Is It Time to Retire the PESO Model? Earning Attention In a Messy, Algorithmic World

Jul 23

Earning attention matters more than fitting into boxes.

Imagine a place many of us in PR know all too well: the conference room. There’s a table, a scatter of coffee cups, and someone—often earnestly—asks, “What’s our PESO mix for this?” Heads nod. Because of course we all know what PESO stands for: Paid. Earned. Shared. Owned.

But what if we’re clinging to an old map? What if our familiar four-box model is comforting, but no longer quite fits the territory we’re traveling?

PESO: The Old Map in the Glove Box

I’ll admit it: I’m not PR person. The PESO model was there when I first “snuck in the side door” as a video producer, and it’s been waiting for me at every agency since—like an old friend, a little worn at the edges.

The PESO model, which stands for Paid, Earned, Shared, Owned, originated in the early 2010s as a way to categorize and integrate the full spectrum of media channels available to communicators and marketers. The concept is most widely credited to Gini Dietrich, author of the book Spin Sucks.

Dietrich first introduced the PESO model in 2014 on her Spin Sucks blog and in her book, aiming to provide a framework for integrated communications strategies that reflect the converging worlds of PR, marketing, and digital media. The model built on previous attempts to describe the evolving media landscape, but Dietrich was the first to popularize and formalize the four-category structure with clear definitions and tactical implications.

Let’s briefly get on the same page about the categories:

Paid: Media you pay for (ads, sponsored content)

Earned: Traditional PR/media relations—coverage you “earn” (put a pin in this one)

Shared: Content amplified/shared by audiences, often via social media

Owned: Channels you control (websites, blogs, email newsletters)

The appeal of PESO is its clarity. But what’s neat about the real world? The lines between paid, earned, shared, and owned have blurred. Social and search algorithms are the gatekeepers of attention, and the way we win that attention has less to do with the neatness of categories than with how well we understand the system—and play by its rules.

Dietrich was trying to get communications to fit neatly, and since she coined the term, things have been spilling into each other more and more.

Everything is Earned Now

This is the provocative idea at the heart of the conversation: What if everything is earned media now? What if the real challenge—no matter your channel—is earning the algorithm’s favor? Getting the journalist’s nod? Capturing that blink-and-you-miss-it scroll on someone’s feed?

Whether you’re pitching to the press, paying for ads, or sharing on owned platforms, success depends on understanding what will capture attention. Paid reach doesn’t guarantee engagement. A press hit can vanish if something trendier comes along. Owned content can languish, unseen, unless it’s crafted with the same attention to resonance and relevance as any pitch to a reporter.

Algorithms: The New Gatekeepers

Once upon a time, we obsessed over “earned” as the gold standard. Get the story placed. Get the client’s name in print. But today, getting anything noticed, whether paid or not, means pleasing the algorithms that decide what we see. Paid promotion helps promise eyeballs, but only compelling content resonates engagement, and resonance is dictated by the logic of the algorithm.

There’s no secret sauce, only best practices that improve your odds. It’s not unlike pitching a story: there are unwritten rules, strategies, and timing. Sometimes you win; sometimes your client’s name gets cut at the last minute.

Let’s Lose the Boxes

What would happen if we stopped sorting ourselves (and our ideas) into paid, earned, shared, and owned? What if, instead, we started by asking how we earn (and keep) the attention of the people we hope to reach?

Public relations, at its core, is about earning attention. That’s as true for TikToks and Meta ads as it is for a page one hit in the New York Times. The mechanics may differ, but the principle is the same: You have to win the right to be seen.

What Do You Think?

Is it time to retire the old model, or is there value in holding on to familiar maps—even as the territory changes? Are you still planning by PESO? Or are you starting with the question of how to earn attention, no matter the channel?

Truscott Rossman