(MENAFN- PRovoke)
When it comes to the future of the PR industry, it's not AI I'm worried about – it's us.
Since the US election, I've seen countless PR professionals champion the“power of podcasts,” pointing to platforms like Joe Rogan's as a way to connect with vast, engaged audiences.
Joe Rogan's podcast, known for its sprawling, unfiltered conversations, has become a cultural phenomenon, often reaching millions of listeners per episode. It's not hard to see why PR professionals are intrigued – it's a platform where ideas, personalities, and brands can be explored in depth. However, this allure isn't without pitfalls.
The recent conversation about Donald Trump's appearance on Rogan's show highlights the tension: while the platform promises unparalleled reach, it also carries significant reputational risks for both the guest and the host.
Rogan's format is unpredictable, his audience fiercely opinionated, and his questioning often confrontational. Good luck landing clients on there – especially ones bold enough to handle the scrutiny of such an unfiltered platform as, well, Donald Trump – let alone ensuring a narrative that aligns with their communications goals.
This focus on big-name podcasts is symptomatic of a deeper issue in our industry: we're chasing platforms without fully considering how the medium shapes the message. It's become a game of numbers over substance, reach over resonance, and appearances over authenticity. I fear we're potentially sleepwalking into a crisis.
Here's a high-profile example of why I think a pressing issue is evolving. This weekend, something struck me, not just as a PR professional but as a gamer and long-time viewer of Oompaville's YouTube channel.
Oompaville, otherwise known as Caleb Hunter Phelps, is a creator known for his commentary videos with significant reach, and was selected as the platform for YouTube's biggest influencer, MrBeast (aka Jimmy Donaldson, pictured), to address a barrage of serious allegations .
Let's not sugar-coat it - the allegations against Donaldson's company MrBeast Industries, are grave:
Inappropriate engagement with minors.
Workplace bullying and mistreatment within his company.
Misconduct involving employees and collaborators.
Faked lotteries and charity initiatives for promotional purposes.
Censorship of negative comments and attempts to control public perception.
Unsafe working conditions on projects, including lack of food, medical care, and appropriate support.
Collaboration with individuals accused of inappropriate behaviour.
Misrepresentation of content, including allegations of using CGI and staging challenges.
Exploitation of participants in challenges through undue pressure to perform.
Lack of transparency regarding financial and operational practices.
For a brand that targets a young, impressionable audience, these allegations demand transparency and accountability. So why did MrBeast, who rarely grants interviews, choose to respond through a fellow YouTube creator, rather than a journalist or major media outlet
The answer: he didn't choose. His team did. They carefully and strategically selected a creator likely perceived as a“soft touch” - someone who could appear to hold MrBeast accountable, without delivering hard-hitting scrutiny.
As a PR professional, that strategy stinks. If a brand messes up, the playbook is simple: own it, be transparent, apologise where necessary, fix it, and move forward.
What we're seeing instead is spin disguised as accountability. And audiences are calling it out: analysis of the video's comments reveals the audience isn't fooled:
50% criticised Oompaville
for softballing questions or failing to challenge MrBeast, with a further 25% suggesting bias, including assumptions that Oompaville was paid.
30% described MrBeast as overly polished and inauthentic, while
35% supported him for his philanthropy. Another 35% expressed scepticism or unease about the response.
40% noted MrBeast dodged important issues, while 30% criticised his PR-heavy responses as evasive.
Only
20% felt he showed genuine remorse, with
40% believing he shifted blame.
15% identified Oompaville as a strategic, easy-choice platform.
Imagine if a CEO of a major corporation took this approach to allegations of this gravity. Would 20% seeing genuine accountability
be enough? Absolutely not. This isn't about MrBeast simply sitting down with a creator he likes. It's a calculated decision from a media empire with significant resources and expertise.
Recent reports revealed that MrBeast Industries has engaged Hiltzik Strategies, a corporate communications and crisis management firm previously associated with Harvey Weinstein, to advise the company and its founder. This partnership is no accident. Nor is the choice to address these allegations on Oompaville's channel.
Media exclusives are nothing new; they've been a PR staple forever. But when faced with allegations as serious as inappropriate workplace behaviour, misconduct, and censorship, choosing a creator with limited journalistic experience feels less about transparency and more about controlling the narrative.
MrBeast Industries says it is taking steps internally, including sensitivity training, anonymous reporting mechanisms, and plans to hire leadership roles like a chief HR officer and general counsel. These are crucial for a growing brand. However, internal reforms must be matched by external accountability - and this is where the PR strategy falters.
In traditional media, established norms - TV and print exclusives, embargoed releases - balance transparency with brand strategy and a certain amount of control. But in the digital age, YouTube creators are gatekeepers of influence, and we lack a standard set of norms to ensure accountability.
The choice of Oompaville as the response platform, while savvy from a reach perspective, raises red flags. The real problem isn't MrBeast or even his response, it's the mechanism behind it.
We need industry-wide standards for these situations – new norms that reflect the seriousness of the allegations. Much like the frameworks we rely on for traditional media exclusives, these norms should ensure that platforms are chosen for their ability to challenge and question, not for their ability to protect a brand's image.
If PR professionals fail to address this issue, we risk sleepwalking into an era of superficial accountability. That's bad for the industry, bad for clients, and bad for the public.
We must continue to focus on fostering trust through genuine transparency, even in the face of fierce criticism. Audiences are more discerning than ever, and they're demanding accountability. We owe it to the future of our industry to get this right.
MENAFN26112024000219011063ID1108928210
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.