Sorrell Is Wrong: Reputation Matters More Than Reach
Sir Martin Sorrell is one of the most consequential deal-makers the advertising industry has produced. His transformation of WPP from a modest manufacturer into the world’s largest advertising and communications group remains a case study in scale, consolidation and financial ambition. More recently, his creation of S4 Capital has sought to reflect a digital-first, data-driven future for ‘marketing’ services. That record deserves recognition.
But admiration for deal-making should not prevent a challenge where his views fall short.
His reported assertion on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that public relations is ‘dead’ and that modern communications is about ‘flooding the internet’ reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how reputation, trust and perception create and protect value in today’s economy. The views that he shared are rooted in ad-man advertising-era logic, not in the realities faced by leaders, boards and investors navigating 2025 and beyond.
This matters because Sorrell’s influence still carries weight. As the architect of WPP’s rise, the founder of S4 Capital, and a regular business commentator, his thinking shapes how executives, investors and the media interpret what ‘modern communications’ should look like. But reducing communications to reach and volume ignores the strategic function that protects enterprise value when scrutiny is highest, risk is greatest, and trust is hardest to earn.
Reputation is not built by flooding the internet. It is built through credibility, consistency and judgement over time. Confusing visibility with trust is not just an intellectual error, it is a strategic risk to leaders who manage companies with huge valuations.
Communications is not distribution. It is trust infrastructure.
At its core, communications is about how organisations are understood, judged and trusted by the people who matter most to their success. That includes customers, investors, regulators, partners, employees and wider society.
Reducing communications to ‘flooding the internet’ collapses three distinct disciplines into one:
Advertising and media buying
Digital and performance marketing
Strategic communications and reputation management
Yes, they intersect, but they are not the same.
Advertising optimises for attention.
Digital marketing optimises for conversion.
Strategic communications optimises for credibility, legitimacy and trust over time.
Those outcomes cannot be delivered by volume alone. In fact, it is private engagement and positioning that establish how an individual, company, or brand is perceived.
Academic and professional research consistently shows that corporate reputation is a material driver of long-term financial performance, influencing profitability, cost of capital, customer loyalty and resilience during crises. Reputation is not an abstract concept. It is a critical intangible asset with a measurable economic impact.
Reputation is one of the most valuable assets a company owns
Multiple studies across economics, management and finance demonstrate that companies with strong reputations:
Attract and retain better talent
Command price premiums
Enjoy greater investor confidence
Recover faster from reputational shocks
This is why reputation is increasingly treated as a strategic asset, and not a by-product of marketing activity.
Warren Buffett has articulated this more plainly than most business leaders ever have. His long-standing warning that it takes decades to build a reputation and minutes to destroy it captures a truth that advertising metrics cannot measure and algorithms cannot fix.
For Buffett, reputation is inseparable from value creation. Lose money and it can be recovered. Lose trust and the damage can be existential. But yes, Sorrel’s public view is that what matters is flooding the internet. That is not counsel I would ever give to a client.
Why ‘flooding the internet’ is a high-risk strategy
There is a fundamental flaw in equating visibility with credibility.
Digital platforms reward frequency, speed and engagement. They do not reward accuracy, responsibility or long-term trust. In fact, research on platform dynamics shows that algorithmic systems often amplify polarisation, misinformation and emotional responses rather than informed understanding.
From a strategic perspective, this creates several risks:
1. Volume without trust erodes credibility
Audiences are increasingly sceptical of high-frequency brand messaging. Over-exposure without substance damages perception rather than enhancing it.
2. Platforms control reach, not organisations
The assumption that brands ‘own’ digital distribution ignores the reality that platforms mediate visibility, context and tone. Reputational exposure is outsourced to third-party systems with incentives misaligned to corporate trust.
3. Public narratives leak into private judgment
Reputation is formed as much in boardrooms, regulatory meetings, investor conversations and internal culture as it is in public channels. Flooding public spaces does nothing to address private perceptions.
Strategic communications exists precisely to manage these tensions.
Digital marketing KPIs are not reputation metrics
Click-through rates, impressions, engagement and followers are useful operational indicators. They are not measures of trust.
Reputation research focuses on very different signals:
Stakeholder confidence
Perceived integrity and competence
Consistency between words and actions
Willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt in moments of stress
Studies consistently show that reputation capital correlates with superior financial outcomes in ways that short-term marketing KPIs do not/
This is why serious organisations use reputation audits, stakeholder perception research and long-term trust indicators alongside financial reporting. These tools sit firmly within the remit of strategic communications and public relations, not media buying.
The private sphere matters more than the public one
One of the most persistent misunderstandings about communications is the belief that reputation is built solely in public view. This is wrong.
In reality, the most consequential judgments are often made privately:
How investors talk about management credibility behind closed doors
How regulators assess corporate intent before decisions are announced
How partners evaluate reliability before committing capital or access
How employees decide whether leadership is worth following
These perceptions are shaped by behaviour, consistency and trust over time. They cannot be engineered through content volume.
PR, at its best, operates in both public and private spheres. It helps leaders understand how they are perceived, where trust is fragile and how to align communication with strategy and conduct.
That work has become more important, not less.
The irony of declaring PR “dead”
There is a deeper irony in dismissing PR as obsolete.
Sir Martin Sorrell’s departure from WPP in 2018 occurred under a personal cloud. Regardless of the legal outcome, the episode demonstrated something fundamental: reputation affects even the most powerful executives. The subsequent creation and positioning of S4 Capital required careful narrative management, stakeholder reassurance and credibility rebuilding.
That is not achieved by flooding the internet. It is achieved through private trust-building with investors, clients, media and employees.
S4 Capital itself operates in markets where reputation, governance and trust directly influence valuation, client retention and investor confidence. For investors in any advertising or technology-enabled services firm, perception of leadership integrity and organisational culture matters deeply.
Communications does not disappear just because it becomes less visible.
Advertising scale versus communications judgment
Sir Martin’s career excellence lies in scale and deal-making. These are formidable strengths. But they are not substitutes for judgment about trust, legitimacy and perception.
Advertising and communications serve different strategic purposes:
Advertising amplifies messages
Communications shapes meaning
When organisations confuse amplification with meaning, they risk short-term noise at the expense of long-term value.
This distinction matters even more in an era of AI-generated content, synthetic media and declining institutional trust. As information becomes cheaper to produce, credibility becomes more valuable.
What leaders should take from this debate
For CEOs, boards and investors navigating 2025 and looking towards 2026, there are clear lessons:
Reputation is a strategic asset
It should be governed, measured and invested in with the same seriousness as financial capital and intellectual property.
Trust cannot be automated
AI, platforms, and digital tools can support communication, but they cannot replace human judgment, accountability, and ethical leadership.
Communications must be integrated with strategy
Communications and traditional PR work best when aligned with decision-making, not when treated as a tactical afterthought or distribution function.
Volume is not value
Flooding the internet may generate attention, but attention without trust is fragile and often destructive. Quality or quantity. You first want to be perceived well.
A warning worth heeding
Sir Martin Sorrell’s views carry weight because of his history and influence. That is precisely why leaders should approach his dismissal of PR with caution. Shouting the loudest for longer won’t influence how you are perceived.
Communications today is not about press releases or vanity coverage. It is about protecting and enhancing reputation in an environment where trust is scarce, scrutiny is constant, and perception shapes value.
PR is not dead. It has simply evolved beyond the comfort zone of those who equate success with scale alone.
For organisations that care about long-term value, resilience and legitimacy, reputation remains one of the most powerful assets they possess. Treating it as an output rather than an asset is a strategic mistake.
And one more thing. The irony in that, here we are talking about Sir Martin. For that and his business-building, I do commend him.
