Pay for Performance And Its Continuing Impact on the Profession

There's a small, but vocal number of practitioners that endeavor to make a living under a system they call "pay for performance." Although the arrangements differ by company, basically the fee paid to a PR firm under this model is directly related to the circulation of outlets that run your news.

The model isn't new and has been around for a while. What is changing is a small number of companies that are endeavoring to compete aggressively in this area, under the guise of "challenging" PR industry norms.

I had a discussion last week with a representative from one of the leaders in that field, Publicity Guaranteed. The conversation came after I sent an inquiry following an ad I noticed in a local edition of Craigslist. The ad didn't mention Publicity Guaranteed, but rather its parent organization, KMGI. And when I asked the person who placed the ad -- KMGI founder Alex Konanykhin -- why he didn't mention Publicity Guaranteed, he indicated that it was because he wasn't planning to compensate people who worked on the project for each placement, but rather using an hourly rate. He also indicated he knew there were no guarantees. Yet, when I asked whether a typical subcontracting rate was in his budget, he indicated he was not.

Now, I have no idea whether or not he is actually planning to pay people an hourly rate and NOT based on placement, but it seems to me that if you can't make any money if you pay those who work on the project a typical rate, then something's up. I also sent word to several PR lists I subscribe to so that anyone who might inquire would know the full drill. That's when I provoked the ire of someone who claimed to do writing work for the company. In a nutshell, she went on to say that my criticism was based on a failure to understand a new model, based on old ways of thinking and that I was behind the times.

Now, I've never claimed to be a futurist in the mold of Paul Saffo, but getting paid on what is essentially a commission-based system doesn't seem that futuristic to me. My main gripe with these structures is they devalue the PR profession to something akin to a sales model isn't that innovational. I also don't understand why, if something is so innovational and cutting edge, that anyone would get so steamed about discussing the pros/cons of it. A great thing stands on its own and doesn't need anyone's endorsement.

To those wondering why I object to the system so much it's because I believe anyone performing something that's valuable should be paid that way. You can't expect lawyers at top firms to only get paid if they win a case/judgement/action. Similarly, doctors don't only get paid if you're cured. And lastly, a well-run media outreach campaign is more like a marathon than a sprint. A reporter or editor may not be interested and/or have time to do a story you're suggesting when you first make contact, but if they like the idea, they'll come back to you. And if you have enough ideas in the pipeline, you'll likely be getting regular placements for clients.

Also, it's insulting to PR professionals and journalists at well-respected publications to assume that you'll be able to guarantee placement of a story. I can certainly guarantee you the chances of doing that with The New York Times or a similar outlet is small.

I'm continually bothered by the fact that the PR profession is in many ways its own worst enemy. Engaging in this kind of practice makes everybody look bad, just as it does to pass off advertorial copy as news. We should be proud of the work we do for clients, stand by our results and provide the kind of counsel that makes us more than commission-based performers, but partners.