Triangulations –PR vs advtg

Triangulations –PR vs advtg

As someone once said: "There are people who go to sleep on an advertised bed, on advertised linen, people that brush their teeth with an advertised toothbrush using advertised toothpaste, and then they say advertising does not work!" Or another - How come yoghurt is being eaten by millions!

For me the point is that there is a need for integrated communications. Every method has advantages and disadvantages. It's what is called triangulation in communications research. Triangulation is the simultaneous use of different, corroborating techniques (instruments).

No one methodology, be it surveys, interviews, focus groups, network or content analysis, is sufficient in itself. A single technique, even if properly administered, will produce biased results simply because of the inherent strengths and weaknesses in that methodology.

The same applies to media used. We have to appeal to as many senses of a person - visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, smell and taste. Using different tools to get the message across is absolutely critical. Even better if you can get your message across in many different simultaneous ways (without increasing costs substantially)

The question I would rather ask is what sensory stimulants do I need to use in a situation? For instance:
Various communication media involve various senses, such as:
Radio: Sound only
Television: Sound plus images
Colour TV: Sound plus colour images
Interactive Video: Sound, colour images, plus user participation
Virtual Reality: All the above plus kinaesthetic stimulation and an environment that surrounds the user

The more senses involved in the communication process, the higher the impact of the communication and the more it will be remembered.
Multi-Sensory - information is presented in a way that it can be heard, seen and touched. For me the rule is to maximise impact you need to invoke as many of a person senses.

Using only advertising or PR is based on a number of assumptions that are no longer valid:

Traditional models of communication practice assume that one type of well-designed intervention will solve the problem - be it advertising, publicity, training, or an internal newsletter. These linear methods ignore a systemic approach to solving problems. For example, employee communication and training systems may promote safe work practices, but if the work design and performance appraisal systems do not reinforce
these messages, they are likely to be ineffective.

Conventional models assume that the client or requester has correctly identified the problem and the appropriate intervention - for example, that a performance gap such as a lack of sales is due to poor or not enough advertising, low morale or that a two-day training course is needed.

In one organisation we once found that the problem with sales did not lie with advertising or PR or prices, the problem were that the salespeople were not closing deals due to a number of factors that included lack of skill. In this case personal coaching processes - not training, not PR, not advertising nor lowering of prices solved the problem.

When confronted with a potential communication-related project, we need to explore all the factors that can impact the performance of the target audience. For example, I have often found that performance gaps that initially look like training problems are actually a result of for example incentive programs that are not aligned with the business objectives, or caused by suboptimal business process design.

As stated in another post, advertising is just one tool.

I hope this adds to the "melting pot".