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!).

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

There’s an rare article about PR in today’s Independent, which lifts the lid on the ‘new PR’:

PRs, who once had to go through the prism of journalism to convey their messages to a mass audience, are increasingly confident in circumventing traditional media altogether. In generating their own video and text-based digital content on behalf of clients, they 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.

Despite much of the article reading like an advert for Edelman (this line for example: “Other PR companies acknowledge the boldness of Edelman’s play”), it nicely recaps the position that PR finds itself in and the potential opportunity that many of us feel exists.

I bang on about this potential opportunity the industry has to really take control in this democratised and fragmented media world we find ourselves in. At a time when brands are quickly waking up to the fact that the ‘push’ marketing of yesterday just doesn’t cut it anymore and that creating intimate relationships directly with end users is not only possible, but is quickly becoming vital for brands.

It’s an exciting time.

Bit delayed with this one for a combination of holiday and that crazy bank holiday thang of trying to fit a week’s worth of work into just four days!

But, I’m famous! My first ever letter to PR Week has been published.

It’s all on the back of #wolfstargate (you can read more here) and, as the image above (courtesy of my iPhone) isn’t the best, here is the letter in full:

The whole Wolfstar/Paratus/Vodafone incident leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It seems there is quickly becoming a ‘them and us’ mindset in the social media agency versus PR agency debate.

I can see exactly why the ‘social media specialists’ are keen to propagandise that the entire PR industry doesn’t ‘get’ social media, but it’s a short-sighted and shallow argument.

In such a new discipline, mistakes will always be made (by all types of agencies) but, for those of us who believe PR specialists have the underlying strategic and tactical skills to provide effective social media counsel, the future surely seems to lie with agencies that can provide a holistic and integrated approach.

Some agencies in the PR industry might still be catching up, but it won’t take long, so expect to see more big social media wins from more ‘traditional’ agencies soon.

Thoughts? Comments? Violent disagreements?

This is a post that I wrote earlier this week and that was originally published on Reputation Online

Infighting looks set to break out again amongst PR agencies. A blog post late last week from Wolfstar PR’s Jed Hallam cast a (perhaps envious and rather harsh) stone at Paratus Communications – the PR agency that has (to the industry’s surprise) recently acquired the full Vodafone UK PR brief.

Jed’s beef is with a series of emails that were sent by Paratus on behalf of Vodafone yesterday all in the name of blogger outreach:

“Today the entire Wolfstar office has had two spam emails from Vodafone’s new PR agency. Now, we’re a pretty online social bunch, as you’d expect from a public relations consultancy that’s got a reputation for doing online PR. But, even if you’re generous, there’s only really two or three of us that might cover a mobile comms story. And you’d be better off pitching us by approaching us personally, not BCCd into a humungous list.”

Adam from Paratus has this morning posted a response in a move that could have even come from Wolfstar’s own ‘101 guide to social media crisis comms’; it’s a good reply – quick, transparent and honest.

Now, I’m not going to cast further accusations. But, I do think this incident raises two interesting points about the nature of social media outreach and the potential reputation issues this can create for agencies and their brands.

Firstly, the ‘leg-work’ that agencies do is now totally open to scrutiny. In the good ol’ days of traditional media relations, PRs in general had a pretty bad relationship with journalists, who accused them of spamming on a regular basis. But this bad feeling simmered below the surface and, perhaps because of this, agencies continued to enter into bad practices.

The ‘democratisation’ of media changes this. Bloggers and ’social media influencers’ aren’t afraid to name and shame, and their power is potentially venomous.

Secondly, as Jed alludes to, this storm in a tea-cup will probably be taken up by the so-called ’social media agencies’ that feel they have another nice example of why PR agencies aren’t suited to this new digital world. But the fact remains that PR agencies have the skills and experience to really ‘get’ this new digital space.

Yes, some PR agencies ’spam’ journalists. Some agencies (of all flavours) will still try and spam using social media channels. But, the sad fact is that they will all eventually become unstuck. There are plenty of PR agencies out there (and I have no reason to think that Paratus aren’t one of them) that have been doing it right and are still doing it right and are taking every effort to ensure that the reputation issues the PR industry faced with journalists, isn’t repeated in the social space. I’ve argued before that I think the industry needs to work together to combat these issues, not turn on itself and backstab.

We are all learning. We will (even Wolfstar) make mistakes. But agencies, more than ever, need to think before they act, both to preserve their client’s reputation and that of themselves.

If there is one issue that is almost guaranteed to raise its head every month or so, it is PR spam. I’m sure it has always been thus and I’m sure it will continue to be…

Yesterday, Business Zone editor Dan Martin blogged about a couple of PRs that pitched irrelevant information to him, failing to realise that his specialism was small businesses. At almost the same time, I saw tweets from journalists Sally Whittle and Adrian Bridgwater similarly moaning about pitches they had also recently received.

Dan mentions the Inconvenient PR Truth campaign that Real Wire launched earlier in the year. At the time, I resisted the temptation to blog about the campaign as I wasn’t really sure about my reaction to both the issue and the campaign itself.

But, I’ve been mulling it all over and think there are three key points worth making. I also think the comparison with other marketing genres is interesting and pertinent for example, email marketing – another area where spam is seen to be a big problem.

1. Pitching isn’t always as easy as it might seem – I’m prepared to get slated here, but pitching and targeting isn’t always as easy as it might seem. Media databases and distribution services (like Real Wire) in many ways make it seem too easy for PRs, but they also make us lazy. Factor in the pressure from colleagues and clients to get results and you have a situation where sending out press releases to a distribution list is as simple as a click of a button. This isn’t targeting. Targeting is much much harder and takes a lot of research and understanding. This isn’t an excuse, it is a recognition that this is a specialist technique that needs care and attention. It’s the same with email marketing; it’s easy to blast out an email to a distribution list, but it is much harder to segment your list based on user behaviour, it takes time. And the fact with both is that taking the care and effort will always bring better results.
2. Spam will always exist - many journalists rely on PR a lot (as a PR, you quickly get to know the publications and journalists that will simply copy and paste anything they are given!). That’s not to say they should just suck it up and cope with it, but there will inevitably be good and bad PRs (like there are good and bad journalists). This will never change. Similarly there will always be companies that spam using email marketing, it’s one of those things that are annoying but we just have to get on and deal with.
3. Education is vital - combining both these points, there is a genuine need for education in the industry, to promote best practice. We work with an email marketing company that works tirelessly with organisations like the Direct Marketing Association amongst others to promote best practice. I don’t think the same is really true in the PR industry and I’m not sure that it was an outcome of the Inconvenient Truth campaign, but perhaps should have been.

Conclusion: let’s be positive

So what is the answer? I genuinely think there is an opportunity for the industry as a whole, perhaps in combination with journalists, to share positive examples of how this process should work from a best practice standpoint. We are all quick to talk from lofty, strategic positions, but when do we ever talk about more tactical processes? Journalists too are quick to complain about bad practices, but if we don’t ever hear about good examples, how are those lower down in agencies or in-house meant to learn.

Yes, this should probably all happen internally to an extent, but it obviously isn’t happening everywhere so, as an industry, don’t we have a responsibility to share and learn together?

picture credit

Argh, yes I know, I’ve been very lax about blogging over here – indeed anywhere – recently. A combination of lots of work (that’s a good thing!), busy social thingys (get me!), sun, Wimbledon, sun, Wimbledon, has meant that I’ve been neglecting the old blog. But don’t fear, I’m still committed – you wont find me drifting of into the more trendy ‘lifecasting’ (don’t get me started – another post for another time).

But today, an article has been nagging me and I feel compelled to rant comment. I know I really shouldn’t rise to the bait but here goes!

You may have read – in the business press, no less – that Morgan Stanley’s European Media Analysts have today released a ‘report’ revealing the media habits of the teenage generation. So far, so good.

However, the ‘research note’ was written by Matthew Robson – a 15-year-old intern (think work experience for son of a director) at the investment firm. However, this small fact didn’t stop it being labelled by Edward Hill-Wood, head of the research team as “one of the clearest and most thought-provoking insights we have seen”.

And the traditional media have gone ballistic, with the news even reaching the front page of the FT.

So what does the report/note/homework say?

You can read it in full here (PDF), but it essentially covers the following:

- Matthew UK teenagers don’t listen to the radio
- They don’t buy newspapers (duh)
- They use PCs rather than Macs because it is what they are used to (like most of the population then)
- Facebook is their network of choice. They don’t use Twitter much as they prefer to send SMS direct to friends
- They ignore advertising unless its impressive (think viral)

My problem with all this is that it’s only one kid’s view. I don’t have a problem with that per se, but it’s being touted around as the latest and greatest insight into the youth of today – and that’s just wrong. This from Mr Hill-Wood again: “We’ve had dozens and dozens of fund managers, and several CEOs, e-mailing and calling all day.’ [I only hope Matthew was the one that answered the call]

And part of me is jealous – this is great fantastic PR for Morgan Stanley. It makes them seem ‘down with the kids’. But it’s also lazy. Julien Rossi, also from Morgan Stanley says that it’s the starting point for a ‘debate’. For me there are better starting points out there – both qualitative and quantitative.

So I’m not saying this insight is wrong – we just don’t know that it’s right.

And I’m not just cross that it’s anti-Twitter; it’s widely known that the average Twitter user is about 30 years old. For me, that is not a problem. I don’t really want to chat on Twitter with 15 year-olds and I certainly don’t want to target teenagers for any of my clients!

Insight and knowledge about your target audience (whoever they might be) is vital – it’s the only first step in any ‘effective’ marketing, PR, social media etc. strategy. But it has to be qualitative and quantitative otherwise it’s just a stab in the dark.

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to make the online PR debate organised by NMK last night, but I’ve been following the fallout today on Twitter and entering into the fray myself, as well as catching up on the blog posts that are now starting to trickle through.

It looks like it was a good event (as Ian’s always are) that tossed around some interesting arguments.

For me though, I get slightly annoyed by the need to define everything. Often we go out of our way to define something which then loses its meaning or is interpreted in a different way. It’s all just semantics really.

And the jargon of new media certainly falls into this space. It is why PR is so synonymous with media relations and journalism. Why SEO and social media seemingly also exist (or feel they need to exist) within their own spheres.

I’m not saying that specialisms aren’t important but that rather than PR v. SEO v. digital etc., we should be looking at the wider, bigger picture. I’m sure this is how many of our (as agencies) clients see things; the bottom line is everything for them. [And I note that it was pretty agency-weighted last night]

This is what we are attempting to do more and more at Wildfire. We are seeing the blurring of disciplines and are also identifying areas where the traditioanl media aspect of PR is dying very quickly. Our venture into new realms isn’t driven by shiny new toys and networks, but by an attempt to get results for our clients and influence the publics they are attempting to reach.

Now to me, this feels very much like a definition of PR. But, I am aware that it is equally true of other disciplines, e.g. advertising, as this Ad Age article demonstrates.

One thing underlines all these tactics though, and that is establishing a message and conveying this to an audience – and this is something that PR professionals are usually very well placed to do. The conveying might be through traditional media, it might be through engagement or conversation on social networks or it might involve search engines and advertising.

As a PR (and marketing) professional (caveat: who is and has been immersed in digital and social media), I am excited and thrilled by the opportunity the internet and digital affords us practionners and our clients or businesses.It’s refreshing to be able to knock out the middle man, to ‘go direct’.

And in order to achieve this effectively, the more tools we have in our tool box, the more options we have and the more potential we can achieve.

The future is bright. It might not be PR as we know it. It might not be called PR. It might even be called social media and be carried out by ‘social media experts’

But my bet is that no one group will dominate and that there will be plenty of new tricks to learn and plenty for everyone to practice.

picture credit

Update:

Lots of chatter about this – here is a quick round-up:
Lloyd Gofton

Peter Hay (PR Week)

Jo-Rosie Haffenden

Rowan Stanfield

Roger Warner

Jed Hallam

Ian Delaney

Steven Waddington

Gerel Orgil

Drew Benvie

Oh dear Amazon.

If you were out of the country offline over the Easter weekend, you might’ve missed the latest Twitter-crazed furore focusing on a suspicious lack of Amazon ranking points for lesbian and gay literature on the site.

It didn’t take long for #amazonfail to be trending on Twitter. And, a few hours later the bloggers launched in, followed by the traditional media, followed by commentator after commentator after commentator. Social media ‘experts’, activists and the like were all there having their say.

In the end, it was all a bit of a huff and a puff about nothing. It was a technical hitch and everything is being sorted out. Phew. An Amazon spokesperson had a tail between legs moment:

“This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection,” wrote Drew Herdener, Amazon’s director of communications.

“Many books have now been fixed and we’re in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.”

It is an incredible episode for the darling of the the 2.0 crowd. And there are a few interesting takeaways:

1. Amazon were woefully slow in responding
2. The web doesn’t sleep – ok, it was a Easter weekend, but bloggers et al don’t play by those rules
3. Bloggers etc. don’t check facts – 1+1 = 3 online and anything goes until the ‘media’ or the company involved wakes-up
4. Your digital channels have to be set up and ready to go BEFORE this happens
5. Monitoring tools must be in place and active and being monitored by someone at all times

Will Amazon survive? Of course. Will this have hit their credibility? Possibly. Will they have learnt some important lessons? Definitely.