Are you satisfied just by putting it out there?

Hey there! Cannes Lions has wrapped up, and these days, the creative crowd is either caught up in a fever or starting to feel a strong sense of urgency. How are you all holding up? I'm here, feeling a bit damp and sticky, soaking in memories of Cannes, and bringing you this update. (Well, sure, I'm caught up in the excitement too, but I'm working on a separate Cannes report, so stay tuned!)

So, what about that whole "Above all, you gotta be talked about!" thing?

So, this time's topic. It ties in a bit with Cannes, but I want to reiterate: "The real measure of PR success is concrete results, right?" As I've said before, the Cannes Lions PR category's criteria boil down to "How effectively did it create awareness shifts and attitude changes? And through those, how well did it build or strengthen positive relationships between the company and consumers?"

"It got people talking, right?" "The publicity was huge, that celebrity was everywhere, right?" "Nice! Got 30,000 likes! Thanks!"... "So what?" That's the point. In other words, we want them to look closely at "Did you actually achieve your concrete goals?"

Of course, campaign goals are set with the client beforehand, so I don't think there's much deviation from the intended outcomes. But if the strategy was decided based on things like, "Hey, that video kinda got people talking, right?" or "It's kinda new, so let's just do it as a video?", that's a huge mistake, isn't it? No, it's fine, of course. Challenging new things is great. It can lead to new methods spreading rapidly, and the fierce competition drives quality up—that's the real way to step up in this world. But, "Anyway, it has to be talked about!"—what about that? Today, I want to question that.

"There's no one more annoying than someone spouting righteous arguments!" is my usual catchphrase, but today I'm going to forget myself and rant about it! The title is: "Are You Satisfied Just by Getting Exposure?" Yes, whether it's media exposure or social media, aren't there too many people and campaigns that don't even try to get closer to the goal beyond just becoming a talking point?

I get it, you want exposure. But is what you're showing actually worth seeing?

Of course, exposure in mass media and virality on social media are incredibly important opportunities. I think they should be valued. But is it really okay to be satisfied with just that? Do people actually move because of "Look, I'm on! I'm on!"? Evaluations vary wildly based on TV airtime or online reach, but isn't that basically just advertising equivalency? Is that really what's important this time?　You often hear people say, "Wow, yesterday's publicity was huge! The advertising equivalent was in the hundreds of millions. Hehe." But then, a few days later, you hear, "But in the end, it disappeared from the convenience store shelves after a week." Yeah, right. Because while the celebrities were all over the place, there was absolutely no connection to the product! That kind of thing happens all the time.

Of course, I won't say it myself. I'll play along and hype it up, like, "That was a huge success, boss!" But on the other hand, sometimes a slightly niche, target-oriented web news piece gets picked up, and the next day, "It sold out so fast, the product vanished from the shelves!" So, which outcome is truly more satisfying for you?

Consider PR for B2B companies. They typically deal with technologies and materials that don't directly impact everyday consumers. Is there really any benefit to forcing coverage in general media? Sure, the goal might be to elevate the company's image by showing how these B2B technologies or specialized materials ultimately benefit consumers. It might also be valid to aim for internal benefits, like thinking, "Since consumers expect so much from us, we really need to step up as part of our corporate responsibility," or "We can definitely create products that will be popular." But what if we're purely considering results for the B2B business itself? Does getting coverage in mass media really make sense? Does appearing on a morning news show actually increase business meetings? Wouldn't it be better to have thorough coverage in specialized newspapers or magazines?

This tendency to shift the goal from "selling products" to "selling advertising. Selling methods" is something we communication professionals must stop pursuing.

Sometimes a "silver lining" reveals the true results

After giving a strategic PR lecture to a client recently, we exchanged opinions and I heard an interesting experience. These days, it's standard practice for any client to use events like commercial launch parties as a single hook or timing point to spread information. For media outlets with entertainment segments, the talent value itself is the top priority. So, regardless of the company's name recognition or the novelty of the product, the volume of exposure changes significantly based on how well they can secure a hot talent at that moment and how interesting a story they can get them to tell.

In a way, this might be the most competitive method right now for even small and medium-sized enterprises to gain significant PR exposure that rivals large corporations. Of course, it's not just a battle of talent value; these slots carry a significant risk. If a major social news story breaks, they can instantly lose their presence, and there's a very high chance of losing the exposure itself.

The client I spoke with unfortunately had their press conference exposure nearly wiped out by an incident. It's ironic how these things happen precisely when you're putting in the most effort. However, they happened to have secured some compensatory footage related to the talent. They had recorded the footage surrounding the talent at that press conference, and this proved beneficial. Hoping it might help somewhat, they decided to release it as an online video.

Surprisingly, it ranked highly in online video charts and achieved massive dissemination as popular content. Since the product's main target audience was highly internet-savvy, this approach yielded far greater reach and resonance than initially anticipated.

Yes, you probably get it now. Things like "We must get on TV" or "We need a long segment" are just benchmarks derived from the "metrics" used to measure the campaign itself. If the goal is simply to get many people to watch a TV program, then measuring reach by airtime slots or the number of national networks is fine. However, for the corporate information being featured there, the important thing isn't just "getting people to watch," but rather "getting them to watch, take an interest, and ultimately make a purchase." Isn't it crucial to discuss this ultimate goal openly and honestly during the communication design phase?

If the brief doesn't change, the presentation won't either.

And what's crucial when aiming for these outcomes is, again, the client's brief. If they say, "We kinda want to make a CM," the agency sales rep will first talk to the CM creators. Then, to build the logic for the creative direction, they'll bring in the marketing team. After that, it becomes, "Oh yeah, PR is important these days too, maybe I'll reach out to the PR team later," or "Videos are trending, so let's add that as a proposal."

Listening to this, I can't help but think: Wait, shouldn't everyone first fundamentally consider what the client's core challenge actually is? Isn't it the AE's (Account Executive's) job to clearly extract that goal? And shouldn't the client also orient themselves towards that objective?

I understand it's tough to overturn these established procedures, but isn't following the right path the only way to get the right results? And the ad agency should be there to support that. I know I keep saying the obvious, but without the courage to act, it won't happen. Actually, I've had several consultations lately where people say, "I know, but..." So, for everyone out there facing similar struggles, I wanted to write this as a rallying cry.

Alright, fellow comrades, the time has come to rise up. Let's change the world together!! (Hmm, maybe I got a little too serious this time?)