I’m tired. I’m tired of the b.s. in marketing communications where. CMOs and CEOs simply don’t know the difference between real earned media and the paid placements. As someone who grew up in the real earned media world, where news coverage was based on it being credible the blurring of the lines between earned and paid is simply out of control.
The reason for this is today, many marketing leaders simply don’t know they difference. They live in the fast-paced world of demand generation and leads. They think public relations needs to drive that meaning the companies they work for are faced with a critical decision: should they pay for guaranteed media placement or take a chance on earning coverage through merit alone? As someone who has worked in and around the marketing and PR industry for over five decades, I’ve seen firsthand how this choice can make or break a brand’s reputation.
On one side of the coin, we have pay-for-placement PR firms. These agencies promise predictable results by directly paying media outlets or freelance writers to publish their clients’ stories. It’s a tempting offer – who wouldn’t want the assurance of seeing their brand featured in a major publication? But there’s a catch.
When money changes hands, the line between authentic news and paid advertising becomes blurred. Readers are savvy; they can often tell when an article feels more like a sales pitch than an objective piece of journalism. This skepticism can erode trust in both the brand and the media outlet, ultimately doing more harm than good.
On the other hand, pay-for-performance PR firms operate on a results-oriented basis. They craft compelling narratives and pitch them to journalists, earning their fees only when a story is successfully placed. This approach prioritizes quality over quantity, focusing on tier-one media and building genuine relationships with editors and reporters.
While the outcomes may be less predictable, stories placed through pay-for-performance are often perceived as more credible. Media outlets are more likely to run stories they find truly newsworthy, not just those backed by a paycheck. As a result, the brand’s message comes across as authentic and trustworthy.
So, which path should companies choose? It depends on their goals and values. If short-term visibility is the priority, pay-for-placement might seem like the way to go. But for brands that want to build lasting credibility and trust with their audience, pay-for-performance is the clear winner.
The most successful PR campaigns are those that prioritize substance over flash. By investing in quality storytelling and building genuine relationships with journalists, companies can earn the kind of coverage that money can’t buy.
Of course, navigating the complex landscape of media outlets and their PR models can be daunting. That’s why it’s essential to work with a reputable marketing communications firm that understands the nuances of each approach and can guide you towards the best strategy for your brand.
At the end of the day, the choice between pay-for-placement and pay-for-performance comes down to what kind of relationship you want to have with your audience. Do you want to be seen as just another advertiser, or as a trusted source of valuable information? In the world of PR, authenticity is the most valuable currency of all.