Not necessarily, because extensive PR doesn't guarantee success. If a technology is good, it will enjoy success to extremely varying degrees. The reason for the disparity is because a truly good product sells itself, grabbing the buyer buy the throat. ReadWriteWeb wrote a great piece about this question, and they come to a good conclusion: PR firms do the dirty work of "discovering" worthwhile technologies, though their definition of worthwhile might differ from ours (since they get paid to do it) (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_good_tech_need_pr.php). Even so, PR saves a lot of people a lot of time.
In a free market, communication is key. The "commercialization" of a technology still relies heavily on traditional marketing and, further, the democratization of technological advancements. PR allows the user to "drive" the product, and that's a good thing.
I think the question is flawed because it assumes that extensive PR guarantees success. PR is only one factor, and in most cases, a pitifully small one, in the success of any product, technology or not. Read about Hush Puppies shoes in "The Tipping Point," for instance. Can anyone name an example where it was mostly PR that made the success of any product? Can anyone name an example of a product that had massive PR campaigns and fell to the ground quicker than you can say "Vista?" Microsoft doesn't dominate the computer world because of PR, it did it because they had leadership who would stop at nothing to not only become #1, but by crushing numbers 2-infinity. Apple gets tons of good PR, both paid and free. Despite their successes with I-stuff, they still command a pitifully small portion of the computer market.
Assuming we're talking new I'net technology, it seems to me the answer is typically Yes, due to our ability to hyper-communicate. Of course it varies based on things like product, demographics, level of competition, etc. I view PR as an accelerator. If something is good, PR will enable it to succeed faster than it would otherwise. If something is bad, no amount of PR will make it succeed, at least not long term.
Well, it could just be a concept that is meritorious but difficult to explain or before its time. I've been involved with a few of those. Sometimes you finally give it up even though it looks so good only to see someone else have a wild success with it two to ten years later.
A variation on the above question: If an operating system out in the woods needs to spend $300 million and hire a comedian 10 years past his prime to shill for it...does it make a noise? Discuss.
6 Total
August 18, 2008 at 10:29am by Brendan Collins
Not necessarily, because extensive PR doesn't guarantee success. If a technology is good, it will enjoy success to extremely varying degrees. The reason for the disparity is because a truly good product sells itself, grabbing the buyer buy the throat. ReadWriteWeb wrote a great piece about this question, and they come to a good conclusion: PR firms do the dirty work of "discovering" worthwhile technologies, though their definition of worthwhile might differ from ours (since they get paid to do it) (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_good_tech_need_pr.php). Even so, PR saves a lot of people a lot of time.
August 18, 2008 at 1:01pm by Bailey King
In a free market, communication is key. The "commercialization" of a technology still relies heavily on traditional marketing and, further, the democratization of technological advancements. PR allows the user to "drive" the product, and that's a good thing.
August 18, 2008 at 6:28pm by Rich Pasenow
I think the question is flawed because it assumes that extensive PR guarantees success. PR is only one factor, and in most cases, a pitifully small one, in the success of any product, technology or not. Read about Hush Puppies shoes in "The Tipping Point," for instance. Can anyone name an example where it was mostly PR that made the success of any product? Can anyone name an example of a product that had massive PR campaigns and fell to the ground quicker than you can say "Vista?" Microsoft doesn't dominate the computer world because of PR, it did it because they had leadership who would stop at nothing to not only become #1, but by crushing numbers 2-infinity. Apple gets tons of good PR, both paid and free. Despite their successes with I-stuff, they still command a pitifully small portion of the computer market.
August 20, 2008 at 11:20pm by Mark Von Der Linn
Assuming we're talking new I'net technology, it seems to me the answer is typically Yes, due to our ability to hyper-communicate. Of course it varies based on things like product, demographics, level of competition, etc. I view PR as an accelerator. If something is good, PR will enable it to succeed faster than it would otherwise. If something is bad, no amount of PR will make it succeed, at least not long term.
August 21, 2008 at 9:49am by Bruce Cichowlas
Well, it could just be a concept that is meritorious but difficult to explain or before its time. I've been involved with a few of those. Sometimes you finally give it up even though it looks so good only to see someone else have a wild success with it two to ten years later.
August 21, 2008 at 10:56am by Rich Pasenow
A variation on the above question: If an operating system out in the woods needs to spend $300 million and hire a comedian 10 years past his prime to shill for it...does it make a noise? Discuss.