By Matthew Schwartz ,Editor, PR News
The American Association of Advertising Agencies' annual meeting in Miami earlier this month was abuzz about a recent consumer survey that should light a fire under the chair
of every senior PR executive.
The study, reported in the New York Times, found that negative perceptions about advertising are on the upswing. Specifically, 54% of respondents said they "avoid buying
products that overwhelm them with advertising and marketing"; 60% said their opinion of advertising "is much more negative than just a few years ago" while 61% said they agreed
that the amount of advertising and marketing to which they are exposed "is out of control."
In addition, 65% of the respondents said they believed that they are "constantly bombarded with too much" advertising and - in a particularly troubling statistic for
advertisers -- 69% said they are "interested in products and services that would help them skip or block marketing." About a third of respondents said they would be willing to
have "a slightly lower standard of living to live in a society without marketing and advertising."
Yankelovich Partners conducted the poll on behalf of the four As, which represent 1,196 agencies that place an estimated 75% of all national advertising. The Yankelovich study
follows a similar survey released in February by the Association of National Advertisers, which represents 330 marketers that spend $100 billion annually. It found that about a
third of marketers polled believe their ad agencies are infected by "creative arrogance," charge too much and fail to produce work that is aligned with business strategy. (See PR
NEWS, Feb. 2, 2004.)
The widening gap between advertisers and consumers -- with more people tuning out more commercials and, in some cases, nuking them entirely via the TiVo box and Internet pop-up
blockers-- provides yet another opportunity for PR industry leaders to distinguish PR better against advertising. Despite increasing media fragmentation, traditional ads still
gets the lion's share of marketing budgets while PR pros fight for scraps.
Even as consumers experience advertising "fatigue," the (marcom) song remains the same. Sure, there are those instances when, in an integrated approach, PR and advertising work
together to provide handsome returns for both internal and external programs. But, for the most part, business silos still rule corporate America. And advertising beats PR every
time.
That's why it's incumbent upon PR advocates to stand up and articulate their side of the marcom story. Call it PR for PR, which is sorely lacking since many corporate managers
still view PR execs as glorified press agents and not (potential) partners who can influence sales, marketing and finance.
In concert with their constituents, the PRSA, IABC, Council of PR Firms and Arthur Page Society need to better demonstrate more persuasively to consumers the value of public
relations, particularly in comparison with advertising. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to identify a few robust examples in the agency-client relationship of how PR
successfully has pushed the sales/employee relations/media needle without turning off consumers (read: customers) as advertisers seem to be doing.
Rather than industry powwows where PR execs basically talk to themselves, the industry should organize meetings that expand the conversation and speak more directly to its
challenges of winning a bigger slice of the marketing pie. Such conferences would feature comparative advertising with, well, the advertising industry; real-world examples of how
PR and advertising have found ways to please clients -- and save managers a few pennies in the process. The same meeting would feature corporate managers who "get it" PR-wise and
can share their insights on how to align PR with overall business goals.
Another route to spreading the word about PR's benefits is advertising itself. When PR leaders are asked why the industry doesn't buy any ad pages in both mainstream consumer
titles and media trades, the question is summarily dismissed, as if buying ad pages would somehow aid and abet advertising. This is clearly the sound of one hand clapping.
Open any edition of Advertising Age and you invariably see full-page ads from broadcasters -- both network and cable - using statistics to convince media buyers that they
should strongly consider their particular brands. Are these ads somehow endorsing print media? My guess is if asked, media sellers would probably say no and that they are simply
following the money and making the best pitch possible for differentiating themselves in the media marketplace.
With consumers having increasing control over what they read and watch, advertisers surely face the law of diminishing returns. But unless the PR industry starts to make its
case, communications execs on both the corporate and agency sides will continue to be on the outside looking in.
Got any feedback? E-mail me at [email protected].