You know, it just doesn’t look good.
If you keep up with the PR trade world, you may have noticed that the O’Dwyer organization did not include our agency, Capstrat, in its new annual rankings of PR firms. Jack O’Dwyer publishes newsletters, a magazine and maintains a Web site covering the public relations industry. Capstrat has been ranked among the top 25 U.S. firms for several years.
This year, Jack was very clear: if we wanted to be included in his rankings, we had to pay $3,000. The $3,000 could be used to buy subscriptions or advertising in his publications. But no money, no ranking.
I admire anyone who does what Jack has done for a long, long time – cover an industry objectively while seeking advertising revenues from those he covers. Journalistic integrity inevitably has cost Jack some advertising dollars through the years.
That’s why Jack’s ultimatum is disappointing. We don’t advertise Capstrat’s services very much in trade publications. Much of Jack’s readership is our competition. Why advertise to them?
Jack complained that we were willing to pay dues to the Council of Public Relations Firms (I’m a board member), but unwilling to support him by purchasing advertising or subscriptions. That comparison is nutty. CPRF is a professional organization. Jack is a publisher.
But if you want to go there, I’m not sure we’ve ever gotten a lead from a client who saw our agency in the O’Dwyer rankings. But we sure have gotten hired as a result of the Council of Public Relations Firms’ “Find a Firm” search engine.
A couple lifetimes ago, when I covered political campaigns for The Charlotte Observer, I would ask candidates questions about integrity or judgment. Oftentimes, the candidate would reply something like this: “I haven’t done anything illegal, immoral or unethical.”
My usual response: “Yeah, but you know, it just looks bad.”
Jack, your ultimatum just looks bad.
Comments
Well said. Pay to play is no way to keep the dialog open and the dicussion free and rankings based on merit. I think what you see here is the exposure of a publisher who has lost his way and crossed a line by "outing" those that took a stand against this or just decided it wasn't for them.
Sad.
Ken, you are spot on. In particular, when it comes to something that is supposed to be objective as a list of firms by revenue size, it is incredible that the O'Dwyers list is now a list of firms by size that (at least apparently) are willing to advertise.
Our firm is listed in the current ranking, although we have not paid and do not intend to. It is a little bizarre that we are now in the unenviable position to tell other agency owners (who ask) that we did not agree to pay.
I agree -- most importantly -- that the Council's "Find a firm" service has delivered leads directly to us in a way that O'Dwyers never did.
Abby
Ken-
I couldn't agree more with your post. It didn't feel good and it surely didn't feel right when Jack sent the demand letter. Contrary to his printed assertion, we pulled out of the rankings for that reason.
Jack had a good run for many years, but he has tripped up in more recent years and is no longer the single authoritative news and editorial source in the business. Reputation matters in the PR and publishing businesses and the move in demanding "pay for play" hurts, not helps reputation.
The CPRF discussion is a red herring and misses the point completely. As Abby says above, it's about ROI and leads. We will invest where we get ROI.
We're appreciative to be in the company of Capstrat and a number of other fine firms who are NOT in the 2010 rankings because of strong principles.
Thanks.
Dave
Perfectly put.
Leave a Comment