Enter the Golden Age of PR: Exit Reality

On my way to work this morning I pulled up on my bike beside a man wearing a t-shirt displaying a quote. The strap of his messenger bag fell across the first word leaving me with this: "________ (strap) is more abstract than reality." For the duration of the light I puzzled over the missing word. As the light changed, he shifted and the word was revealed: "Nothing."

"Nothing is more abstract than reality." The phrase had a contemplative quality I enjoyed rolling over in my mind; until I got to work and read this piece in The New York Times about the lies perpetrated boldface and without shame by people in positions of power: "False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots." Reality is abstract, indeed.

There should be nothing shocking about the revelation that a political party would distort the facts in the name of gross self-interest. Spin is as old as politics -- actually, they might be synonyms. What's shocking was that the facts were exposed at all. That The Times felt compelled to set the record straight, to get to the bottom of the matter, to promote the real reality of the situation is almost quaint. It harkens back to a time when journalistic integrity had meaning and media outlets had a responsibility to report "the truth."

What's changing as we enter the wild west of information dissemination is that the concept of journalistic integrity has nearly disappeared and concepts like "the truth," and "reality," have become so abstract as to be meaningless. Anyone for some Reality TV?

As we speak, or blog, or Twitter, the Information Age is spawning its evil progeny, The Golden Age of PR. It will be an era defined by its irresponsible use of words to generate commercially driven versions of Reality. Brands are ditching advertising, which is really pretty transparent in its intentions, in favor of spin and PR, which really is not. This shift is partly because advertising is failing and partly because PR is right for the times.

As this new age dawns, the onus will shift to the consumer (literally, consumer of information) to know the source of the information he/she is consuming.

The good news for the consumer is that we're not completely naïve. We've started to develop an eye for -- industry term -- the fingerprint of the marketer. I believe the average American understands that altruism is not the primary driver (so to speak) when Oprah gives away a fleet of Pontiacs. The formula is pretty simple: media property + branded product/logo shot = paid endorsement.

The bad news is that things get trickier when you start to play with words.

See, brands are clearly not Reality. They're contrived, with personalities and identities cooked up by designers and marketers. They're like cartoon characters dancing about in our cabinets and cupboards. They're downright cute. But words, words with meaning, words that tell stories and purport to report on the facts, they are closer to reality and harder to spot when they are seeded in the self-interest of a company, political party, or person. It should come as no surprise to today's savvy viewer, that the Coca-Cola, the Rolex, or the Audi in this summer's blockbuster movie have paid for the privilege, but what about the rave review of the movie in the publication also owned by the men who own the movie studio? Not as easy to spot.

Let's all just be aware that the Golden Age of PR will be golden only for those who do the gilding. As the business of PR diversifies, we'll see the fine lines blur. Reality is going to get even more abstract. I'd like to say it doesn't matter, but when the abstractions change PR to spin to propaganda to lies, dear reader, it absolutely does.

Follow Schuyler Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/schuylerbrown

Comments

[Erin Walsh]

Nice, so essentially PR people (I'm one of them) can't write and skewer the truth. Maybe I should find a job in politics.

I think you give the advertising end of this story too much credit and PR not enough. Both sides have been known to manipulate the truth through pictures, words, stories and more. I like to think of my job as a balance of science and art - never perfect but definitely with standards. And, consumers should take some responsibility for buying in or opting out when it comes to ads, stories, editorials, product placements and everything else in between.

[Schuyler Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comment. I hear you on two fronts: 1) yes, advertising is guilty as charged. That's my background...for better or worse; 2) I agree the consumer has a responsibility...a growing responsibility...to vote with their actions and dollars.

As Mikyle suggests below - reality is in the eye of the beholder. The "balance" you apply in your job may be the closest thing we have to an answer...balance suggests you are weighing both sides, which suggests you're awake and thinking about the work you do in the world.

[Scrunch]

I'm not clear why you bring up that consumers should take some responsibility.
Of course they should, but do marketers absolve themselves of responsibility for lying, deceiving and manipulating by claiming it's the responsibility of the consumer to determine whether the marketers are lying, deceiving and manipulating?

[Billie]

What happens when phoniness is so legitimized that truth and trust are just for the suckers who don't jump on the bandwagon? Yes, spin has been around forever but getting to the point where we worship manipulation is a very chilling idea. Although, to me, it does seem like we are already there.

[Mike Barden]

Let's go after the lobbies.
Let's go after the lobbies.
Let's go after the lobbies,
and get ourselves a drink.

And make it a stiff one.

[guard]

This is not too far off subject, but I have seriously wondered how long power interests will allow a relatively free internet to undermine their propaganda...

[Billie]

I was cleaning my kitchen while also watching a cable show last week and heard a politician using the term "false propaganda" and it stopped me in my tracks. As opposed to what—true propaganda?

[Mikyle Lockwood]

This has been the most disturbing trend that I've seen lately...it's one thing to disagree, but if we further divide people into different versions of reality? I don't see how consensus of any kind is possible. The genuine belief by the "Death-er"s of government­-sanctione­d euthanasia is bred out of a particular set of facts that exist completely outside of "actual" reality.

But then, who's to say my reality is any more legitimate? Once this slide into obfuscation goes too far, what can anyone believe about anything anymore? What can be done to stop it...or is it too late?

[DeadPossum]

I read a book at least 5 years ago about the death of advertising and the rise of PR from the viewpoint of the advertising industry. It cited the rise of consumer resistance to advertising and advocated PR as able to slip under the consumers radar to avoid the cynicism and resistance.
Having a small business, a micro-business in B&B , I took this to heart and abandoned all attemps at advertising which I found was a 'black hole' into which money disappeared without trace or effect. I took photos of my place to garden shows with a tiny stall. I gave gift certificates to school fetes as prizes. I encouraged satisfied guests to tell their friends. It cost little and was way more effective than advertising.
My point is that advertising and PR are not intrinsically deceptive or evil. Unfortunately, they are using a trusted information source or iconic celebrity to slip under our guard and credibility filter. The book mentioned above pointed out how overworked and underpaid (and lazy), your average journo was and a pre-prepared hand-out about a new happening could masquerade as news. How infomercials could be crafted to seem like breaking news.
There is little doubt that sly PR can corrupt our social/mor­al/politic­al values. Some kind of disclosure is called for. 'Follow the money'. A public register of who pays who. A 'cash for comment' accounting.
I am dreaming of course because nothing is more abstract than reality.

[Rick Marin]

David Cronenberg first posed the question in 1982 with his film Videodrome, when he basically asked-What's going to happen when television reaches the point where it manages to warp our sense of reality? Well, here we are, and now that film is considered prophetic.

"Television is reality, and reality is less than television...you can see that, can't you?"

[joebftsplk]

Having worked in PR and advertising for the past 30 years, I have to say I prefer advertising over PR. Ads are creative, amusing to the eye/ear, and have contributed a lot to our culture over the years -- from jingles to radio ads to print ads to TV ads to point-of-sale.

PR seems like even more transparent hype. It doesn't give you anything entertaining. In my experience, PR people can hardly write an English sentence. They don't have the standards of the ad world, where every word is le mot juste and the visuals are often stunning. (Of course, a lot of advertising is "Buy One, Get One Free!" and the annoying FSIs that fall out of your newspaper on Sunday. But I'm talking about those breathy, classy car ads and "Dewar's unto Others".)

Your discussion of these two forms of marketing seem focused on political issues, and there I agree with you; campaign ads are generally annoying or so-what. However, the American people seem particularly susceptible to spin doctors, probably because they don't inform themselves about issues.

Many Americans are ready to swallow the inflammatory rhetoric of neocons and media screamers because they're just plain angry -- about losing jobs, homes, savings as well as health insurance. So they're venting against their congresspersons. The voices of reason must continue to be heard.

So keep it up, Schuyler Brown!

[Schuyler Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm glad you point out the potential for advertising (and PR) to be entertaining...In my experience it can be downright inspiring. I think that's really what so many of the people within agencies are striving for. I once heard "great advertising is either a mirror or a spark." There's value in doing either the mirror or the spark well. Thanks for the comment.

[jsehgal]

I always thought that dishonesty, lying, misleading, hiding vital information, are uncivilised behaviors. In some cases, our laws prohibit them also. But these happen to be the key ingredients of PR. Why have we let such lying people become an industry? Can we not get out of this mess into a more honest realm? Or is honesty stupidity?

[hammer109]

'PR people can hardly write an English sentence'

Nice generalization. I'm a PR person and I can write a damn good sentence. When I see people making sweeping statements like that, it doesn't really matter how well constructed the rest of your argument is. You've already lost me.

[Woggles]

This woman is really intelligent and she is onto something big.
I think I'm keeping up with the discussion, but I'm not entirely sure.

This is maybe related to what she is talking about: All the books I ever read about bicycle repair (I make handmade bikes now) really didn't teach me anything at a high level, until I got in there and started tearing things apart, and breaking bolts, etc.

I suspect, media production is much the same. You really won't be good at it, until you do it (make it) a lot.
The latest software and computers have allowed many of modest means to produce stuff (if they devote themselves professionally) that would have been impossible a generation ago. The difficulty is sifting out the good media from the agenda driven. If there are a million Tv stations, that's a lot to sift thru, then it changes week by week.

Still as Einstien said, "an amazing time to be alive"

[SurfCat]

Have you heard of "Operation Mockingbird"? Do a quick google search. Meantime, a few key quotes on the issue of "PR" otherwise known as propaganda...

“The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.”
Doctor Albert Einstein (in a letter to Sigmund Freud 7/30/1932)

“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested by men we have never heard of.”
Edward L. Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the father of psy-ops and modern propaganda. Quote: Bernays book “Propaganda” 1928)

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers."
Thomas Pynchon (Gravity’s Rainbow 1973)

[HST]

I don't know which is sadder, the lies spouted by so called advocacy groups or the delusional people who find it easier to believe those lies instead of finding things out for themselves .

[JamesinDentonTX]

I'm sad now :(

[Schuyler Brown - Huffpost Blogger]

I know. I don't like to harp on the "bad news" but it's good to think about. I'll work on something a bit sunnier for next time. There are some very positive trends happening, too!

[Maria Lankina]

It's just another way to advertise really. we create our own reality. if we do not want to be affected we shall go and live on an island. Alone. at least we don't have to stare at boring billboards to learn about new things and either agree or disagree with somebody's ( event if set up) Expierence or not.

[laliparis]

This reminds me of stories of companies hiring people to talk their product up in public places--the idea being that you'd just "happen" to overhear their conversation about how delicious the new vodka they are drinking is...

It used to be you'd wonder if you could trust a person, now we have to worry if they are being paid to hold a certain point of view.

Makes me think about what kind of person (or journalist) (or politician!!!!) is willing to say or write anything, even if they don't believe it.

It would be interesting to see a trend article written on the idea of "Integrity" today.

[GoodNews]

In fact, while growing up in the 70s, my parents referred to the television as the "idiot box."