A capitalist might point out the discrepancy in earnings is simple market dynamics and a cynic might point to the media industry’s struggle and initial reluctance to adapt business models after the dawn of web publishing. Personally, neither of these have much to do with what I think is a depressing and potentially dangerous development (really two):

1. Corporations are producing more content than ever before, and
2. There are fewer qualified people with the time, knowledge and experience to interpret it accurately.

I see this as problematic for a couple of reasons. Again, as a consumer I now worry I’m being sold a bill of goods (or P.O.S. in internet vernacular) when making any serious purchase decision. For starters, between “astroturfing” allegations, promoted posts and highly-incentivized review programs where goods and services are given away in exchange for feedback, community review sites have become quite the cornucopia of conflict of interests. Combine that with fewer products being reviewed by professional journalists, and you get a whole lot of garbage being sold based solely on packaging, messaging and price point. Want to make you’re buying something at good value that will last? Good luck! Obviously this varies industry to industry (automotive reviews seem to be thriving, for example), but in general it’s heading the wrong direction and finding quality in a sea of mediocrity is becoming harder.

As a ‘flack’ it’s tempting to look at growing communications/marketing budgets and the 4:1 ratio of PR reps to journalists as signs the industry is booming. Global PR spending is conservatively projected to exceed $11 Billion in 2014. Given the significant amount being spent on PR representation, it’s reasonable to ask what clients are getting in return? Increasingly, it has less to do with ‘media’ and a lot to do with marketing — content development, paid promotions, events. That’s not to say these things aren’t important (they are), but when PR is tasked with thinking and acting like marketers, I’d argue their core value to media — interpreting and making clients relevant and accessible to a mainstream audience — suffers.

It’s worth pointing out that, at the most fundamental level, PR investments have always been at least somewhat driven by marketers’ desire to positively shape perceptions — whether it be brand awareness, competitive differentiation, value, etc. — in order to deliver business results. But there must be some impact of the PR skill set evolving to broadly encompass social/community management, web/content, content generation, analytics and more. I’d argue that as media relations falls further down the priority list for agencies, the impact is being felt first and foremost by those on the receiving end of the god awful pitches. And we’re all to blame for letting it happen.

This isn’t about vilifying PR agencies or even pretending I have a simple ‘fix’ to the current inarguably strained relationship between PR and press. But something has to give, and I think it starts with a clearer delineation of responsibilities between marketing and PR, as well as PR agencies demonstrating value not just to clients but to the journalists with whom they are paid to interface. There are countless quality resources for those that want to do the job better. Let’s start by first acknowledging those who are frustrated about PR being obnoxious, overly aggressive and generally not helpful may have a point.