Sign in
Courtesy navigation
Are you with the wrong PR agency?
Are you with the wrong PR agency?
February 23, 2010
At one of my PR seminars a while ago, I asked how many people had used or were using a PR agency. Half the audience put their hand up.
When I asked them to keep their hand up if they were satisfied with the results, I wasn’t surprised when most people lowered them again.
Some PR agencies are their own worst enemies. They fail to set clear expectations for their clients, they don’t keep them fully up-to-date with developments or provide regular written reports on actions and outcomes.
There is a perception that buying PR is a risk, but it doesn’t have to be that way, if you pick the right agency. Here are five signs that you might be better advised to find a new PR agency.
1 It’s staffed by PR ‘luvvies’ rather than former journalists. I may be a PR person now, but I was a journalist for 13 years. I get really annoyed when I meet PRs who don’t understand what it’s really like to run a business or what stories appeal to journalists. Effective PRs are results driven, they’re focused people. They understand what your business needs to achieve and what role they need play to aid your success. That’s why I prefer PRs who are former journalists. They understand what journalists really want and cut through the waffle that PR luvvies frequently add in.
2 It charges lots of expensive add-ons. If you ask for something unusual that costs your agency money, then fair enough, but doing day-to-day PR for your business shouldn’t create exceptional costs, certainly not without prior agreement. Basics such as media monitoring should be included in a pre-agreed fixed fee, not charged for as expensive extras.
3 It doesn’t understand there must a direct link between your PR and revenue – or how to put it in place: The most effective PR is direct response PR. That’s where you have a system to turn media attention into leads and those leads into sales. Without a system like this, you’re wasting your time. Most PR agencies claim there’s no direct link between PR and revenue. They’re so wrong it hurts.
4 It claims it’s all about contacts and press releases. Total nonsense. You don’t necessarily need a book full of media contacts or expertly crafted press releases to get coverage. Often you just need a good story and some basic knowledge about how best to bring it to the attention of the right editor.
5 It’s stuck in the past. I interviewed a potential employee recently who said the PR agency at which he worked focused only on getting clients into the newspapers. Still a powerful way for many businesses to get good publicity, agreed, but if you’re going to do direct response PR, you must also secure online coverage. In the modern world, for many businesses, it’s crucial. Many PR agencies talk about online PR, but don’t really understand what it is or how to do it effectively.
Paul Green, Publicity Heaven
Founding partners
Follow us on:
Startup Donut
Starting a new business - free advice, tools and resources | Start Up Donut
Copyright © 2009-2012
Comments
Interesting article. I've worked with about half a dozen small companies who had PR agencies engaged and have seen several recurring themes.
Small bizzes/start ups, often prefer working with a frelance PR rather than an agency because it feels more like having a team member rather than another company's junior exec at the table. I've found you can get better, more strategic advice from an exerienced freelancer, even on matters beyond PR.
Small business can have unrealistic expectations about what PR can deliver. Retaining a Pr agency or even paying for a one off project is pricey. But the results can often be sketchy. For a SME that budget can represent a massive chunk of spend. For an agency, maybe just another minor source of income.
The best agencies understand a business before taking the gig. It's always true... go with someone who gets what you do.
Hi Paul. Good post and it’s good to start a debate on this.
I have to say that I agree with all your points except the first one. I do agree that PR ‘luvvies’ are a bad sign – but former journalists aren’t necessarily the answer.
What a company needs is a group of PR people who know what kind of coverage to get and then how to achieve that. Sometimes ex-journos are not so hot on the former; sometimes PR ‘luvvies’ can fall down on the latter. However, whether an ex-journalist or not, they are skills that anyone in PR should have. Where I agree again with you is that as a business if your agency doesn’t possess both these skills then you should look around.
However, I’m also of the belief that a good many businesses (especially smaller ones) could run a small scale PR campaign on their own and don’t need to pay for an agency …
Very good point Mick and I have in the past worked with clients, particularly the SMEs as you mentioned, in working with some members of staff, giving them the basic fundamentals of PR and showing them the ropes so they can indeed do it in-house, as they don't have the budgets.
Working as a PR & Marketing Consultant means I can help them with this but work with them at looking at alternative routes to market with their marketing and PR activities.
As one of my bigger clients says "PR is no longer about the red carpet events and the let's do lunch but there are alot of businesses who still want and expect that so perhaps they are the ones that need training!" not just the PRs
So as we all seem to be PR people here on this forum, it is down to us to start re-educating them!
Interesting debate. An equally informative post could have been ‘Why are you with a PR agency?’
Most smaller companies won’t have budget for a PR retainer. And a lot are switched on enough to know that they can get the right sort of publicity by doing online PR themselves. Why would they rely on an intermediary when they can influence their targets directly in the communities those buyers trust?
Yes, I am a social marketing evangelist, and no one is an expert when they start blogging or using Twitter, LinkedIn, forums and the like. But, with some guidance or training, good systems can be put in place, and a manager can then just get on with it himself or herself.
Thanks Mandy.
Journalists make better PR people in my opinion because they have an understanding of a busy newsroom no PR person will ever get.
That's based on a few years employing both - and now I prefer to hire former journalists.
You're totally right with your last comments. PR people must understand the direct link with PR and revenue or they will get left behind
Great post! I have worked at several PR agencies and found that the ones with people who have come a journalist route are definitely more in touch with what makes a good story and how to get media attention. They have been the ones on the receiving end of piles of press releases and they know what works.
The PR 'luvvies' for the most part seem to be living in an Ab-Fab 'lets do lunch' mentality which for more the most part wastes time and money. They seem to lack the illusive business and media savvy to create a well targeted effective PR campaign.
With the rise of online PR / social media many have tried to position themselves as experts when they know next to nothing about it. To them having a Facebook profile where they talk to all their 'luvvie' friends about how 'luvvie' everything is experience enough. Some don't even have that.
The good thing about online PR / social media campaigns is that knowledge can be quite hard to fake when faced with the right questions. A bit of internet research will help with this but it all comes down to the same thing... how will they demonstrate ROI for your campaign?
Working in online PR it always frustrates me when I meet PR luvvies who don't get it. Then again I don't think they can sustain themselves for long.
This is a really good article with lots of positive points from Paul, which I do agree with. In the past year I have heard many stories of how organisations have been so dsiappointed with their PR experience and in some cases have spent a lot of money for nothing in return.
However I would have to slightly disagree with his point that only ex-journalists make could PR people.
Yes, I see that working as a journalist means you have a complete understanding of what is really needed by the varying media channels.
However, as I personally come from a "client" background I really feel the value I bring to my clients is that I understand the obstacles they face when looking at their PR activity or in many cases their whole marketing mix within their business. Therefore I ensure that I am not just another supplier but I become part of their team and work with all areas of the business.
Also having been "the client" for many years I heard many pitches and worked with the successful agencies but alas in the end we just bought this activity in-house so we could incorporate the activity into the business objectives and not just as an add on which, it seems, a lot of PR poeple do not understand.
As Paul pointed out in his article and as I say to all clients new and existing - PR is just not a write up in the newspaper!
Perhaps as I am not solely a PR specialist but an all round marketing communicatons consultant incorporating PR that I perhaps look at the bigger picture and offer a different type of PR and marketing service to my clients.
However the key point from Paul's article which I think is right is that PR agencies really need to look at how they run their businesses and work with their clients as times have changed, particulary in the last 2 years and so sending out a press release and an image to their database of contacts is just not enough anymore.
Add a comment
Not registered? We'll create a new account for you when you add your comment