PR Fail: Drake University Scores D+ with Horrid Campaign

In the midst of one of the worst economies in history, universities are reassuring students and parents that they are the best at preparing junior for the job market. So it would seem bizarre and perhaps insane that a school would instead seek to position itself as hip and "ironic." It would look even crazier if that same college was marketing itself as barely above a complete failure. Enter Drake University and their woefully misguided "D+" marketing campaign. Drake is apparently a real school (we thought it was one of those things like "Chubb" or "ITT Institute" that advertise on the subway) with real ambitions.

We became aware of this PR trainwreck via one of our favorite sites, PR Newser, and we really couldn't have said it any better than they did:

Wow. Drake University has launched a new marketing campaign in which the school touts the value of its educational offering by promoting the "D+ Advantage." According to Yahoo! News, students and faculty have pointed out that a D+ really isn't the image a university might want to project. One would think the school or its outside PR help (!) would've thought of that. Nevertheless, the school is sticking with it. Good luck with that. 

The Gawker-esque snark is not misapplied in this case. It is pretty much incredibly shocking that ANYONE would think this was a good idea (the university "marketing" people or the PR agency that is helping them).

The Yahoo News story goes on to say:

However, Drake officials are standing by the D+ campaign -- which college officials crafted with outside PR contractors. Defenders of the ad blitz described it as "edgy and intriguing" in a letter to faculty and staff this week. The letter explained that the campaign "was designed to catch the attention of high school students who are bombarded with college and university materials to the point that they are often in information overload and unable to differentiate among the many institutions that have contacted them." The letter didn't explain just why an educational institution would want to attract a corps of students lacking the ability to distinguish among institutions of higher learning, but that presumably is the research domain of an equally edgy focus-group team.

The letter referred to is a desperate rationalization/damage control piece:

The Drake Advantage alone is not unusual, but the D+ graphic is distinctive because it's surprising and intriguing to prospective students. The D+ was not designed to stand alone or represent a grade. Instead, it was designed to be paired with prose and draw attention to the distinctive advantages of the Drake experience. 

Admission counselors using Drake Advantage materials in the field have reported that the campaign is generating extremely positive feedback from prospective students.  Our experience in the survey and in the field suggests that the kind of students whom we want to attract to Drake easily understand and appreciate the irony of the D+, and that it is having the intended effect of encouraging students to find out more about what makes Drake so special.

The school wants to stand out, we can understand that. BUT, to try and stand out by looking "edgy" (as defined by a university marketing committee and a PR firm, not the real world) is so far removed from sensible it's not even funny. In this economy, new world order and job market, shouldn't you maybe try to stand out by offering something reassuring from students about to dedicate 4 years of studies and countless piles of cash to your school? How about standing out by doing the best damned job preparing students to have successful adult lives? Or maybe that's just not cool and edgy enough for the geniuses at Drake.

Drake says they are looking for students who appreciate irony. All we can say is we hope current students/graduating into the job market students appreciate that the whole world is laughing at their school. Nice branding, indeed!

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

Weber Shandwick Says PR is Worthless

One of those big PR companies, Weber-Shandwick (no, not "Sandwich," but their name is making me hungry) has surprised absolutely no one by announcing that there is still no way to determine the value of PR. Measuring PR is hard, so it must be worthless, right? Or, maybe it's priceless? Who the f--k knows!

For years, the agencies have sent out these retardtastic reports, usually accompanied by a stack of clips or whatnot, that struggle to determine an "ad equivalency value" for all the media placements. Of course, everyone and their mother on both sides of the client wall has ALWAYS known that these claims were garbage ("This two-line mention in USA Today would be worth $450,000 if it were an ad. But it is EVEN MORE valuable because it is not paid media, so it has CREDIBILITY." Please disregard the fact that only the homeless, people waiting for their test results in VD clinics and dead-end mid-level business travelers read USA Today. Surely this placement is spot-on target for your desired stakeholder audience. [Sorry, I digress]).

We've all known FOREVER that there is no good way to measure PR "value." They even alluded to this on last night's season 4 premiere of "Mad Men" (Pete Campbell says, “It’s a PR stunt. We don’t do that?” When asked why not, he replies,”Because we can’t charge for it.”)

Media Bistro's PR Newser, a site that covers some PR stuff, had this report of people saying what the rest of us already know about these "ad equivalency" reports:

Today, Weber Shandwick endorsed the "Barcelona Principles" for PR measurement, which include a rejection of the reports.
The seven fundamental principles were published last week after being adopted in mid-June by 200 delegates from 33 countries at the 2nd annual European Summit on Measurement. We've listed all seven principles after the jump.

Some are vague, but the rejection of ad equivalency reports is included:
1. Importance of Goal Setting and Measurement
2. Measuring the Effect on Outcomes is Preferred to Measuring Outputs
3. The Effect on Business Results Can and Should Be Measured Where Possible
4. Media Measurement Requires Quantity and Quality
5. Advertising Value Equivalency (AVE) is not the Value of Public Relations
6. Social Media Can and Should be Measured
7. Transparency and Replicability are Paramount to Sound Measurement.

And THAT, sum total, is it. There is ZERO mention of any suggestions for something to replace these meaningless exercises in lying to the client. So, brilliant job, WeberSandwich, you've just repeated the same complaint we've all been making for years: the reports are worthless, we need something better. So, WHERE IS IT? 200 FRICKING "delegates" (VPs and "account supervisors" in "social media and measurement" or some wankworthy title, I would guess) from 33 FLIPPING countries couldn't come up with ANY ideas? And we go round and round. Don't even get me started on this "Barcelona Principles" b.s. REALLY? You're gonna be so grandiose to give this a title that sounds like a disarmament treaty or something?

So, you wanna know the true value of PR, kiddies? I think maybe you're having so much trouble measuring it because it truly is WORTHLESS. Or maybe just all those delegates are, I'm not sure.

Thanks for reading!
Jonathan Gardner

The Nexus of Nexus One Wrap-Ups

The folks over at PR Newser have a really good summation of the major PR push that was the Google Nexus One Android phone launch.

The recap has one curious bit, it says: "Google's PR peeps didn't go through the trouble of web-streaming their own news conference, while arranging for on-site attendees to record wirelessly, to ensure optimal site lines and audio."

This is a bit odd. I watched some of the streaming news conference on Ustream which has become a powerful tool in communications. The Ustream feed was streamed by someone else. So the question is, why didn't Google stream it themselves?

Perhaps, the thinking was that there is nothing to HIDE so why not let someone else take charge of getting the message out and "owning" it on Ustream? I'm a big fan of companies taking ownership of their message and controlling their own media. Ustream is a great way to do this. But with all the platforms that Google already owns (such as Youtube), it IS interesting that they let someone else do this.

Anyway, the PR Newser piece is a great layman's case study of one event in our consciousness and the communications strategy behind it. Looks like the battle with Apple and the iPhone mafia is ON.

Thanks for reading.
-Jonathan