| |
|
 |
To return
to the current issue of News & Views, click
here.
|
Web Site Post Sparks Vigorous, Global Debate on Ins and Outs
of 'Pay for Play' PR
If payment is contingent on obtaining coverage, is it ethical? | |
By Dick Pirozzolo, APR
"Get
me in The Wall Street Journal and I'll
bring you a wheelbarrow full of money!"
--Prospective client to PR agency representative
Nothing gets PR agency pros more tightly wound up than the suggestion
of a Pay-Per-Placement engagement. Most of us have gotten these
money-for-ink offers. Most of us reject them. If we do try, many
end up saying never again.
For the most part, that's how PR practitioners worldwide reacted
when the subject came up in two recent LinkedIn
discussions on the compensation scheme dubbed PPP.
Intense current interest in PPP may stem from PR practitioners looking
for new ways to replace old revenue streams in the current economy.
Members of two LinkedIn groups were passionate, provocative, glib,
sometimes snarky but overwhelmingly thoughtful and still going strong
after 250-plus comments two months later. This is in stark contrast
to most LinkedIn PR discussions: they either fall flat after a handful
of responses or, sometimes, are posted and earn not a single comment
at all.
Jules Zunich, who owns Z Group PR, kicked off one discussion on
Public
Relations Professionals by noting she received another request
to conduct PR on a pay-for-placement basis and "had to pass." In
this economy, she asked colleagues, "are you lowering fees, changing
fee structures or doing what you always did? Please share!" Ninety-seven
comments followed, most congratulating her for walking away and
denigrating the PPP "opportunity."
But Rick Smith, whose NewsUSA shop specializes in PPP, triggered
a separate 150-comment avalanche by challenging members of Public
Relations and Communications Professionals to generate new revenue
by allowing him to service their clients and successfully place
their stories in the media on a Pay For Play (P4P) basis -- "anybody
interested?"
A consummate promoter of his P4P company, Smith offered a money-back
guarantee and went on the offensive to build his case. "We get these
all the time. ... Companies that have been burnt by signing 12-month
contracts, getting zero and now [want a] referral to a firm that
I can guarantee won't burn them. I have [also] seen blatant rip-offs
and very hard work for clients from hell ... some that stiff you.
... We have been around for 30 years. Maybe
we hold the payment in escrow pending a fair result as defined by
the parties and arbitrated by us? Thoughts?"
 There
was no maybe about Smith's business model. NewsUSA clients escrow
their fees and NewsUSA collects only when it obtains media hits.
Smith also accepts partial payment in the form of company stock,
pays referral fees and will partner with PR firms that want to add
a PPP component to their operations.
NewsUSA focuses almost exclusively on consumer stories, often How-Tos
and Ten-Tips fare. In contrast, practitioners who have tried PPP
with trade media campaigns and business-to-business clients indicated
in their posts that lead times were too long and payment too uncertain
to make it a worthwhile pursuit.
The LinkedIn discussions focused on three main considerations: Does
the PR profession sell itself short by not providing a more strategic
communications service -- and charging for it? If a PR firm takes
on a PPP client, how does the client confirm that the work gets
done and then how does the agency ensure it gets paid after achieving
results? And finally, a number of PR pros questioned the ethical
basis of PPP.
Selling PR Short?
James Cooper, owner of a PR shop in the UK, felt the PPP model "doesn't
give credit nor compensation for all the upfront work it takes to
begin securing placements. ... It undermines the premise of PR and
all the 'off the page' work agencies do."
New York PR firm owner, Barbara Brooks Kimmel, was more direct.
"The few who have asked me for PPP either don't understand what
we do, or are looking for a 'cheap' alternative. Either way, not
the kind of client I want."
Agency heads expressed a conflict when serving both retainer and
PPP clients. Concepció Roca, a PR consultant in Barcelona, observed
that "with pay-per-clip ... neither the client nor the agency is
vested in the outcome. There isn't much incentive to perform for
the pay per clip client."
And while the PPP's model clearly incites action on the vendor side
of the equation -- placements earn the agency money -- they can
inhibit development of a good working engagement. Tracy Richardson
Clement in Atlanta "tried a P4P structure once. ... (but) without
a vested (financial) interest in my work, it was never a priority
for the client to follow up with me, provide me with needed updates.
... I resigned the work and cannot fathom how I would EVER do it
again."
Jocelyn Brandeis, co-founder of JBLH Communications in New York,
echoed numerous colleagues' comments on the economy by pointing
out that her "fees have been slightly lowered, but my self-esteem
and self-respect have not. Pay-per-play is not good for our industry."
On the other hand, Stephenson Group, a traditional PR firm in New
Jersey, established a separate PPP operation to serve clients and
publishes a price
sheet. For example, features in 50,000-100,000-circulation newspapers
cost $1,800. The firm draws its payments from a monthly client fee.
A number of posters found NewsUSA's "guarantee" troublesome while
others, like LA-based Todd Appleman, argued that "PPP is a violation
of PRSA standard of ethics."
Not so, or at least no so clear-cut, according to PRSA. In a December
2007 Wall Street Journal
article, PRSA's then-CEO Rhoda Weiss, APR, Fellow, hedged, saying
only that public relations was about "more than being in the media.
When you work with a [full-service] public relations firm, they
will develop communication strategy."
Ethical concerns may stem from confusing PPP with paying journalists
for placements, or presenting paid placements, such as advertorials
or paid TV "news" productions, as "earned" media.
Despite the skepticism, a lot of clients appreciate not having to
pay if their agencies don't obtain coverage. Peter Metzinger a PR
pro in Switzerland, notes a former agency employee "started offering
a 100 percent money-back guarantee a couple of weeks ago. Since
then his phone doesn't stop ringing."
|
|
|
|
