The Lead

« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

Does public relations have any business in social media?

Posted by Bob Brin on April 24, 2006 at 4:54 PM

Jennifer McClure, Executive Director, Society for New Communications Research wrote in Bulldog Reporter last week that not everyone sees the connection between public relations and "blogs, podcasts, vlogs and other emerging forms of media."

Many believe that PR should not be involved at all. However, this wariness may stem from the perception of PR as the “keeper of the message.” PR is not meant to be about creating static messages in a vacuum, and it is not synonymous with media relations. But for too long, this seems to have been the general assumption—not only of clients and management, but also of many in the PR industry.
Public relations is about forming and nurturing relationships with the public.

It's a good article, but it kinda misses the real skill set of PR people.

I would say that what's working against us is not the perception that we're keeper of the message so much as the perception we're keepers of one relationship -- with reporters. One might flip that coin and argue that, even if media relations were all we do, it's a great skill in the new media world. PR professionals understand releasing messages to some very tough third parties -- intelligent, critical, analytical and sometimes biased individuals -- reporters, analysts, etc. We know what it is to carefully craft a message, put a bow on it and deliver it with much fanfare, only to see our sleek new message crash in the daily newspaper. Some may call that a vacuum and it is -- a machine that will strip off any chrome that isn't bolted to the frame of your fantastic rocket. You really don't get too many static messages to fly with reporters or analysts or, now, bloggers. So who do you want on your side in a blog storm?

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Podcast Shmodcast

Posted by Rich Sharp on April 21, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Good post on podcasting today from Steve Rubel of MicroPersuasion. The question in Rubel’s post is whether podcasting is evolutionary or revolutionary. I’m not sure it’s either. But what makes a podcast different from any MP3 file available for download from Web sites prior to the advent of the iPod and its ilk? Or what makes it different from anything you might hear on the radio, minus occasional profanity?

Most days I download Adam Curry’s “Daily Source Code” podcast and play it on my laptop. The behavior is akin to listening to the radio – after all, he was a DJ, and the former MTV VJ’s podcast sounds like a drive-time radio show. I don’t think I’m listening to a podcast. I think I’m listening to the radio.

The use of audio in electronic format is almost as old as the Web. I’m sure many of us played MP3s with early versions of WinAmp on our computers nearly 10 years ago. The only difference today is that now these MP3s can be portable. So, the question to ask as you consider podcasting is whether portability is a key behavior of your target audience.

Podcasting should not be advocated just because it can be done, or because marketers have a few extra bucks to throw at a podcast. That’s waste and it’s off-strategy. Use audio when it makes sense and can help you achieve your goals. If it’s a podcast, great. If not, that’s OK, too. And if it doesn’t make sense, then consider another way to reach your target audience.

Comments (1) | TrackBack |

---

Pulitzers Go Online

Posted by Rich Sharp on April 18, 2006 at 9:16 AM

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced yesterday. For the first time, Pulitzers were awarded to newspapers with online components.

Five papers won Pulitzers for online coverage – most notably, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, which won for its Hurricane Katrina coverage when the newspaper’s printing presses were under water.

Pulp still rules the Pulitzers, but in the first year that online content was considered, five prizes were awarded.

As more newspapers awake to the notion that there is more potential in online news offerings than ink and paper, we will see a day when there will be more Pulitzers awarded for online work than for offline work. Soon.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Pitching business media? Required reading...

Posted by Matt Kucharski on April 10, 2006 at 11:15 AM

Sorry that I didn't post this sooner (thanks for flagging it, Rich!) -- Guy Kawasaki's blog links to a great interview with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky. Lashinsky's a good reporter, and does a nice job of describing the do's and don'ts of pitching national business media without giving the pat "PR people are stupid" line. If you're thinking about holding a press conference because you have "big news," or think you've got a story for national business media, this interview provides a pretty good litmus test.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

GM understands social media

Posted by Rich Sharp on April 4, 2006 at 4:28 PM

Here’s a company that gets social media: General Motors. OK, “gets” is a pretty strong word. Sure, they had one of the first blogs from Executive Row (self-serving as it is). But now they have a make-your-own TV spot for the Chevy Tahoe, and they’ve subjected the brand and the company to a myriad of anti-General Motors/Chevy/Tahoe commercials.

And they’ve left them out there for all to see.

It’s not “social” if you don’t share with others. GM understands this and is willing to take the hit in the hopes that it is building good will online even if it is using as the subject a vehicle that guzzles gas like a thirsty marathoner guzzles water.

Another key element in this is GM’s willingness to make it a two-way affair. In return for engaging with the brand, Chevy enters users into a contest for trips and a Tahoe.

So, whether you’re an SUV enthusiast, an environmentalist or a budding commercial director, you have a shot at a prize.

There are other seemingly viral promotions out there that are one-way, with a pre-supposition that the reward is interaction with the brand itself. That makes them viral all right…viruses against which consumers should be inoculated.

Marketers must blend their sensibilities regarding consumer behavior and moving product with this new breed of two-way interaction. This space is not your daddy’s free-standing-inserting-shelf-talking-30-second-spotting communications vehicle. It requires engaging the consumer in new ways, taking chances with the brand and stepping in front of the competition. GM may not sell more Tahoes with this, but at the very least, they engaged consumers who will recall the engagement the next time they search for a car. They stepped in front of the competition and made a fair trade with potential customers.

BTW, yes, I made a commercial. View at your own risk.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Goliath may fall, but watch where you stand

Posted by Bob Brin on April 4, 2006 at 8:04 AM

Our good friend and Lumin collaborative partner Steve Cody
blogs about large ad agencies' angst over the decline of the 30-second spot. He says that the emergence of consumer-generated media may not be having the same David/Goliath effect in the public relations industry, but that it still presents an opportunity for the smaller shops (including mid-sized shops like PSB, I presume). I would add, however, that all PR pros better be scared, nonetheless. Because billions of dollars in network advertising spending will find a home and consumer-generated media is a great opportunity for advertising folks to get smart on communicating through third parties and influencers in a hurry. The advertising Goliaths may fall hard on a lot of Davids.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |