Last week I pointed out the errors in John Drinnan’s NZ Herald piece about PR. Below it, one commenter wrote:
Knowing what I know about our business, and comparing it to what Drinnan regularly publishes about us, I can only conclude he interviews his own keyboard. Either that or he is so hard of hearing with his out of touch “sources” (don’t worry John – we know who they are) or he regularly imbibes in his own initial-sake before submitting his pieces.
Drinnan took exception to this and replied:
I don’t suppose you would come out of hiding in the closet and give your real name – even on a one to one basis? Can we deal with your allegations? Thought not.
While I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the commenter’s words, I can for my own. Last week Drinnan quoted me as saying:
“PR companies should follow international practice and engage with bloggers and pay for the privilege of engaging with their audiences,” Cunliffe says.
If you read the post, you won’t find that statement anywhere. In fact, what I said was:
Internationally, brands engage with bloggers and pay for the privilege of engaging with their audiences.
There are many ways that this is done and none of them involve paying to have their press releases published.
This week, Drinnan continues his fabricated nonsense, suggesting, incorrectly, that Throng had complained that blogs running press releases should be recompensed. Drinnan has comment from Christopher Barger, senior VP for global PR company Porter Novelli about his manufactured story but who knows how accurately he’s been quoted.
The actual issue is the disparity between the PR and marketing arms of brands. One has the role of coming up with creative ways to get free publicity while the other has the role of coming up with creative ways in which to advertise. One spends money, the other doesn’t. I, and other bloggers, would just like to work with them both.