One Publicity Stunt Too Far?

The main difference with this book is that «Vollvik om PR» try to put an academic slant on the subject. They have several examples also covered in «Mediekuppet», but this time with questions for discussion. This is an obvious petition to the lucrative academic market where some inexperienced lecturer might requirethe book as «pensum» or recommended reading.

The book supposedly gives us glimpses into Vollvik's deep understanding of dealing with the media. The guy was good, why ruin his image with the banal platitudes expressed here in the guise of reflective thinking? For instance, on page 26 you can read Idar's seven good suggestions for business leaders. Among his sage advice are: always tell the truth, if you lie you'll be caught because journalists always find the truth; be proactive; and, here is the big payoff, be available by phone.

The authors contend that Vollvik (or was it Chess) did have a strategy and that the strategy was PR. In this case, PR is defined as getting as much publicity as possible. They consistently call this PR. (We'll come back to that.) What was their overall communication strategy? Obviously part of their communication strategy was to focus on publicity. But they also had a website, they had a sales force, and they had customer service with interpersonal interaction. These are all channels of communication. Who was in charge of those tactics? And what was that costing?

It is impossible for Chess to have been successful due only to the publicity surrounding Idar. Granted, he may have attracted attention, but then the firm had to deliver, which the authors do acknowledge. But they do not recognize the value of a total and overall communication or Public Relations strategy. Public Relations is not just about publicity.

The authors also acknowledge that they can not answer one of the questions that they say the book sets out to address, and that is how much was all this publicity worth for the firm? They admit, and rightly so, that trying to compare Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE) is not useful. A number of different issues regarding media coverage could have been introduced, for instance the credibility of different media: the value of a VG article versus a Dagens Næringsliv article; or instead of counting hits, what about tone? How many articles were negative, how many positive? They have four years worth of monthly statistics on the number of times Chess or Idar were in the media. They could have tracked these mentions with financial performance and the number of new customers. They imply that the media coverage stimulated new sales but offer no empirical evidence of this.

There is no doubt that Idar Vollvik had clever advisors who were quick to take advantage of opportunities for publicity, and they got him plenty of it. It is remarkable that more organizations don't take advantage of the types of examples described in the book. However, I was left with a ton of questions after reading this book. When did Idar Vollvik ever really work? How much did he pay his PR advisors? The answer to this one is in "Mediekuppet". How many ways or times can the authors say media is important?

There is nothing new to learn in this book, and what is presented is banal, superficial, and written in a patronizing style. In the end it disappoints both journalists and practitioners alike. I for one will not be recommending it for the classroom.