PR never controlled 'everything'

Fast Company Now.

The bottom line is that there's a danger that the changing face of communications is pushing PR toward irrelevancy, cautioned panelist Neville Hobson. What PR doesn't seem to get is that they can no long completely control all of the messages nor all of the channels through which the messages are communicated.

C'mon, Nev. This is just telling the newbie audience what it wants to hear. You're playing to their existing prejudices and misconceptions about PR. When has PR ever been able to 'completely control all the messages'? Or control all the channels?  Perhaps, if you're talking about totalitarian societies.

Messages have always been mainly a way of focusing the story and giving it some structure and meaning for the audience. We do this in every form of communication. Even blog posts. People who just spew forth an incoherent flood of information are worse than useless they are a boorish menace.

Structuring that information and giving it some context is a service to your audience; it is not an attempt at control.

We already see this passion for coherence on the blogosphere with the use of tags etc. You can't have meaningful conversations unless there is some underlying structure for delivering coherence. Like being in the same room at the same time.

Messages are topline. Underneath them is a lot of substantiation and validation. Just saying 'this product is good for you and good for the environment' is not enough we need to provide supporting evidence for those messages. Otherwise, no real human being will believe it. Not for long anyway and not when some contrary evidence appears.

Messages are not the problem. Sloppy, unstrategic messaging which is unsupported by evidence is the problem.

BTW. There is no evidence that PR is in trouble in this market, and Europe and the US seem to be going well too.

Comments

[Neville Hobson]

"This is just telling the newbie audience what it wants to hear. You're playing to their existing prejudices and misconceptions about PR."

Odd assumptions to make, Trevor. Out of context to the actual conversation flow of that panel discussion and to the Fast Company reporting.

I don't recall seeing you in the audience there ;)

[Trevor Cook]

Neville - Sorry if the comments attributed to you by Fast Company are taken out of context and by citing them I have exacerbated this odd focus.
The nub of the issue is whether social media changes the nature of PR from bad (controlling) to good (open)or whether it changes it from good (but limited to some constraining channels) to a better profession with many more opportunities?

[Lauren Vargas]

The social media amplifies the lack of transparency in the communications industry. Sure, there are more opportunities, but where is the leadership? Where are the solutions? As I state in the Communicators Anonymous 12 Step Program, the higher power is the customer/end-user and they have control. Not to generalize all practitioners by any means, but egotism is driving pr irrelevancy not lack of opportunity or new outlets.