• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing Media Zone

Network Network

mediazone

advertising guide

brought to you by
brought to you by

Consumer-generated campaigns are PR's domain

this article
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 5
  • 52

Gerry McCusker runs EngageORM a PR, communications and training consultancy helping brands, organisations and individuals monitor and maximise their online presence.

Advertise with us

Two weeks ago in The Australian, Clems' James McGrath and Patts' Ben Coulson seemed to concur that ads that really engage audiences will be all the rage at Cannes from June 15-21. Traditional advertising is apparently waning in effectiveness compared to consumer-generated or audience-participation campaigns. So, the ad industry is shifting towards executions that let the audience play with the creativity and messages.

However, giving audiences their say is a territory that PRs should be in control of, not advertisers or marketers.

First up, if consumers are adding the creative part, then you're taking pure ad creatives outta the equation. As for the kernel of the idea, that's more about strategic rather than creative direction, anyway. And should CGM create a media or stakeholder issue, PR is best qualified to plan for, participate in or manage that situation.

After all, you can't creatively or financially 'advertise your way out of a crisis' can you?

And with Ben Coulson on record as saying stunts and events that could generate their own media coverage are the top of every advertisers wish list, he reveals how the ad industry now wants campaigns with really spinnable PR input.

Sadly, this isn't the way many big agency creatives think. But more nimble operators do.

Just ask Launch Group, who brought Paris Hilton out for the Bondi Blonde beer launch, or SEE's new media team who produced the first 'Make Your Own Socceroos' ad campaign. That was almost two years ago now.

Like a big ole oil tanker turning in Port Phillip Bay, the big agencies are coming round to the integrated way of thinking that the more free thinking 'integrates' have been practicing for years.

Images

5 Comments

David Gillespie
  • Wrote on 5 Jun, at 06:12PM
"However, giving audiences their say is a territory that PRs should be in control of, not advertisers or marketers."

This statement is fundamentally flawed, the reason being is companies don't give audiences their say, audiences are having their say already, and if the companies are lucky, the audience will let them in on the conversation. As long as we're talking about this in terms of "having control", the entire argument is redundant.

What we should be doing is giving people the tools to say what they need to say, and if you do it with authenticity then you don't have to worry about a stakeholder issue, because they don't exist.
Gerry
  • Wrote on 6 Jun, at 01:55PM
Yeah youre prob right David; control is an unfortunate lexical choice there. I guess I was more greedily referring to financial control. I also acknowledge your point on them already taking control too. But lets not have this rotten little Gala Red spoil my entire argumentative barrel eh? Setting up genuine two-way comms channel is more usually PRs area of expertise (Google James Grunigs two way PR model), most would agree.
But hey, David, to say that by authentically giving people their share of voice then thatll negate all stakeholder issues...fark...if only! Now thats a long, flawed, nigh-on redundant bow to draw.
LukeF
  • Wrote on 6 Jun, at 03:06PM
If we believe that Web 2.0 and the participation phenomena are the future (and I personally have swallowed this idea), then is this not missing the point?

However we look at it, the power and influence is moving from the corporate world (and the surrounding Marketing and PR Agencies) to the consumer, and we will be ‘managing’ very little.

Ultimately the best products and services will win the day, not the largest marketing budgets. OK – so this utopia is quite some way away but at the leading edge we thought leaders should be preparing for it.

If you are looking to create relationships by allowing participation with marketing messages, why would you not go the whole hog and get consumers to participate in product development too? This would really engage people, building relationships, trust and affiliation. See http://www.threadless.com for an example of this in action.

As David alludes to, as social participation takes hold and (we) consumers increasingly connect and judge, the role of advertising and marketing may fall back to facilitation and provision of technical information only. This would allow opinion to organically grow; which is how it will happen regardless of our input or desires.

Given the propensity for consumer back lash when manipulation is obvious, steering clear of those that professionally ‘affect’ messages might be worth considering.
Gerry
  • Wrote on 7 Jun, at 01:51PM
Thx Luke for the utopian perspective, but methinks you and David might have mistakenly made your mind up about what PR actually is (ref manipulation and 'affecting' messages). To make myself really clear, this is what I think good PR is and why it's best placed to interact with more interactive audiences: "Uses communication to negotiate with publics, resolve conflict, and promote mutual understanding and respect between the organization and its public(s)." That's exactly how Grunig describes it. But if you think corporations and communicators should embrace a totally 'laissez-faire' attitude regarding public opinion and its organic growth, that's where we really differ.
LukeF
  • Wrote on 12 Jun, at 06:10PM
So lets get practical, without giving away too much of your IP, can you suggest a couple of online PR approaches that companies should be considering in our Web 2.0 scenario of a web dominated by uncontrolled contributor opinion?

I gave the example of seeding the discussion by providing base data, but what else should we be doing to influence discussion. A specific example might be product reviews….

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.