View Single Post
05-13-2011, 11:25 AM
Registered User
GAGLine's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,426
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Oh, youre correct, only it was not PR. It was publicity. Two terms are often mistaken because there is a similarity in tools, such as advertisement, and the purpose is common - to show product and/or company better than often it is. But they are quite opposite.
Publicity is to emphasize the accomplishments (management) and advantages (product), while PR is to hide the deficiencies (product) and mistakes (management). For example, when BP spilled the oil in the Gulf of Mexico the PR campaign was launched. When Sather ruined post-lockout Rangers by signing mediocre players in place of superstar, the PR campaign was launched. The methods that used are various, but the true founder of the theoretical base was Dr. J. Goebbels who insisted that lie is the most important. We see many posters on this board that were subject of that campaign and it is safe to say it was quite successful based on those quantities.
What KHL did was publicity; they wanted to show their multimillion toys to public, plus to please their new acquisitions.
In any case, signing a player for publicity (Jagr) would always look better to me, than doing the same for PR (Richards).
PR is not always negative. PR is public relations. The term "PR spin" has negative connotations.

Either way, my point still stands and you obviously agree with it. The money that Omsk gave to Jagr had less to do with his talent than the positive PR (or publicity) that signing him would give the team and the league.

Sather didn't need to sign Jagr for PR reasons. The only reason to sign Jagr was for what he could do on the ice.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote