I’m reminded daily that I’m not the smartest guy in any room.
Four decades into my profession, yet I constantly marvel at the insights of others and regularly rethink my way of doing things. Although referring to the craft of writing specifically, Hemingway could have been describing public relations when he said, “We are all apprentices in a craft where no one becomes a master.”
So I feel a little unsettled when I insist that an incredibly smart, accomplished, award-winning communicator’s suggestion to change the “R” in PR is a really, really bad idea.
To be fair, I don’t believe Kristi Piehl’s article in Forbes is meant to launch a name-change campaign. As founder and CEO of Media Minefield, on top of her earlier experiences as a broadcast journalist, Kristi knows the value of connecting with people authentically. “The principles of connection that have always worked are timeless,” she writes in Forbes.
Still, I’m bothered by the hard lean the article makes toward reputation (the new “R”). In pointing out the rapidly changing dynamics—including AI—that impact it, Piehl states, “Reputation is currency. And the currency is now being exchanged and decided online.”
She continues: “Public Reputation rather than Public Relations shifts to modern-day practices and mindsets that are proactive rather than reactive. Public Reputation considers the problem a business is facing and understands what current and future actions its audience might take, including AI search prompts and social media searches.”
What bothers me isn’t that Piehl insists PR must adapt to an environment that’s changing at warp speed with new thinking, new tools and new approaches. She’s absolutely right.
What I find disturbing is that the article leaves an impression that reputation vs. relationship is an either-or proposition. It isn’t. It’s both-and.
If reputation is indeed today’s currency, then like any currency it must be earned. And the work of earning begins with relationship. Indeed, Piehl quotes the Public Relations Society of America’s definition of PR—a definition that makes this very point: “A strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” (Italics are mine.)
Building relationships is not a reactive strategy. It’s a constant, proactive, people-focused approach that includes—and goes beyond—reputation. Reputation is me-focused; relationship is we-focused.
It’s true that the “Relations” in PR are much harder to build and maintain today, for all the reasons Piehl notes. But that’s no reason to change the terminology. That’s no reason to consider relational strategies as something less than “modern-day practices.” We must adapt to technology, and to the speed at which reputations can change, without abandoning what makes our work human.
In solid, strategic, proactive PR, relationships must be authentic. They must be constant. Of course, they must be rooted in business, and they must play a powerful role in making the business succeed. But they can’t be limited to a metric. That’s not relational. People will see through it—with all the negative effects on reputation you’d expect.
If we want reputations that truly shine in our digital age, that having meaning to our publics, that draw in new business and new workers and new, promising futures, we have to do the work of forging the relationships that define our shared humanity.
In short, don’t change the “R.” Underscore it.
Four decades into my profession, yet I constantly marvel at the insights of others and regularly rethink my way of doing things. Although referring to the craft of writing specifically, Hemingway could have been describing public relations when he said, “We are all apprentices in a craft where no one becomes a master.”
So I feel a little unsettled when I insist that an incredibly smart, accomplished, award-winning communicator’s suggestion to change the “R” in PR is a really, really bad idea.
To be fair, I don’t believe Kristi Piehl’s article in Forbes is meant to launch a name-change campaign. As founder and CEO of Media Minefield, on top of her earlier experiences as a broadcast journalist, Kristi knows the value of connecting with people authentically. “The principles of connection that have always worked are timeless,” she writes in Forbes.
Still, I’m bothered by the hard lean the article makes toward reputation (the new “R”). In pointing out the rapidly changing dynamics—including AI—that impact it, Piehl states, “Reputation is currency. And the currency is now being exchanged and decided online.”
She continues: “Public Reputation rather than Public Relations shifts to modern-day practices and mindsets that are proactive rather than reactive. Public Reputation considers the problem a business is facing and understands what current and future actions its audience might take, including AI search prompts and social media searches.”
What bothers me isn’t that Piehl insists PR must adapt to an environment that’s changing at warp speed with new thinking, new tools and new approaches. She’s absolutely right.
What I find disturbing is that the article leaves an impression that reputation vs. relationship is an either-or proposition. It isn’t. It’s both-and.
If reputation is indeed today’s currency, then like any currency it must be earned. And the work of earning begins with relationship. Indeed, Piehl quotes the Public Relations Society of America’s definition of PR—a definition that makes this very point: “A strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” (Italics are mine.)
Building relationships is not a reactive strategy. It’s a constant, proactive, people-focused approach that includes—and goes beyond—reputation. Reputation is me-focused; relationship is we-focused.
It’s true that the “Relations” in PR are much harder to build and maintain today, for all the reasons Piehl notes. But that’s no reason to change the terminology. That’s no reason to consider relational strategies as something less than “modern-day practices.” We must adapt to technology, and to the speed at which reputations can change, without abandoning what makes our work human.
In solid, strategic, proactive PR, relationships must be authentic. They must be constant. Of course, they must be rooted in business, and they must play a powerful role in making the business succeed. But they can’t be limited to a metric. That’s not relational. People will see through it—with all the negative effects on reputation you’d expect.
If we want reputations that truly shine in our digital age, that having meaning to our publics, that draw in new business and new workers and new, promising futures, we have to do the work of forging the relationships that define our shared humanity.
In short, don’t change the “R.” Underscore it.
RSS Feed
