Leaders reach for the phrase “we have a PR problem” because it’s an easy out. It turns a messy situation into something that feels solvable with messaging, a media plan, and a fresh set of talking points. The problem is that most so-called PR problems aren’t communications problems at all. They’re trust problems. And trust problems don’t get solved by friendlier messaging. They get solved by changing whatever it is that’s prompting the unwanted scrutiny in the first place.
This matters because “PR problem” is often a comforting diagnosis. If the issue is PR, the fix feels straightforward: launch a campaign, tighten the talking points, get the spokesperson out there, and push. More proactive communications. More “storytelling.” More control.
To be clear, I’m not against any of that. It’s standard blocking and tackling. A strong media relations approach that covers both traditional and digital media helps. If possible, getting out in front with proactive communications help. Getting the right spokesperson who is trained helps. Solid PR tactics can absolutely reduce confusion and keep a situation from spiraling.
The problem is the way organizations lean on those moves as an alternative to the harder work. Compared to actually changing behavior, improving oversight, and tightening decision-making under pressure, most “better messaging” efforts are window dressing.
When people don’t like what they’re seeing, don’t blame the mirror
The President is diagnosing ICE’s public support problem as a communications/storytelling problem. He published a post to his social media platform on Tuesday:
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system. They are saving many innocent lives! … Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators!
Others, including Maddow Show producer Steve Benen, argue the backlash isn’t about messaging at all, and no amount of friendlier communications can fix something rooted in tactics, policy, and conduct.
You don’t have to agree with anyone’s politics to understand the leadership lesson. It shows up everywhere: layoffs, data breaches, workplace incidents, product failures, scandals. Any time an organization under pressure decides the answer is better messaging instead of better decisions.
If the public is watching something it believes is harmful, “better PR” doesn’t land as clarification. It lands as manipulative spin. And spin is the fastest way to turn criticism into contempt.
Because people don’t just process your words. They judge your intent. If a message feels like it was built to win an argument instead of address reality, audiences react the same way employees do when a corporate email tries too hard: they stop listening.
PR is amplification
A lot of leaders treat PR like a dial. If the organization is taking heat, they assume the solution is to turn the volume up to 11. Push more content. Find better stories. Show impact. Highlight wins. Put a human face on it. Show the numbers.
Sometimes that can help, especially when the organization is already operating in a way that people can respect. Closing the gap between perception and reality is essential in that case, reducing confusion, providing facts, and keeping a complex situation from collapsing into a simplistic headline.
But PR doesn’t create trust out of thin air. It amplifies what’s already true about you. If the behavior underneath the messaging is ugly, evasive, or inconsistent, more visibility doesn’t solve the problem. It just means more people see the mismatch between what you say and what you appear to be doing.
That’s the point some leaders miss. They assume the problem is misunderstanding, when the real problem is belief.
The “show the numbers” instinct is usually the wrong instinct
When leaders get criticized, a predictable reflex kicks in: prove the critics wrong. It feels responsible. It feels rational. It also often misses the moment, because facts don’t land the same way when trust is low.
When people trust you, numbers feel like information. When people don’t trust you, numbers feel like persuasion. And persuasion, in a credibility crisis, can feel like manipulation, even if it isn’t intended that way.
That’s why organizations often make things worse by leaning harder on proof instead of addressing the underlying issue. They add more stats. They add more examples. They publish one more FAQ, then another update, then another statement. None of it is wrong on its own. But the cumulative effect starts to feel less like leadership and more like persuasion.
And once it starts to feel like you’re trying to persuade people instead of listening, you send the wrong signal: leadership is committed to its position, not open to change. People affected have a high BS meter. They can tell the difference.
Daniel Keeney, founder of DPK Public Relations, works with leaders who need to explain complicated things simply and handle tough questions without sounding scripted. He’s spent the last over three decades coaching executives through high-pressure interviews, crises, and moments when every word matters.