I think that’s a good start. There’s a lot more to talk about. If you want to chat, email me at gleb@intentionalinsights.org and we’ll figure something out.
For cons, I would say there’s different methods of doing PR, and different EAs have different takes on it. See for example this discussion. So one agency might be problematic for this reason.
Another con is that there are already a number of EA orgs doing public outreach—EA Action, TLYCS, InIn, GWWC, etc. So they would need to coordinate, which would be pretty difficult.
Not sure what you meant by “Systemic Risk” for cons.
For pros, I’d add long-term campaigns due to centralization of resources.
I weighed up the pros and cons for an EA PR agency.
What do you think?
Effective public relations (PR) agency?
Pros:
Avoids duplication of effort
Facilitates relationships between the community and aligned journalists and thought leaders
Consistent branding
?
Cons:
Systemic risk
?
I think that’s a good start. There’s a lot more to talk about. If you want to chat, email me at gleb@intentionalinsights.org and we’ll figure something out.
I prefer public conversations for the reasons that Brian Tomasik does.
Can we continue to discuss other considerations here?
Alright, let’s try.
For cons, I would say there’s different methods of doing PR, and different EAs have different takes on it. See for example this discussion. So one agency might be problematic for this reason.
Another con is that there are already a number of EA orgs doing public outreach—EA Action, TLYCS, InIn, GWWC, etc. So they would need to coordinate, which would be pretty difficult.
Not sure what you meant by “Systemic Risk” for cons.
For pros, I’d add long-term campaigns due to centralization of resources.