On this page11
- Why does PR amplify problems instead of hiding them?
- Is it a product problem or an explanation problem?
- The amplifier audit: seven questions to answer before you pitch
- What can PR honestly do for a weak product?
- What happens when founders push ahead anyway?
- When should you invest in PR despite product gaps?
- FAQ
- Can PR rebuild trust after a failed launch?
- Should I tell my PR lead about product weaknesses?
- Will a PR agency take on a project with a weak product?
- How do I know when my product is ready for PR?
No. PR can't fix a bad product, broken tokenomics or a team that doesn't deliver, because coverage amplifies what's already true about you. If the product works and the story is badly told, PR can help a lot. If the product doesn't work, coverage just sends more people, including sceptical reporters and analysts, to discover that faster.
The tricky part is that founders often can't tell which of those two situations they're in. That's what this post is for. I'll lay out the difference, then give you the readiness audit I run before agreeing to take on a project.
Why does PR amplify problems instead of hiding them?
A good story sends attention to a place. Journalists, investors, users and competitors all arrive and look around. What they find is the product, the token, the docs, the community chat and the team's track record.
If those hold up, attention converts into trust. If they don't, attention converts into criticism, and criticism from people who arrived because of your coverage is louder and more public than it would have been.
There's a second effect. Crypto reporters have long memories and good search habits. A story that oversold you in March is the first thing they find when your TVL collapses in June. Your PR didn't cause the collapse, but it made the gap between claim and reality easy to document.
poor tokenomics is a long term damage to a crypto project. Shilika Jain on X, 28 Aug 2023
Tokenomics is the clearest case. If your supply schedule guarantees heavy selling pressure, every launch story becomes a future reference point for "this was always going to dump". That's long-term damage, and no amount of coverage reverses it.
Is it a product problem or an explanation problem?
This is the question I care most about, because sometimes PR genuinely is the fix.
you can build all the great tech, but what if you’re not marketing it right🌝 Shilika Jain on X, 10 Dec 2024
Plenty of strong products struggle because nobody outside the team can explain why they matter. That's a communication gap, and narrative work plus earned media closes it. When I looked at Tangem's marketing publicly this year, the product was strong. The opportunity was in how it was framed, selling ownership rather than hardware. That's an explanation problem.
So how do you tell the two apart? A quick diagnostic:
| Signal | Points to an explanation problem | Points to a product problem |
|---|---|---|
| Users who try it | Stay and use it again | Churn after the incentive ends |
| Demos | Go well once people understand the use case | Go badly even with the right audience |
| Feedback | "I didn't realise it did that" | "It doesn't do what I need" |
| Retention after airdrop or rewards | Holds a meaningful core | Falls to near zero |
| Investor or partner pushback | "I don't get the category" | "I don't believe the numbers" |
| Your own team | Can explain the value differently each time | Disagrees on what the product is for |
If most of your answers land on the left, PR and narrative work are the right investment. If they land on the right, spend the money on product, incentives design or research first.
The amplifier audit: seven questions to answer before you pitch
I call this the amplifier audit, because the question underneath every item is "what will coverage amplify?". Score each question honestly: 0 if the answer is no, 1 if it's partly, 2 if it's a clear yes.
- Does the product do what your announcement will say it does, today? Not on the roadmap. Live.
- Would a sceptical reporter's first ten minutes of research hold up? Docs, GitHub, explorer data, team pages, past statements.
- Can you show usage that isn't driven by incentives? Users, transactions, integrations or revenue that would survive the rewards stopping.
- Is your token design defensible in public? Supply, vesting, insider allocation and utility you'd be comfortable explaining to a Bloomberg or CoinDesk reporter line by line.
- Can the founder explain why this matters in two sentences, without jargon? If not, start with the narrative, not the pitch.
- Do you have news for the next three months? Real milestones, not "we exist" announcements.
- Is the team ready for scrutiny? Someone who can answer hard questions quickly, and a plan for the first critical story.
Add it up out of 14.
| Score | What it means | What I'd do |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 6 | Coverage will mostly amplify gaps | Pause PR. Fix product, token design or proof points first. Keep the founder writing and building relationships quietly. |
| 7 to 10 | Some solid ground, some exposure | Narrow PR: founder commentary, podcasts and op-eds on the category, no big product claims until the weak scores improve. |
| 11 to 14 | Ready to be amplified | Full programme: news pitching, embargoed launches, tier-1 targeting. |
The 7 to 10 band is where most early teams actually sit, and it's not a failure. It just means the founder's thinking is ready to be public before the product is.
What can PR honestly do for a weak product?
Less than you want, but not nothing. If you score in the middle band, a few things are still worth doing:
- Build the founder's voice. Commentary on industry news and op-eds about the category don't depend on your product being finished.
- Comment on other people's news. Expert commentary doesn't need your product to be the story. When Worldcoin launched in 2023, Magna, a token management company I worked with, got into Decrypt with commentary on Worldcoin's supply and market-maker loans, without any news of its own. Being useful on a trending topic builds reporter relationships while your own milestones catch up.
- Be candid about the stage. "We're early, here's what we've learned" is a story reporters respect far more than inflated metrics.
- Fix the narrative while you fix the product. The Web3 narrative and positioning playbook is the right place to start, and choosing your one thesis narrows it further.
- Prepare for criticism. A short holding statement and a named spokesperson save days when the first negative post appears.
What PR shouldn't do is cover the gap with louder claims. That trade looks good for a week.
crypto marketers will launch another massive marketing campaign but can't tell if the product they're marketing will actually bring adoption or not lol Shilika Jain on X, 23 Dec 2024
Before any campaign, someone should be able to answer whether the product brings adoption. If no one can, the campaign is a bet with your reputation as the stake.
What happens when founders push ahead anyway?
The pattern is predictable enough to describe without naming anyone. The launch gets decent coverage. Users arrive, poke around, and leave. Community chat fills with questions the team can't answer well. A reporter who covered the launch notices the drop in activity and writes a follow-up. The follow-up ranks higher than the launch story in search, and it's what AI assistants quote when someone asks about the project.
At that point PR is doing crisis work instead of building work, and crisis work is slower and more expensive. If you're already there, crypto crisis communications covers the response side.
When should you invest in PR despite product gaps?
There are fair exceptions:
- Fundraising. If you're raising and the product is genuinely early, founder visibility can help investors find and understand you. Keep claims proportionate to the stage.
- Hiring. Coverage of the team and the problem can attract people who'll help fix the product.
- Category creation. If you're early to a category, writing about the category itself can be valuable even before your product leads it.
In each case the coverage is about people and ideas, not product claims. That's what keeps it honest. If that's where you are, my Web3 PR campaign work usually starts with founder profiling and narrative, then adds product news as the audit score climbs.
FAQ
Can PR rebuild trust after a failed launch?
It can help once the underlying issue is fixed, but not before. Start with a transparent account of what went wrong and what changed, then earn coverage on the new proof points over months. Rushing back into the press with a relaunch story before you have new evidence usually reopens the old criticism.
Should I tell my PR lead about product weaknesses?
Yes, and early. A PR lead who knows where the gaps are can steer pitches away from claims that won't hold, prepare holding statements and pick reporters who'll treat you fairly. Surprises are what turn manageable stories into bad ones.
Will a PR agency take on a project with a weak product?
Many will, because a retainer is a retainer. A good one will tell you what they won't claim and may suggest a narrower scope. If nobody in the pitch process asks hard questions about your product or token design, treat that as a warning sign.
How do I know when my product is ready for PR?
When the amplifier audit scores 11 or higher and you'd be comfortable with a critical reporter testing every claim in your announcement. Usage that survives incentives ending is usually the clearest single sign.
Not sure which side of the audit you're on? Send me your next three announcements and I'll tell you honestly whether PR or product should get the next dollar.
