Finally Putting “The Article” to Bed
Proving just how short the shelf life of a news story has become – even one in The New York Times - the heated debate sparked by Claire Cain Miller’s July 4th article on the Evolution of PR in Silicon Valley has cooled down considerably since last week. Known simply as “The Article” in PR circles, Cain Miller’s piece really hit the collective nerve of an entire profession – and the subsequent histrionics and grandstanding were a sight and sound to behold. This was one of those rare occurrences – like the Rodney King verdict or O.J. Simpson trial – where you felt forced to take sides. Either you were with Brooke Hammerling, defending both the woman and her “relationships are everything” style of PR, or you were against her… and with Ms. Cain Miller by default, a difficult position to defend given her not-so-hidden agenda to set Hammerling up for maximum vapidity.
The relationship between the media and PR professionals is a complicated one. This is why articles on the PR industry are actually quite rare (especially in the national business press). When they do appear, media tend to focus on practitioners who best embody all of their preconceived notions of the stereotypical uninformed PR flack. As a result, the practice of PR is at best, misunderstood, and at worst, misperceived to be the profession of “spinmeisters” (liars); bubble-headed blondes (bimbos); and silly “see and be seen” events complete with air kissing and exclusive VIP lists to satisfy our disproportionately sized egos. There was, however, one reporter who got it right. Her name is Katharine Mieszkowski.
Almost 12 years ago, FAST COMPANY magazine ran a story by Katharine Mieszkowski in the Dec. 1997 issue on the Silicon Valley PR scene entitled: The Power of Public Relations. The story focused on the personalities of two powerful female figures in technology PR – Pam Alexander and Andi Cunningham – and their different approaches to the PR process and to building their agencies. Alexander Communications is offered up as one model: the PR firm built on intense personal relationships, a knack for networking, and a focus on working the conference circuit (sound familiar?). Cunningham offers another: the values-based PR firm that limits the number of its clients to offer more personal service, brings truth into its clients’ often-insulated world, and represents the anti-PR firm by rejecting hype and hyperbole.
In comparing the FAST COMPANY and NYT pieces, you’ll reach two obvious conclusions: 1) Mieszkowski’s story is more balanced and objective, portraying both women as smart and articulate and their respective firms as runaway successes; 2) Cain Miller’s piece fails to uncover anything new in Hammerling’s “Who Do You Know” PR approach, with the exception of integrating social media channels. Pam Alexander and Brooke Hammerling share an almost identical viewpoint on PR and both relied on the strength of their personal networks to launch their companies. Fast Company presents this view as a valid approach to the PR business that works well for some firms and certain clients. And its true. I’ve watched several media relations shops become wildly successful. Schwartz Communications in technology and Rubenstein Public Relations in consumer are two that come to mind.
Personally, I’ve always felt more of an affinity with Andi Cunningham’s point of view. The Bateman Group’s PR philosophy is in many respects a direct descendent of the Cunningham model pioneered in the 1980s; improved upon by firms like FitzGerald Communications, Niehaus Ryan Wong and Applied Communications in the 1990s; and (I hope) to be perfected by the Bateman Group in the 21st century. Hallmarks of this approach include: keeping the number of clients low and service levels high; smaller teams more focused on fewer accounts; genuine knowledge of your market; highest quality writing standards; and a focus on corporate brand building in addition to product/service awareness campaigns.
After some thought, I came to the conclusion I was too hard on Brooke Hammerling last week in my posts to Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter and comments on TechCrunch. I was caught up in the moment and made an unfair rush to judgment I now regret. Lessons learned? Well, one is just as there’s more than one way to solve any given PR problem, there’s more than one approach to practicing our craft and growing our businesses. Brooke Hammerling has found success on her own terms and without compromising any of the things that make Brooke, well, Brooke. That alone deserves my admiration and respect. And it’s the diversity of style, creative thinking and entrepreneurial spirit embodied by the people working in PR that attracted me to this industry in the first place and has kept me here. Well, that and the fact all the people in advertising were a$$holes…
Until next week!
Great commentary Fred.
The article also reminded me of how the new rules of online media are clearly changing the way some mainstream journalists approach the job. Cain Miller’s article, which was reminiscent of the glamorous PR wheeling and dealing that happens in an episode of Entourage, undoubtedly appealed to a broader audience due to its pure entertainment value. And the exposure it garnered on Twitter and within the blogosphere, let alone the traffic it drove to NYTimes.com, probably earned Cain Miller points with her editor. However, while sensationalism sometimes sells, “The Article” was a huge disappointment for someone who thinks sustained PR success cannot be achieved by relationships alone.
Really thoughtful post, Fred.
It is interesting that there aren’t more stories about the role that PR plays at a company beyond the Bubble Heads (love that visual).
Anyway, I don’t have much to add (which is really annoying to read in comments, btw), but wanted to just say that I enjoyed the post.