The new season of AMC’s hit TV series Mad Men started off with a bang (pardon the pun), with a peek into the bedroom of creative director and new bachelor Don Draper.  It also revealed the tensions inherent in the pursuit of new business at fledgling ad agency Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.

I confess I’m a “Mad-dict,” in part because I’ve worked at a few advertising agencies in my career and many of the situations hit home for me. 

In my experience, some clients view advertising as the golden child and public relations as the bastard at the proverbial family reunion. PR can be an after-thought, while creative gets the lion’s share of the attention.  After all, how do you quantify something you can’t storyboard or plot into a media plan?

The season premiere of Mad Men, entitled “Public Relations,” opened with Don being interviewed by an Advertising Age reporter.  Don’s lackluster responses and subsequent dismissal of the interview as a waste of his time reminded me of a few clients’ view of doing media interviews.

When the article showcases Don in a less than favorable light, he’s called onto the carpet by his agency partner Roger Sterling:

Don:  He never asked me that. Did he check any of the facts?

Roger:  You didn’t give him any facts. He had to make some assumptions.

Don:  My job is to write ads, not go around talking about who I am.

Roger:  Who knows who you are? This was supposed to be an advertisement for the firm…this is a missed opportunity.

By the end of the episode, Don has an “aha” moment when he realizes the value of PR as a tool to tell the agency’s story the way he wants it to be told.  During his interview later on with the Wall Street Journal, it’s obvious Don’s in control.

Smart organizations (the Roger Sterlings) know the value of leveraging editorial coverage to their advantage.  For those that don’t (the Don Drapers), we’re here to tell them.

I like music. I enjoy watching music videos. I even enjoy watching some commercials. But what about when the line between entertainment and advertising is blurred?

On a recent morning while at the gym, I was watching VH1 and the VJ introduced the next video – courtesy of Toyota. But the video wasn’t from a pop artist or hot rapper. “Swagger Wagon” was a commercial for Toyota’s Sienna minivan. I was entertained by the rapping parents; the beat was decent and the lyrics comical. But I was also thoroughly confused by the placement.

Had the “Swagger Wagon” video simply followed an ad for toothpaste or a fast food restaurant, I would have thought great commercial.  I appreciate that networks have to think differently to appeal to advertisers these days, but I was left wondering if playing an ad off as just another music video would really do anything for Toyota.

The beauty of viral videos – like “Tea Partay” and “New Dork” is that consumers drive the interest; not the marketers behind the effort. I’d much prefer a colleague to email me a “can’t miss” video or have a friend post one on my Facebook page than watch it on TV. The buzz created by and surrounding viral videos has to be earned and authentic, not solely a media buy.

Rolling Stone magazine was founded by Jann S. Wenner in the late 60s – an era defined by Vietnam War protests, hippies and Woodstock.   A chronicle of counter culture, the publication carved out a niche for itself by combining in-depth political coverage with pop-culture commentary. 

The longtime home of gonzo journalists Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O’Rourke, Rolling Stone’s relevance seemed to fade when the founding baby boomers grew up and the controversial Thompson passed away.  Advertising revenue and circulation was on a downward spiral.  The cutting-edge national affairs pieces that made the magazine famous were nonexistent. 

That is until Mark Hastings, a contributor to Rolling Stone magazine, was granted unprecedented access to a top-ranking military official, General McChrystal.  The piece recounts disparaging comments made by the general and his staff during a few nights of alcohol induced outings.  Hastings’ “Runaway General” article did more than prompt the resignation of General McChrystal, it marked the beginning of the magazine’s comeback. 

Hastings’ article quickly became one of the most read online even before the print publication hit newsstands.  Mr. Hastings appeared, via satellite from Afghanistan, on various broadcast outlets including CNN’s Larry King Live.   Having once worked in the publicity department of Wenner Media, I know the staff there was overjoyed by all the TV bookings and fanfare created around the June 21^st issue. 

But the question becomes can this title that’s been around for more than four decades sustain its renewed popularity?

Some argue that the publication is well poised to continue to churn out notable journalism.  A recent New York Times article attributes Rolling Stone’s recent success to its bi-weekly publishing schedule: “Many newsweeklies have faltered and lost their impact on shaping the national conversation, but as a biweekly Rolling Stone has thrived in defiance of a digital age in which articles are supposed to appear then vanish within hours.”

According to Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, “Biweekly publications have the best of both worlds: they can respond nimbly to the news and take their time on longer enterprise pieces.”

We’ll have to wait and see if the publication can continue its momentum.  I know I’ll be watching to see what’s on the next cover of Rolling Stone.