say just about anything to get people into his Big Top. He lied frequently to people her referred to as “suckers.” (OK, that part may be folklore.)

If that’s all you want — fanfare and media attention — then outrageous stunts are one way to get there. But let’s call it “promotion,” not public relations.

PR is about building trust by building relationships. You get do that by jumping out of airplanes.

I think this is even more important than Peter’s quote (which might scare people, a tad).

Andrew, what do you think causes timidity? Honestly. Is it the politics? Is it lack of creativity? Is it fear of judgment by clients and management? And more importantly, what’s it going to take to break down the barrier to great ideas?

Beth Harte
Community Manager, MarketingProfs
@bethharte