Does the success of public relation means the death of Advertising?

Tweet

Just about a decade ago, some people involved in the public relations industry were asking marketers to stay out of their domain. These traditional PR people were arguing that marketing and public relations always been separate communications functions and that they should forever stay that way. Recently, two very known marketing consultants released a book titled “The fall of Advertising and the rise of PR”. The gist of the book is that while advertising is still the most dominant medium used by marketers, declining advertising effectiveness means that this communication tool is no longer effective for introducing and building new brands. The only way to build a brand now, they contend, is through public relations. While this obviously led to book burnings in advertising agencies around the world, what made it worse is that the authors-Al Ries and his daughter Laura Ries- are well known and respected marketers! Al Ries (along with a former coauthor, Jack Trout) is best known for first introducing the concept of positioning. And what could be more marketing than that? But now, say, the Rises Consumers have changed and the communication programs and the way we think about branding must change with it. Consumers now learn about products and brands through means other than advertising. Some brands including palm, starbucks and Body shop have succeeded with no advertising –and advertising has lost credibility. The Rieses contend that companies now must create brand image through publicity and media that consumers rely on for more “objective” information. Rieses are not the only ones who feel this way. Linda Recupero, vice president of the brand marketing company Burson-Marsteller, in New York-which was responsible for the successful PR launches of PR of Botox and segway –agrees with the premise that PR is more effective in building a brand in the introduction stage. Executives from large marketing companies like Gillette, Unilever, and Georgia-pacific have also weighed in on the side of PR. But not everyone is buying the death-of-advertising argument yet-including some PR executives. Thomas Harris, a public relations consultant, calls the book”A gross generalization” that overlooks other public relations functions beyond publicity. Harries argues that publicity can be a powerful tool for mature brands not just introductions. So will PR replace advertising as the mainstay of the communication budget? Not likely, say Jack Neff and others writing in “Advertising Age”. They note that even with major declines in 2001 advertising spending dwarfed that of PR- $31,74 billion to $4.31- and that PR spending actually declined more than did advertising .Rance Crain, also of “Advertising Age” sees Advertising and PR working together as a “one-two” punch, with PR as the relationship builder. Crain notes that “integration seems to be the way of the future” arguing that” whatever give the disciplines used, they all must work together to give a unified message to consumer” while opinions differ, no one seems to be saying that PR should return to its traditional function. Wonder what those PR people who told marketers to stay away are thinking? Regardless of which side you take in the advertising-public relations argument, one thing is clear –the role of public relations in the communications program has changed. The communication tools differs from product to product and from market to market