Stuart Bruce’s Post

As a veteran of the industry and now in behavioural change work which also involves a lot of evolutionary reframing , I think PR has to regenerate its own reputation ….less in line with “what PR people DO” but show the benefit in a “greater good”context , not just protecting or promoting the interests of a single organization… which can be construed as manipulation, but what value does it create on a wider social impact? What would be lost if there were no more PR people ?

It's a powerful infographic and tells a good tale. EBI the ratio of the above/below water iceberg were more like the reality (typically 1:8). I'd also question two elements of the 'hidden depths' of PR, (1) that measurement and analytics is in any way 'cracked', and (2) insight development. All areas of marketing services throw the word insight around like pound-shop confetti, but I'd wager London to a house brick that PR - where I lurked for ~25 years - is still the worst offender. One other point is that everyone knows the t/Titanic symbolism of an iceberg ...

Agree Stuart, does show that a good idea based on a smart insight doesn't need to be executed expensively either. Top marks Golin.

I’m with Claudia Vaccarone, MSc - what on earth are you doing Golin using a decades out of date ( and even then unacceptable) phrase like “despite mom’s understanding,,,”? What kind of PR agency does that? Unbelievable.

Inclusion is also a dimension that PR should be vehiculating and corroborating - especially by means of respectful and inclusive language. For instance, in this post, why are you marginalising mothers Golin by implying they are thick and don’t get what PR is (“despite mom’s understanding”)? 60 to 70% of PR professionals are women (and some, eventually, mothers) - so this is a sexist and ageist tropism (older women, mothers are thick and don’t understand PR) that has an impact, creates a mental image and a stereotype, reinforces the bias against women and hurts your very own employees, customers and sales prospects. Happy to have a chat on how to embed an inclusion lens in your own PR practice!

Unfortunately, for me, the ‘mom’s understanding’ comment has detracted from any of the key points this post was intending to make. Rather than positioning Golin as a trusted comms advisor this ill- conceived comment has given the impression of being tone deaf at best, or from the discriminatory dark ages at worst.

I suppose you could also include manipulation, distortion, moral ambiguity, money motivation and a few other things in there too.

Many thanks for spotting this and then sharing it Stuart Bruce. I think it is an excellent graphic.

People think we make adverts. Jesus wept