PR is dead. It’s officially over. Shel Holtz is disturbed by the obvious perception of PR in comments posted to Jay Rosen’s blog about the Ketcham debacle. Shel eloquently poses the questions in his post whether there needs to be a clear distinction between “product” PR and "corporate affairs" PR - and asks for ideas on how the industry will police itself and what work must be done to repair its image.
If we believe the manifesto (the ClueTrain) that started it all - that markets are conversations and you are who people say you are – then PR is spin, public manipulation and devoid of credibility. All those within the industry waving their hands and pointing to the good, the sound and the ethical within the industry and all the explanations about the differences between types of PR aren’t going to change the fact of perceptions. No one outside understands the subtleties that those inside do. You are who people (markets) say you are.
The function of PR is needed – and all those who practice it so brilliantly such that much of its real function is hidden from sight and serves us all, are desperately needed. But listen to the markets and be disturbed at what you hear. These are not “people outside who don’t understand.” These are the very same people PR is trying to engage on issues vital to the organizations which they serve. They are your markets.
It wasn’t the Armstrong Williams/Ketchumgate affair that killed PR. It wasn’t journalists who denigrate it. It wasn’t blogs (but you would certainly think so with all the noise). It wasn’t even the present U.S. administration (although they have brilliantly contributed). No, PR was livin’ large and flying blind. It just hit the wall and it cannot recover.
PR has been dying since the advent of the web. Advertising trumped PR in embracing the Net, new communication tools and the way individuals interact with modern media. Big PR forced out of its midst the content generation who went instead to “new media” agencies or out on their own. PR tried to recoup, and now find themselves somehow nearly synonymous with media relations - maybe because it was familiar and unwanted territory, or maybe because journalists who controlled so much of mass media made it so.
Even though PR firms were those best positioned to take hold of the conversation model they froze in fear and denial. I’ve worked in, around and for many of the major PR agencies (or their holding companies); indeed they have been clients of mine. The mantra is still “control the message” in a world where the message is as fluid as the medium though which it flows.
PR was dead. Ketchum just did the requiem.
So, asks Shel, where do we go from here?
Let “PR” pass from this world peacefully. Don’t try to re-brand it or mange its reputation. The function is needed (even by those who denigrate it) – but the perception has crippled it beyond repair.
Those who are passionate about people and connections and voice and mindshare need to (and will) create a New Practice. A re-birth is the only thing that can happen. What shall it be called? Like all good brand names, it should reflect what it does. Let the good, the sound and the ethical in the industry found a new practice and let them bestow a new name, leaving PR to decompose.
PR is dead. Long live MC (modern conversation).
Shel, we in fact agree! Ask anyone - outside the industry - what PR is and they'll equate it with "spin" or market-speak. Ask them what corporate communications is and they'll say something like "employee communications," "HR" or "internal communications." Few equate it with IR.
As I said in my post, the function of PR is essential. It is the perception of it that is PR's problem. It just seems to me you have two choices- 1) redefine yourself (corporate comm) to something "not PR;" or 2) recreate the industry into something new and credible - indeed something as self-policing as the Internet itself. :-)
Posted by: Linda Zimmer | January 23, 2005 at 12:43 PM
The all-or-nothing approach will never work. There's a role for PR, as long as it's ethical, two-way, symmetrical PR. Consider my definition: the management of an organization's relations with its constituent audiences. How would "Cluetrain's" tenets (which I believe in, by the way) address investor relations? Who would handle the call to the company by the newspaper reporter after the earthquake has leveled its manufacturing facility? C'mon...there's a place for both corporate PR and the conversation. Balance is the answer. And it wouldn't hurt if the profession would start policing those who lead to the negative perception that so many people have. PR isn't dead. BAD PR is dead.
Posted by: Shel Holtz | January 23, 2005 at 08:49 AM