Re: PR is better for branding than advertising?

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Tue 23 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0600

Don Makoviney wrote:
>>>>
Rob Frankel said:
"The statement that advertising can't be measured is
typical of this out-dated thinking. "

Not so outdated when you consider most businesses are
not IBM, GM, etc. and can afford setting up all the
metrics you refer to. Getting into people's minds using
PR an/or developing relationships (and other tools
"including" advertising) works wonders. I'm sure you
don't mean it - but you seem to infer that measured
advertising is the only solution.
<<<<

In reading Rob's recent postings on this subject, I did
not infer from his remarks that "measured advertising is
the only solution."

No doubt, PR has value, and if one knows in advance
that a story is to be run, metrics can be established to
determine whether or not the story had a positive impact
on the sales of the brand or item.

But PR also runs the risk of inviting comparison testing
when products or services are involved, unless we are
discussing the dreaded "advertorial." If you rank well,
resources can be stretched too thin in responding to
an upsurge in demand. If that results in production
problems or quality defects, the longer term result might
be negative.

A company does not have to be as large as IBM, GM
or 3M to monitor the success of its advertising. The
company merely has to maintain good records about
sales, promotions, and advertising, all in some detail,
and relate the timing of sales changes to advertising
campaigns, customer promotions and the like to see
what is happening.

PR is great. But true PR is not controllable in the
sense that advertising is controllable. An advertiser
may decide to run their ad for three months or three
days in a single outlet. Press releases may result in
a single story here or there. News outlets are not
the mouth pieces of advertisers and have to find new
news. If I received a trade magazine that ran the same
articles three months in a row, I would cancel my sub
and stop reading it. Most other I know would do the
same.

Don Makoviney also wrote:
>>>>
Rob Frankel said:
"Ries's view on branding by itself has not kept up with
the evolution of marketing, branding, media and advertising."

Marketing and products can evolve, but human perception
changes little. First impressions are first impressions.
Owning a word in the mind of a consumer still works.
<<<<

Marketing and products do evolve.
Human perceptions change over time.
Lots of people marry those who provide
less than stellar first impressions after giving
them a second chance.

Likewise, a high TVQ rating is no guarantee
that the public will love you forever. Just ask
O.J. And, he was acquitted.

GM thought it owned the word quality until
Toyota came along. Xerox believed it was
the Photocopy King until Canon invented its
xerographic engine module.


While advertising is no cure for shoddy quality
or a too high price, PR isn't either. And part of
the problem with PR is that the most avid believers
in glowing press releases are those who write them
and those working for the companies releasing them.
The competition and the public relies on testing and
measurement to learn the Truth.

PR is useful for announcing new products and
major improvements to existing products, provided
the PR efforts are supported by advertising to keep
the message in the minds of prospects.

What do you think Rob and others? What has your
experience been?

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com





Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 14:23:05 CDT