thoughts on the "PR and the Profit Motive" article

I thought it was interesting that this article pointed out how monopolies enabled companies to focus on relationships. I certainly would have never put those two together. I think most people think quite negatively about monopolies in that when a company has complete control over an industry, they can do whatever they want. But it seemed like the article was trying to imply that competition brings out the worst in business, which I don't necessarily disagree with.

I also wouldn't have necessarily associated PR with relationship and reputation building. I took an introductory PR class as an undergrad - it was required for all advertising majors. And when I was an advertising major, I minored in marketing. These three components (advertising, marketing, and PR) seem to go hand-in-hand. I left that major and minor because I felt like they were too cut-throat, manipulative, and competitive, and that's just not me.

Since then, my definition of PR has been molded by the media. To me, PR is about covering your butt when you mess up; not as much reputation building as reputation saving. From the outside, it seems like PR is a profession that builds relationships simply to advance one's career or profit margin. Essentially, I don't really see how it is any better than business. It's also hard for me to see that ethics is a priority for PR professionals as opposed to those in the world of business.

While this article was eye-opening, it was also a little depressing. For example, the author says "deceptive techniques of marketing are and will be used as long as there are buyers and sellers." If this is what we have to look forward to with competition in business, wouldn't it seem better to be back in the time of monopolies? If it meant that companies would actually focus on what the author defines as PR - relationship and reputation building - we might live in a better time.