PR Chicago

What We Can Learn From AMC's The Pitch

AMC, creator of Mad Men, recently introduced us to the madcap world of modern-day advertising with The Pitch, a reality show in which two ad agencies compete to win an account. The agencies attend a pitch meeting at the client's office (something that never happens in the real world -- most of the time you don't know who you are competing against) and have about 8 days to develop a pitch. The 20 minutes of airtime that each agency gets is enough to show us in-fighting, lots of reaction (and non-reaction) shots and a few snappy tag lines.

Episode two pits Las Vegas-based SK+G against The Ad Store in New York, in a David-vs.- Goliath sort of contest to win the Waste Management business. The folks at WM fared the best here, as they had the opportunity to get the word out on their garbage-to-energy campaign pretty cost-effectively. Of course, they would have been better served using PR to tackle this awareness issue. I became one of the dreaded screen-talkers as I shouted that opinion at my TV.

What can we learn from The Pitch? That tag lines can't substitute for a more nuanced and better-looking campaign (SK+G), which ultimately met Waste Management's need for something "edgy" and "viral." Of course, it was neither, but the Vegas agency incorporated social media into the pitch. The Ad Store had a clever tag line in "Trash Can" but a very basic video with words, and not images, and failed to sufficiently impress WM. What we don't get with the brief time allotted on The Pitch is any reference to research, to strategy, to a long-range plan.

The worst thing about The Pitch is that it doesn't make the ad business look like fun. And in my years with the Big Agency, we had Sterling Cooper-esque wild times. In The Pitch we see listless, harried creative types looking panic-stricken. Is this a true picture of advertising today?

New AP logo: Like it or leave it?

AP recently introduced a modernized logo, the first refresh in 30 years. Of course, I have to agree with PR Newser that the release, regrettably, is jargon-filled and reveals the influence of some heavy-hitting --and billing-- brand consultants. Not that there's anything wrong with hiring brand consultants. I just wish that the folks at the AP, known for being clear and concise, would have refrained from phrases like "implementation of a master-brand strategy."

Updating the look and feel of a logo --and a web site -- is essential. And I like the logo. It's simple and strong. But do you need a slide presentation to justify it? No. What the presentation does do, however, is show the powerful influence and value the news service has had over its 166-year history. Now that's something to talk about. 

PR, defined. Only in a more interesting way.

While I was grumbling about WHY PRSA was spending so much time coming up with a "modern" definition of PR, many of the bloggers I admire were busy writing about it. Bloggers like Gini Dietrich at Spin Sucks and Justin at Justin Case You Were Wondering posit that while the project might be well-intentioned, the resulting three definitions of PR that were culled from nearly 1,000 submissions and hundreds of comments and blog posts are simply goobledygook.

 

Fact is, no one really knows what we do. And these PRSA-proposed definitions aren't going to enlighten them. 

 

Check out this snoozer -- one of the PR definition choices:

Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.

Years ago, when people asked, I would try to explain PR, only to see their eyes glaze over within about 10-seconds. They start fidgeting, desperately looking for an escape route. Now, I take the easy way out.."I get companies noticed-- on TV, radio, in print and online." OK, that's not even a small part of my work, but people understand it. 

How to define PR? With storytelling -- a concept bloggers and the twitterati have been yapping about for the past few years. Stories that SHOW show how PR has increased public awareness of products, services, retail outlets, manufacturing concerns, social, health and education issues and more.  

Short narratives. Compelling visuals. Snappy copy. Great results. Isn't that what we do?

 

Marilyn Monroe in Chicago: Eyesore or Tourist Attraction?

Tacky, tacky. The 26-foot tall statue of Marilyn Monroe (in the iconic blowing skirt pose, of course) recently installed in Chicago's Pioneer Court on Michigan Avenue makes a statement. The one that says Chicagoans have no taste. Or maybe that the private investors who are paying for the beyond-ugly Seward Johnson sculpture to decorate the plaza until next year are hardly discerning art patrons. 

I love Chicago's sculptures. The Picasso, the Bean, the giant eyeball, even the 106 cast-iron figures of just legs and feet at Grant Park. Quirky, creative, thought-provoking and fun. But this huge statue, one that invites tourists to take photos up Marilyn's skirt, as columnist Richard Roeper says, "is not an upgrade." This giant souvenir Marilyn belongs at Grauman's Chinese Theater in LA. Where's the Chicago connection? There isn't one. 

This is kitsch, not art. 

And what's next? A 50-foot rotating hula dancer? 

PR spin: Do new job titles make an agency more relevant?

Just read David Reich's blog post about the title changes at Golin Harris. It seems that new titles, like Strategists (people who devise PR strategies for their clients), Creators (people who write, design or produce materials), Catalysts (account people) and Connectors (social media types) were created to denote specialization. 

A rose by any other name? 

Is this news? Apparently the New York Times thinks so. 

In the Mesozoic era at the Big Agency where I worked, we had your Account Executive (Catalyst in the new PR Speak), who did virtually everything: wrote copy, developed PR and ad campaigns, supervised the design team. The creatives (Creators --which makes them seem somewhat Godlike) were upstairs, creating and trying to fill their portfolios with good samples. The Strategists were the honchos -- the VPs who made us stay over the weekend thinking of Big Ideas and then pitching them to clients and prospects. The only ones missing were the Connectors, who didn't exist in the pre-Internet age. 

There should be specialists at a PR agency. Some folks can make copy sing; others are great persuaders. But they ALL should be pretty proficient at PR and that includes strategy, copy, social media, client contact and at least recognizing good design when they see it. By creating specific niches for everyone, you limit your employees' ability to move around the agency and learn new skills; by keeping tasks isolated, you limit their view of PR and how campaign elements intersect to get the right results.

PR agencies should have better ways to garner attention than to devise new titles for jobs that have existed virtually since PR's inception.