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?