Some really interesting mini-research out today from Realwire’s Adam Parker and Andrew Smith of Escherman.

They took 50 online news sites from across different industry sectors and analysed them against three key areas: readership per article (average numbers of UK page views per Google indexed url per month), engagement (time spent per page to indicate how long a reader is likely to be spending reading that content when they get there) and UK relevance (what proportion of the sites readers as a whole come from the UK and would therefore be likely to be relevant if you were trying to reach a UK audience).

The results are really interesting as Adam states:

“if you remove these six high scoring sites from the samples then the sector specific sites still achieve, on average, between 30-60% of the readership per article of the remaining UK Nationals or Consumer titles”

In addition, the titles that scored high for readership per article were not the same that scored high for engagement.

These findings have massive relevancy for the PR industry, as Andrew states:

“In the past, the notion of measuring engagement with editorial content was largely theoretical.  Circulation and readership figures were treated as proxies for engagement (if a newspaper has a readership of 2 million, then we assume that a large proportion must be in some way engaged with some or all of the content – we just aren’t sure which content and to what degree. Or whether this engagement results in a meaningful business outcome).

“However, you could argue that Google data now provides for a much deeper understanding of editorial engagement. At least online.”

At Wildfire, we take a very audience centric approach to PR (and online/social media) campaigns. This means knowing firstly about the audience that the brand/client wants (but also needs) to target and then, as demonstrated above, knowing which channels are going to be most effective.

This is crucial insight for planning but is also important for measurement and reporting as well.

picture credit

There’s a good blog post from Mark Kobayashi-Hillary (a man with a great name!) over on Computer Weekly. He talks about how, with so many tech (and other trade) journalists now on Twitter, PRs should take note and get stuck in.

It’s a tactic that has become second nature to myself and my colleagues at Wildfire, but, as Mark says, the industry as a whole has often been slow on the uptake:

“This all comes back to the blog I wrote here recently about some executives trying Twitter and then discarding it because they could not find any use in just updating the world on their meeting schedule…Some PR agencies have realised this. There are many now with strong digital and social expertise, but there are so many that are just riding on an existing contract. They will ultimately die out through natural selection.”

There’s a great point here about the inability to react to change and the dangers of ‘doing nothing’. It might be ok in the short to mid term, but the ultimate endgame will be disastrous.

But, it’s another comment that Mark makes that is equally as interesting, when he suggests that tech journalists too are waking up to the benefits of social media engagement and, are beginning to cut out the PRs that are ignoring these new channels (and even some that aren’t) and going directly to their clients or spokespeople:

“This works both ways – how many trade hacks really pay attention to the sea of press releases anymore when they can talk directly to the people they are writing about?”

We’re beginning to take a very different approach – as an agency – in the role we play with some of our clients in this social savvy world. Rather than acting as the gatekeeper, we are much more the facilitator or even the supporter or guide.

This is bloody scary for some PR agencies, but its not going to change any time soon. It’s only going to get worse (or better!).

I wrote a rather ranty blog post the other day following an opinion piece on NMA suggesting that social media wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

The whole incident got me thinking about the reasons why some people, brands, agencies, marketers etc. find social media so difficult to understand and get to grips with. Afterall, it’s not rocket science and the vast majority of us use it in our personal (and often professional) lives on a daily basis.

I’m more and more convinced that the real reason for misunderstanding social media is that, more often than not, it is approached with an old media/marketing mindset.

Because that is the key challenge for brands. It’s why so many marketing industries have struggled to get to grips with social media. PR runs scared because it diminishes the role of media relations. Advertising is scared because it doesn’t let you buy your way into people’s living rooms. SEO is scared because it is reducing the power of natural search (just ask Google). Direct marketing is scared because it challenges the role of email (and offline).

These however are all worries that can be overcome. PR has a fantastic opportunity to use its traditional skill-set to engage directly with end users. Advertising doesn’t need to worry about a lack of paid-for opportunities on social networks. SEO can add social media into it’s toolbox and influence SERPs in new ways. And even DM or email can link up with social media to reenergize and increase the effectiveness of campaigns.

Social media is just another channel and whether your background is earned or paid media, there are opportunities. But the old techniques and tactics just won’t work. We all need to adapt and learn new ways of using this new channel.

Often however, to get the most out of social media, it needs to be integrated with other marketing forms. This isn’t a new approach. Very few brands do PR or advertising in isolation. Marketing departments exist to ensure that all marketing activity across all channels is unified an integrated to a certain extent (or at least they should). And social media is no different.

So, investing in social media is important and requires new skills and approaches. But, just because of this, don’t silo it, integrate it into the rest of your marketing activities to get the best returns.

picture credit

Sometimes you read something that makes you sit up and look quizzically into the distance. This happened today when I read this article by a certain Nigel Walley (it doesn’t say where he is from, so I’m assuming he is the ad-man, Managing Director of Decipher Concept).

I’m sure Mr Walley is merely trying to play devil’s advocate or ‘put the cat amongst the pigeons’, but the scalawag has riled me a little bit with his mis-informed piece, so I felt urged to pen a few words to set the record straight.

The social media opportunity

He kicks of with a slam-dunk, wind-up merchant question: “Is it okay to think that Facebook is a bit crap?” Well, of course it is Nigel, but just exactly what is your point?

Well, his main beef centres around three points: firstly, that “our industry” (not exactly certain which industry he means) is ‘apparently’ banging on about the fact that brands “must” do social media. Secondly, that “our industry” doesn’t seem to know what it’s doing when it comes to social media and is merely picking on the social-network-du-jour (he names Bebo, Myspace and Second Life as examples) and lastly he seems a bit upset that some people (I suspect they are again in “our industry”, though maybe not and maybe that it the problem!) are making money from social media.

So, leaving aside the last point, let’s investigate this in more detail.

First, the ‘why do social media’ question. Surely we are beyond this? The ‘maybe brands should just stay away’ argument is naive! Walley brazenly proclaims: “Could Facebook not just be a globally successful communications medium that doesn’t need brands, like the telephone?” As a consumer, I’m damn sure I want brands to be accessible on the telephone and, increasingly, I want them to be accessible on social media too!

The amount of people now using social media alone suggests there is a fantastic opportunity for brands. The relationships that brands can develop through social have also been proven to be more powerful and lasting than other forms of marketing. For many brands, embracing social media is not a choice anymore, it’s an imperative. For many, their customers are there in their millions talking about them, criticising them and praising them. Try telling these brands that they should stay away.

The social media bandwagon

However, his complaint that brands are being ‘forced’ to do social media (not quite sure who is saying they ‘must’ do it, but I’m assume he means agencies), then he is right to say this is an error (I’m not in a position to say whether agencies are saying this btw).

Fact: social media isn’t right for every company. It’s why I still advocate an audience-focused approach: identify who you are targeting, with what message and then choose the right channel to reach this audience. This could be social media, but it might not be.

He suggests that the phrase du jour of social media experts is that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers through social media”. A more appropriate phrase is perhaps that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers if they are going to use social media as a marketing channel”.

The social media challenge

Because the fact is, if you do decide to go down the social media route, learning about the ‘engagement’ bit is a challenge. Most companies need to refocus or realign themselves to deal with it. Brands that are used to whacking out their billboard ads or popping a press release to a journalist will have a shock when they find users responding to a tweet or commenting on a blog post. Learning to deal with this isn’t rocket science, but does take careful consideration.

When it comes to the ‘doing’ there is still, of course, much to learn. Social media is a growing, developing medium, so there will be the Myspaces, Bebos and Second Lifes of this world that will not survive. However, although NIgel Walley might think Facebook is ‘crap’, he would be foolish to suggest it won’t survive. 400 million people worldwide (and counting) disagree with him.

We are all learning. We will all get things wrong. Some of us might even push some boundaries. Again, it’s not rocket science, but it’s only by ‘doing’ that we will get better and be able to give better advice to the clients or brands that we work for.

If you are coming from an advertising, media buying or push marketing background, then I can see exactly why you would want to belittle the potential and effect of social media. But, if you are more used to managing reputations, raising profiles and building influence, then social media not only makes sense, but, in many cases, is a fantastic opportunity.

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

picture credit

As you may have picked up, I’m a big tennis fan. So I was interested to see the following viral video from Head featuring Scotland’s own Andy Murray:

It’s a great little video and has apparently already hit the 600k view mark – pretty impressive.

Finger’s crossed Andy can repeat these skills on centre court in the Wimbledon final on Sunday!

My new iPhone 4 arrived on Friday; I was very excited. But alas, my experience in trying to get it activated and in getting my old number ported across has been less than satisfactory. My dealings with Vodafone as a new customer have hardly turned me into a customer advocate (give it time, I guess) and, whilst I won’t bore you with the various trials and tribulations (you can get an idea from my Twitter feed), the various phone calls and tweets I have exchanged with the company over the last couple of days have made me think about the role that social media can play in customer service.

The first thing I will say is that, despite the problems they’ve had in the past, the @vodafoneuk Twitter account is impressive. They answer tweets in good time and are always helpful and friendly. They also work long hours and are available throughout the weekend as well, unlike certain other telecoms companies (yes O2, I’m looking at you!).

But, having said that, when I came to actually trying to get things done, it was only through a call to the contact centre that things were accomplished (albeit slowly and painfully, but that is another post for another time).

So the question is, can customer service via social media ever really be effective in getting problems solved, or will it always just exist more as an advanced information distribution service? When the Twitter rep did want to try and check the status of my activation, I was forced to use good old email to get in touch (an email that received no response I hasten to add), so back to the same old problems.

So how did my experience via social media make me feel as a customer? On the one hand, I was impressed by their speedy responses and genuine desire to help. But once I had got over that surprise, all I really wanted at the end of the day was a resolution to my problem and this they couldn’t help with.

I appreciate this is early days for companies like Vodafone and that many are still feeling their way, but I can’t help but think that brands might be setting themselves up for a fall. After all, Vodafone are able to manage the relatively small number of enquiries they receive through Twitter at present, but what happens when or if numbers start to skyrocket. In terms of the investment, is this a drain on resource for Vodafone or are they seeing reduced call volumes as a result? Customer service is always a big resource hog for businesses and I wonder whether social media helps or hinders that?

The fact is that the ‘customer service through social media’ issues aren’t ones that brands can easily ignore. If you have a presence on social media as a business then your customers or clients will get in touch with you to discuss customer-service-type enquiries whether you like it or not. Is there a way to do this effectively or are we all just delaying the inevitable call?

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

Sometimes the “PR industry” really frustrates me. It annoys me when I see discussion about whether PR should get involved in digital or social media (yes, this still happens) and also about PR’s role in SEO. But, whilst all these might be vaguely tolerable, it’s utterly ridiculous that we are still having discussions about AVE.

Not only is the AVE debate still going on, but it is being debated by some of the biggest names in PR. Recently some of PR’s bigwigs met in Barcelona under the auspices of the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication to agree a set of evaluation and measurement ‘principles’. The so-called Barcelona Principles were agreed as follows:

  • Goal setting and measurement are important
  • Media measurement requires quantity and quality
  • AVEs are not the value of public relations
  • Social media can and should be measured
  • Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results (outputs)
  • Organisational results and outcomes should be measured whenever possible
  • Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

I’ve not really got an issue with any of these. However, they are all pretty basic and obvious. Also, ambiguous wording such as “results and outcomes should be measured whenever possible” gives PRs an easy opt-out. The principles don’t add anything to the debate and don’t push the boundaries of what forward thinking PRs and agencies already know.

The mention of AVE embodies this. Don’t get me wrong. I know there are lots of PR agencies out there that are still using AVE (I’m proud to say we are not one of them). And I know there are even more clients out there demanding it.

But AVE is a dinosaur and by still debating it and talking about it, we are merely giving it more awareness. In a digital world, AVE has absolutely no place (I personally doubt it had much place in a non-digital world either, but I wasn’t around then!). The other horrible thing about AVE is that it diminishes the role and power of PR. It reduces the power and raison d’être of PR to a mere ‘cost-effective way to do advertising’. Incredibly, by using AVE, all PRs are archiving is ‘doing-down’ their role in the marketing mix.

So whilst I can’t argue against the principle which declares that AVEs are not the value of public relations, it’s just sad that the conversation hasn’t moved on from this point yet, at least at an ‘industry body’ level.

picture credit

The PR industry is used to the term of newsjacking – the idea of taking something that is on the national news agenda (e.g. the budget, new legislation or even a event like the World Cup) and using it to get coverage or mentions for a brand. It’s a tried and tested tactic and can get good, short-term, results.

Newsjacking is equally effective in a social media world however and with the luxury of not being dependent on third parties (e.g. journalists), it means that brands (or anyone in fact) can be a little bit more creative.

The strategy is the same. Take an event, issue, news agenda item that is gripping the socialmediasphere, add in some creativity, seed it effectively and you have a recipe for creating the next viral hit.

It’s actually interesting that brands aren’t jumping on the social media newsjacking bandwagon more frequently. There was a good article recently on this by James Whately. When the ITV HD TV channel accidentally switched to an advert during England’s World Cup game, viewers missed a crucial goal. James suggested that this was a fantastic opportunity for Hyundai - the brand whose advert was shown – to create some buzz around the unfortunate incident. I mentioned in the comments that this was in fact similar to a viral video released by Tic Tac following a similar incident earlier last year.

Of course there is a reputation issue here too. It’s not only brands that can newsjack in a social media world. Anyone can create entertaining or thought-provoking content and sometimes this can cause a brand reputation issue. But it can also provide a potential opportunity for brand as well, with grassroots content generation.

I was lucky enough to be at Wimbledon on Thursday and witnessed the end of the marathon Isner/Mahut match out on court 18. I was therefore intrigued to see today a video of the match which has been edited to show a box of Weetabix in Isner’s bag at the end. Whether by the brand or not, it’s quick, entertaining example of digital newsjacking.

So what are the things brands (or non-brands) need to consider when newsjacking on social media:

  1. Be quick – as with all newsjacking, time is of the essence
  2. Be creative – as with all content designed for social media success, the more creative, the better
  3. Seed effectively – seeding content is also important – remember that the majority of information that is shared on social networks actually originates from traditional media sources
  4. Monitor – keep an eye on where the content is being shared, talked about and maybe even reworked
  5. Consider a follow-up – often the problem with newsjacking campaigns is that they are short-lived. Consider ways to lengthen the effect of any activity

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

If there’s one thing that really annoys on Twitter, it’s automated tweets. You know the ones:

  • xx has uploaded a video on YouTube
  • xx has checkedin on Foursquare
  • xx has added xx film to their Lovefilm account

It’s lazy and annoying.

I’m not saying some these updates won’t be of interest to your followers. But all of them, really? If there is something you really want to share, then take an additional 2 minutes, log into Tweetdeck and pen a 140 update that adds some value.

Social media is a highly personal medium and doesn’t suit automation at all.

I blame the brands too. I can see why they think it’s beneficial to get users to spam their followers with updates on their latest film choices, shopping basket selections or YouTube uploads. But more often than not, it ends up frustrating – hardly a good brand association.

Increasingly it happens by accident (again, I blame the brands). You forget that you joined your Twitter/Facebook account to your Lovefilm/YouTube/Foursquare account and it happens automatically, just at the point when you decide to upload 50 videos, and automatically inflict your followers with a stream of useless, context-less drivel.

Sharing branded content is important to companies using social media marketing. But the sharing has to be earned to be effective. Sending automated updates isn’t clever and doesn’t demonstrate an eagerness to share, just forgetfulness. There are no shortcuts.

PR Week reports today that legendary IT journalist and editor of CIO magazine, Martin Veitch, is leaving journalism for the verdant pastures of PR (with Bite).

This follows on the back of some other notable moves in a similar direction recently.

So what does this mean about the state of IT journalism and, indeed, the attraction of PR (an industry which many of these movers no doubt bemoaned on a regular basis!)?

Media woes

The problems the media face have been well documented by myself and others for a long time and need no re-evaluation. And the IT sector is no different, especially when we consider the more traditional ‘print’ titles. After the demise of IT Week in 2008, Computing has recently gone fortnightly and even Computer Weekly has made redundancies (not very insightful, but I also think the continually decreasing quality of the paper used by Computer Weekly is a bad sign…!).

The changing face of PR

And whilst the future looks less and less rosy on one side of the pond, PR perhaps offers an increasingly attractive proposition. I covered an article in the Independent last week which reported the appointment of a number of key journalists by Edelman recently. As the article states:

“In generating their own video and text-based digital content on behalf of clients, [PRs/their clients] are not only taking the bread from the table of a weakened advertising sector but encroaching onto the old territory of television and press companies.”

I took a bit of a (deliberately) controversial line of argument suggesting that journalists were therefore not really needed by PRs anymore and, whilst this is certainly not entirely the case, what it perhaps shows (as I stated in the comments) is that some of those traditional skills that journalists have always had (ability to craft a story, find an angle, write great content) are increasingly being needed by PRs.

It’s therefore no surprise to see Bite and Edelman creating ‘client strategy’ and ‘chief content officer’ roles for ex-journos [and it's certainly not the first and/or last time a journalist will turn to PR]. For those of us living and breathing this ‘new PR’ already, the question will be, whether hiring journalists is the way for PR agencies to go, and/or whether there are new skills that we all need to be learning to put us in the best position to help our clients enter into this brave new world!

picture credit

Related Posts with Thumbnails