and yet we still can't figure out how to get along. 
I've noticed a lot of negative chit-chat and blog pieces of late where PR agencies are claiming that ad agencies are encroaching on their territory. And ad agencies are wondering out loud when PR shops began to adopt the term word-of-mouth as their own. Traditional advertising alone no longer builds the brand, and many companies are now fearful (in this day and age of transparency) of putting too much "spin" in the press. There used to be traditional media channels and consumer channels. With new media and the increasing demands of finding ways to create consumer dialogues, the lines are blurring even further -- and among more disciplines. This leads to, among other things, the question of who gets credit for the idea with the client, agency reputation battles, struggles over P&L share and, as a result, a general feeling of mistrust as everyone is suddenly running scared trying to protect their turf.

According to Angela Jeffrey, a member of the Institute for Public Relations, good PR and good advertising arguably are the most important drivers of company and brand image. "They play an even more important role when they are totally synchronized -- so that PR and ad strategies are in sync, target audiences are in sync, tactical plans are in sync, messaging is in sync."

So why are they still treated like distant cousins? Why is the communications team sitting on the opposite side of the company from the marketing team? Why doesn't the CMO control ALL communications? And why are we on the agency side still working against each other?

As I sit and listen to my friends on both sides of the issue I struggle to understand where the difference lies. What is it about our training and upbringing that makes an advertising word-of-mouth campaign so different from a PR word-of-mouth campaign?

It has been said that Crispin Porter & Bogusky is a better PR agency than ad agency. So does that mean that Subservient Chicken was a great advertising idea? Or a great PR idea? A few of you will have your viewpoints. And I will then wonder, is anybody really right about this? Could the answer be both?

At the same time that I read about all this negativity in our industry I'm starting to see more and more start-ups finding the benefits of collaboration with other smaller companies with the recognition that different skill sets and viewpoints lead to richer, more powerful ideas. Collaboration also leads to creating a competitive advantage. And in the end, they're able to provide the types of thinking and ideas that each could not do on its own. It frustrates me to look at our own industry and see that we are still working in silos.

Our industry has always been a highly competitive one. Can we learn a lesson here? If we truly want to maximize the marketing message, shouldn't we be working together (whether you're a client or an agency) to find the best possible opportunity to create ideas that engage audiences and elevate the brand? After all, if Nike and Apple can do it, why can't we?

(Source: Advertising age)