I\u2019m convinced that public relations\u00a0practitioners\u00a0need to flip their thinking. Simply: from reactive to proactive. In a world where\u00a0every company is a media company,\u00a0PR should lead. But only if they can become truly proactive in their approach to the practice.<\/p>\n
Media companies are far more proactive than reactive. They plan their content through editorial calendars. Their leadership\u00a0teams\u00a0have the executive perspective on content and have a long-term vision with the goal of influencing an industry. They react to news and happenings, but\u00a0they plan for it<\/em>. And the reactions happen through the lens of the publication.<\/p>\n Most PR professionals flirt from opportunity to opportunity. It\u2019s tactical and not sustainable. It leads to results here and there but not necessarily in a way that steadily contributes to a larger marketing funnel for a brand.<\/p>\n From watching what other PR firms do as a marketing consultant, my perspective was probably 70% or more was reactive. Reactive to company news, industry trends or reporter queries. It\u2019s the bread and butter for many in the practice. But in a world where it\u2019s possible to go direct to consumer and create true leverage in the marketplace by\u00a0building a community\u00a0you need to flip this.<\/p>\n And the 30% of proactive PR most companies and agencies spend in proactive mode? It\u2019s probably wasted. It involves planning events or big ideas to catch media attention. Gambling to get attention from others through a one time splash. If this was in unison with a solid publishing venture (and there was some thought behind how the\u00a0buzz would contribute\u00a0\u2013 i.e., net links or subscribers as part of the plan) this would be fine. But this isn\u2019t generally thought through.<\/p>\n My sense is that PR needs to be 80 \u2013 90 % proactive. And this involves restructuring your\u00a0PR to be pull, not push. And that 10 or 20% left over to be reactive? Use it to strategically to feed your critical KPIs that boost inbound. Structure everything\u00a0around a hub\u00a0and you\u2019ll grow.<\/p>\n Some additional thoughts on this\u2026<\/p>\n Become less reliant on pushing messages to media and you\u2019ll get more media<\/strong><\/p>\n By being mostly reactive and always pitching media to tell your story you\u2019re not in a real position of strength. That\u2019s because if you\u2019re always relying on externalities to tell your story, you have no power of your own to disseminate messages to market. But when\u00a0individuals have\u00a0more of an audience than entire companies, no company can say it\u2019s too difficult to become a publisher. And a funny thing happens when your brand of media breaks through a threshold of popularity. They actually get\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0media. And it\u2019s organic.<\/p>\n Being proactive lets you take an\u00a0iterative approach\u00a0to content<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s now possible to get feedback from your communications. In near real-time. For free (or cheap). If you organize your PR around execution and test out lots of ideas and stories direct to an audience (every day, bit by bit) you\u2019ll get\u00a0really\u00a0<\/em>good at pushing your industry\u2019s hot buttons. Especially since it\u2019s\u00a0no longer about your news, product or announcement: it\u2019s about the stuff in between. What you have to say on the day you have no news is what speaks loudest about your company. It shows you have real\u00a0passion.<\/p>\n Strategic vs. tactical<\/strong><\/p>\n A reactive approach to PR is\u00a0inertially\u00a0tactical. That\u2019s because you are sitting there waiting for opportunity or having to seek it out vs. planning your attack and executing on it. Pursuing outbound as a small percentage of time makes sense, but in a world where all people and companies have power of distribution you should be doing this surgically. Your new bread and butter is building an owned asset for a brand as a hub for the industry.<\/p>\n Laser-focus on specific digital KPIs<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019ve had clients before where they knew the specific KPIs they wanted us to focus on. Some were so specific and nuanced, it almost seemed myopic. There was a clear halo affect of results beyond those specific metrics. But in retrospect there is an unstated elegance of focusing on (and being held accountable to) specific metrics that are definitively and predictably known to impact a company. You have to take a proactive approach to achieve this and win.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not saying throw out the reactive PR entirely. Just make it a secondary focus and supportive of proactive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u2019m convinced that public relations\u00a0practitioners\u00a0need to flip their thinking. Simply: from reactive to proactive. In a world where\u00a0every company is … <\/p>\n