By Larry Coffman
A couple months ago, while prepping to moderate a panel discussion on the changes in marketing communications over the past 30 years, I ran across an article in Ad Age that talked about “two developments that have changed marketing forever.”
“One is the arrival of the Internet. The second is the rise of global branding. Both of these developments have contributed to the following five revolutionary changes that have taken place in marketing since the turn of the century.”
I’ll deal with what they listed as No. 1 here, because it’s the most germane to the discussion about the blurring of the lines between advertising (paid media) and public relations (earned media).
“No. 1. PR is more important than advertising. In the past, almost every new brand was launched with a big advertising campaign. In today’s media market, that doesn’t work anymore. Advertising is expensive and not very credible, especially when used on behalf of a new brand. That’s why many of the most successful new brands were launched with PR. Brands like Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Uber.
“Consider the last presidential election. Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent almost twice as much on advertising as Donald Trump’s campaign: $1,184 million for Clinton; $616 million for Trump. Yet, Trump won the majority of the electoral votes: 306 for Trump vs. 232 for Clinton.
“It’s a different story when you measure the PR (earned media) received by the two candidates. By most counts, Trump received almost three times as much publicity as did Clinton.
“Why? Because Trump was ‘controversial’ and Clinton was not. Controversy makes news, and news builds brands. That’s one of the big differences between PR and advertising. A PR program needs to be controversial but that doesn’t work in advertising. Consumers are turned off by advertising that attacks the competition. But they don‘t blame the brand if a story in the media does the same thing.”
In the Oct. 28 issue of Ad Age, a story headlined “Blurred Lines—PR is emerging as the latest threat to ad agencies’ grip on creative,” quoted Robert Wynne, founder of Wynne Communications, from an article he wrote in 2013: “PR firms, as opposed to advertising agencies, promote companies or individuals via editorial content. They do so by focusing on earned media, versus ad agencies that focus on paid media.”
The writer, Lindsay Rittenhouse, went on to say,“Today—six years and a lifetime later—the lines between paid and earned media are all but erased, with an increasing number of PR firms crossing into territory once commanded solely by ad agencies. Traditional creative shops have been threatened by the incursion of everything from in-house agencies to consultancies and specialty shops focused on disciplines like experiential and data marketing. In recent years, however, PR also has stepped up to become a formidable foe.
“This transition is driven, in part, by marketers’ demands for integrated solutions, the rise of social media and viral content and financial pressures forcing PR firms to redefine their business models to remain competition. PR firms…no longer are judged solely by the number of media impressions they generate for a brand. For the past five to 10 years, they’ve also been taking the lead on creative, social, digital and paid media.”
The last sentence is consistent with our earlier “ad-volution” discussions about the rise of the virtual model, featuring a small core group, which hires specialty freelance services, as needed, in working with a particular client. Hence, everyone is essentially able to compete with everyone else—unlike the days of distinct lines separating advertising, PR and graphic-design.
But the newest wrinkle is the evidence of the power of earned media, which always was considered less impactful than paid media in the past.