Jack O'Dwyer vs. PR firms

I read all about the spat between Jack O'Dwyer and PR firms over his ranking of independent PR firms. I want to state up front that I do not, nor have I ever, worked for O'Dwyer or an independent PR firm. The statements in this blog post are strictly opinion.

First, I agree with O'Dwyer's gripe about the subscription fees. Paying $295 for one subscription read by 895 employees seems unfair to O'Dwyer. After all, he is missing out on 894 potential paying subscribers.

However, I took a look at O'Dwyer's newsletter subscription form. There is no language on the subscription form that states the subscription cannot be shared. From this chair it seems O'Dwyer made the subscription rules and now he doesn't want to have to play by them anymore. Further, I think it is absolutely wrong to penalize PR firms - who played by his subscription rules - by removing them from his rankings.

One PR firm pays and gets ranked while another refuses to pay and doesn't get ranked? How is this not payola? I also do not understand O'Dwyer's public rant about the lack of advertising support from organizations, such as the CPRF. I was a trade magazine editor for 10 years. The magazine had loyal advertisers who advertised only with us, those who advertised with us and our competitor and those who advertised strictly with our competitor. So the CPRF chooses not to spend money with O'Dwyer. It's the CPRF's choice, and no amount of complaining by O'Dwyer is going to win my sympathy (not that he wants it) about the lack of support from the CPRF.

O'Dwyer himself posted this statement on his blog: "This is far from just being a matter of money. Waggener Edstrom, with $119 million in revenues in 2008, 843 employees, and No. 2 on our rankings, has only one web/NL sub at $295. It refuses to pony up a nickel more. We just don't fit into their "marketing plan," a marketing executive told us. Several other large ranked firms have the same attitude. So we're booting Wagged and the others off the rankings. They're not "PR" firms. Rather than having any sense of community, they only have a sense of what's in it for them. They don't like independent media that can challenge them. They don’t live up to the term, 'public.'"

Tell me Mr. O'Dwyer, how is your choice to boot them off the rankings not a "what's in it for you" stance?" You also state that O'Dwyer rankings are epidemic on Google. That's wonderful. But I'd be more impressed (not that you care to impress me) if you can demonstrate how a firm's ranking in your directory was directly related to it winning new business.

To conclude I do want to say that I think O'Dwyers' idea of a subscription scale is fair: $2,000 for agencies with $2 million in fees, $3,000 for those with $5-$10 million in fees, and $5,000 for those with $10 million and more (as told by PRNewser). O'Dwyer produces a product which requires materials, time and money. I agree he should be fairly compensated for the product he produces. However, I think it is unfair for O'Dwyer to change the subscription rules mid-game and blackmail firms who refuse to play by the new rules.

You don't buy a car only to get a call from the salesperson a year later saying "Oh, we are increasing the price of your car because you let so many other people use it."