PR IS Dead, Once Again

Trust in the media is falling, and some of that is deserved. Trust in PR has always been shaky, at least from the periphery, and much of that is deserved as well. Over the years, the trendlines of falling trust, media layoffs, data showing the imbalance of PR-to-media ratios and more have given rise to a consistent drumbeat of PR professionals who seem to understand what no one else does - PR is Dead!?

Not coincidentally, the people who have had an epiphany about the death of PR also have thoughts on its future, which tend to line-up with a new company they are building. If their business is writing content for companies, well then stop doing traditional PR and focus on content. If they are offering consulting services to build an in-house PR team, then hire them not an agency.?

All of these “future of PR” posts and companies are always positioning themselves against “traditional PR” -- the press release writing, executive puppeteers that bother journalists to no end and market-back poor results as big wins. We can agree that this type of PR is lame, but the reality is 90%+ of these types of agencies or PR people exited the business more than a decade ago, especially in the tech sector.?

Most recently, all the buzz is around “Going Direct.” Admittedly, this one is a lot more interesting than some of the other “PR is dead” moments, although it’s actually not new, just more timely. It’s well articulated and a lot of it is not wrong. Over my career I’ve worked with the best in the business at this, like Ryan Petersen of Flexport, Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, Aaron Levie of Box, Matthew Prince at Cloudflare, and many others. I have seen the impact they can make, especially offering views and showing broad leadership, not just inside the bubble of their role as CEO of a company. That part of founder-comms is ripe for amplification, but it’s not and never will be all or nothing; you’re not going to make the media obsolete, no matter how bad you want to.

What is also not being said is that Going Direct is a privilege afforded to people who are already known and have to be listened to as top leaders in their industry. Several of the CEOs now supporting the ‘Go Direct’ movement were very committed to media relations for years prior to going public or becoming a major brand name. They got a lot of their clout through the media, and it was not done the “Traditional PR,” press release-style way even a decade ago. I know this first hand. Also, I agree founders should understand their role as a primary communicator, but non-founders can be extremely effective as well (see Harley Finkelstein of Shopify).?

The reality is that competition is everywhere. It exists in business, it exists in technological innovation, it exists in mindshare on social channels, and it exists in influencer marketing, it exists in media coverage. The idea that a level playing field or a formula for breaking through is as simple as “Going Direct” to key audiences and hiring influencers and loyalists to spread your message is underestimating the competition and probably overestimating your network's willingness to promote everything you say over the long-term.

My guess is a softening of the message is coming. “No, no, Going Direct can also be about media, if you want it to be, but you do it on your terms” or something of the like. Or maybe it was never about not engaging with media, just prioritizing social media and building communities first. Sounds pretty good, but then that’s not really a new idea.?

3 big things to think about:?

1). Going Direct Doesn’t Mean You Control the Media/Public Narrative. Yes, I do get it, part of this Going Direct movement is you’re not supposed to care about this because you’re telling your story to the ones you do care about - “you don’t need press.” Good luck with that. Again, you can definitely control what you do, but not what media or competitors do. What if poor media stories are hurting your sales or the bottom line? What if a competitor with an inferior product is the “hot company” because your direct messages are landing on deaf ears and your investors are getting sick of being asked to promote everything you want to communicate in order to catch up? That won’t be a fun board meeting.

2). In an AI-Driven World, Your Direct Messages Rate Low - I did write a post on this previously. In summary: neural networks that produce search results like ChatGTP “weight” information differently. Self-serving social posts will weigh very low while journalism, academic papers, analyst reports, etc. will weigh very high. So what happens when someone asks AI systems a year from now “who has a better product, X company or Y company?” or “Which company is the best for X task?” Where is the most substantive information going to come from when asked to produce real substance in stack-ranking companies, technologies, services, etc.? It won’t be your tweets or podcasts.?

3). Talking to Journalists Is a Form of Corporate Governance (Balaji will really hate this) - Call me old school, but I do believe this for more mature or publicly traded companies. Good journalists I believe should be able to ask the hard questions, write about competition, and yes maybe save a whole bunch of hard working people from being misled or defrauded by a founder that has a smoke-and-mirrors business. Is there risk? Yes. A poor journalist with an agenda could write unfairly, it’s always on the scale of possible. But more often than not there’s a lot of benefit if you’re not over-selling. Founders can learn a lot about the reality of their place in an industry and build the relationships that are important especially in the face of crisis, competition or getting the right attention for big moments on the roadmap.?

I have talked to several well-known PR pros about this and the reaction to the ‘Go Direct’ message is it’s overly simplified and overblown. I do agree that the media at times has been irresponsibly harsh and bias toward companies or executives that don’t deserve it or should actually be celebrated. I’ve personally (and recently) interacted with journalists that ignored two sides of a story to publish one, either for the sake of clicks, deadlines or back-end promises. It can be really disheartening. But the large majority of journalism isn’t this, just as the large majority of PR isn’t writing press releases and winding up executives to tell self-serving stories in an inauthentic way. It is time to move on from that whole idea of “Traditional PR,” even if it exists in small pockets.

Going Direct is not dead, although years from now someone will write that it is. Maybe the new style PR in 2027 will be “Remain a Mystery” or “Don’t Be Defined” or something like that. After 20 years I’m certain that there is no magic formula. Be authentic, be bold, don’t over-apologize, tell your story and build relationships everywhere. Go Direct, embrace media, start your own podcast or whatever might move the needle, just be open. Especially if everyone goes the easy way, find the more dynamic path.?