Since we have addressed the annual advertising
phenomenon known as the Super Bowl, we can now move on to the "good
stuff," music industry public relations of course. What else could it be? Ever
since the rise of PR's popularity and increased usage, there has been an air of
tension brewing amongst the public relations and marketing/advertising
disciplines. Although some seasoned professionals from both arenas have looked
past the petty competitiveness and recognized the potential for collaboration,
the two professions remain generally at-large with one another, and most still
perpetuate a subtle distaste for each other.
Is this deep-seated disfavor rooted in a fear of
professional legitimacy? Possibly. Do some professionals think that the success
of one discipline will eventually equate the demise of the other? Most Likely.
Do some professionals from each arena believe that their profession is superior
to the competition? Definitely.
Before you jump on the criticism bandwagon, this
post is not intended to determine which professional discipline- marketing or
public relations- is superior or more effective than the other. It is, however,
meant to determine, or merely suggest, which promotional discipline is most
adept at addressing the current state of the music and recording industry. I
am, as you know, of a public relations educational background, therefore I am
slightly partial to the public relations discipline, however, I am fully aware
and respective of the many positive aspects that the marketing profession
contributes to the public relations disciplines' many deficiencies, and vice
versa. No profession is perfectly self-sufficient. We thrive through
collaboration with other neighboring and complimentary professional
disciplines. For example, where would the music video production business be
without the original musical contribution of recording artists, engineers and
producers? Nowhere, that's where. Continuing on...
Although the two promotional professions are very
similar in purpose, they are, in fact, quite different in approach. The
marketing and advertising profession, for example, is largely devoted to
acquiring effective "paid-media" opportunities such as Internet,
television, radio and print advertisements that promote a specific business or
organization, as well as any associated products and services. This type of
promotional approach has proven to be effective for various types of businesses
and organizations, although it is extremely costly and, often times, difficult
for many small businesses to afford.
In contrast, the public relations profession is
primarily dedicated to garnering "earned-media" mentions such as
newspaper articles, press releases, press conferences, trade magazine articles,
interviews, industry-related publicity, public service announcements,
word-of-mouth advertising and charity affiliations. This is not meant to
insinuate that the public relations profession does not dabble in
"paid-media" opportunities, however, it is based- in theory- on the
utilization of "earned-media" promotional and publicity tactics. Now,
you might be beginning to understand the ensuing competition and dissension between the
two disciplines. After all, they are, indeed, both dedicated to the same
purpose: promotion.
When two competing professional disciplines
scramble after the same profit margin, desired commodity and end result, the
potential for opposition is unavoidable. Think about it. They both want the
same thing; all promotional efforts from both disciplines boil down to one,
single commodity, audience and consumer approval. There is, however, one
fundamental difference in the way these two disciplines measure their
definition of success.
Traditionally, the marketing discipline has been
primarily dominated by sales and figures. As a marketing professional, if you
don't meet your sales quota for the month, you are, as they say in the business
world, "history." Public relations, on the other hand, is largely
dedicated to building and maintaining strategic relationships so that organizations, as a result, are able to either progress or preserve their positive
reputation, as well as garner coveted third-party endorsements. Word-of-mouth
advertising, often embodied in the form of third-party endorsements, can be
witnessed within any issue of a local newspaper, Internet blog, social media
platform, trade-appropriate magazine or consumer review.
Complimentary mentions and business plugs composed
by unbiased, non-affiliated third party personas are, without a doubt, publicly
perceived as more credible than self-promoted advertisements. Ponder this for a
minute. Would you believe something, for example, that the brand Taylor Guitars
says about their own products or would you, instead, believe something that a
credible, seasoned studio guitarist said about the guitar itself? I thought so...
we'll go with the unbiased third-party endorser. Similar to the previous
example, these so-called "third-party endorsers" are in no way
coerced to provide their product testimonies (unlike paid celebrity endorsers),
they are, in fact, willing participants in the promotion of a credible,
reliable brand that they have personally come to trust through experience.
As a result, it depends on what, in particular,
your business or organization is looking for when it comes to promotion. Do you
want "the sales" or "the reputation?" The money or the
relationships? Personally, I believe that increased sales win the race, but a sound, positive reputation wins the marathon, every time. Again, this is just my personal
opinion, and not a corroborated scientific theory. It basically all boils down
to one thing- you have to decide what's best for you and your organization.
Whether that decision delivers you short-lived fame or eternal glory is entirely your prerogative.
In my next post, I will suggest which promotional
discipline- marketing or public relations- is best suited for the current
condition of the music industry.
