The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR

Rating:
Summary: Advertisers beware, PR is out to get you
Review: What a breath of fresh air! Too often I see "Marketing Cconsultants" recommend that their client must "Advertise!" Why? To achieve key marketing/communication objectives for the client? Nah. Fat commission from recurring revenue comes to mind. I feel physically ill each time a client mentions they want to advertise or that a consultant recommended that they do so. Sigh.

The Ries' delineate the roles of advertising PR in clear and entertaining way. Many practitioners likely take issue with their elevation of PR to top dog. Such an attitude makes it all that easier for their competitors, and likely leaves them wondering why their advertising heavy promotion mix isn't spawning results. Read this book to get a clue.

Rating:
Summary: It takes an ad guru to say it!
Review: I am a 10-year veteran of NYC top public relations agencies and found it no less than ironic that it takes an ad guru to point out the value and significant role that marketing public relations should have in marketing strategies. Beyond the title, the book puts forth excellent provable arguments. It gives plenty of examples, maybe a little too many, but the point that advertising lacks crucial credibility and many times serves as entertainment only is loud, clear, and about time. Sheer common sense should send up a BIG RED FLAG for exactly these reasons, not to mention the exorbitant costs of advertising (i.e., art). This book is specific to marketing public relations, not public affairs, corporate communications, investor relations, etc., and is an excellent read and tool to help agency execs communicate their value to clients.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't prove the point
Review: As a public relations professional for the past 20 years, I welcomed this book. I certainly agree with his premise - Advertising doesn't live up to the claims - It is a broken function that often doesn't focus on the needs of the company. However, the author's indignant treatment and baseless accusations are hard to take and doesn't make the point.

The author needs to back up his statements. You can't just say the same thing over and over and expect people to accept it because you've said it 100 times. "Advertising has no credibility," - according to what study? "Public relations is believed by the consuming public," - prove it. Public relations is X% more believable according to this research. I know these things to be true but this book did nothing to forward the argument.

And come on - the country of Guatemala should change its name to attract more tourists? Kiwi airlines failed because it had a bad name? What about overhead spending, an increasingly difficult regulatory environment, diminishing demand, etc. He ignores the millions of other factors when making his wild claims. The author's analysis is too simplistic and one-dimensional.

I'm saddened by all of this. I was hoping for evidence, not just anecdotal evidence and far-flung examples, but real research. This comes off as just another insecure PR guy grasping for what he can to make his point. There is more to this profession!

Rating:
Summary: Read This for Branding Success
Review: The right ideas are usually the ones that cause the most outcry.

So it is with the Ries' "The Fall of Advertising...". Sure, it's not going to make most advertising executives feel very secure, but the Reises capitalize and expand on a growing trend in the marketing/PR industry that started a few years ago and only conitnues to grow. If the dot-com industry showed us anything, it's that a company's name recognition can be built on media coverage alone: think of all the press Amazon.com and other top name Internet-based companies gathered not just from advertising but from continually gaining mention in top publications across the company.

The fact remains that the media is viewed as a credible third source of information, and a mention in an article is as good as a referral from networking.

The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR not only outlines the argument for the growing use of the media to build brand, but even supplies a few how-to steps to boot. Editors and journalists are hungry for good stories, ones that outline strategy success and trends along with tracking top compaies, and if a company can grab the media's attention with a well-laid out story idea, the publication will continually return to that company for future stories when they need to quote a source.

This book isn't just for the big boys, either. In fact, if anything, PR is as much for the small and medium sized businesses that can't afford the multi-million-dollar costs of a far-reaching advertising campaign.

If you want to build your name recognition and learn how to effectively use marketing, Al and Laura Ries' book is a great place to start.

Rating:
Summary: A flimsy thesis
Review: I have spent my entire career in marketing, both in the agency business and corporate marketing roles. While I consider PR an important tool in the marketing communications aresenal, it simply cannot do the job alone most of the time. Integrated marketing communications plans, backed up by sound research and strategy, offer the best opportunity for success.

I would love to point out to the authors that the high-profile brands they point to as PR-only success stories (i.e., Starbucks, eBay, etc.) created entirely new business categories in the marketplace. They now have competitors trying to come into their categories, but these brands were FIRST, and that's critical to understanding their PR successes. The media is much more receptive to stories that have an interesting "hook" to them, and successfully creating a new business category would certainly qualify. If your company is trying to enter one of those categories now, you would have to work your PR plan very hard in order to generate even a fraction of the publicity that the originators of the category received. Being #2 (or lower) in any category just doesn't pass the "so what?" test in the average reporter's mind.

Another reviewer pointed out that PR cannot be "controlled" the same way that paid media can, and that is quite right. This is not to say that PR is ineffective, but for the vast majority of companies, it must work hand-in-hand with their paid advertising.

This book is just a blatant opportunity for the Rieses to generate business (and royalties, of course) for themselves, and is not truly an "unbiased" look at PR as an effective marketing tool.

Rating:
Summary: Talk about a new business ploy
Review: I work in advertising and I can honestly say I've always been open to the other "arms" of marketing, including the power of PR, so I was very open to hearing what Mr. Ries and Co. had to say. However, as I read this I couldn't help but laugh at the obvious animosity towards advertising and advertiisng agencies in general. The book is chalk full of half-baked case studies that just scratch the surface of a brand's marketing history. What's more, the book feels like it is jumping on the recent bandwagon of the advertising-bashing we've recenlty seen in a slumping economy thanks in part to ill-informed journalists. I stopped reading this book half way through as it become obvious this was a new business ploy for Ries' company and not an objective nor an informative read on what PR can specifically do to help grow a brand. Save your hard earned money and buy a real book on public relations.

Rating:
Summary: Don't be victimized.
Review: Don't be victimized by this shallow, self serving analysis that is purely intended to stir up controversy thereby selling books at the expense of the readers best interests and the reputation and credibility of the authors. There are too many flaws in their reasoning to discuss here, but here are the main ones.

-- 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!

Rating:
Summary: A sales pitch masquerading as a book
Review: Interesting, yes; convincing? Hardly. You will not be surprised to learn that the Ries are in the business of PR, and this book is nothing more than an extended sales pitch to prosepctive customers.

There are still plenty of good examples out there on the efficacy of good advertising campaigns. Consider the single bet-the-company ad that turned Monster.com from a near-bankrupt entity into a profitible enterprise. Or Apple's original Mac ad.

Advertising, like any other business, has its share of trends and fads, and right now the big fad is PR-based advertising. This, too, will pass, and we won't have to read books like this one.

Rating:
Summary: Yes, But......
Review: The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR is a good overview of the weaknesses of the advertising sector. The rising costs (far in excess of inflation), declining credibility and decreasing media audiences for advertising are all valid points. But as my high school journalism teacher used to say, there is "an abundancy of redundancy" in this book. That in fact is it's first major weakness.

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.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, Not convincing
Review: Al Ries has written some of the basic texts of marketing wisdom. While this book contains some interesting facts and is useful as a reference for those marketers that may want to have some facts at their fingertips for making tactical decisions or to use in presentation to management, the argument is not convincing. First and foremost, every good marketer knows that advertising is only part of the mix, as is P.R. And, a good marketing communications "buy" includes direct, out of home, sales support, point of sale, etc. etc. Further, you can't buy PR. Journalists are justifiably aware of product pitches and know a good story when they see one. When Ries suggests that getting PR is as simple as buying advertising he falls down in his argument. Buy the book if you need the facts. This is not a brilliant marketing text.