December 4, 2007
We just came across this question on LinkedIn:
My business, <name removed> has been working with a small PR firm for the past 2 years on a ‘fee per placement’ agreement. I have a line of new products and they would like to change this structure to a monthly retainer. Does moving to a monthly retainer make sense and how do I know what is reasonable to pay on a monthly basis?
Ok, so asking how much a monthly retainer one should pay, based on scope of work needed, is a totally reasonable question. But, we always cringe when we hear of firms who offer a “pay per hit” arrangement. What would you say when put in this situation? Tell the potential client to skee-daddle, sign ’em up, or somewhere in between?
December 4, 2007
WPP Group CEO Martin Sorrell (image cred)
We’ve been thinking a lot about the Dell/WPP Group deal and what it means for the future of integrated communications. Just the sheer size of the project: $4.5 billion and over 1,000 employees is almost unfathomable. However, as we scanned through commentary on the web, or lack thereof, we were intrigued by this post on the O’Dwyer PR blog, which referenced Dell’s announcement and then said:
Bank of America may soon nail another coffin in the holding company structure. Its contract with Omnicom expires March 31. BoA has put some of OMC’s media-buying responsibilities up for review because it no longer wants to be held hostage to Omnicom’s shops.
The holding company structure is bound to unravel in `08. That will create big opportunities for nimble PR firms.
Then this got us back to thinking about a post from Jeremy Pepper back in October where he wrote:
The reality is that the holding companies do not care who gets the cash. It’s money in pocket and bottom line, and if advertising can get bigger bucks for campaigns, it’s better to go to advertising.
While Pepper’s post was in a different context – he was arguing that ad folk now how to sell themselves better and therefore can get bigger budgets than their PR counterparts – the theme relates to Dell/WPP.
Is an advantage of creating your own agency that hopefully you will eliminate some of the infighting between different groups within a holding company? And if so, do you agree with Kevin McCauley of O’Dwyers that one of the big trends of 2008 will be the decline of the holding company model?
December 3, 2007
(image from HoodEz)
This is the first edition of what we’re calling ‘Spin the Agencies of Record,’ a look the most recent account wins in the industry. We’ll be looking not only at Agency of Record (AoR) agreements but projects as well. Send us your account news to prnewser at mediabistro dot com.
This edition ranges from the global to the nichy-niche:
- HoodEz, maker of custom hood ornaments, chooses Sawmill Marketing Public Relations
- MWW to represent Asolva, a medical technology company
- BMC software to use Ogilvy for PR in India
- Ritchey Design Inc., maker of high-end bicycle components, chooses SOAR Communications
- Panda Security (IT company) chooses the Bateman Group
November 14, 2007
Earlier this week the Australian firm Markson Sparks caught a bit of flak for macabre humor in a press release on behalf of recruiting company PKL. The release explained the perils of being of a personal assistant, quipping that 45 of Oprah’s staffers have died from anthrax attacks. Apparently the joke was lifted directly from a blog.
This isn’t the first time this year a press release with a death hook was used. See BlinnPR’s now classic Anna Nicole tie-in from February. This one looked to be more of a mishap. Markson is a big Aussie firm with a lot of celebrity clients, and a thriving speakers bureau division. They can dish and move on. Read more about anthrax in the news in O’Dwyers.
We contacted agency head Rolene Markson to find out more:
November 7, 2007
(This photo is not of BlabberMouth PR’s Patti Hill)
BlabberMouth polled an astonishing 10,000 executives on the question of its quirky name, and received a more astonishing 50% response. The results showed people in fields such as fashion, retail, gaming and advertising preferred the BlabberMouth name, while executives in other fields prefered something more classic. According to the poll:
- 55% of executives enjoyed the name
- 30% would work with BlabberMouth “in spite of its name”
- 15% “would avoid working with a professional services firm called BlabberMouth”
When we asked the top BlabberMouth, CEO Patti Hill how she got such a large response, she told us “The survey only had one question. I had many, many people email me personally saying they couldn’t walk away from the survey out curiosity what that *one* question might be.”
BlabberMouth used ConstantContact to conduct the survey, and amassed the database through six years of conferences, summits, and board positions.
A sampling of the emails Hill received are after the jump:
November 2, 2007
Taking cues on name-dropping from page 12 of the Gawker Guide, I asked Choire Sicha as part of our ongoing Gawker on PR series if he felt–collectively–that Gawker is the J.J. Hunsecker of this century. Rather than run with the baited comparison to Hunsecker–the Walter Winchell character in The Sweet Smell of Success played by Burt Lancaster–he chose to talk about the history of the film, and what lingers from the era of the blacklist. Skip football and rent it this weekend. The flack to Lancaster’s Hunsecker is Tony Curtis’s Sidney Falco, the scrappiest, most bare-knuckle PR person ever portrayed on film. We won’t spoil it for you, but it doesn’t end like Michael Clayton.