We've gone on adnauseum (pun intended) about how most companies (especially in the b2b world) no longer require the services of a traditional ad agency: The Internet has created direct access to niche companies that perform design, content, SEO and other functions and you can just work with them directly. (For an example of a non-traditional ad agency that is sending shock waves throughout the agency world, click here.) We chalk this phenomenon up to a major, probably once-in-a-business-lifetime, paradigm shift in the way business is done. Prior to the Internet, the seller typically controlled the information. Now the buyer is typically in control of the information. And that changes everything. Our suspicion is that this paradigm shift is changing "public relations", too.

Here's the way PR used to work (and many PR companies are still trying to force this model in order to stay in business):

The PR company sells the client on the idea that PR is a better buy for their budget than advertising (which is probably true when comparing PR to broadcast, print and outdoor advertising) and directs the client's budget towards themselves, usually ranging anywhere from a bare minimum of $3,500 per month (for a micro company) to maybe $10,000 per month for a large small business or middle-market company, and it goes up from there.

The proposed value to the client? Consistent messaging, access to the media and crisis control if something goes haywire. Beyond those issues, the PR agency might also do some speaker's bureau-like activities (helping the client get behind the podium at trade conferences), perform event planning functions, maybe manage a direct mail campaign, ghostwrite and article for the client, maybe bring in a designer to help with retooling the corporate identity... is this starting to sound familiar? Sounds sort of like an agency, huh?

Every PR firm is diferrent and the difference is in the scope of work that they'll take on. A few years back "agency" (meaning ad agency) became a dirty word, because in-house marketing people got wise to the fact that more often than not the agency was just marking up the services of the kinds of creative service firms mentioned above -- so a lot of companies that were essentially agencies re-tooled themselves as Public Relations companies.

But let's go back to the core value proposition of a b2b public relations firm: The PR firm provides consistent messaging, access to the media (and therefore the public) and crisis control if something goes haywire.

These three issues are of tanamount importance to growing companies, especially small and growing b2b companies that are off the radar screen of the press -- but we're not convinced that the answer is always necessarily a PR company. In fact, we believe that between the three elements of that value proposition, only one of them requires an outside firm.

Think about it for a second. Regarding the need for consistent messaging, we agree. After all, we started the country's first company focused exclusively on content development and deployment, so we understand the importance of a a consistent message. But the dirty little secret of the PR world is that most PR companies don't even have Writers (with a capital W) on staff -- they hire freelance writers when there's real writing to do. They have people who can write (with a small w) press releases, announcements, etc. -- but there's a difference between somone who writes and a Writer.

Regarding the PR company's ability to curry favor with the media, consider this: In this new context of direct relationships that the Internet has created -- who does the press want to talk to? You or your PR company? Most PR companies are still under the misguided notion that the value they bring to the client is in "media relations" - maybe in 1983 (or even 1993), that was true.

Recently, we've been creating press lists for our clients, writing the press releases, distributing them and then stepping out of the way. We put the client as the contact on the press releases so the press can call or e-mail them back directly. They don't want to talk to us! And the truth is that a lot of editors would rather have a well written, professionally edited and proofread story than a press release anyway. Think about it ... you are an editor on deadline and you have in front of you a story lead, a press release and a professionally written (probably ghostwritten) story. Two of those options require staff that you may not have - the third does not. What would you do? Provided that the story isn't just a sales pitch for the company writing it, it meets the editorial guidelines of the pulication and it's good writing, you'd print it.

The third leg of a PR company's value proposition (crisis communication) has some merit -- if your company has an above average chance of having a public crisis. A while back, we were working with a company in the laboratory medicine field. Because of the nature of their work, they run a high risk of bad news travelling fast, so we recommended that they keep a PR firm on retainer that is familiar with them and can block for them if necessary. But other than that we felt that they should stay in control of their message and the delivery of that message. Make sense to you? Feel free to visit our Web site and write back to us through the contact page.

So do you need to fire your PR company? That's your call, but I would pay close attention to where they are truly bringing value, versus what their value proposition is. You might find that with some profesional help on corporate value proposition development, some list building activities and distribution help (online PR wire services and blogs, etc.) -- you don't even need a PR company.