Apr 16

Written by:
4/16/2010 11:34 AM 

While many get close to understanding the truth of PR and all its many facets, today the Wall Street Journal defined PR in an incorrect and outdated way:

“Marketing is the harder science, driven by research and knowledge of consumption patterns which then dictates media spend. PR is softer in approach and is based on existing relationships between publicists and media outlets.”

 
Their article is in the context of Marketing v. PR in the movie industry so there is some truth to the matter, but the problem here is the words EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS. Sure – publicists' relationships with reporters can be helpful for landing you a great piece of coverage. It has helped VolumePR clients more times than we could even venture to guess.

But it is NEVER what actually CAUSES it to take place, and is perhaps 1/10th of the full scope of what PR actually is, and what it is intended to do.

If a PR program isn’t first and foremost mapped to a scientific strategy, then forget about it. Because a good story here or there isn’t a magic bullet, and any publicist that tries to tell you something different is fibbing.

No PR program will succeed unless the team has a proven history of being able to take any story and entice COLD contacts to want to write about it. If all you know how to do is call up people you already have connections with, forget about it. Your PR efforts will be a bust.

Citizen journalism, evolving freelance reporter bases... Being best buds with reporters as the way of generating media exposure for your brand is so 2000 and late.

Find the Wall Street Journal Article here