Stack of newspapers

Negative PR coverage = bad. Positive PR coverage = ?

26/07/2013 16:03:01
Share     
The return on investment from PR can often be difficult to quantify. But if you don’t believe you need a PR campaign – and specifically a media relations campaign – or if you perhaps question why you have one at times, consider this:  

Do you have a clear picture of the worst things that could happen to your business?  Hopefully that will be a ‘yes’. 

Who would you need to communicate with if the worst was to happen?  Staff, customers, suppliers, shareholders and numerous other stakeholders one would imagine. 

It’s highly likely you’ll want to tell the media what positive steps you are taking too, right?

For most organisations this will most certainly be the case – when the worst happens, you need to be proactive with the media or react to their questions quickly and professionally.  Everyone knows that negative media coverage can have a serious impact on the future of a business, be that on attracting new recruits or customers, staff morale, retaining customers, sales levels, maintaining a positive relationship with surrounding communities and more.
 

So if negative media coverage is detrimental to an organisation, the reverse must be true. 


If your organisation has a largely positive reputation now, if something bad happens tomorrow, all your ‘audiences’ will start with a positive mindset.  

That’s why a proactive, on-going PR campaign is so valuable.  It is true that an isolated story in the press about your organisation donating to a local charity is unlikely to deliver an increase in sales.  But how do you quantify the indirect benefits?  

In an age of return on investment (ROI) and the ‘scientification’ of marketing comms, the fact that many businesses consider negative media coverage to be so damaging suggests there is something powerful that PR delivers.  Ultimately, it’s about reputation management, and starting with a positive media profile will help keep any organisation on track.