Media industry is going to hell in a handbasket - Where is PR industry's handbasket?

We don't see a disconnect.

The mainstream media is but one mechanism for companies to reach their target audiences.

On the other hand, PR agencies have a number of vehicles at their disposal to help clients communicate their agendas.

I can't speak for the PR industry as a whole but we're finding more opportunities in developing content that "fuels" a range of tactics some of which involve reaching out directly to the desired audience.

I recognize this concept of going directly to the target was the source of the rant on Strumpette.

Does creating a podcast that not only appears on a client's web site but also gets pushed out to customers/prospects (who have clicked the opt-in box on the web site) constitute PR?

Who cares? This is the wrong debate.

To strive for a set of services that fit neatly under the PR umbrella seems out of step with today's reality.

Now's the time to challenge the status quo.

And I believe many PR agencies are taking this approach which explains the health of the PR industry.

Tom, I've enjoyed your blog. If business takes you to South Bay, I'd welcome a chance to talk in person.

Generally, I feel that "PR" firms need to expand into "integrated communications" firms, offering a full complement of services to reach audiences via multiple channels, even if that's a direct mail piece, a microsite, more policy/public affairs outreach, and, of course, social media programs.

Many media companies have expanded their offerings as well, with events, social media, research, awards programs, etc., though the role of the journalist in that integrated model typically remains limited (though in vertical/shelter pubs the line is often blurry).

Clients/accounts still seem to be organized to buy traditional PR programs (media relations/analyst relations/speaker bureaus/events) and other marcom services separately. Not many have integrated marketing services in-house, so bringing communications programs together is still a challenge for both PR and media companies.

I'm concerned that the continued growth of PR/marcom services in the face of a decline in job security/opportunity in traditional journalism will exacerbate the tension between the two groups. This won't be good for the industry as a whole.

To steal a phrase, PR is booming because the public is being put back in to public relations. New media is not a scary new venture for PR, but just a faster, more interactive version of the practice of bringing audiences together. I think that many firms are doing well because they have either embraced this concept or are grudgingly accepting it.

Media has evolved and PR evolves along with it. We have seen this boom/bust cycle before and I was part of it as a reporter in the early 1980’s before I got into PR. Newspapers were folding, fewer outlets were in play and we all wondered where things were heading. Today, we continue to focus on relationship generation but through new media, we can now reach out to target audiences directly and hopefully spur them to desired action. We carry our relationships and techniques forward, all while embracing this new medium.

I’d also have to say that, while I respect your take on all of this, the comparison to the tie between the media/PR shift of the dot.com bust to today doesn’t fit the market in my mind. During the dot.com era, many media outlets and PR agencies ballooned up to meet the needs of irrational exuberance. Too much stock (pun actually intended) was placed in companies that simply didn’t have a product or a future. Contrary to the astute warnings of one of my favorite rap artists, Public Enemy, we all believed the hype. We were one of the agencies who weathered that storm in the Valley emerged more enlightened than before. The new media evolution is one sign of this, but we are no longer dependent solely on the old standards to deliver measurable results for our clients.

Great discussion, and great comments here from all before me.

The digital age is forcing the atomization of all things media. Five TV channels to five thousand. A few powerful media outlets (who traditionally were the gatekeepers for reaching the public with a message), to tens of millions of blogs and other alternate social media outlets (podcasts, social nets, etc).

The traditional information dissemination supply chain of media --> public is now (media + public) --> public. In the new equation, traditional media is still hugely important, and by some measures more important due to the size of their audience, yet at the same time their influence and importance is getting marginalized. Sound contradictory? It is.

Tech startups and other businesses will always place great value on a service that helps them cost-effectively reach their desired audience. This is why the PR industry may continue to prosper even if the traditional media industry as we know it continues to deteriorate and atomize.

It's probably also helpful to recognize two of the most important values a PR firm can offer:

1. Strategic communications counsel - how to discover, craft and package that amazing intersection of story and message, backed by truthful facts and grounded in reality, that compels media (and of course new media) to want to pass on the message to their audience in a way that drives the audience to some action or belief that helps the business achieve their specific business objectives. Strategic communications counsel is both an art and science, and when done correctly it's golden to the client.

2. How to execute the delivery of that message - i.e. how to get that story covered. The best strategies in item #1 are worthless if the end objective (delivering the message to the target audience) is never achieved.

Many PR agencies excel at one or the other, but few excel at both. Those that excel at both will continue to find success for as long as startups and other businesses have a need to reach their audience.

Jon and Mark: I think PR is changing but I am not convinced until PR firms feel the same sharp financial pains that are causing the media world to change or go out of business.

There is no incentive for PR firms to change what they are doing, except to add some "new media" accents to what they do.

I still feel that PR's handbasket is not that far away...

Elizabeth: I agree with many of your points. I just wonder how much PR is moving away from business as usual. My experience is there is much talk about such things, but most PR firms and their clients are incredibly risk averse and would rather talk than do...

Great debate, Tom!

But I’m not certain that the "handbasket" is imminent.

As Liz points out, we’re selling a service. And whether we’re courting early stage deep technology clients or giant consumer bellwethers, we’re reaching way beyond traditional “PR service vehicles” to fashion clever strategies to influence stakeholders. We’ve had to do this – not just to compensate for the disruption in mainstream media circles; but more importantly, to add new flair to our PR businesses, increase our relevance and boost our bottom line.

So, we’re breathing new life into what we’re good at. Communicating. We’re packaging, practicing and targeting “communications” more creatively to compensate for the growing media vacuum while still delivering the message to the intended audience. We’ve also become more nimble in the face of fluctuating client budgets. So, it’s not exactly business as usual, but it IS a flavor of the “usual business”, just greatly expanded and practiced a little differently. And it seems to be insulating us from the disruption that sadly dogs the mainstream media. Hopefully, it is how our businesses will continue to flourish.

Sean mentions the need for more integrated offerings. Mark talks about the value of strategic counsel. They’re right. To this, I’d add “global” offerings as an example of how we’re re-defining our value. And I don’t just mean U.S. companies operating globally; I’m talking about emerging companies in Asia and other regions that are anxious to harness smart communications strategies to establish a foothold in the global market place. This alone represents a bright market opportunity for U.S. PR practitioners – and one that’s quite possibly fueling the current “boom”.
Jane Evans-Ryan

You are right - the handbasket is coming - but perhaps not in the way your post implies. I think the whole agency sector is going to implode and re-form around providers and creators of ideas supported by a large range of specialist providers.

Tha fact that PR encompasses a range of disciplines (as pointed by many of the previous comments) is both a strength and a weakness for PR as a practice. The sorts of skills and capabilites currently associated with PR are going to be in increasing demand, but this is no guarantee that what we currently call PR agencies will deliver the full range of these capabilities. It could be that PR will fragment into a range of specialist disciplines.

Hence I have been so bold as to forecast The Death of PR! Posted here: http://richardstacy.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/pr-is-dead/

Richard