07/18

It's stupid.  Anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing is now in the marketplace.  One can upload and download without being known or knowing the person on the other end of the network.   Moreover, the law will not reach across borders where much peer-to-peer file sharing occurs.   The recording industry and its supporters in Congress have yet to realize that technology has shifted the market forever. 

Rather than fighting, they should be adjusting to the new scenario as Apple Computer has done with its music service.  But no, they would rather protect what they are going to lose.  It's lousy public relations and short-sighted business thinking.   The industry is not going to sell all that many more albums by trying to keep things as they are.  It's time to recognize what has happened and to change.

It would be nice if PR people in the industry could serve as a conduit to recording company executives to get them to understand the mind of the young.  But apparently, executives are not listening -- or their lawyers aren't. 

It seems to me that Steve Jobs at Apple Computer has proven there is a way to protect music and to market it effectively with his individual song purchasing system.  Millions of downloads should be telling someone something.  But, it also seems that no one is willing to adjust to the economics of downloading a single song for a dollar versus buying a CD of songs that one doesn't want for $16.  It appears to me that the industry is going back to the future -- the pre-album days when one would buy cheaply a 45 RPM record with just two songs.

It never ceases to astonish me how industries will ruin their public relations in pursuit of profit.  In the case of the recording industry, it has the law on its side, which only makes transformation slower.  The industry trumpets the justification for its legal pursuit of customers rather than understanding what customers want.

If we're lucky, the bill won't get out of committee.
 

07/17

The article cited the following as excellent examples of what is happening.  Benicia News in California -  www.benicianews.com.  Fulton Daily News in Upstate New York -   www.fultondailynews.com/.  New Tecumseth Free Press in Canada - www.madhunt.com.  The writer points out that these sites report the same kind of news that you find in your local advertiser newspaper of six or eight pages. 

What he doesn't mention is that these sites are also a target for press releases and other material PR practitioners send to community newspapers.   Some sites have established online forums as well to build relationships with their readers, and they are discovering news stories from the forums.

Local web-only news sites are doing what I had suggested could be the case when the Federal Communications Commission allowed for greater concentration of media in the U.S.  They are reporting the news aggressively and filling news holes that local TV and radio stations and newspapers are not addressing. 

The interesting part of these sites is that they make money.  They are economically viable and advertising supported.   Why is that?  Because the cost of running a local web-only news site is a fraction of the cost of publishing and distributing a local newspaper.

I believe sites like this will proliferate.  I also believe they will bring a new brand of journalism to communities that have been skating under the radar for too long because community newspaper publishers are tied to local politicians.

If you are a PR practitioner with a need to reach local communities, check local web-only news sites.  My guess is you will find a worthy distribution point for your news. 

If any of you are actively working with local web-only news sites, I'd like to know more.  Please send me an e-mail.

07/16

Ostensibly, we were there to help the firm kick off marketing/PR efforts.  Because the firm is filled with extraordinary talent, its phone has rung over the years.  Clients sought them out more than they searched for clients.  The head of the office recognized that this needs to change if the firm is to grow.  I was deeply impressed by his grasp of communications needs and challenges and of what the firm must do.  I was also surprised how the other consultants in the room also seemed to understand what they need to do.  Anyone who has worked with service firms will tell you this is rare. 

Usually, in a service firm, there are a handful who understand marketing and are willing to work with an agency.  The rest are passively resistant or openly opposed.  That's understandable and we don't press those who are against us as long as they let us work.  The task becomes hard when those opposed influence the leader.   Then vacillation takes over and PR activities become start and stop.  That doesn't seem to be the case with this firm -- or, at least we hope so.  I think the firm has a great opportunity to make a mark for itself, if it is as dedicated as it seemed to be yesterday.  And, it will be a delight working with them if they are committed to the process.  They have a lot to say and solid scholarship backing their opinions.

One never knows how an account will work out, but it was great beginning.
 

07/15

Well, the White House didn't control it, and it is an issue.  Bush and his staff are getting hammered in one press conference after another over uranium and Africa, over high strength aluminum tubes, over every allegation about Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify invading Iraq and deposing its leader.  Adding to the administration's woes is something I did not foresee -- a continuation of guerrilla war after the end of major hostilities, which is apparently souring the American public.

It's clear that Bush has stepped into a credibility tar pit that he fashioned for himself.  The way the administration is trying to extract itself doesn't seem promising.  Arguing over who made the intelligence mistake and pointing fingers at Britain is a poor way to treat one's allies and a sure way to make those who opposed the US feel smug and self-righteous.  (They were right, it now seems.)  Moreover, it doesn't appear to be selling to the American public.

The administration's PR challenge is to make sure the controversy doesn't  weaken it on the home front.  It appears the administration has hurt itself in the international arena.  Bush has called for international troops to reinforce Americans in Iraq, but it doesn't appear many are forthcoming. 

The words, "quagmire" and "Vietnam" are being thrown around irresponsibly.   There is a concerted effort to bring Bush down to earth.   It seems to be gaining momentum. 

There are times when being a PR practitioner is no fun.  I suspect this is one of them at the White House.
 

07/14

I asked him how he was doing?  What he told me would depress anyone concerned about the future of the PR agency business.   He described the large communications conglomerate as "money-grubbing" and so hung up on revenue that it is burning clients and service to make its numbers.   He described his own agency as destroying itself in pursuit of accounts and billings.  He described a loss of senior counselors whom clients desire because agencies fire them when they cost too much.  He described, in other words, an environment about which our CEO has talked many times.  Our CEO has said he has never met an agency owner who sold out to a conglomerate and ended up happy. 

I have been concerned for some time that communications conglomerates are heedless about clients. Client service is more "How much can you bill them?" and less "Are they happy and have you solved their problem?"    I have always believed and numbers prove that one earns more from keeping clients for the long term than one does from maximizing revenues in the short-term.  Accountants, however, don't understand that, and business schools disdain it.  "Money now is better than money later," they preach.    But, if money now compromises one with a client, it isn't better. 

Let me use an example of another industry that destroyed itself with greed.  Let's talk about auditing.  Large auditors ran for decades as staid, careful client service agencies in which partners did well.   Then they calculated they could earn more from consulting than auditing, and greed set in.  Revenue generation became the mantra.  Audits were reduced to a commodity that clients bought by the pound.   When the scandals hit, auditors were caught flat-footed without a way to defend themselves in public opinion.  They've reaped their reward.  The industry is now a semi-government utility without most of the revenue generating potential it had as recently as two years ago.

No one is saying PR will end this way, but my friend described an industry that has been reduced to a commodity.  He said purchasing departments are setting limits, such as maximum 10 percent returns on accounts.   That's a far cry from as little as 15 years ago.  How did this happen?  My friend said it succinctly, "When you dance with the devil, that's what you get."  He referred to PR agencies selling out to conglomerates and agencies low-balling estimates to win business.  What happens, of course, is that low-balled budgets deliver lousy service and unhappy short-term engagements.

I wish he was wrong, but I'm afraid he is right.  What will happen to our business?