speaker-0: Welcome to Clarity Matters. PR is changing. The way organizations build reputation today looks very different to even a few years ago. Technology is speeding things up, results are being measured more closely, audiences are more skeptical, and attention is harder to earn. There are fewer journalists, more channels, more influencers, and far more scrutiny. Being seen isn't enough. Being trusted is what counts, and trust is fragile, as the twenty twenty five Edelman Trust Barometer found, with seven in ten people believing government officials, business leaders, and journalists intentionally mislead them. In that environment, being visible isn't enough, being loud isn't enough. At the same time, the fundamentals haven't disappeared. Clear thinking, strong relationships, Incredible storytelling, sound judgment. So, what's really changing in PR and what still matters most? That's what we're exploring today. I'm delighted to be joined by Duncan Forrester, a seasoned board-level PR leader and managing director of Forester PR. Duncan specialises in automotive, startup, and electric vehicles, having worked both in-house and as a consultant. Duncan Welcome to Clarity Matters. It's great to see you and to have you with us.
speaker-1: Great to see you, Louise. Thank you for having me.
speaker-0: We worked together at Ineos Automotive launching their first vehicle, the Grenadier, so I've seen firsthand how you approach reputation, media and leadership visibility under pressure, building credibility for a new market entrant in a crowded, skeptical market. That was seven years ago, and even in that relatively short time, the PR landscape has shifted. When you look at PR today, what feels fundamentally different compared to just a few years ago?
speaker-1: Well, Luis, thanks for the opportunity and it's great to be here and and and seeing you again. I I think if I go back a few years and maybe just a little bit further than our time together at Ineos, you know, everything was done by hand and it was based on gut feel and it was based around experience. You know, if I if I was going to go if I was going to go through an a ⁓ a press release process, I I'd be interviewing technical experts probably face to face. I'd be handwriting a press release. That distribution would be manual by hand. The monitoring of outcomes would be based on hard copy, physical pieces of paper from a newspaper or a magazine. And and the only real measurement was AVEs. Remember then? ⁓ AVEs, which which which you know nobody really it didn't mean anything, but it was the only real measurement or of o of of sort of offline world. ⁓ and that process took days, weeks, not months. But it took a very long time for that news process to actually work its way through. Today now we live in a technology and a and an ROI driven world where gut feel and experience are kind of trumped now by cost and efficiency. ⁓ I think where and a and probably a bit of a theme of what we'll talk about, in my view, quality as quantity is often preferred to quality. ⁓ and I think that's a not a great place to be. Like press releases can easily be drafted by AI in a matter of seconds. Images can be created at the same time. ⁓ and press releases can be blasted out ⁓ across the wires. ⁓ and the whole process doesn't need to take more than an hour. ⁓ but but I think it's a shame because PRs then and I think probably still now have often failed to explain the benefit of the work they do. And ⁓ and the benefit ⁓ of the work that and the benefit they bring to the organization. ⁓ and to my mind it's not about blasting out press releases in a sort of a spray and pray type way and hope they stick. Because as someone wise once told me, hope isn't a great strategy. So true.
speaker-0: You you talk there about the the quantity, so volume over quality. Are you seeing that? Are you able to detect that in what you're seeing in terms of coverage, what you read?
speaker-1: Yeah, I think again, if you look back a few years, our our relationship was with a journalist. And it was a very, you know, open and trusting relationship that we had. PRs are now needing to form relationships with influencers. Influencers and journalists don't necessarily always see eye to eye. PRs are frequently involved in social media. And we know the beast that social media is that it needs feeding on a constant basis. So Historically, you had time to be able to craft that beautifully manicured piece of communication and it took time and there was effort that went into it. But now with so many channels and so much ⁓ need for content at speed to feed the big machine, I I I do have a slight fear that that we are now in a more quantity versus quality world.
speaker-0: Do you think there is a real need for the volume for that quantity? Or is it just because we've got the tools to hand? Yeah. It's easier to do. Do you think we'd we need that much more?
speaker-1: U ei oo. I I think that leaders in businesses quite understandably are looking at what the competition is doing and are seeing competition messaging all around them a and have this it's not a lack of confidence, but just a a a need to believe that we need to be doing the same thing. And and so this juns just this just ends up as a sort of a volume game. And and I think we as consumers, ⁓ Have a finite amount of consumption of of media. And social algorithms make sure that, you know, y you see what they want you to see. And so the days of PRs finely crafting those storytelling and narratives to ensure that it lands the way that they want it to land and that's all you see, that's long gone. You know, th this is about a melee of of news that the consumer is expected to try and digest.
speaker-0: And with these increased channels with you know the the rise of influencers, it sounds as though the lines have blurred so much. So are we losing some clarity there through the ability to with so many more channels and the ability to be able to pump so much out there, are we therefore losing some of that clarity?
speaker-1: I think the clarity is key when you know you ask yourself the question, why are we doing this? No. it's it's it's a favorite of mine. You know, people who I work with get bored of me saying, you know, why? Why? No, why? Why? ⁓ you know, because you've got to be able to answer those questions. You know, if if we're gonna if we're gonna create a social piece of content, if we're gonna create a press release, if we're gonna create a film, if we're gonna create an animation, whatever it is, why are we doing it? ⁓ and I think that quite often in this blizzard of communications, we s kind of sometimes stop asking ourselves the question why, and we feel the need for volume rather than the need for quality. And quality and ⁓ to my mind, clarity go hand in hand. ⁓ so yeah, I I I I I I don't think we're lost, ⁓ but I think we are reacting to the world that we now live in. which has far more channels, ⁓ has far more opportunities and as communicators we feel the need to fill those opportunities. And sometimes I think possibly quality is better than quantity.
speaker-0: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I love that very simple approach of just challenging the why. Why are we doing this? Sometimes we really need to s go back to those basics just to sort of stop us in our tracks before we're running off ⁓ at at at speed and volume. ⁓
speaker-1: And and and often the why i is I'm reacting to what a competitor has done. Well, is that a good reason? You wouldn't have done it if they hadn't have done it. So why are you now doing it? ⁓ you know, it it's a and and sometimes there's good reason to. And I'm not I'm not saying we just stick to ridly rigidly to our plan and it's our plan and it's you know, plans are only as good as the day they were written. But ⁓ but but you know just thinking about the why and thinking about what we're actually trying to achieve with what we're doing, having a really clear view on what is our brand, what are our objectives, what what are we what do we want to do, who we want to talk to. Ba yeah, basic stuff. but but then executing that really well. Doing doing a few things really well, to my mind, is much better than just a sort of a a spray it all out there and hope it sticks.
speaker-0: Fantastic. So according to some recent ⁓ research, around 75% of PR teams are now using generative AI. So as AI becomes more present in how stories are created, analyzed, and distributed, where do you see human judgment still making the biggest difference in PR?
speaker-1: I think human judgment is vital. now maybe I'm a bit old school in that. ⁓ but ⁓ but anyway, I welcome AI, I like AI, I use AI, ⁓ but I genuinely think there is no replacement for critical human review. AI gets things wrong, it's not accurate, it misunderstands, it's only as good as the question that you ask it. You have to have a good understanding of the subject matter to know to know what it's telling you is correct. ⁓ a and you know, you are then able to make good quality edits and approvals of whatever it's given you. I I think AI can help and support with the simple tasks of drafting, searching, analyzing. what it can't do, and you touched on it earlier, is to have that personal relationship with a journalist who you've briefed long ahead of the time that you're going with a story. You've given them the insight, you've given them the additional information, you've given them additional interviews in order to influence and steer the way they are telling your story. No. I I think good PR has always been about good quality, trusting relationships with the most influential media and leveraging those relationships for corporate benefit. And ultimately, AI can't do that. No. Th there is, and you've touched on it earlier. ⁓ there are fewer good quality journalists out there today as budgets in journalism reduce. and that means there will be more AI writing in the long tail of media ⁓ that the public will be consuming.
speaker-0: Completely supports some evidence that I saw recently. So in HubSpot's 2026 state of marketing ⁓ data, it showed that 62.7% of respondents believe brands need more unique, human-centered content to compete with AI-generated material. ⁓ ⁓ explicitly linking perceived quality to human insight, you know, not just volume. So completely supporting ⁓ and backing up all those points that you've you've been raising. But you
speaker-1: But you're probably like me. You know, if somebody presents me with a piece of AI generated content, I can spot it a mile away. ⁓ now, I don't necessarily know and maybe I'm saying that from the position of being a communicator who's done this for too too many years and I care to remember. ⁓ you know, may maybe that the you know, the the man in the street, the woman in the street, just accepts it for what it is. ⁓ but but I think that No, i i communicators need to be critical and communications is still a profession. And if we subcontract that pro profession to AI, I think we're all in trouble.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And I keep coming back to this point about and and and you've you you've outlined it so well there. It's whether average, which is what can what we're seeing a lot of ⁓ in in AI generated ⁓ material, if it's average, is that enough to others and and and j ⁓ and you know, in general, is it just us as comms professionals that are detecting that and picking up on that? It goes back to this whole sort of idea of AI slop, ⁓ with that that lovely phrase that's that's been mentioned and and and is knocking around quite a lot.
speaker-1: I think again it comes back comes back to the point on do a few things well. Yeah. ⁓ the the idea of aspiring to average doesn't fill me with joy. You know, ⁓ I I've always present represented brands and I've done it to the absolute best of my ability. ⁓ have I made mistakes along the way? Yes, of course I have. Everybody does. ⁓ but the people who have paid me have always known that what they're getting from me is a hundred and ten percent all the time. And in a in a sort of a day and age where people do how now now have choices and they have choices as to whether they want to employ somebody or get something for free, I've I I have to hope that the quality that a human being can bring to a process has a benefit to it.
speaker-0: Absolutely. Absolutely. So given how the PR landscape is evolving ⁓ and has evolved, what do organisations most need to rethink about how they approach reputation and influence?
speaker-1: Yeah. Great, great question. I I think an open mindedness to new technology and the way that it can improve what we do versus the way we've always done it. And I think converse to that though, entrusting the reputation of your company that's taken years and probably decades and probably hundreds of millions of pounds to develop to an AI algorithm seems madness to me. You know. ⁓ so so I think there's there's a happy medium in there somewhere. ⁓ and I think I love analogies. To to me the best analogy of this is about flying. When when I'm flying, a pilot is flying my plane for probably only ten percent of the time that he's that he's flying. He's hugely highly paid. ⁓ but when they're flying planes on autopilot, th that that's you know, that's a lot of the time. It's probably ninety percent of the time you're spending on autopilot relying on technology. But when those crucial moments happen like takeoff and landing, you trust the pilot more than you do the machine. ⁓ and I think similarly, you know, I I think, you know, machines will be able in in our PR and comms world, PR ⁓ machines will be able to do a lot of the work of the day to day, potentially less skilled work that needs doing. But when those moments of real judgment are needed and when influence is really created or reputations are potentially about to be destroyed, I I have to hope that enterprises will turn to experienced people rather than machines. ⁓ you know, a and I think To do that, though, PRs need to be able to better understand and demonstrate the benefit that they of the work they bring to the day-to-day. ⁓ and I think that, you know, we shouldn't be relying on PRs just to save the day and demonstrate those critical moments. ⁓ and I think, you know, if if I'm being cr critical of ⁓ our our industry for a moment, ⁓ and I'm probably generalizing a little bit now, but Too often I see a weekly email sent around with a few select articles from the news that that PRs have created and features they've placed. But so what? You know, h how's that dial moved as a result? What commercial benefit has this brought? How has Article X or Y or Z pushed client A B C down the funnel a little bit more? And I think that's what our friends in marketing have really understood. ⁓ and I think you know, in the main they now do really well. And I think, yeah, miraculously then marketing budgets expand, ⁓ because they can demonstrate the value of what they're doing to the commercial success and commercial outcomes of the company. ⁓ and I think that you know PRs now need to use the tools and the technologies to be able to demonstrate the benefit that they're actually bringing on a day to day basis and not just in that moment of crisis when it's all too late.
speaker-0: So PRs need to PR themselves.
speaker-1: Communicators are always the worst communicators. ⁓ yeah, there's the irony. But yeah, y you're absolutely right. Marketeers understood this a long time ago. Marketeers understood with a data driven mindset they could demonstrate the value that they're bringing in a in a quantifiable way. PRs ⁓ have been quite late to the party on that, in general.
speaker-0: It's v value is needs to go far beyond those vanity metrics. So value is about what is the PR ⁓ or the team, the PR team's judgment. Where is the value in their judgment and how is that then connecting to and driving th those commercial results, that business outcome?
speaker-1: And I think PRs have always known that article X in publication Y has moved the needle. Definitely. No. But but but very frequently it it's right at the top end of the funnel. So it's very difficult to prove, ⁓ it's very difficult to demonstrate the value. ⁓ and just having a gut instinct doesn't necessarily then mean anything when it's coming to a data driven business. Where everything else can be measured.
speaker-0: Fascinating. I know, Duncan. We could go on and on. So before we wrap up, can we take a step back for a moment? ⁓ I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask all of my guests. ⁓ so this year marks 20 years of claritas, and over that time, we've absolutely seen this firsthand. ⁓ communications has evolved rapidly in scale, speed, and scrutiny. ⁓ but some lessons endure. If you could go back to your twenty year old self, what's the one piece of career advice you would give?
speaker-1: Take more care of your hair. No, no, I know. ⁓ no, no, no. No, seriously. I I'd I'd probably take it out of the work environment ⁓ and I would say enjoy what you do. You know, I I've worked in PR for longer than Claritus has been around, which is a little bit scary. You know, I I've been in PR for twenty five years of my thirty-seven year career. And for me it's always been about cars. I was racing cars with my father when I was ten. And other than a two-year exit into sailing and the America's Cup, ⁓ it's always been about cars. ⁓ I think a specialism certainly helps with your employability in today's world where transferable skills that previously seemed to be important in other sectors now seem to be less attractive. but I think if you can work in a in a sector that you care about. The days fly by and everything seems to be far more enjoyable and far more rewarding.
speaker-0: I love that and and I've experienced that with you. I mean, we we we worked in a high pressure environment, but we laughed a lot ⁓ along the way, you know, and and and in certainly enjoyed ⁓ what we were doing. It's fantastic. So looking forward, if you could put one idea ⁓ or piece of of advice into a twenty year time capsule, what would it be and why would that matter?
speaker-1: ⁓ For me, and again I'll park some of the things we've said, for me, try and always work ethically and with a purpose. ⁓ I you know, I I will always look back ⁓ with a huge sense of pride at having worked at the forefront of the electrification and decarbonisation of transport in today's world. You know, I've always believed in the principle that we should hand our planet on to the next generation, you know, in a better state than we found it. ⁓ And at the moment I think we are in the process of breaking that promise. Partially because communicators have failed to provide convincing arguments around technology. ⁓ partly because of politicians' decisions and instability, but you know, that that that's something else. But I think whatever the outcome, you know, if you can ensure you're working on the basis of an you know, in an ethical way, with an ethical purpose, you'll always be able to look back with a huge sense of pride at what you've done and what you've achieved.
speaker-0: That's absolutely lovely, Duncan. Thank you for sharing your clear and grounded perspective on how PR has has changed ⁓ over this ⁓ over this period. So PR may be faster and more measurable than ever, but the real brief is simple. Be believed. In a skeptical world, trust isn't a byproduct of communication, it's the outcome. And trust is still built person to person. That's where reputation is truly earned. Duncan, thank you so much for joining us today. ⁓ it's been such a pleasure talking to you and seeing you again.
speaker-1: It's been an absolute pleasure, Louise, and great to see you.
speaker-0: You've been listening to Clarity Matters. Follow this series for more concise conversations with leading voices shaping modern communication. Because in B2B comms, clarity always matters. Thanks for listening in.
speaker-1: Great to see you, Louise. Thank you for having me.
speaker-0: We worked together at Ineos Automotive launching their first vehicle, the Grenadier, so I've seen firsthand how you approach reputation, media and leadership visibility under pressure, building credibility for a new market entrant in a crowded, skeptical market. That was seven years ago, and even in that relatively short time, the PR landscape has shifted. When you look at PR today, what feels fundamentally different compared to just a few years ago?
speaker-1: Well, Luis, thanks for the opportunity and it's great to be here and and and seeing you again. I I think if I go back a few years and maybe just a little bit further than our time together at Ineos, you know, everything was done by hand and it was based on gut feel and it was based around experience. You know, if I if I was going to go if I was going to go through an a ⁓ a press release process, I I'd be interviewing technical experts probably face to face. I'd be handwriting a press release. That distribution would be manual by hand. The monitoring of outcomes would be based on hard copy, physical pieces of paper from a newspaper or a magazine. And and the only real measurement was AVEs. Remember then? ⁓ AVEs, which which which you know nobody really it didn't mean anything, but it was the only real measurement or of o of of sort of offline world. ⁓ and that process took days, weeks, not months. But it took a very long time for that news process to actually work its way through. Today now we live in a technology and a and an ROI driven world where gut feel and experience are kind of trumped now by cost and efficiency. ⁓ I think where and a and probably a bit of a theme of what we'll talk about, in my view, quality as quantity is often preferred to quality. ⁓ and I think that's a not a great place to be. Like press releases can easily be drafted by AI in a matter of seconds. Images can be created at the same time. ⁓ and press releases can be blasted out ⁓ across the wires. ⁓ and the whole process doesn't need to take more than an hour. ⁓ but but I think it's a shame because PRs then and I think probably still now have often failed to explain the benefit of the work they do. And ⁓ and the benefit ⁓ of the work that and the benefit they bring to the organization. ⁓ and to my mind it's not about blasting out press releases in a sort of a spray and pray type way and hope they stick. Because as someone wise once told me, hope isn't a great strategy. So true.
speaker-0: You you talk there about the the quantity, so volume over quality. Are you seeing that? Are you able to detect that in what you're seeing in terms of coverage, what you read?
speaker-1: Yeah, I think again, if you look back a few years, our our relationship was with a journalist. And it was a very, you know, open and trusting relationship that we had. PRs are now needing to form relationships with influencers. Influencers and journalists don't necessarily always see eye to eye. PRs are frequently involved in social media. And we know the beast that social media is that it needs feeding on a constant basis. So Historically, you had time to be able to craft that beautifully manicured piece of communication and it took time and there was effort that went into it. But now with so many channels and so much ⁓ need for content at speed to feed the big machine, I I I do have a slight fear that that we are now in a more quantity versus quality world.
speaker-0: Do you think there is a real need for the volume for that quantity? Or is it just because we've got the tools to hand? Yeah. It's easier to do. Do you think we'd we need that much more?
speaker-1: U ei oo. I I think that leaders in businesses quite understandably are looking at what the competition is doing and are seeing competition messaging all around them a and have this it's not a lack of confidence, but just a a a need to believe that we need to be doing the same thing. And and so this juns just this just ends up as a sort of a volume game. And and I think we as consumers, ⁓ Have a finite amount of consumption of of media. And social algorithms make sure that, you know, y you see what they want you to see. And so the days of PRs finely crafting those storytelling and narratives to ensure that it lands the way that they want it to land and that's all you see, that's long gone. You know, th this is about a melee of of news that the consumer is expected to try and digest.
speaker-0: And with these increased channels with you know the the rise of influencers, it sounds as though the lines have blurred so much. So are we losing some clarity there through the ability to with so many more channels and the ability to be able to pump so much out there, are we therefore losing some of that clarity?
speaker-1: I think the clarity is key when you know you ask yourself the question, why are we doing this? No. it's it's it's a favorite of mine. You know, people who I work with get bored of me saying, you know, why? Why? No, why? Why? ⁓ you know, because you've got to be able to answer those questions. You know, if if we're gonna if we're gonna create a social piece of content, if we're gonna create a press release, if we're gonna create a film, if we're gonna create an animation, whatever it is, why are we doing it? ⁓ and I think that quite often in this blizzard of communications, we s kind of sometimes stop asking ourselves the question why, and we feel the need for volume rather than the need for quality. And quality and ⁓ to my mind, clarity go hand in hand. ⁓ so yeah, I I I I I I don't think we're lost, ⁓ but I think we are reacting to the world that we now live in. which has far more channels, ⁓ has far more opportunities and as communicators we feel the need to fill those opportunities. And sometimes I think possibly quality is better than quantity.
speaker-0: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I love that very simple approach of just challenging the why. Why are we doing this? Sometimes we really need to s go back to those basics just to sort of stop us in our tracks before we're running off ⁓ at at at speed and volume. ⁓
speaker-1: And and and often the why i is I'm reacting to what a competitor has done. Well, is that a good reason? You wouldn't have done it if they hadn't have done it. So why are you now doing it? ⁓ you know, it it's a and and sometimes there's good reason to. And I'm not I'm not saying we just stick to ridly rigidly to our plan and it's our plan and it's you know, plans are only as good as the day they were written. But ⁓ but but you know just thinking about the why and thinking about what we're actually trying to achieve with what we're doing, having a really clear view on what is our brand, what are our objectives, what what are we what do we want to do, who we want to talk to. Ba yeah, basic stuff. but but then executing that really well. Doing doing a few things really well, to my mind, is much better than just a sort of a a spray it all out there and hope it sticks.
speaker-0: Fantastic. So according to some recent ⁓ research, around 75% of PR teams are now using generative AI. So as AI becomes more present in how stories are created, analyzed, and distributed, where do you see human judgment still making the biggest difference in PR?
speaker-1: I think human judgment is vital. now maybe I'm a bit old school in that. ⁓ but ⁓ but anyway, I welcome AI, I like AI, I use AI, ⁓ but I genuinely think there is no replacement for critical human review. AI gets things wrong, it's not accurate, it misunderstands, it's only as good as the question that you ask it. You have to have a good understanding of the subject matter to know to know what it's telling you is correct. ⁓ a and you know, you are then able to make good quality edits and approvals of whatever it's given you. I I think AI can help and support with the simple tasks of drafting, searching, analyzing. what it can't do, and you touched on it earlier, is to have that personal relationship with a journalist who you've briefed long ahead of the time that you're going with a story. You've given them the insight, you've given them the additional information, you've given them additional interviews in order to influence and steer the way they are telling your story. No. I I think good PR has always been about good quality, trusting relationships with the most influential media and leveraging those relationships for corporate benefit. And ultimately, AI can't do that. No. Th there is, and you've touched on it earlier. ⁓ there are fewer good quality journalists out there today as budgets in journalism reduce. and that means there will be more AI writing in the long tail of media ⁓ that the public will be consuming.
speaker-0: Completely supports some evidence that I saw recently. So in HubSpot's 2026 state of marketing ⁓ data, it showed that 62.7% of respondents believe brands need more unique, human-centered content to compete with AI-generated material. ⁓ ⁓ explicitly linking perceived quality to human insight, you know, not just volume. So completely supporting ⁓ and backing up all those points that you've you've been raising. But you
speaker-1: But you're probably like me. You know, if somebody presents me with a piece of AI generated content, I can spot it a mile away. ⁓ now, I don't necessarily know and maybe I'm saying that from the position of being a communicator who's done this for too too many years and I care to remember. ⁓ you know, may maybe that the you know, the the man in the street, the woman in the street, just accepts it for what it is. ⁓ but but I think that No, i i communicators need to be critical and communications is still a profession. And if we subcontract that pro profession to AI, I think we're all in trouble.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And I keep coming back to this point about and and and you've you you've outlined it so well there. It's whether average, which is what can what we're seeing a lot of ⁓ in in AI generated ⁓ material, if it's average, is that enough to others and and and j ⁓ and you know, in general, is it just us as comms professionals that are detecting that and picking up on that? It goes back to this whole sort of idea of AI slop, ⁓ with that that lovely phrase that's that's been mentioned and and and is knocking around quite a lot.
speaker-1: I think again it comes back comes back to the point on do a few things well. Yeah. ⁓ the the idea of aspiring to average doesn't fill me with joy. You know, ⁓ I I've always present represented brands and I've done it to the absolute best of my ability. ⁓ have I made mistakes along the way? Yes, of course I have. Everybody does. ⁓ but the people who have paid me have always known that what they're getting from me is a hundred and ten percent all the time. And in a in a sort of a day and age where people do how now now have choices and they have choices as to whether they want to employ somebody or get something for free, I've I I have to hope that the quality that a human being can bring to a process has a benefit to it.
speaker-0: Absolutely. Absolutely. So given how the PR landscape is evolving ⁓ and has evolved, what do organisations most need to rethink about how they approach reputation and influence?
speaker-1: Yeah. Great, great question. I I think an open mindedness to new technology and the way that it can improve what we do versus the way we've always done it. And I think converse to that though, entrusting the reputation of your company that's taken years and probably decades and probably hundreds of millions of pounds to develop to an AI algorithm seems madness to me. You know. ⁓ so so I think there's there's a happy medium in there somewhere. ⁓ and I think I love analogies. To to me the best analogy of this is about flying. When when I'm flying, a pilot is flying my plane for probably only ten percent of the time that he's that he's flying. He's hugely highly paid. ⁓ but when they're flying planes on autopilot, th that that's you know, that's a lot of the time. It's probably ninety percent of the time you're spending on autopilot relying on technology. But when those crucial moments happen like takeoff and landing, you trust the pilot more than you do the machine. ⁓ and I think similarly, you know, I I think, you know, machines will be able in in our PR and comms world, PR ⁓ machines will be able to do a lot of the work of the day to day, potentially less skilled work that needs doing. But when those moments of real judgment are needed and when influence is really created or reputations are potentially about to be destroyed, I I have to hope that enterprises will turn to experienced people rather than machines. ⁓ you know, a and I think To do that, though, PRs need to be able to better understand and demonstrate the benefit that they of the work they bring to the day-to-day. ⁓ and I think that, you know, we shouldn't be relying on PRs just to save the day and demonstrate those critical moments. ⁓ and I think, you know, if if I'm being cr critical of ⁓ our our industry for a moment, ⁓ and I'm probably generalizing a little bit now, but Too often I see a weekly email sent around with a few select articles from the news that that PRs have created and features they've placed. But so what? You know, h how's that dial moved as a result? What commercial benefit has this brought? How has Article X or Y or Z pushed client A B C down the funnel a little bit more? And I think that's what our friends in marketing have really understood. ⁓ and I think you know, in the main they now do really well. And I think, yeah, miraculously then marketing budgets expand, ⁓ because they can demonstrate the value of what they're doing to the commercial success and commercial outcomes of the company. ⁓ and I think that you know PRs now need to use the tools and the technologies to be able to demonstrate the benefit that they're actually bringing on a day to day basis and not just in that moment of crisis when it's all too late.
speaker-0: So PRs need to PR themselves.
speaker-1: Communicators are always the worst communicators. ⁓ yeah, there's the irony. But yeah, y you're absolutely right. Marketeers understood this a long time ago. Marketeers understood with a data driven mindset they could demonstrate the value that they're bringing in a in a quantifiable way. PRs ⁓ have been quite late to the party on that, in general.
speaker-0: It's v value is needs to go far beyond those vanity metrics. So value is about what is the PR ⁓ or the team, the PR team's judgment. Where is the value in their judgment and how is that then connecting to and driving th those commercial results, that business outcome?
speaker-1: And I think PRs have always known that article X in publication Y has moved the needle. Definitely. No. But but but very frequently it it's right at the top end of the funnel. So it's very difficult to prove, ⁓ it's very difficult to demonstrate the value. ⁓ and just having a gut instinct doesn't necessarily then mean anything when it's coming to a data driven business. Where everything else can be measured.
speaker-0: Fascinating. I know, Duncan. We could go on and on. So before we wrap up, can we take a step back for a moment? ⁓ I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask all of my guests. ⁓ so this year marks 20 years of claritas, and over that time, we've absolutely seen this firsthand. ⁓ communications has evolved rapidly in scale, speed, and scrutiny. ⁓ but some lessons endure. If you could go back to your twenty year old self, what's the one piece of career advice you would give?
speaker-1: Take more care of your hair. No, no, I know. ⁓ no, no, no. No, seriously. I I'd I'd probably take it out of the work environment ⁓ and I would say enjoy what you do. You know, I I've worked in PR for longer than Claritus has been around, which is a little bit scary. You know, I I've been in PR for twenty five years of my thirty-seven year career. And for me it's always been about cars. I was racing cars with my father when I was ten. And other than a two-year exit into sailing and the America's Cup, ⁓ it's always been about cars. ⁓ I think a specialism certainly helps with your employability in today's world where transferable skills that previously seemed to be important in other sectors now seem to be less attractive. but I think if you can work in a in a sector that you care about. The days fly by and everything seems to be far more enjoyable and far more rewarding.
speaker-0: I love that and and I've experienced that with you. I mean, we we we worked in a high pressure environment, but we laughed a lot ⁓ along the way, you know, and and and in certainly enjoyed ⁓ what we were doing. It's fantastic. So looking forward, if you could put one idea ⁓ or piece of of advice into a twenty year time capsule, what would it be and why would that matter?
speaker-1: ⁓ For me, and again I'll park some of the things we've said, for me, try and always work ethically and with a purpose. ⁓ I you know, I I will always look back ⁓ with a huge sense of pride at having worked at the forefront of the electrification and decarbonisation of transport in today's world. You know, I've always believed in the principle that we should hand our planet on to the next generation, you know, in a better state than we found it. ⁓ And at the moment I think we are in the process of breaking that promise. Partially because communicators have failed to provide convincing arguments around technology. ⁓ partly because of politicians' decisions and instability, but you know, that that that's something else. But I think whatever the outcome, you know, if you can ensure you're working on the basis of an you know, in an ethical way, with an ethical purpose, you'll always be able to look back with a huge sense of pride at what you've done and what you've achieved.
speaker-0: That's absolutely lovely, Duncan. Thank you for sharing your clear and grounded perspective on how PR has has changed ⁓ over this ⁓ over this period. So PR may be faster and more measurable than ever, but the real brief is simple. Be believed. In a skeptical world, trust isn't a byproduct of communication, it's the outcome. And trust is still built person to person. That's where reputation is truly earned. Duncan, thank you so much for joining us today. ⁓ it's been such a pleasure talking to you and seeing you again.
speaker-1: It's been an absolute pleasure, Louise, and great to see you.
speaker-0: You've been listening to Clarity Matters. Follow this series for more concise conversations with leading voices shaping modern communication. Because in B2B comms, clarity always matters. Thanks for listening in.
