The relationship between journalist and PR is changing, social purpose is all-important

Media is becoming more woke. You see it everywhere, on the TV news, online and in print.

Increasingly, major issues are covered, while reports that might have seen the light of day previously do not make the cut.

Confirmation comes with a new study, Navigating The New Landscape: Brands and Media in 2021, from communications agency Brands2Life and digital research consultancy Media Measurement. It shows a 21 per cent fall in the number of articles published by the UK press over the last five years. Brand-led stories have fared even worse, dropping by 28 per cent during the same period.

They examined 25 national and business titles from 2016. “Excluding Covid-19 and Brexit, the issues that have come to the fore include racial justice and equality, mental health and wellbeing, the future of work and AI, and climate change.” The latter more than doubled its presence in 2021, compared to 2016.

There’s no doubt that as a society we’ve become more aware – and concerned. If I look back to when I started in journalism it was an entirely different landscape. Anyone proposing an item on the “future of work”, for instance, would have been ridiculed.

Other factors, too, are responsible. Over the years, PR has grown to become ubiquitous, to the point there are more people in the UK spinning for a living than actual journalists. With the rise of the corporate pusher has come a sameness. Finding genuine distinction between brands, that justifies coverage of one versus another, has become increasingly difficult – whatever the paid peddler may claim.

In practice, this quest can result in the daft and preposterous. One commonly applied tool – perhaps ironically in the context of this study, but they’re excused because it’s genuinely interesting – is the research and survey. Hardly a day goes by without some PR agency dreaming up a mindnumbing set of client-related statistics and maintaining they are of huge interest. The result is yawning and cynicism in the editorial chair, followed by pressing of the “delete” button.

Fortunately, the report found, “this traditional driver of proactive coverage for brands, research and surveys, is in decline; the number of articles generated by this approach reduced by 44 per cent from 2015-16 and the number of articles driven by research and surveys with a prominent brand mention more than halved (-55 per cent).”

There is not as much space as there was, in print, certainly. Circulations have fallen, advertising has reduced, so newspapers and magazines are noticeably thinner. With that, too, has come a drop in staffing numbers and resources – reporters are required to cover more subjects, meaning they must focus on those that count and have less time to attend to those that don’t.

Once, they would be invited on that other traditional driver of proactive coverage, the “press trip”, taking days away from the desk, touring a company’s facilities, staying in luxury hotels, enjoying fine food and wine, listening as executives extolled the brilliance of their brand. They’d return with full notebooks and a list of ideas to be trotted out in the next weeks and months. Not today. They’ve no time, and besides, that sort of barefaced persuasion is widely frowned upon. Where journalist old lags like to gather, they will typically moan: “hospitality is not what it was”.

So, what is the media looking for, how do businesses sell themselves? They need to be seen to be genuinely serious about the issues that matter, to be authentic. Mere play-acting won’t suffice – and will be exposed for what it is. They must be committed long term, not chasing the instant gratification of positive headlines. They must stick with the programme, even where there is nothing to report.

Those overused initials “ESG” have been replaced with “purpose.” Accompanying that, the media and public are looking for leadership, they approve of brands that are seen to lead. Not only is this difficult to achieve – not all businesses can be leaders – but it places a great onus on those at the top. They must be “out there”, speaking up, setting an example, in a way they were never expected to in the past. That means too, that they cannot slip. Any whiff of hypocrisy will be jumped upon, and their reputation, and that of their organisation, tarnished.

This means as well, focusing on taking real, impactful action and making meaningful contributions to advancing and improving social issues. What it does not mean are token gestures, piggybacking on a trending subject to generate media attention. They need to be seen to be making a real difference, contributing to the solution by changing their products or services, altering supply chains, adjusting their policies or prominently lobbying for change.

They need to be careful, though. Businesses must realise how they’re perceived before coming over all caring and sharing. Says the report: “Readers don’t respond well to brands who communicate proactively on a social issue while being perceived as contributing to the problem in the first place.”

Expect more brands pursing a social purpose and sticking to it. Equally, public relations advisors must make the transition, becoming a lot more socially focused, thoughtful, well-read and across the issues. The enlightened ones are already there. Others must follow.