Continuing the conversation: Does 'nuance' sell PR short?

In this post, I commented on Lee Hopkins' observation that communications professionals can create work that is "slightly better nuanced."

That phrase held a great deal of meaning to me.

Not everyone can perform brain surgery or fly a jet, but anyone can write a newsletter article or draft a speech. Or, in today's world, publish a blog.

So why are public relations and corporate communications professionals needed? My take is that the nuances of our skills and talent make our work more effective.

Todd Van Hoosear at Tech PR Gems saw my post a little differently. He wrote:

"Successful PR is not about nuance. It's about spot-on targeting. I would argue (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) that PR people spend way too much time on nuance, and not enough time on focus. Trying to get a piece of business communications right enough to satisfy their customer base may make it ineffective for many of the most important readers."

Todd makes a good point, but I think we're using the word nuance differently. I meant nuanced as in "invisible to the untrained eye." The way a professional golfer makes the game look easy, when we know it's not.

I think Lee meant it the same way, though I can't be sure.

Todd seems to be using nuance to mean a shading of messages or subtlety.

It's an interesting discussion, to be sure. What do you think? Lee, Todd, can you chime in with some clarifications?

Technorati Tags: Public Relations, PR