The RepMan thinks AMC's new reality show "The Pitch" (which I have not seen) represents all that is wrong with advertising, and why "advertising is in decline and PR is ascending. Advertising talks at people; PR engages in conversations with them."
Fair enough, and far be it from me to argue with my favorite PR blogger when he insists that PR's more glamorous cousin is viewing its best days in the rearview mirror. It is certainly true that mass advertising has lost its captive audience with the fragmentation of said audience and the rise of on-demand media consumption. You can't talk at people; they'll change the channel, as RepMan so aptly notes.
Yet advertising, done well, is still a great way to kick-start the conversations that those of us in PR so deeply treasure. It's a way of saying "Hello." The great Pittsburgh ad man Ray Werner, in explaining Robert Morris University's Change A Life campaign, described the campaign and its web component as "hook and hang time." The advertising -- including print, TV, radio, and billboards -- lured people to the web site, where the conversation, and hopefuly a relationship, could begin.
The best advertising does that. Think the Old Spice Man commercials, which preceeded a spectacular social media campaign that not only started a conversation, but boosted sales to boot. (Which is kind of the whole idea.)
So yes, the lame kind of top-down, audience-ignorant ad campaigns that RepMan tells us are the grist of "The Pitch" are indeed dying, slow though their death may be. They're like the guy at the end of the bar, wearing too much cologne and spouting bad pick-up lines. But us PR types still a need good wingman once in a while to keep the conversation lively.
Showing posts with label RepMan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RepMan. Show all posts
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Where are all the men of your village?
Another ode to the RepMan in this post, but he deserves it for his willingness to tackle an uncomfortable issue: the dearth of men in public relations.
If leadership of The Arthur W. Page Society, the PRSA and The Council of PR Firms were less concerned about ‘earning a seat at the table’ today and more focused on building a balanced profession in the future, we’d see some meaningful education programs being put in place. These efforts would be widespread, aimed at high school boys and would shine the spotlight on the great careers being carved out by the few young men who do populate our ranks today.
Instead, as their forefathers did when race and gender discrimination ran amok in the 1960s and ‘70’s, today’s industry leaders are turning a blind eye on a trend that will one day soon result in an industry that is 90 percent female. And, what’s wrong with that you ask? Easy. If we don’t represent the increasingly diverse population our public and private sector clients are trying to reach, how can we possibly create a strategic communications solution?
You wouldn’t hire an old white man to publicize a fashion accessory for teenaged girls, would you? Well, marketers won’t hire all-female teams to market razor blades to blue-collar men either. In fact, I predict you’ll see more and more clients turn to more diverse professions such as advertising and branding in the future simply because they’re more balance from a race and gender standpoint. (link)
It's hard to get people fired up about the lack of men in a profession that has historically been open to them and when, as a group, men have traditionally been privileged by society. (And when men still hold many positions of leadership in the industry.) We're more likely to turn our efforts, and rightly so, to knocking down barriers that were erected because of bigotry to keep women and minorities out of certain fields -- or most fields, for that matter. (And it's worth noting that RepMan thinks PR is too white as well as too female.)
But it does matter that there aren't enough men in public relations, both for those of us individual males who work in the field as well as the industry, and our clients, as a whole.
For one, the more women come to dominate public relations, the more likely that people will assume, as many do now, that women are innately more qualified for public relations. That's bad for men who want to work in the field, but also a bit patronizing to women given that the field is often viewed as a "soft" discipline.
Second, I've enjoyed a rewarding career in public relations during the nine years since I left journalism, and I'd hate for other men to deny themselves that opportunity because they think it is a feminine occupation, or because others assume they aren't as talented as a woman. The same could be said of teaching and nursing, and other fields in which women, because they had so few other opportunities, came to dominate.
Finally, as the RepMan notes, we are doing ourselves a disservice as an industry, and on behalf of our clients, by alienating half the potential talent pool. Diversity after all is not just about being fair to all groups but it is also grounded in the belief that a variety of viewpoints are needed to solve problems and develop new ideas.
In short, the reasons to make men feel more welcome in PR are the same reasons we have opened to women all the fields that once were closed to them. There may be far, far greater injustices in the world, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to it.
If leadership of The Arthur W. Page Society, the PRSA and The Council of PR Firms were less concerned about ‘earning a seat at the table’ today and more focused on building a balanced profession in the future, we’d see some meaningful education programs being put in place. These efforts would be widespread, aimed at high school boys and would shine the spotlight on the great careers being carved out by the few young men who do populate our ranks today.
Instead, as their forefathers did when race and gender discrimination ran amok in the 1960s and ‘70’s, today’s industry leaders are turning a blind eye on a trend that will one day soon result in an industry that is 90 percent female. And, what’s wrong with that you ask? Easy. If we don’t represent the increasingly diverse population our public and private sector clients are trying to reach, how can we possibly create a strategic communications solution?
You wouldn’t hire an old white man to publicize a fashion accessory for teenaged girls, would you? Well, marketers won’t hire all-female teams to market razor blades to blue-collar men either. In fact, I predict you’ll see more and more clients turn to more diverse professions such as advertising and branding in the future simply because they’re more balance from a race and gender standpoint. (link)
It's hard to get people fired up about the lack of men in a profession that has historically been open to them and when, as a group, men have traditionally been privileged by society. (And when men still hold many positions of leadership in the industry.) We're more likely to turn our efforts, and rightly so, to knocking down barriers that were erected because of bigotry to keep women and minorities out of certain fields -- or most fields, for that matter. (And it's worth noting that RepMan thinks PR is too white as well as too female.)
But it does matter that there aren't enough men in public relations, both for those of us individual males who work in the field as well as the industry, and our clients, as a whole.
For one, the more women come to dominate public relations, the more likely that people will assume, as many do now, that women are innately more qualified for public relations. That's bad for men who want to work in the field, but also a bit patronizing to women given that the field is often viewed as a "soft" discipline.
Second, I've enjoyed a rewarding career in public relations during the nine years since I left journalism, and I'd hate for other men to deny themselves that opportunity because they think it is a feminine occupation, or because others assume they aren't as talented as a woman. The same could be said of teaching and nursing, and other fields in which women, because they had so few other opportunities, came to dominate.
Finally, as the RepMan notes, we are doing ourselves a disservice as an industry, and on behalf of our clients, by alienating half the potential talent pool. Diversity after all is not just about being fair to all groups but it is also grounded in the belief that a variety of viewpoints are needed to solve problems and develop new ideas.
In short, the reasons to make men feel more welcome in PR are the same reasons we have opened to women all the fields that once were closed to them. There may be far, far greater injustices in the world, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to it.
Monday, March 12, 2012
What's in a name?
You may have noticed that safe, stodgy retailer J.C. Penney is now dead. Rising in its place is hip retailer JCP, which is so cool that it produces commercials featuring Ellen DeGeneres.
Or, at least they changed the name. I learned via the RepMan (one of my favorite PR bloggers) that this change was born of the habit of CEO Ron Johnson and other company insiders of referring to the company as JCP in emails. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the company rebranded itself based on the equivalent of an inside joke.
I can't help but recall Radio Shack deciding that everyone should start calling it "The Shack," in a bid to revitalize its antiquated image. It's like your dad deciding he's going to start shopping at Abercrombie & Fitch in order to seem young and hip, but the attempt only draws attention to just how old he really is. (Hell, I'm almost 39, so it's like me deciding to shop at Abercrombie & Fitch to seem young and hip.)
Allow me to say it again: You. Do. Not. Own. Your. Brand. Your customers do. It's not what you say it is, but what they say it is, and no amount of changes to your name or your logo or any of your other branding will make a damn bit of difference unless your product or service changes along with it.
What Radio Shack and J.C. Penney -- excuse me, The Shack and JCP -- demonstrate is that people often ascribe far too much power to things like taglines and logos and even brand names, when those things are merely reflections of an organization's reputation, not the basis of it.
On the other hand, organizations also can underestimate the resonance of their own brand campaigns, and abandon them too quickly. This happens because people inside the organization, steeped as they are in it every day, grow tired of a logo, or a slogan, or a commercial much more quickly than the public at large, or even than the most devoted customers. Those people don't live and breathe the brand on a daily basis. Witness what happened when Gap trying to redesign its logo. Aside from the criticism of the mediocre result, the bungled effort demonstrated that people were still invested in what was perceived as a tired brand.
Ultimately, it is behavior that drives reputation, not graphic design. But changing a logo is a hell of a lot easier than changing behavior, sad to say.
Or, at least they changed the name. I learned via the RepMan (one of my favorite PR bloggers) that this change was born of the habit of CEO Ron Johnson and other company insiders of referring to the company as JCP in emails. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the company rebranded itself based on the equivalent of an inside joke.
I can't help but recall Radio Shack deciding that everyone should start calling it "The Shack," in a bid to revitalize its antiquated image. It's like your dad deciding he's going to start shopping at Abercrombie & Fitch in order to seem young and hip, but the attempt only draws attention to just how old he really is. (Hell, I'm almost 39, so it's like me deciding to shop at Abercrombie & Fitch to seem young and hip.)
Allow me to say it again: You. Do. Not. Own. Your. Brand. Your customers do. It's not what you say it is, but what they say it is, and no amount of changes to your name or your logo or any of your other branding will make a damn bit of difference unless your product or service changes along with it.
What Radio Shack and J.C. Penney -- excuse me, The Shack and JCP -- demonstrate is that people often ascribe far too much power to things like taglines and logos and even brand names, when those things are merely reflections of an organization's reputation, not the basis of it.
On the other hand, organizations also can underestimate the resonance of their own brand campaigns, and abandon them too quickly. This happens because people inside the organization, steeped as they are in it every day, grow tired of a logo, or a slogan, or a commercial much more quickly than the public at large, or even than the most devoted customers. Those people don't live and breathe the brand on a daily basis. Witness what happened when Gap trying to redesign its logo. Aside from the criticism of the mediocre result, the bungled effort demonstrated that people were still invested in what was perceived as a tired brand.
Ultimately, it is behavior that drives reputation, not graphic design. But changing a logo is a hell of a lot easier than changing behavior, sad to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)