Agreed, but the key, of course, is how the chaos will be come manageable/user friendly because I'm not convinced that it is at the moment.

Moreover, I'd be interested to know how PR can become conversational as distinct from conversation-promoting?

Richard,

I believe that we can only imagine what is going to happen over the next 19 years. What will the marcomm world look like -- we have little idea.

When Reagan was calling for the Berlin Wall to come down in 1987, could we have imagined the internet, mobile advertising, direct TV, etc. We can really only look at the trends -- and even those are even shaky.

Will Google eat WPPs lunch? Or will blogs become the new mass media? I tend to believe the possibility of the former, rather than the latter - but I don't know.

What I can tell you is that there are certainly trends that capture people's attention -- both consumers and journalists. I think marcomm experts can tell you that a story visually is better than in text. That people will chose to purchase from a company with a cause relationship -- over a company with no charity involvement. And possibily more interesting, is that there is a recent study that shows that JOURNALISTS are more interested in companies with cause stories as well. http://www.newswire1.net/NW2006/NW1/enr1000011/

Maybe marcomm companies need to look at the direction of the consumer for trends, buying habits, and the next great thing. Maybe it is as simple as a more holistic consumer in this century -- or maybe we are headed back to the 80's feelings of self importance.

Perhaps the question isn't how blogs, Ipods, Google, Microsoft, or agencies will impact consumers -- but how consumer trends will lead to new technologies.

The fax machine revolutionized how business was done -- but it really only impacted all business for about a decade (replaced by email). In a decade, or 19 years, blogs, Ipods -- and maybe Google, Microsoft, and agencies might be irrelevant too?

Ad agencies that rely on ad placement commissions are in a similar situation to travel companies that included hotel/condo stays in their holiday packages.

Nowadays, the condo owners or their agents post their room availability online, and tour companies are locked out of a lucrative revenue stream.

The heft of the agency is no longer an advantage in a world where the customers have more control.

Well said. But in the British peerage, knights are inferior to lords. And note that tonight, (Lord) Maurice Saatchi in a speech in Cannes is declaring the death of traditional TV advertising. Nothing new there. But he's predicting the emergence of what he calls 'one word equity' - snappy verbal brand definitions (think Google and 'search').

Martin is a huge fan of PR, no doubt. His remarks some years ago in Barcelona to an audience of PR folks working for him (at the time, me) really left many of us with the impression that our jobs and the service we deliver to clients was highly valued at WPP, uh, not.

Both speeches are entirely understandable in the context of what Martin pointed out then and you today. 1) PR is but a blip for WPP and 2) traditional advertising models are in trouble and advertising needs to reinvent itself. I don't envy the line of business folks at WPP (and elsewhere) who have to report up to the group level and say to CEOs, CFOs, board members (and ultimately shareholders) "hey, we've got to reinvent ourselves, its going to take some time and investment and its going to pull us away from our core revenue streams but it will position us well in 18-24 mos."

I prefer my position, independent and in PR.

It’s a shame that Sorell isn’t embracing change. New technology and emerging media will likely bring exciting and great new opportunities for creative marketing. Perhaps there needs to be a changing of the guard…

I am sorry to keep mumbling on about how PR adds to the asset value of organisations but Sir Martin has not seen that advertising is a cost and does little to add to either trading or asset value of a company. On the other hand, and in addition to corporate involvement in the 'long conversation', the huge contributions of ordinary people talking about companies, brands and values on-line do.

I have a short on-line (blog based) lecture on the subject at netpr.blogspot.com.

Sir Martin proposes to reduce the value of his advertising clients.

In the past it was helpful to take his advice. Scream Marketing was all his client knew. Today, they have alternatives and it is up to them to choose at the risk of not contributing to shareholder value or, in the case of Scream Marketing, reducing it.

There is a further point. In the days when Usenet was a thorn in the side of Enron style management, the effect on trust and minimal.

This is no longer the case. Today, we gain far too much by way of commercial benefit because of transparency to ever let it go away (I suspect that transparency is one of the major drivers that is keeping Western economies in the healthy state they are in today). This makes companies accountable. It re-focuses them on creating value instead of wasting effort (and shareholder value) on obfuscation or worse.

The policemen of corporate waste are no longer newspapers or (and all to often toothless) regulators, it is the consumer, commentator and the conversation empowered New Media users.

This is a Main Board matter, it is about harnessing ALL the media to help direct the corporation towards effective investment in time and effort instead of manning the watch towers.

Well said. FWIW, I remember using the same line on Bob Pitman when discussing AIM. As I recall, Pitman didn't do much about it, and I'd bet on the same thing from Sir Sorrell.

He has been sowing the seeds of digital for quite some time. See:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/06/sir-sorrells-school-of-digital-doubt.html

And, as I noted last week, Lord Saatchi has also joined in the fray:

It has been a nice week for introspection by the regal elite of the UK's ad agency bosses. Perhaps taking his cue from WPP's Sir Martin Sorrell (see: We're not ready), Lord Saatchi (of M&C Saatchi) writes about the strange death of modern advertising in today's FT.

http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/06/dead-flower-on-advertisings-grave.html

~G~

George,
You just cannot have it both ways. Sorrell wants his agencies JWT Ogilvy etc to reinvent themselves as digital leaders. Then he makes this speech to the newspaper guys in the UK. I don't get it. Thanks for writing.

If we move away from media-based or even time-based pay and into a value-based model, clients and agencies will be better off in the long run.

The usual insightful comment Mr. Phillips Why not do what NBC Universal did this morning with YouTube. Allow the upstarts to post the mainstream media content. You might actually get further by opening up the walled garden than standing guard.

We have to play the game on offense not defense. We can't try to retain what has been, we have to create what will be. Stay independent and push hard!

I read the same piece. I was not persuaded by the one word notion. People are too smart for word smithing. They want dialogue and context.

Note the best performing ad agencies are the smaller independents like Crispin and BBH Who are platform agnostic and idea centered

One thing I am convinced about...power of user generated content and real voice of employees

Richard, Thanks for moving this conversation forward. Marketing is definitely changing and consumer media is forcing the change whether we like it or not. Your advocacy for change in PR is needed. I deal with corporate PR professionals every day and I'm still surprised at how few understand the power of the new media source. Large Global2000 companies that think it's a "fad".

Perhaps you could lay out some specific things you think PR professionals need to do to rise to the top of this change. Since PR currently represents on average 1% of the marketing budget and advertising 50%, what can the community of PR professionals do to move this agenda forward?

Dear Richard,

It doesn't make sense to attack Sir Martin Sorrell as a dyed-in-the-wool fan of advertising. He isn't: he is a very clever financier who has a dispassionate view of the intrinsic merits of the competing components of the business communications industry. The whole point of WPP is to own a dominant position in all of them.

He is interested in where the money goes, and is deft at spotting where WPP should invest. For instance, his firm owns roughly 30 per cent of the UK PR consultancy sector.

Admittedly, advertising revenues (cash) are extremely important to WPP (and Omnicom, and Interpublic). But it is just plain wrong to suggest that Sir Martin favours advertising because he's an advertising man.

I offer this comment from a neutral point of view, having been in charge of Grey's European PR network until WPP bought Grey.

Adrian Wheeler

I like what Michael Eisner had to say about blogesque media. In a recent interview, Eisner said that he thinks people will gravitate towards "professional media."

"At some point in time, people have to say that of 100 million bad jokes out there, there are really only 18 good ones," he said.

http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/issues/1_1/dailydog_media_news/index.html#label%202

As much as the blogesphere may push and influence business -- they have little credibility. Consumers of media are already concerned with the traditional media outlets credibility -- do you think they are going to jump to "Bob," and believe his commentary on Wal-Mart from somewhere in Willow Grove PA?

Embracing these exciting changes is a wonderful opportunity for the PR industry to elevate itself by becoming a key facilitator amidst the "data smog." If we do not embrace these changes, we'll only find our profession diminished, or even worse, obliterated by search engines and other automations. The key to is to find our place in the conversation, and maximize edge technologies so that they allow us to become more evolved communicators. Then we can help our clients navigate new waters in new ways. Wouldn't anything else be boring?

Richard,

So why is it that the format of the pitches I get from every major PR agency (even your own, and you're one of the best) haven't changed much over the years. New media remains essentially a "bolt on" rather than a fully integrated component. With my own corporate team, we hold on line dialogues with consumers now as a matter of course before we make a move... but these new pro-sumers don't figure yet in the design or implementation of agency-driven PR. You have a great opportunity to lead on this one. We're counting on you!

DE,

here are a few ideas. First, think cross platform. If you have content, then repurpose it via podcast, cell phone. Second, try to own the big idea. Clients are open more than ever before to PR firm as creative locus. Third, use real people, the vox populi, because the most credible source is a person like yourself--the real power is in peer to peer or horizontal communications.

Adrian,

I take your comment on board. You are right of course. To Sir Martin, green is green, or simply stated money is money. But his comments to the UK Newspaper group, as reported in the Financial Times, were really off base. To call Craigslist or other voluntary social networks a form of socialism is just wrong. Note the success of Mozilla the web browser. Programmers donate their time as a means of gaining personal reputation. Or what about the EEPYBIRD.com guys doing Mentos and Diet Coke. People want their 15 seconds of fame. It will not all be controlled, by WPP or anybody else

CM,

I saw Eisner at the Fortune Brainstorm conference last week. He made that exact observation. Something to the effect that the brain matters more than the computer and quality of content will win out. I don't totally agree with him. Personal experience and the networked community learning from each other will matter increasingly. Keep in touch

Dear Richard,

Thank you - I take it very kindly that you have gone to the trouble of replying to my post.

I have no idea how the democratisation of online media will develop - but I must admit I find it very exciting. Then again, there are 50 Financial Times reporters who probably aren't very excited by it at all.

What's hard is giving clients sensible advice - striking the right balance between ignoring blogs (which some here are tempted to do, and which seems ridiculous) and going overboard, which could mean they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on responding. I imagine Edelman has a system for this.

About Sir Martin..... right or wrong, his PR talents are enviable!

With best wishes,

Adrian Wheeler

PS May I say - I think your Trust Index is the best thing that anyone has ever done for the standing of the PR industry.

Richard,

Thanks for the note. I am very interested in how Biz360 and Edelman could work closer together in moving this conversation forward. As you may know, we already work with your StrategyOne arm to provide measurement for several of your clients including Walmart, Wrigleys and others. We continue to innovate our offerings to evaluate consumer media and mainstream media to measure overall brand perception in the market.

Many of our traditional media measurement clients don't see the consumer media as sustainable or impacting their business. I am passionate about moving the conversation forward and providing real proof on it's impact on the PR profession. If you have any ideas or want to pass me to a member of your team to discuss further, I would appreciate the conversation.

Thank you for sharing your experiences and thoughts on your blog.

Best regards,
Deborah

I find your entire site fascinating, I will readily admit until I began taking a course in PR in college this summer semester I did not know much about the complexties of Public Relations. You do a great job of making people understand where we have been, and where we need to go.