The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

It's second major weakness is the premise that PR is "THE" answer for marketers. That simply isn't the full truth. The truth is that PR is an answer and an important one. But, PR is far from a silver bullet. As someone who has been involved in the marketing communications industry for 34 years and who owned a successful PR firm for 13 of those years, I can say that PR suffers from its own significant limitations. PR can't be controlled; the "news hole" in newspapers, magazines and in the electronic media is shrinking as costs increase and the audience is balkenized; and, PR efforts are never guaranteed to deliver any audience. Those aren't insignificant problems to overcome.

The real answer is an intelligently integrated mix of advertising, Public Relations, direct, interactive and viral marketing selected by someone who knows what they are doing; who is focused on matching the marketing communications plan and its implementation to the budget and financial objectives of the client; and who takes the time to understand the wants and needs of the customer.

Nevertheless, Ries and Ries perform a valuable service of exposing the weaknesses inherent in the advertising business. The points they make are valid and one conclusion is clear. Somethings going to give in the advertising world. This is the books major strength. To get the full picture, read "The Tipping Point" and "Integrated Marketing."

Finally, as an old PR practioner who has fought this fight inside many an agency meeting, it's simply delightful to read a book (however repetitive it might be) extolling the virtues of Public Relations.

-- They indite advertising by calling attention to the dot bombs and their advertising campaigns... as though advertising caused the failure of these Internet based companies. Let's use their cover story as a case in point. Was the failure of pets.com the result of it's ad campaign or was it because the company was founded on a flawed business model? The campaign was very creative and memorable. People loved the sock puppet. But not enough to make them go online and order mass quantities of dog food and cat chew toys! People naturally prefer to buy that stuff as needed in the grocery store. Don't hang that one on the advertising, Al. The best P/R in the world couldn't have saved that company.
-- Other examples of "advertising failures" are similarly flawed. Did Chevrolet lose market share because they advertised, or because the Japanese and Germans built better cars at cheaper prices? If they had placed P/R stories instead of ads, would consumers have paid more to get an inferior car? Don't be absurd.
-- They indite advertising as being less credible and more self serving than P/R which is viewed as a third party source. That may be true, but that also makes P/R an undependable medium when it comes to promoting a brand. Why? Because the print editors and broadcast producers ARE a third party and they may or may not decide to run your story! They may not review your product, they may decide to blast it or they might ridicule and make fun of it. And, even if the editor was planning on giving you a favorable story, a heavy news day could wipe it out. P/R firms don't guarantee placement, so you could pay out big bucks and come away with nothing but a few mentions in some minor publications.
-- It's clear that neither Al nor Laura Reis have ever practiced P/R. They contend that P/R is best suited for building the brand and generating awareness. After you have built the brand, they say advertising is acceptable for maintaining it. (This contradicts what they say about the market share loses of Coke and Chevy) But the authors forget that start-ups with no recognition are often considered un-newsworthy and frequently get overlooked by editors. Let's say you are a busy editor or producer bombarded with hundreds of press releases on new products and companies. Are you more likely to look at a release from Coca-Cola or some new company called Ima-cola II? Let's consider a business-to-business scenario. You have two releases. One is from Microsoft and another is from Bumstuck Software. Who's product get's reviewed?
-- And, who says the media is unbiased? A few jounalists have integrity, but the papers and stations they work for can compromise that integrity in a heartbeat. If a company is spending a million in advertising with AOL/Time Warner, would you say they would get more attention than a company that spends zilch? If the company that's spending zilch starts getting enough publicity to begin taking market share from their large rivals, who is the media going to protect...their loyal advertisers or a new brand that says they don't believe in advertising?
-- Finally, the Reis duo claims that success in launching a new product is contingent on P/R to position the company as the first in a category! Like Atari was first in the video game category? Like Commodore was first in the desk top computer category? Like Prodigy was first in the IP category? Instead of being the first mover, it's better to be the last man standing. That's the lesson the Reis' team should have learned from the dot bombs.

A legendary ad man named Howard Luck Gossage said that, "People don't read ads. People read what interests them. And, sometimes, that's an ad! If you write an intriguing ad people will pay attention. If your message is believable, people will believe it. GOOD advertising works. So does GOOD P/R. But bad advertising and bad P/R are wastes of money. Any new revelations here?

Both advertising AND P/R are components of any good integrated marketing campaign. The advantage of advertising is that it says what you want, when you want to say it and in the medium in which you want it to be placed. It's credible if you write good copy and articulate a believable case for your product. P/R may be more credible, but only IF it is favorably written, IF it is favorably placed and IF it appears at the right time to help move your product. Those are some pretty big "IF's". Any brand manager that knows his profession, will use both advertising and P/R in tandem to generate brand preference. But for most brands, the mix should favor good advertising versus undependable P/R!

I read this book on a flight from LA to Toronto and couldn't put it down. I found that this book answered questions that I had often asked myself about whether advertising really impacts sales numbers. If you ever sit in front of the tv and wonder "Who is the genius that thought that ad would actually get me to buy something?" or you get the Energizer bunny confused with Duracell you might find this a very interesting read.

The book is broken down into four parts:

The Fall of Advertising which details various arenas in which advertising proclaims its superiority (Advertising and Car Salesmen, Advertising and the Dotcoms, Advertising and Credibility are some chapter titles);

The Rise of PR in which there is a primer of sorts on how PR can be used more effectively than advertising (Rebuilding an Old Brand with PR, Dealing with Line Extensions);

A New Role For Advertising in which the authors suggest that the bathwater not get completely tossed out with the baby--that advertising does have a place....as a cart after the horse (Maintaining the Brand);

and finally The Differences Between Advertising and PR which gets a little cloying in the use of analogies but is a good read nonetheless (Advertising is the Wind. PR Is the Sun, Advertising is Incredible. PR is Credible.)

What I liked about the book:
1. It has a breezy, shoot from the hip conversational feel
2. There are ample anecdotes backing up the hypotheses--makes for a very lively read...lots of "Oh ya...I always WONDERED about that" responses.
3. It made me really think about how brainwashed our society is about the value of advertising.
4. This book also gave me some insights as to how to continue as I launch my new company...pitfalls to avoid and things to definitely do.

I am not particularly well-read in this field so this was a good intro to the subject for me.It might be too rudimentary for some. I am definitely going to check out the authors' other books on Positioning and 22 Immutable laws of Branding.

The only tiresome aspect I found in the book is the RELENTLESS repetition of the "Publicity builds brands not advertising" axiom. If one mention is good, 43 mentions is better? I would also have appreciated footnotes on the sources for some of the stats and graphs used in the book. Would have added additional scholastic integrity to the figures.

Otherwise, I would highly recommend the book.