Can PR Campaigns Boost Credibility vs. Ad Campaigns? Yes, by as much as 76 Percent, Nielsen IAG Study Suggests

The headline from a recent news release from The Nielsen Company says

“Advertising Builds Confidence for Financial Brands in Crisis, Nielsen IAG Study Finds.”

In a nutshell, 55 percent of the study respondents said they had “complete confidence in the financial health and soundness” of  their banks, insurance companies and investment firms IF “they had seen more advertising for their financial institution” during the previous six months.

This is a very exciting finding! I especially think it’s cool news for those in the advertising and marketing fields, especially since one of the main advantages of advertising is that you can completely control the content, delivery and timing of your messages in an advertising campaign. This is NOT the case with a PR campaign!

In addition, I also found what I consider to be an interesting nugget of information mentioned near the end of the release. Here’s the paragraph in question:

“When asked what factors would increase confidence in the safety and soundness of their financial institution, respondents cited:

• Seeing regular advertising for that institution (25%)
• Receiving regular mail or email offers from that institution (25%)
• Regularly seeing internet offers/advertising from that institution (21%)
• Reading positive stories in the press about that institution (44%)”

Note the last bullet point : 44 percent of the respondents said that “reading positive stories in the press about that institution” would (to quote from the opening sentence) “increase (their) confidence in the safety and soundness of their financial institution.

I’m not a math whiz by any means, but I know that 44 percent is greater than 25 percent. How much greater you ask? Seventy-six percent (76%) greater. [The difference is even greater vs. Internet ads/offers (109% greater), but I'll stick with the advertising comparison for this blog post.]

To me this seems pretty straightforward: PR changes attitudes and perceptions for more people.

Please understand – I am NOT advocating that companies stop advertising. As stated in the third paragraph above,

“. . . one of the main advantages of advertising is that you can completely control the content, delivery and timing of your messages in an advertising campaign.”

Unfortunately, when it comes to public relations (specifically media relations or publicity efforts), companies do NOT have such control — at least not in societies where a free and unfettered press is the norm.

In other words, once you

• get off the phone with a reporter,
• leave a journalist’s office,
• send out a news release,
• deliver a product for a review/evaluation,
• push “send” on your email to an editor,
• etc.

you have absolutely no control whatsoever that any story is going to be published about you, your company, product, service, issue or what-have-you, let alone whether said story will be positive.

You also have zero control over whether or not a story is going to be published at all. Or when or where said story might be published. Or its size/length. Or if it’s going to include artwork. Or anything at all — you have NO CONTROL!

However,

• if/when said story runs, and
• if it’s a positive story,

I believe that such media coverage generates significantly greater credibility than what you can produce through advertising.

How much so? Well . . . the Nielsen IAG study suggests that the difference could be as high as 76 percent greater.

[NOTE: There is no guarantee that the data from this research study can be extrapolated across industries other than the financial world.]

Nevertheless, if your goal is to boost credibility, public relations may be the way to go.

That said, please recognize that PR is not the right discipline for achieving every marketing and/or sales objective. That would be like recommending that the only tool you needed in your garage or toolshed is a hammer.

That’s why we always recommend examining all potential vehicles in the marketing communications mix and choosing the best mixture for the goals and objectives at hand.

Part of what’s got me so psyched about finding this Nielsen IAG study, however, is that I’ve been telling people for years that PR has a higher “credibility factor” than advertising (with a counterbalanced lower “control factor” than advertising). And for the first time, I now have some independent data that appears to support my claims.

Should anyone reading this blog post know of other studies/articles that similarly support such an idea, I’d love to know about them. Thanks.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

DISCLOSURE: SOAR Communications is the PR agency of record for three Nielsen properties: Outdoor Retailer, Interbike, and Health+Fitness Business Expo.

175 Million Reasons Why You (and Your Company) Should be on Facebook

The latest comScore numbers are out, and there are now 175 million users on Facebook.

In other words, in less than a year, Facebook has now caught and surpassed MySpace as the most relevant and compelling social networking platform in the world. (Hmmmmm, maybe those guys at Microsoft are pretty smart after all.)

Recognize that roughly 70 percent of all FB members are from outside of the United States (or approximately 122 million users), which may or may not be a good thing for you and/or your company.

But for those of you just focused on the U.S., that still means that more than 50 million Americans are on Facebook, which is pretty mind-boggling when you stop and think about it. In other words, since its founding in February 2004, Facebook has now captured more than 1/6th the entire U.S. population as users/members.

Assuming you’re reading this because you work in some aspect of marketing, communications, public relations, shareholder relations, sales, management or a combination of these areas, 50 million of anything is a BIG DEAL! And if 50MM is a BIG DEAL, then certainly 175 million is an even bigger deal!

(more…)

PR Gaffe Gives Nike Black Eye

When is the winner of a race not the winner of a race? Simple: When other racers don’t know what’s happening with all of the other racers or teams during a race.

Clear as mud? Let’s be more specific.

As I wrote yesterday on the SOAR Communications blog (see “Fastest Runner Finally ‘Wins’ Nike Women’s Marathon“), Arien O’Connell (photo above) posted the fastest time in this past Sunday’s race in San Francisco. However, because O’Connell didn’t start the race with the elite runners some 20 minutes before the 20,000 other runners, O’Connell’s time of 2:55:11 didn’t put her on the winner’s podium or give her the winner’s prizes.

Not fair. Maybe. But them’s the rules, both Nike’s and those of USA Track and Field. And for good reasons.

You always have at least two competitors in a race - other racers and yourself. Truth be told, the strategies and tactics that go into running a race don’t always mean running flat out from start to finish. In fact, sometimes the person who wins is she who has the best plan going into the race or he to adapts the best to the unfolding drama on the course.

Unfortunately, for Nike, few people outside of competitive/professional runners realize such strategies and/or rules exist.

Nevertheless, Nike could have had all of the runners start at the same time - apparently that’s their plan for next year’s Nike Women’s Marathon.

But this year, after word got out that O’Connell’s fastest time didn’t win the Nike Women’s Marathon all heck broke loose. Hundreds of comments, most negative toward Nike, were attached to online stories and blog posts.

Brian Solis of FutureWorks fame wrote an impressive blog post providing good background on the race (his wife and mom ran in the marathon), and then he appropriately lambasted Nike for dropping the PR ball in this instance.

Remember: Companies like Nike sponsor and/or produce events like marathons for very specific corporate goals. In the case of this marathon, I believe the three main purposes of the race were to A) raise money for cancer research, B) celebrate female athletes and “average” runners, and C) promote Nike.

Several days after the race, Nike backtracked (kind of) and named O’Connell “a” winner in the race. Not THE winner - A winner. She also got the same prize package as THE winner.

And as mentioned above, Nike also announced it will NOT have separate start times for elite runners and the rest of the pack in next year’s contest.

At the end of the day, these were the correct steps for Nike to take. But my heck, what a mistake by Nike and its marketing & PR teams to not honor O’Connell on race day.

If such an event had NEVER occurred before (a non-elite runner’s results surpassing those of a top elite finisher), that would be one thing.

But literally days before the running of the Nike Women’s Marathon a similar result had occurred with the Chicago Marathon when the fourth best time was posted by a non-elite runner. Except in this instance, Wesley Korir did NOT receive the $15,000 in prize money awarded to the 4th place finisher.

How did Nike not know this? And even if they didn’t know this had happened, how is it that a company dedicated to sport and celebrating the competitive nature of the human spirit didn’t immediately step forward and declare to the world,

“Wow! Look what happened. We’re so excited by Arien’s best time finish, we’re going to award her a prize package identical to the ‘official’ 1st Place finisher!”

Then everyone would have joined in celebrating with O’Connell and Nike, instead of decrying the company’s lack of fair play and its corporate callousness.

Nike gets a “Sad Betty” Award in my book, even if they did the right thing eventually.

They just didn’t “Do It” from the get-go, and that’s the problem.

Seasoned Journalist Offers Advice to PR Pros

The idea that anyone, let alone a public relations professional, would speak with a journalist while chewing food is mind-boggling.

But that’s what award-winning, Salt Lake Tribune Reporter Paul Beebe says that at least one PR “pro” did last week while visiting with Paul at last week’s Speed-Pitching Event produced by the Utah Valley Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America at Utah Valley State College.

The first-time activity was a fun and helpful PRSA get-together designed to allow PR reps to spend four minutes pitching a story idea to one of six different journalists, of which Beebe was one.

This was obviously a worthwhile chance to meet one-on-one with local journalists, so we had one team each from SOAR Communications and Politis Communications on hand (with clients in tow) to take advantage of the opportunity. And in my opinion, it went quite well; then again, the proof will be in the pudding (are stories written/produced about our clients or not by these journalists).

But back to Beebe’s 11/18/07 article, entitled “Let a hack pitch ideas to a flack.”

First off, for the uninitiated, “hack” is an unflattering nickname for what Beebe terms “a mediocre writer.” Conversely, Beebe writes that “flack” refers to someone who “nag(s) reporters on deadline with bad ideas for lousy stories.” OUCH (on both parts)!

If you have a moment (assuming the link above to the story is still “live,”) check out Beebe’s full article. As I would expect, it’s well-written, direct and pulls no punches.

However, since I’ve noticed in the past that Tribune stories often become unavailable after a week or two without a subscription, I’m going to republish below Beebe’s complete list of advice to PR practitioners everywhere.

So (with Beebe’s permission), here is Paul’s list:

• Do not talk with food in your mouth. That’s gross, and it happened last week.
• Never say you just started your job yesterday. Saying, in effect, you know next to nothing about your client doesn’t inspire confidence.
• Make eye contact. Speak in short sentences. Don’t drone on. Avoid hype. Avoid jargon. If you can’t describe your company in English, you’re in trouble.
• Know what you are going to say before you start your pitch.
• Tell me immediately what you want. Don’t expect me to figure it out.
• Don’t repeat yourself unless there’s a good reason.
• Anticipate this question: Why should I care?
• Bring a business card (some folks last week did not). I expect one. Don’t just circle your name at the bottom of your press release.
• Pitch real stories. Telling me your company is wonderful and your CEO is a great person is usually not persuasive.
• Ask yourself, would you really want to read what you are offering? If the answer is yes, your idea will usually sell itself. Otherwise you’re in trouble.
• In that vein, don’t ask me what I want to read. I’ll know it when I see it.
• Don’t ask me who covers what or who to contact at the newspaper. It’s your job to know.
• Understand what newspaper journalists do. They report news and trends, often on deadlines. Their interests are not necessarily aligned with yours. Tell them why their readers should care about your client.
• Be aware of business or economic trends and how your company fits in.

I STRONGLY recommend any person preparing to speak to a journalist read (or re-read) Beebe’s list and adhere to his advice.

For although most of Beebe suggestions should be second nature to PR professionals, the fact that he wrote the story/column at all proves that some PR practitioners and spokespeople have some basic improving to do.