Rich Becker of Copywrite Ink has an interesting post today about how the lines between advertising and PR are blurring. I’ve been noticing this as well but I wonder if all this blurring could eventually lead to the replacement of many PR functions by advertising.
Here’s why I think this:
- People in advertising are better at telling interesting stories.
- They are not afraid to be provocative.
- They are free to explore all kinds of creative solutions to problems.
- They know how to create content for today’s attention spans.
- They are students of human behavior and culture.
- They are adept at using multimedia esp. video online.
- They have a strong background in the arts.
We are a content obsessed society looking to share the next piece of what Peter Shankman recently described as “finder’s candy.” In other words, that entertaining or remarkable piece of content that you just have to share. Who is best to feed this beast? In my opinion it’s advertising.
So what does PR bring to the table? The most important thing is crisis communications (and perhaps investor relations).
But in all honesty, drawing lines in the sand between PR, advertising and social media is kind of a useless exercise. What we really should be focusing on are skill-sets and the individual or group who is best suited for the job.
What are your thoughts?
Update: Some further reading:
(Many) Advertising Agencies (Still) Don’t Understand Social Media
Excerpt: It is far easier to spend millions on something cool and creative and hope to generate some short-term buzz that might lead to a measurable sales boost. But then what? What is the next call to action? If the next campaign is not as fun or relevant, will those fans still rise to the bait and help promote it, or, will they fail to engage and ignore it? Will someone who became a fan thanks to this fun campaign have reason enough to rally around the brand in a crisis? Advertising agencies don’t think such thoughts. It is not in their DNA. It’s not their fault, but neither should they fool themselves into thinking that this stuff is easy. Relationships buoy campaigns. Campaigns do not create relationships.
Is Social Media Too Boring for Advertising Industry?
Excerpt: Whether “PR” or “Advertising” drive Social Media strategy has very little to do with which discipline better understands the New World Order. It has more to do with which group is better prepared to wade in — and never leave — the proverbial community pool.
419.730.3040
andrew [at] newsvetter [dot] com
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh, I’m not ready to cede anything to the advertisers.
They don’t have experience in managing relationships with media.
They don’t have better storytelling skills, and are often much poorer writers. Often.
The advantage they’ve had has been a longer-established ROI link between activity and result. It’s easier to understand, but not necessarily more effective.
Also, with ad properties shrinking and audiences fragmenting, the ad people are stuck with a lot of style, but not easy way to slide the substance into so many integrated streams.
It ain’t over by any stretch.
Wise conclusion. My similar take: Effective marketing has always required the right individuals — ones who are versatile, curious, extroverted-introverted hybrids, and, often, workaholics.
But what you generally find is an industry dominated by two, very different personality types. The persuasive, Big Idea types often struggle with the heads-down activities like poring over Web analytics. The flinchy, Detail-Oriented types aren’t always agile enough to build community (be it with the traditional media or on Chatroulette). These personality types end up in all kinds of firms — not just sectors of the marketing industry.
Just as important 100 years ago as today, good marketers focus on goals and then pick the right discipline to achieve them. Sometimes, that requires you spending months of your free time learning more than just PR. Or advertising. Or skywriting. Or whatever the 83,221-follower Twitter Gurus tell us we need to do. Right. Now. Or. Die.
It’s not easy. But it usually gets the job done.
Brand Journalism is a much better way to do what PR used to do so well (before media became fragmented). Back in the day the only way to get attention was advertising or go through the media.
Brand journalism is the creation of videos, blog posts, photos, charts, graphs, essays, ebooks, and other information that deliver value to your marketplace. Brand Journalism is not a product pitch. It is not an advertorial. It is not an egotistical spewing of gobbledygook-laden, stock-photo enhanced corporate drivel.
In my experience, PR has typically been more about conversations while advertising is about putting on a show. Both are important.
Hey Andrew,
Having worked with/on all sides of the fence with and as a journalist, copywriter, and public relations professional, I’ve meet an relatively equal number of good storytellers from each field.
Unfortunately, there are far too few in each field; around the top 5 percent in public relations, top 7 percent in journalism, and top 10 percent in advertising.
I think it’s because most of people employed as writers aren’t very good writers or, for those who aren’t bad, they tent to become overly focused on a singular style, which is why copywriters sometimes struggle with a news release and public relations professionals sometimes struggle with anything that is remotely creative (journalists too, for that matter).
It seems to me the future will require more cross discipline training for writers in particular, which is why I advise public relations students to take poetry classes too. (I also tell copywriters to take some journalism classes.) Most never will. At the moment, they seem content with the current eroding structure.
From a macro view, I think my main point continues to be that they need each other.
Sure, I could probably prattle on about how journalists/public relations need a good story to tell whereas copywriters are comfortable making one up, but that starts to sound like it’s own post. Maybe next week.
Best,
Rich
First, I think it’s far too “big” a concept, it’s like wondering if cell phones could replace computers entirely – sure there are cases where it could/should/will happen, but there’s always a place for both.
There are two areas in which advertising will not be able to supplant PR, in my opinion. One is “real” news (as opposed to the routinely issued mundane press releases most PR firms consider their bread and butter), and the other is professional reviews from trusted authorities.
When I want to learn about a product, I trust independent reviews. Further, while I am cool with friend referrals/WOM, and think the wisdom of the crowds are, well, neat, I don’t think either replace the value of a trusted reviewer. Incidentally, I “get” that there are reviewers on the take and many of them are woefully unfamiliar with the stuff they review, but to me that’s just an accepted data point.
I think the prior comments have nailed things… Yes, advertising could replace some PR but that can also work the other way around.
What is happening is that advertising and PR budgets are not growing but the amount of work that needs to be done by each side is growing. That’s why the one, is eyeing the budget of the other… Good luck.
With all due respect to advertising folks,
Good PR people:
* Excel at helping their clients tell interesting stories.
* Advise clients to be provocative.
* Are constantly exploring all kinds of creative solutions to problems.
* Know how to create content for today’s attention spans.
* Are students of customer behavior and culture.
* Are beginning to use multimedia with their clients.
* Have strong backgrounds in journalism, communications and liberal arts.
And, Tom Foremski nails it when he says “…advertising and PR budgets are not growing but the amount of work that needs to be done by each side is growing. That’s why the one, is eyeing the budget of the other…”
Best part of this discussion, which comes up every few weeks, is the voracious appetite for the theme.
Some of my most RT’d and commented-on posts touch on the same “Advertising vs. PR” concept.
Always fun.
Hahahahaha…
What most people don’t realize is that 80% of all news articles are PR based. Your question is very naive. Advertising will never replace PR. in fact the opposite is true.
I’ve been active in this debate for a long time. I laugh when I see PR people comment that they are better writers. I’ve had one too many conversations regarding the use of semi-colons in the company’s blog post to believe that for a second (at least in the social media realm). I’ve also had one too many conversations with Ad folks who are used to “creative writing.” That is to say, they’ve been used to a monologue, so if they craft the words tricky enough, the audience won’t really know that they are being sold a load of…. They don’t think about the conversation that happens after their nifty piece of “writing.”
What I’ve found is that neither really will excel. Not when they’re business models and large agency thinking get in the way.
If I were to add someone new to the debate, I would say that the stereotype that will do best in social media is a good salesperson that read Dale Carnegie’s book “How to win friends and influence people.” Those are your relationship builders. Those are your good studies of human behavior. Those are your people that really will win people over and get something going in social media. There are a few of them still left in the agencies. But a lot of them have fled and started their own smaller agencies. Look for them to “own” social media long before the stereotypical PR or Ad person figures it out.
(sorry if this didn’t measure up to correct AP style, PR folks. It is just a comment on a blog.)
{ 1 trackback }