According to PR Week: “Skywrite Communications research suggests the end for retainers”.
'Oh no!’, I thought upon reading that. 'I work for an agency that charges retainers. What does this mean for me?’
But reading on… “A new survey has suggested retained PR contracts do not allow for enough flexibility in the current economic climate. Thirty-two per cent of in-house marketing and PR professionals said that monthly PR retainers were outdated.”
So 68 per cent are happy then?
Panic over.
The research was conducted by Skywrite (whose business model, I’m guessing, may not be based wholly on retainers). But despite the hardly-conclusive conclusions it does raise an interesting question about the need for, and value of, flexibility.
A model which is more ‘pay-as-you go’ certainly sounds like good value in ‘times like these’. And for small companies with only occasional need for PR support it almost certainly is. Likewise, for project work ‘pay as you go’ is a no-brainer.
But what it can’t guarantee is a team who are up-to-speed and available to the same degree of readiness as a retained agency. It also doesn’t provide predictable long-term cost which in straitened times such as these is often as important as simply reduced cost.
Furthermore, I also don’t believe it ensures the same level of consultancy, especially in “the current economic climate” (which puts pressure on agencies as well as clients of course).
“Will you issue this press release?”
“I don’t think it’s strong enough.”
“Well, we pay you £800 if you do, and nothing if you don’t.”
“Consider it sent.”
OK, so I admit I’m massively over-simplifying the situation but I do believe companies interested in long-term strategic value rather than short-term tactical value, will continue to see the retainer as the norm.
That’s probably why 68 per cent of decision-makers don’t consider the retainer to have had its day.
Friday, 8 May 2009
PR retainers v ‘Pay as you go’ billing: The numbers don’t lie…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I couldn't agree more. I suspect what they're talking about is, as you say, sending out a press release as a project. In other words: we don't have the time (or the stomach for the knock-backs) so we'll outsource it, cheap. In my view that doesn't make you a PR agency, but a distribution house with a couple of extras.
But there are a lot of companies out there that view PR as synonymous with media relations; and for media relations read 'cold calling journalists with stories that they don't really want'.
Of course, there's room for ad hoc support around a product launch, for example. But good PR is about building and maintaining a reputation, creating conversations and building relationships with a company's public (yes, the clue was in the name) - only some of which is done in conjunction with journalists, these days. And none of which can be done on a one-off basis.
Thanks Kate - great comment!
rightly or wrongly, I would expect that those 32% want a pay as you go service because they offer a variation of it to their clients (or are forced to).
What you may find is a hybrid between a retainer and PAYG, where the client selects a shortlist of preferred supplier agency and then based on the pre-agreed (and no doubt heavily discounted) pricelist it issues singular orders to a particular supplier on the list.
No guarantee of volume or exclusivity per se, but you are an approved supplier you are set.
Examples are the Nhs PASA framework or the ogc framework
What's more Skywrite only surveyed 140 people! Does anybody else suspect that's just their client list and that of parent company Hotwire??
So therefore the sample for this enlightening research is 140 people who PAYG rather than pay retainers.
Yet - and this is the absolute kicker - the research found a 68 per cent ringing endorsement for retainers, even among a PAYG audience!
I can't believe they'd put out research which damns their own business model.
Post a Comment