The ruthless application of common sense

PR people are not known for their business management skills. To the best of my knowledge, Harvard runs no case studies featuring PR businesses. We are traditionally crap at all that stuff. After all, we rise to the top of PR agencies by being good at PR not management. Then we get given an office, with people, clients and a budget. And that’s when the wheels come off. Which is a shame, because running a PR business is mainly about the ruthless application of common sense and is a far simpler thing (intellectually at least) than formulating advice for a client in a crisis or finding a creative way of giving a dull brand some interest and competitive differentiation. It is hard work and emotionally draining, but it is not rocket science.

I have run practices, offices and regions for three of the global PR brands and the offices of two small independent companies in both EMEA and Asia Pacific over the last many years and the wheels have indeed come off once or twice. They probably will again, but if they do it will not be because I made the mistake of thinking this was a complex business model. PR agencies are simple businesses. They have inside them often ‘difficult’ people doing some (occasionally) clever things, but they are simple businesses. So here are my top tips in case you find yourself running one.

12 thoughts on “The ruthless application of common sense

  1. Love this presentation David – simple and to the point.

    Like

  2. Complexity happens. Simplicity, you have to strive for. simple is beautiful.

    Like

  3. Thanks David – v useful and remind me to keep slides simple!

    Like

  4. Thanks Matt and Yoko.

    John long time…hope all continues to go well.

    Like

  5. Nice deck David. When you have so many answers, why do so few ask any questions? Ha!

    Like

  6. Sadly, the ‘Peter Principle’ – being promoted to your level of incompetence has been a prevalent driver in the PR industry, and highlights how we are a craft-based job, but then become too product focussed rather than business focussed.

    Interested in your 56% of revenues ceiling for staff costs. I have used over the years the 3:1 ration of income to staff cost and found this difficult – your figure seems to concur.

    Like

  7. Slide 20 rocks
    Sense of humor is sorely lacking in virtually every high-level presentation
    I love this

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close