From the beginning "risk analysis" a methodology to evaluate risks associated with complex engineering enteties like airliners or nuclear power plants. It was a theory that saved many lives.
Then the term was borrowed by PR-consultants. They launched it as a service to their customers. Before any advertising campaign (or action) was to be taken they could sell the client a "risk analysis".
One problem with this is that it is risk when it comes to PR is more complicated than Nuclear power plants. Some examples:
* When EMI where about to launch the Sex Pistols album there was a risk that their traditional audience would be angry.
* When Cheap monday choose to integrate an upside-down cross in their logo, there was a risque people would take offense.
* When Jesus started his sermons there was many risks. Like angering the romans and jews at the same time.
In all these cases, the risks came true. Christians all over the world took offense over the cross. The Romans where really pissed at Jesus and the people of britain rose up against the filthy rock-band.
It is, however not the same as to argue that Cheap Monday, Sex Pistols and Jesus should've been more been successful if they had softened their expressions.
Actually- quite to the contrary, when it comes to PR the perceived risks is not a necessary evil- it is a necessary good.
Does that mean that you should do whatever to get attention?
If we where to say that it is easier to break a window with a stone than a feather, does that mean you immediately have to run out breaking windows?