I am not saying publicist = bad. I am saying PR is not = publicist.

But, from the vantage point of the reporter/blogger, PR begins and ends with media relations. Certainly understandable.

Your post goes a long way toward altering that perception.

I’d also add that good PR practitioners pitch ONLY the reporter who counts among his audience people who will buy from our client, invest in our client, partner with our client or influence their business success in some other way. That’s our starting point. From there, we seek out the one reporter who’s informed, understands our client’s [often esoteric] technology, is engaging and routinely writes accurate pieces. For me, that’s a reporter/blogger that can deftly move from semiconductors to carbon nanotubes, to tidal energy technology in a matter of seconds. A rare breed, for sure, but there’s a superb few out there. In return, they get provocative, interesting, newsworthy stories from us.

But as you pointed out, that’s just a small part of what we do. Lost in the evolving debate is the fact that most PR practitioners are working globally, which renders our business far from obsolete. We work with U.S. companies that need to reach customers in Asia; European companies that need to communicate with U.S. customers, and emerging Asian clients eager to differentiate themselves from their more established competitors. They all need to communicate. Globally. And that’s the core of what we do.

So, if PR is narrowly defined as “Publicist”, 75% of my business just vaporized.

Eric, it seems like PR’s been around for quite a while now, shouldn’t we have managed to gain an understanding of the discipline amongst the audiences that matter to us? What does that say about us as communicators?

I couldn’t agree more.