The notion of "free publicity" or "great results with a ridiculously low budget" troubles me. It troubles me even more when public relations media make a virtue of the cost advantages of public relations (publicity) over advertising and other methods of disseminating information. My concern is that it discourages the best and the brightest to embark on a career in public relations.
In real life, there ain't no such thing as "free publicity" any more than there's "free advertising." When something appears in print or on television or on a no-pay web site, it's the result of someone's creative effort. The act of creation and implementation takes time; time equals money; ergo, there's a cost.
The problem with "great results with a ridiculously low budget" is somewhat different. "Great results" imply extraordinary creative input and flawless execution. Performance at that level, it seems to me, merits a premium rather than a bargain basement level price. In fact, boasting of low cost diminishes the value of services we public relations professionals provide. Like other professionals, we deserve to be compensated at a level that equates with the value we add rather than seek praise for how little we charge.
There is demonstrable evidence that public relations has never been so highly regarded at the CEO level. At many, if not most, FORTUNE 500 companies the senior public relations officer bears the title of senior vice president (increasingly, executive vice president); he/she sits on the company's management committee; total annual compensation is often in the medium to high six figures or more.
Yet, at the marketing level, agency selections are often based on the lowest hourly aggregate fee – a practice that can't avoid motivating the agency to assign its lowest salaried professionals. Or when creativity, experience and chemistry are set forth as metrics on which agency selection decisions are made, client procurement departments are often called in to "negotiate" compensation terms.* It goes without saying that this means paying the lowest possible fees.
When it comes to selling consumer goods or services, I have never believed that publicity (we call it "earned media" nowadays) is a substitute for paid advertising. However, editorial coverage and other activities within the rubric of public relations have the potential to make advertising more effective by enhancing credibility and increasing reach. But in spite of the strong positives derived from publicity's third party implied endorsement, marketing support budgets are all too frequently at inadequate levels. The case I would make is that if publicity can enhance a $10 million advertising campaign 20 percent, it's worth an investment commensurate with such an objective.
Both clients and public relations firms have come to regard marketing support programs more as a commodity than the specialty that strengthens the bond between marketer and customer-consumer. Moreover, breaking into the major media is increasingly difficult nowadays because of more intense competition for time and space. The editorial bar keeps rising and the creativity needed to convince an editor must keep apace. It seems to me there's an irony in devaluing the public relations service that actually makes the cash register ring.
Professionalism comes at a price. It's no different in public relations than in law or medicine or engineering or management consulting. Our objective, whether as client or agency, is to attract the very best people to our ranks. Boasting that the professional service we deliver is low cost does nothing to attract the best and brightest of our college graduates. To meet today's challenge – in marketing support and the numerous other subsets of public relations – we need those who excel and we must be prepared to pay the price commensurate with their value.
When buyers of public relations services make their selection on the basis of price, they are selling both their chosen agencies and themselves short. That simply doesn't make sense.
# # #
*Some twenty years ago, I could expect a year-end annual telephone call from the CEO of one of our largest clients asking if we were satisfied with the profitability on our work for his FORTUNE 100 company. After a couple years, I asked him why he did this. He answered. "I figure the more you make on our business, the more likely you will be to assign us your best people." They don't make CEO's like that any more!