I just came across the below letter of mine published in PR Week's print edition quite some time ago in response to an article critical of the use of public relations in politics.  Given the ongoing political wars, it seemed timely:

Sir,

Congratulations on your well written editorial on the difference between political and other forms of PR, `The epitome of the practice, or a corruption?' (PR Week, October 10).

It's possible that marketing, not PR is the culprit behind the problem you cite:  `There was a time when politicians actually started from a set of beliefs and tried to convince the public that those beliefs were right, rather than the other way around.'

It's a marketing tenet to find out what the consumer wants, then give it to him.  Which may be why that public is getting it right and left these days from both parties.  It's a PR tenet, on the other hand, to identify what the public knows and believes, in order to determine how best to educate it.

There seems to be, then, at least one difference between marketing and PR. Simply put, marketing conforms; PR informs.
                                                                        -- Jeff Bogart 

Did Facebook overprice its shares?

The company's initial public offering was priced at $38 a share.  So did the company and its investment bankers flunk I-banking 101?

The substantial drop in price soon after the offering might make you think so.  But Fortune columnist and blogger Dan Primack disagrees, saying:  "as I wrote at the time, $38 was the perfect price." 

For Primack's reasoning and his view of the investment banker's role, see Facebook's IPO Was No 'Disaster'
                                                                        -- Jeff Bogart