I’ve always admired—and sometimes despised—the power of PR and marketing.
To me, they’re a little like the ‘dark arts’.
A brilliant PR and marketing campaign can take an unknown person and turn them into an overnight success.
It can build brands that become part of our culture for decades. Just think of Apple.
But communications can also work the other way.
Sometimes the objective isn’t to maximise attention—it’s to minimise it.
Information is released because it has to be, yet it can receive very little public discussion.
Whether that’s down to timing, competing news, or communications strategy, the outcome can be the same.
That got me thinking about the recent release of the Sovereign Grant report and the changes it contains.
Regardless of where people stand on any issue, should all significant public information receive greater transparency and be open to public debate?
Or is managing what people pay attention to simply part of current PR and communications?
“With increasing discussion about governments and social media platforms promoting ‘trusted’ news sources, will people continue to have access to a broad range of information to research issues and make up their own minds?”
I’d be interested to hear what others think.