Because SEOs see so many websites in our careers and obsess over keyword driven placements, we tend to catch bad reviews, misquotes and other online nastiness that potentially harmed our clients' reputations. Since we have the ability to work the search rankings, a sub-set of the SEO community started offering a service it labeled Reputation Management. That was probably a less than descriptive name for a service that tends to focus on web content and not on real-world perceptions.

A better name for the service might be digital reputation management.

It was interesting to read your and others' reviews of the night. Unfortunately, I didn't follow the debate, although I read one article earlier yesterday which, I understand, has sparkled the talk. My response is here, if you don't mind me sharing it: http://www.avidadollars.com/2009/02/seo-online-pr-and-link-building-where-the-difference-lies-.html

My view generally is that it may be difficult for PR to walk the walk against SEO because SEO is the part of Digital Marketing 'package', while PR, despite moving into the online world, still seems to remain connected more to Journalism and traditional Media. This doesn't mean, however, that PR cannot learn to write press releases with keywords in mind What may happen, I think, is the further segmentation of PR (very much like it has happened with traditional and online Marketing).

Anyway, thanks a lot for bringing this up to everyone's attention.

This certainly hits a nerve.

I am not sure you can rely on the CIPR as your definition of what PR is – I do think clients can determine that to some degree.

For many businesses PR is media relations and the resulting awareness it generates. Strategic counsel is seen as just part of the service, what is expected is the tangible proof that there is a ROI from their spend. Reputation management is academic.

What I am getting to is that PR vs SEO is an issue for agencies that are working with SMEs. If SEO agencies can start to offer a more watered down PR service then it could affect the PR agency sector, even if the PR professional can offer a better service. The same could be said about PR agencies dipping into SEO.

I think we will see a convergence of PR and SEO services and agencies, expect perhaps at the higher
end

Rob

Can you manage reputation? I think so, in that you can have processes and disciplines that influence it. What you can't do is control it.

However, if PR is about reputation (ie what people do), then what exactly do most PR firms do? Do they spend their time managing a client's reputation? Do they spend most of their time providing strategic counsel? Do they even spend most of their time on executing PR tactics? No. They seem to spend most of it on account management, admin and reporting.

http://escherman.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/what-do-pr-people-actually-do-all-day-pr-week-finally-answers-the-question/

Let's be honest. The word "strategy" is abused everywhere in PR (and management consultancy and other service professions). Clients often see the word "strategy" and think "expensive + little real value".

Which makes life more difficult for those who really can offer and deliver strategic value.

The well founded ideals of the PR industry providing reputation management and strategic counsel are underminded by a sector that on the whole provides tactical services (why do you think margins in PR generally are so low?). The SEO industry may well be offering tactics, but it would seem clients (certainly in certain FMCG sectors) find those tactics provide better value than trad PR tactics. (Having said that, the big SEO budgets come almost exclusively from big FMCG clients – and SEO/SEM agencies that get these budgets are using an old style media buying model – volume = discount = margin or management fee).

Until the PR industry actually starts to (demonstrably) walk the walk, as well as talk the talk on reputation management and strategy, tactics will continue to dominate – and from a client perspective, the best tactical operators will get more client budget. And at the moment, that suggests the SEO/SEM fraternity will fare rather better.

Which is I guess my way of saying that I don't think the PR vs SEO debate is a false one in the slightest. I agree that clients would never dream of asking an SEO firm to deal with reputation – but I don't think they see their PR firms as reputation managers or strategic advisors either.

And can you really manage reputation?

@Rob Brown – thanks for the reminder about the Wired article. Richard Edelman keeps saying "Google never forgets"

@Roger – page rank is too crude a measure to really be about reputation, digital firms are only disqualified from doing PR because they only do digital. Digital is always part of reputation, but only ever part.

@Stephen Waddington – agreed, especially about the market size and potential fees issue. PR supporting the sales cycle is great (excellent source of revenue!), as long as we remember it is only part of what it/we can do

@Pete Goold – I think that's partially my point that digital needs to be a core competency for public relations people

Although obviously it differs on a case by case basis, if we asked most clients a candid question as to whether they'd prefer a) a page of positive coverage in the FT or b) to be ranked first for a chosen keyword for a day (to equate to one day of profile in the national media), an increasing number would choose the latter. That's not to devalue traditional PR services – or indeed the need for an overarching strategic aproach which might encompass digital as one element – but to see them in context of the shifting landscape.