Re: [tlug] Free

["Lyle H Saxon" <llletters@example.com>]

On 8/6/07, Marty Pauley <marty.pauley@example.com> wrote:
> in any sense.  I
> just think that the inaccurate perception of the general public is
> more significant than you do.

Another aspect to this that I didn't go into is how the PR agency
works.  I used to work in a PR agency, so I experienced these things
happening first hand.  Companies pay PR agencies a lot of money to get
their views into articles.  A big sales pitch at the company I worked
at was that mention is an article is considered to be at least three
times more valuable than the same content in a paid advertisement.  So
what happens is a chain of events like this:

- XYZ Inc. has an inferior product in comparison to their competitor ABC Inc.

- XYZ hires a PR agency to help get their product into people's minds.

- The PR agency already has some writers it hired away from industry
publications, so it's uses their pull to gain access to people in key
publications.

- Writers are generally poor and write what they are asked to write so
they can pay the bills.

- Other back door measures are taken and soon "articles" begin
appearing in trade journals touting the advantages of XYZ Inc's
products.

- Successfully done, terminology, brand image, etc. is picked up by
professionals who read the trade journals.  These professionals should
know better than to believe some of things they do, but they're busy
and so long as it's in the a well-respected trade journal, they are
basically indemnified when they propagate XYZ's PR line.

So you end up with this mountain of disinformation that becomes part
of mainstream culture and by then, there's nearly no way to stop it.
Meanwhile, ABC Inc., which had a superior product, but not a mountain
of cash to throw into back-door PR moves, goes out of business or
slips far behind XYZ Inc.

Lyle