The PR 2.0 Universe Melvin Yuan on 27 Nov 2007 09:16 am
The myopia of PR detractors
This afternoon, I had lunch with a journalist who has a brilliant mind for business strategy; and the one question I wanted to ask him was – whether he had any business plans to pursue when he tires of journalism. We never got to that question for lack of time, but I was confident that he would make a good strategist when the time comes.
I must say, I am exceedingly fortunate to count as friends, several other journalists who impress me deeply with their business acumen.
But when I got back from lunch, I stumbled upon a Financial Times article by Michael Skapinker, who asserted that “you can handle the web without an adviser”. In his commentary, he explained how complex the Web was; and went on to question the ability of PR agencies to bring any value to businesses.
“When it comes to your whole industry being damaged, you can look for alternatives (paid-for music downloads, online newspapers),” claims Michael, “but it is difficult to imagine what the PR people can do for you.”
There are some very good observations in his article – such as the relationship between PR and customer service quality, and an all-round 360-degree approach to PR. And I’m not disagreeing with some of what he was saying. In fact, as PR professionals, we should certainly consider some of those issues.
But his headline may not be the most helpful to companies trying to grapple with the complexities of the new media and business landscapes.
In fact, Michael’s article reminded me of a Guy Kawasaki post in May this year titled “The Top Ten Reasons Why PR Doesn’t Work”.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why these guys are still going on about the same thing.
In an increasingly sophisticated business environment, PR is probably one of the most valued disciplines (I didn’t say “job” or “tool” or “person”) to management. Yet it seems increasingly fashionable for someone – a journalist or, horror-of-horrors, Guy Kawasaki himself – to have a go at slamming the PR discipline and profession. One of the things they seem to like doing is to insist that businesses don’t need PR firms to navigate social media and help them develop strategies to build trusted relationships with customers online.
Michael Skapinker, for one, clearly thinks so.
So why don’t we admit that they’re right. Almost right. Yes, Businesses can build customer and other crucial relationships online without the counsel of PR professionals.
But I wonder how many of these journalists, in making their arguments against the need for PR firms, actually consider the opportunity cost in developing the expertise and implementing those strategies in-house?
I am quite sure that if you think hard and well enough, there’s no big secret to effective web strategy; or Strategy for that matter. If there were, the best strategists won’t be blogging or coaching others; and professional services firms won’t be publishing case studies.
But PR firms can bring broader expertise, deeper insights, economies of scale, efficiency, quality and perhaps more significantly – a disciplined, systematic approach to web strategy that businesses today really need.
Now, I have no doubt that any capable business leader can acquire or develop the expertise to do all this within the organisation or the management team. But at what cost?
Intelligent business leaders do what they are good at. And they outsource the rest by engaging professionals to bring all I stated above to the table. Sometimes, you can bring on your management team, someone who’s great at online public relations strategy. But often, depending on the scale of the business and the business structure, it makes more sense to engage a consultant or an agency.
So yes, Michael Skapinker is right. And in his words, “you can handle the web without an adviser”.
And businesses don’t need professional PR counsel agencies just like they don’t need accounting firms, research firms and IT vendors. Businesses don’t need PR agencies just like I don’t need a plumber, or a laundry mart, or an investment manager.
But how much business sense is there in having the account executive or the relationship manger spend time learning to build the office network. Or how much business sense is there in setting up a full-fledged IT organisation within a mid-sized business?
We are talking about fundamental management principles here, and it’s disappointing to see such simplistic views from credible publications like the Financial Times. Especially when the intent is in question.
If you feel that CEOs and other senior managers are capable of developing strategies to manage their public relations without counsellors, I won’t argue against that. I humbly submit though, that the true differentiating value is not the big strategies, and the creativity and the PR awards (although I admit they are all important; except the awards). But as a PR consultant or an agency, the greatest value that I can bring to businesses is this: a less-glamorous but disciplined and systematic approach. It is the discipline of developing strategy, skill-sets, relationships and whatever else it takes – in order to help companies meet their business objectives. And very often, this means helping business leaders to listen well, communicate clearly, and hold them accountable to the high standards of sincerity and honesty that’s required in building trusted relationships with the Public.
So, Michael-Skapinkers-of-the-world, until business leaders decide that it’s not importance to focus on core competence and manage organisational resources and intellectual capital efficiently, professional PR counsel and services are still your best bet.
on 28 Nov 2007 at 3:51 am 1.Kevin said …
Melvin, it intrigues be how the same questions are brought upon public relations practitioners every few “new” media cycles.
Besides your blog, Priscilla Tan’s blog has written about issues that have long existed in the early days before blogs became a household word. This show a neverceasing misunderstanding of what public relations is about.
It looks like PR as a discipline needs a magical dose of its own medicine.
I would once again reinstate how be it traditional media (e.g. newspapers), new media (e.g. web), social media (e.g. blogs, social networks), businesses should not be seduced by the newness of a media to warrant repetition of the same issues.
Ultimately. they are all merely channels, and all channels need to be watched and responded to if one wants to manage how the audience perception on issues. This take time and effort, and a kind of talent which speaks to the culture within each channel.
I see it like this:
In any business, any decent professional representation would give a competitive edge, be it representation in accounting, IT or PR. It’s a choice, an option, and it’s up to the business to figure out if it’s right for them. It won’t always be right (expectation-wise) for every business.
“Appropriateness” is the key term we seem to be lacking here!
For your reference: I came across your blog post from Constantin Basturea’s weblog (his deli.cio.us to be exact).
on 29 Nov 2007 at 6:05 am 2.theory.isthereason » Today’s Links: Inspector Gadgets, Freakonomists, and Socio-Politicians said …
[…] The myopia of PR detractors Yet ANOTHER case of PR needing a dose of its own medicine. Seriously, our poor PR practitioners face same questions washed, rinsed and repeat every few media cycles. There’s nothing new here people, just remember the magical word: Appropriateness! Keywords: publicrelations, blogging, media, business, socialmedia […]
on 29 Nov 2007 at 7:40 am 3.walter said …
A nice and balanced piece. As a client and a member of the senior management team (ha!), I think it all boils down to resources and expertise. Agree that one has to weigh the benefits of bringing expertise inhouse versus outsourcing.
First, I will ask myself how much funds I have available for the year and whether those funds would be better spent in engaging external PR expertise or developing inhouse publicists. I will also evaluate the level and depth of my own team - what are our strengths and weaknesses, where are our core competencies, and where are our gaps.
Next, I will do an evaluation of the publicity potential of a particular activity. For campaigns of a certain scale, I know that I will need a lot more hands to follow up with different journos on different leads, and the size of my team alone will not suffice. However, smaller run-of-the-mill affairs are probably best done inhouse at a lower cost.
For PR strategies and plans, I personally believe that a company has to take ownership of it some way or other. PR agencies certainly can provide value added and offer 3rd party perspectives that may be missing. However, it has to be the client ultimately that does what is best for his or her business.
on 29 Nov 2007 at 9:46 am 4.eStee said …
Linked from Walter’s blog. Thanks for sharing…
on 29 Nov 2007 at 10:31 am 5.Aaron K said …
Hello Melvin,
Very very well written piece about the dilemma some PR practitioners face each day.
The logic you presented on having an external team with more scale, more efficiencies and wider reach is on the spot. The education process from agency and to the client though, is still lacking in our industry.
Business operational costs will increase with each ‘expert’ that you bring onto the team and often, the more expertise in-house that is present, the more that will be expected of the internal team to deliver.
So I fully support your view of outsourcing to the experts and remaining fully aware of core competencies within a company.
“If you have a product/service to sell, then jolly well sell it! Stop trying to figure out whether the logo should be on the right or left side…”
Walter, good point on budgeting and evaluating in-house capabilities but honestly, unless a company has either big budgets or a big team, an agency can help provide that more-than-extra creativity and resourcing to create better campaigns.
End of day, everyone’s end goal is similar, it’s how the campaign got run that determines whether it was a good investment or not.
And while a company needs to own their campaign, it doesn’t hurt to have more people on their side as they run it. Both sides just need to learn respect and decisiveness.
on 29 Nov 2007 at 11:50 am 6.Melvin Yuan said …
Hi Kevin,
you’re right that the public perception of the PR profession needs some work.
Perhaps the reason is this - while PR is very often categorised as a communication discipline, it really is a far more strategic component of a company’s business than mere marketing or communications.
I’ve always asserted that PR is NOT marketing. It’s NOT communications. It’s NOT about writing or speaking or holding events.
Public Relations is Business Leadership clearly communicated. Everything else follows.
So yes, we need to improve that public perception of PR’s true role in businesses. Clients need to understand that too, so that PR consultants and agencies can be more effectively employed by the organisations.
And that’s what I hope this blog will help achieve.
sidenote:
But I think in Asia, we’ve come a long way from the misconception that PR is all about the boss’ pretty daughter flirting with customers in order to keep them coming back to the shop!
on 29 Nov 2007 at 11:58 am 7.Melvin Yuan said …
Walter and Aaron,
Thanks for your compliments. And for bringing so much value - client-side endorsement and insights to this single post.
Everyone is either an ‘in-house person’ or an ‘agency person’. And there’s so much work to be done in improving the way agencies and clients can and should perceive each other and work together.
But I think we’re getting there…