Are the gentlefolk of the press ignorant when it comes to PR, or
are they conspiring to infuriate the industry that helps them so
often?
On the up side, PR as a business is getting increasingly frequent
mention in the press right now. But, on the much-lower down side, most
of these stories fall into two equally annoying camps: the stories that
confuse PR with advertising, and the stories taking cheap shots at the
PR industry.
The cheap shots usually take the form of a journalist carping on about
an isolated, but unfortunately insensitive or ill-thought out press
release, as if it were tantamount to an act of terrorism itself.
Naturally, they rarely balance this with any talk of the thousands of PR
pros who are working long, hard days to get people back in the air, back
in hotels, back in restaurants, and so on.
In this vein - although the journalist was at least looking to balance
the argument - The New York Times rang PRWeek this week because a flack
working for Deepak Chopra had sent a release trying to capitalize on the
current "spiritual void." The reporter wondered, "Are PRs behaving like
snake-oil salesmen?" As we pointed out, this is a little like suggesting
that one dishonest attorney makes the entire profession corrupt.
The articles confusing PR with advertising are just as irritating
however.
Take last Tuesday's Newsday's piece, headlined "US War Battled On
Another Front: PR." The article then talks solely about advertising, and
how Charlotte Beers is considering buying airtime on the Al-Jazeera
network, and makes not a single mention of PR.
At the end of this article, Jeff Odiorne, a San Francisco ad man, is
quoted as saying that advertising on Al Jazeera depicting pasty
60-year-old Americans explaining the war is not going to change the
perceptions of teenage Muslims in the Middle East. In fact, as he said,
it is only "going to rub salt into the wounds." He is absolutely right,
which is exactly why the journalist should have been examining the
incredible potential for PR in this war, as the headline suggested he
would.
One of the most effective tools at Beers' disposal is third-party
endorsement.
In other words, the State Department might find respected Muslim
journalists and leaders who can bear testimony to the success of the
American Muslim community and to the fact that the US is focused on
eradicating terrorism, rather than oppressing a huge global
religion.
Beers might also ask experienced Middle-Eastern PR pros to find out
which media outlets people in that region can trust, and what they
believe about the current conflict. Only from that basis can you really
start to change the way America is seen. Hollywood and Madison Avenue
are perceived as part of the problem, and are therefore unlikely to
offer the solution.
Even the Ad Council has recognized the limitations of advertising in the
current situation, and has asked for the input of the Council of PR
Firms in devising a strategy to convey America's message to the Arab
world.
It is PR that has the real potential to change perceptions. But given
that the media seems to be missing that point, it is down to everyone in
PR to educate their contacts in the media. Wouldn't it be good to read
in the papers about the way PR is rising to the challenge. Here's
hoping ...
