July 18, 2012
Accountability and Frugality Are Driving Pay-for-Performance PR Trend: Businesses Aim to Save by Avoiding Monthly Retainer Fees
By Penny Carnathan, Creative Director/Writer, EMSI Public Relations
The recession has fueled a growing trend in the public relations industry — and not everyone's happy about it.
More and more PR firms are moving away from the traditional retainer-plus-billable-hours fee structure to "pay for performance."
Business leaders have been noting the increasing numbers of these non-retainer agencies for about 15 years, with a sharp uptick since the recession began in 2008. But no one seems to know exactly how many there are.
"We don't have any hard numbers. A lot of what's out there is anecdotal," says Arthur Yann, a vice president of the Public Relations Society of America. "The first of these I can recall started in the early '90s."
Pay for performance agencies promise certain actions or quantifiable results, such as media placements, for a fee. Some agencies offer refunds if they don't perform; others guarantee quantifiable results. The approach appeals to companies with slimmed-down marketing budgets, individuals and smaller businesses that want pay-per-click-style accountability. The agencies say more clients leave satisfied — and come back for more.
Retainer firms tend to be disparaging. These firms usually charge clients a monthly retainer fee and then bill for time actually spent working on a campaign. That simplifies billing for everyone, they say, because there's no way to measure the value of every action they take and every result they get.
Among the nation's pay for performance pioneers is Marsha Friedman, who launched EMSI Public Relations in 1990. Back then, she says, hers was one of only four such agencies that she knew of in the nation.
"Since it was such a new concept, I had to figure things out as I went along," she says. "It's still an evolving frontier; even the definition of 'pay for performance' differs from one agency to another. Some define it as the action or service they provide, 'We'll write a marketing piece and you'll pay X for that.'
"At EMSI, our definition is getting actual media exposure. In radio, for instance, a client may pay a per interview fee to get booked on 15 talk shows within a given period of time. If we get them only 12 shows in that time, they can get a refund for three. With TV appearances, we book first and then bill. In social media, we guarantee a certain number of connections each month. In print, we measure in terms of circulation, or visitors per month for online publications."
To address the issue of value, back in the '90s, Friedman developed a complicated grid system in which she set prices according to the placements EMSI obtained. For instance, when the agency got a client mentioned in a newspaper, he paid based on variables such as the paper's size and the extent of the mention.
"You can imagine, when we got great placements, some clients had serious sticker shock. They'd say. 'Stop! I can't afford this!' Friedman says. "That was a problem. We wanted to get the best placements for our clients, but a great campaign could quickly blow their budget. You don't want to be in a position where your goals are in conflict with your client's goals."
So she abandoned the grid after just six months, but she notes many newer agencies — and those switching over to pay for performance — use similar price structures. She advises businesses exploring pay for performance options to make sure they understand up front exactly how they'll be charged.
"Our goal is to get the most we can and the best we can get so that you will re-sign with us, which is why we contract for quantity," she says. "But we aim for quality because that's what gives us repeat customers and referrals."
That approach is especially appealing to startups and businesses that have been struggling to maintain profit margins during the recession, notes ActSeed, a resource for entrepreneurs and startups.
"How much budget can we afford without some certainty?" wrote ActSeed CEO Bill Attinger.
"At the very least, a PR professional that lives by this model signals their confidence in bringing you material value.'
Penny Carnathan is the Creative Director/Writer at EMSI Public Relations (www.emsincorporated.com) and a journalist with 30 years experience as a national award-winning editor, reporter and columnist at The Tampa Tribune in Tampa, Fla. She is currently also a weekly columnist for the Tampa Bay Times in St. Petersburg, Fla.




Comments
Food for thought
Two observations.
There's quite a bit of difference between non-retainer, and pay for "performance."
I worked for a number of major global agencies and we didn't bill on retainer basis. We established annual project line-item budgets with clients and tracked hours to those budgets.
Measurement of budget was simple -- don't exceed unless you have a change of work order that includes change of budget.
Measurement of results varied by client and what their objectives were and how they measured success.
Second observation. In't it a bit disingenuous to have an article with lots of praise for a firm and quotes from the firm's CEO about their quiality, written by a staff member of the firm? Seems more like an ad, Bulldog follks.
And I guess a third observation. Saying that "performance" equals media exposure alone without any measure of the impact of that exposure (who heard the radio story, who believed it, who changed their opinion or bought the product) seems like as much smoke and mirrors as the old retainer days.
Clients I work with today want measurement of real performance, as in did we achieve the business objectives, not how many times did we get them on the radio or how many inches of print.
Pay-for-Placement PR
I definitely take issue with Pay for Placement PR (In the article, it is defined as Pay for Performance). Despite our best efforts, there's never any guarantee of PR placements and they might not happen because of reporter issues, other news of the day and the skill and knowledge of the client interviewed. It can also be misleading, as a placement in a small community newspaper can have more impact than a national TV hit. And measurement becomes difficult with social media, which could include a blog post, tweet, Facebook post and more. Just rolling up the results is an expensive proposition.
It also limits PR's role to traditional media placement, which is just a small part of what we do these days. Our work can include development of PR and communications strategies, media training, content for websites and online newsrooms, Facebook and Twitter page strategies and management, work with bloggers, special events management and more.
If you want certainty, advertise.
This is NOT PR
I think this is demeaning to true PR professionals and tarnishes the PR industry. Let me make it clear that is not PR but publicity, which is a subset of PR. Furthermore this shows how much of a reliance we have on the fragmented and diminishing media out there, which will only make it harder for these pay for play companies. Definitely not a sustainable business model.
I would love to see what quantifiable results these companies can show beyond a simple placement. I have placed my former clients in every major publication from the NYT to the Wall Street Journal and we have absolutely no idea what will come of it and can only track with Google analytics who comes to the site if they even put a link to my client. Some stories drive amazing leads and make the phones ring while others do nothing.
What these companies are doing is unquantifiable sales without the commission. You can read my answer on quora about press and companies http://qr.ae/8CjzP
pay for placement
Until I have full control of the media, I'm not going to accept jobs on a pay for placement basis. I advise my clients that if they want a guarantee of placement, they should buy an ad. As PR professionals we advise clients on the newsworthiness of their announcement. Sometimes our assessment doesn't agree with that of the assignment editor or the news director. That doesn't mean we didn't try our best. It just means our measures are different. If we are doing our jobs correctly, we've identified several channels of communication to reach the desired audiences, and we're using the media/sources which have the most credibility with those audiences.
Post new comment