I feel (as a PR practitioner) there is a big gap between 'do something cheap, dirty but will make me/my brand famous for 24 hours' - aka a low budget PR 'stunt' and what actual modern PR is, which can contain elements of the former, but is usually much broader and varied, and shares much common DNA with other marcoms disciplines, including research, insight, strategy and building brands and going on a journey in partnership and so on - it is certainly no longer built around going for cheap, quick wins with no real rhyme or reason.
The irony is that most decent PR agencies would reject a stand-alone brief for a 'cheap nasty stunt', for many of the same reasons you call out, and would aggressively challenge the brief and/or walk away from it. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be called a 'PR stunt' because it taints what PR really is.
Excuse the late response, I've been traveling pretty nonstop. Totally agree with what you said. I'd be curious though for your personal simple definition of "what PR really is" (not as a challenge, but more out of personal curiosity)
In the most simple terms, PR is brand reputation. What journalists, investors, stakeholders, consumers, regulators, environmentalists (etc), think about your brand or organisation is your brand reputation - and trying to make those relationships stronger and opinions more positive is PR. So PR is brand reputation.
(I know some people in advertising think brand reputation is their gig - and being a guardian of the brand is a classic role for an advertising agency to play - but actually that's not quite the same thing. Advertising and marketing are generally are only interested in brand reputation in as much as it relates directly to the consumer/buyer and modern PR/PR done properly, defines it much more broadly)
I'd argue that "brand" and "reputation"m are synonyms. Done right, Comms, PR, Social, etc are all in the business of building associations (reputations). Direct Response is where trial comes in.
I've always thought of it as Comms (trad. advertising) is as visible as possible whereas good PR is intentionally behind the scenes. Message brand conveys vs influencing what others say. Is that a fair distinction?
Sort of but it's more perspective than reality; if you are a journalist, PR is not behind the scenes, and if you are a financial stakeholder, PR is not behind the scenes, and if you are a highly influential mum, and mums are a key brand audience, PR is not behind the scenes.
Traditionally, PR involves putting something between the end audience and the brand - a spokesperson, a celebrity, another organisation, a journalist etc - which is where the 'behind the scenes' concept makes sense, but modern advertising does this regularly too, especially with the rise of the paid-for social media influencer. The distinction has gotten much smaller; although the starting point for PR is to think about things like relationships and influence and for advertising, it's different things like reach and frequency.
Relationships and influence vs reach and frequency is a great distinction. Agree the line is blurring, but I like that breakout. Thanks for indulging my questions and tolerating/responding to my original rant.
I feel (as a PR practitioner) there is a big gap between 'do something cheap, dirty but will make me/my brand famous for 24 hours' - aka a low budget PR 'stunt' and what actual modern PR is, which can contain elements of the former, but is usually much broader and varied, and shares much common DNA with other marcoms disciplines, including research, insight, strategy and building brands and going on a journey in partnership and so on - it is certainly no longer built around going for cheap, quick wins with no real rhyme or reason.
The irony is that most decent PR agencies would reject a stand-alone brief for a 'cheap nasty stunt', for many of the same reasons you call out, and would aggressively challenge the brief and/or walk away from it. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be called a 'PR stunt' because it taints what PR really is.
Excuse the late response, I've been traveling pretty nonstop. Totally agree with what you said. I'd be curious though for your personal simple definition of "what PR really is" (not as a challenge, but more out of personal curiosity)
In the most simple terms, PR is brand reputation. What journalists, investors, stakeholders, consumers, regulators, environmentalists (etc), think about your brand or organisation is your brand reputation - and trying to make those relationships stronger and opinions more positive is PR. So PR is brand reputation.
(I know some people in advertising think brand reputation is their gig - and being a guardian of the brand is a classic role for an advertising agency to play - but actually that's not quite the same thing. Advertising and marketing are generally are only interested in brand reputation in as much as it relates directly to the consumer/buyer and modern PR/PR done properly, defines it much more broadly)
I'd argue that "brand" and "reputation"m are synonyms. Done right, Comms, PR, Social, etc are all in the business of building associations (reputations). Direct Response is where trial comes in.
I've always thought of it as Comms (trad. advertising) is as visible as possible whereas good PR is intentionally behind the scenes. Message brand conveys vs influencing what others say. Is that a fair distinction?
Sort of but it's more perspective than reality; if you are a journalist, PR is not behind the scenes, and if you are a financial stakeholder, PR is not behind the scenes, and if you are a highly influential mum, and mums are a key brand audience, PR is not behind the scenes.
Traditionally, PR involves putting something between the end audience and the brand - a spokesperson, a celebrity, another organisation, a journalist etc - which is where the 'behind the scenes' concept makes sense, but modern advertising does this regularly too, especially with the rise of the paid-for social media influencer. The distinction has gotten much smaller; although the starting point for PR is to think about things like relationships and influence and for advertising, it's different things like reach and frequency.
Relationships and influence vs reach and frequency is a great distinction. Agree the line is blurring, but I like that breakout. Thanks for indulging my questions and tolerating/responding to my original rant.