A disappointing read and a good question « Flackrabbit: PR Flack | Connector | Writer

A disappointing read and a good question

11.30.08Posted by Margie in All posts, Books, Public relations3 CommentsTags: Advertising, Books, Business, Nashville PR, pr, Public relations

Over the holidays I read The Fall of Advertising & The Rise of PR, by Al and Laura Ries. I don’t recommend you buy it and read it; it’s a much better library check out and scan type book.

For one thing, it was published in 2002, which makes reading it’s tales of Segway, Pets.com and The Red Tent pretty boring and stale.

Also, it’s clear the authors are terribly sad to see the age of advertising slip away and do not see a value in PR. I’m not even sure why PR is in the title, honestly. Here’s a gem from Chapter 9, page 85. Emphasis mine:

Perception is the name of the game, and advertising is perceived as the only way to create a better perception. Not true, but that the perception.

And that better alternative is publicity or, as its practitioners like to call it, PR, or public relations.

Whatever you all the function (publicity, PR, or public relations), the objective is the same. Tell your story indirectly through third-party outlets, primarily the media.

There are many disadvantages to PR. You can’t control the content, you can’t control the timing, and you can’t control the visual appearance of your message. You can’t even be sure that any of your messages will be delivered.

But the one advantage of PR makes up for all of its disadvantages. PR has credibility, advertising does not.

Gosh, too bad PR only has ONE advantage. How the heck would ANYONE hope to build up sincere media relationships that will one day help get your message out? If only there was a person one could turn to for media strategy and message control! (sigh).

Clearly, I’m still processing the tone and take-away message of this book. It has been on my read list for a while, which is why I’m sort of bitter about how disappointing the read was.

What about you? Have you read it? What lessons did you learn?

More importantly: Do you agree that PR offers no message control and only boasts ONE advantage, credibility?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “A disappointing read and a good question”

Asim says:

December 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

Hmm…Is the book just a big PR piece for advertising? Does it make any mention of comparing the cost of advertising (the one that lets you “control” content, visual appearance and timing) vs. the cost of PR (supposedly no control?). Also, shouldn’t a successful large company these days really have both?
Ben Nesvig says:

December 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I’ve got to disagree with you about this book. This is the book that sold me on PR.

I don’t think Al and Laura are sad to see the death of advertising since they are in the PR and consulting field. They are huge believers in using PR to build brands and using advertising to maintain the brand.

I think somewhere in the book they tout the cost advantage of PR as opposed to advertising. Credibility is a major advantage of PR and is definitely worth stressing, but I don’t see it as the only advantage.

PR offers some message control, but not 100% message control like advertising does. You can pitch reporters, but it is ultimately up to them to spin what you give them however they want.

A good follow up to this book is “Origin of Brands” by Al and Laura. It focuses a lot more on branding and divergence in brands.
Margie says:

December 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Asim, hey dude! Thanks for the comment! Hope you are doing well. To me it was nothing but a bash on PR … then I read Ben’s comment …

Ben, I think you make a great point. Appreciate you taking the time to share your take away from the book. It’s good to read your perspective. I hear you loud and clear – the book just didn’t do it for me.