Do You Really Know a Rat’s Ass About PR?
Apparently Markus Merz doesn’t. Have you seen the BS blog post from earlier today (I guess technically yesterday at this hour)? Give it a whirl:
Big Questions that PR People are Losing Sleep Over
Damn, I’m getting sick of people not in PR acting like they know what the hell the problems with PR are. I especially get a kick out of tech bloggers and the like running their mouths about it, because it’s usually of the “don’t think you can influence me” variety. If only that were true….
First let me respond to a few points from Merz:
“Public Relations is still centered around the old gatekeeper role model because classic media works as a so called ‘relevance filter’ and like every filter can be manipulated in many ways. Offer free travel, transportation, invitations, etc. and you will most likely get friendly news coverage.”
If you’re offering a bunch of free shit, because that’s the only way you can get your clients coverage, you’re not in PR… frankly, you’re in marketing. That’s not what PR’s about.
And by the way Markus, new media still works as a “relevance filter.” We just have different ways of measuring it.
Sidenote: Have I ever mentioned that people who quote Wikipedia as though it’s some legitimate source make me cringe?
“Gatekeeping is dead in the blogosphere.”
Ummm, no dear… it’s not.
Just going from the poorly-sourced definition you chose to use for “gatekeeping,” it’s quite relevant to bloggers today. Why:
1. Companies still have to actively decide to disseminate the vast majority of important news. Bloggers don’t have a magic sixth sense…. except for me (my sense for detecting bullshit on the Web). Yes it’s true that some news comes out on its own… that’s always been the case through things like investigative reporting.
2. Bloggers still choose which sources to use (although an alarming number don’t bother citing sources at all - gotta love that).
3. Bloggers still choose what stories to cover and what stories to ignore.
“In fact there are those out there that say that ‘traditional PR is dying.” (in the author’s defense, this isn’t his direct quote)
Yes, but those people are either
A) Idiots
or
B) Only saying that traditional PR is dying, because it gives them an opportunity to hype up some piece of crap idea, service, or I don’t know… template (*cough) that they’re hoping will carve a nice little name for themselves in a niche.
“He is saying that there are three main fears inside the PR industry:
- What are the top blogs that are most relevant for client X?
- Finding the coverage that matters and ignoring the noise.
- What about metrics? What is the influence of this blogger, or the circulation of that one?”
First of all, since when are simple questions like #1 “fears?” But let’s go ahead and address those fears, questions, or whatever you want to call them:
1. This isn’t terribly hard to figure out. Despite their (many) faults, this is exactly why things like Technorati exist… and Google blog search. While they’re useless as far as real blog rankings go, they’re still an alright tool for finding niche-related blogs. And fortunately they’re easy enough for any idiot to use. Type in your client’s niche keywords. Click your mouse. Poof! It’s like magic! Relevant blogs! As for the “top” blogs, spending five minutes on each one will tell you that (for example, you’ll see how many posts they’ve made in the past specifically related to your client’s business, you’ll see how long the blog’s been around, by viewing comments you’ll get a good feel for whether they’ll reach your end target audience, etc.). Then just do a simple link search on Google and voila! You’ll see whether they’re influential enough to bring in a lot of natural looking links or not (meaning their stories are more likely to be spread around virally by “lesser” bloggers in the niche). Or if your client knows anything at all about doing business on the Web, they can likely already tell you which blogs are the most important to their niche.
2. Again, why is this difficult? Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never had a problem knowing if a mention is good for a client or just “noise.” Before you take on a client, you’d damned well better know what those quality sites, blogs, and other outlets are, so you know what to keep your eyes peeled for. What’s the real issue? If it’s a forum / social network discussion, take a look at who’s involved. If it’s on Twitter, who the hell cares? If you’re worried about spam blogs (splogs) versus legitimate niche blogs, you can usually tell that just by the link tracking (if the blog is something like reakmdnfas.blogspot.com, chances are you don’t need to bother checking it out).
3. You can’t measure “influence” in any kind of publication or other outlet, so this “fear” is nothing new. As for “circulation,” can you get exact numbers? Not unless it’s a site offering that info in an advertising kit or something (while they’re not as likely to have media kits for blogs, plenty list stats info to sell more ad space). But do we really need stats like that? No. You shouldn’t care about how many eyes a specific blog can get your story in front of half as much as how many smaller bloggers tend to virally spread those stories (aim for the “big fish” no matter what kind of readership they have, and you’ll get a viral trickle-down effect through smaller blogs). Again, to identify blogs with that kind of immeasurable “influence,” try some of the things I mentioned in response to point #1.
Dear Markus Merz
(Note: Read the post linked from the top, or this may not all make sense.)
- Yes, blogs do have a gatekeeper function. You “chose” to write about an industry you apparently know nothing about. You “chose” to spread ignorance.
- Yeah, they can, but most don’t… although it would be damn funny if this “complaint post” went viral and bit you on the ass even just an itty bitty bit, wouldn’t it?
- Reputation management is still a PR task, but should only be managed by folks with more than two brain cells to rub together.
A really good PR representative has always known when to start/stop reacting in public or how to find a behind-the-scenes solution (but thanks for telling us what we do for a living… you never know when we might forget).
Researching before running your mouth on your blog based on stereotypes and perceived problems from an outsider is time consuming and an art… but as a blogger, it’s your job (just in case you needed a reminder too).
Don’t ask stupid questions unless you have something of value to add in relation to solving the problems at hand (you didn’t). And Markus… let’s just say basic search would benefit more than PR folks (you might have learned that quite a few PR pros are way ahead of you, and those that aren’t are so far gone that they wouldn’t likely even know of Performancing or your blog - so your little pearls of wisdom won’t have much impact).
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed to stay on top of future rants, interviews, or PR and social media tid bits.
Comments
Whew! Jennifer, how do you REALLY feel about Markus’ post?
That said…yes, yes, and yes to all the above. I actually read the “blogosphere” post that Markus refers to and came away shaking my head — and created a response to that, both as a comment and as my own blog posting. The particular issue that struck me, however? If top concerns of “most” senior PR folk are all blog-related, as the original author states, then this field is in a sorrier state than even I ever imagined.
We already have a reputation for being single dimensional — veritable pitching machines. And to suggest that the focus has shifted from how to most effectively pitch your hometown daily to how to do so with blogs just supports that notion.
It’s not just about knowing which blogs are key to your clients and how to pitch them, yadda, yadda, yadda. It’s about understanding which media channels are most appropriate for meeting your clients’ goals and objectives. How to position your clients in ways that are, dare I say, authentic and relevant to the person you’re pitching, whether an old-fashioned reporter or a blogger. How to design PR programs that make the most of traditional and new.
In short, what should be keeping PR execs awake at night are bigger picture strategic issues, not nuts and bolts of the tactic du jour.
Very well said Sally. It’s always refreshing hearing from folks who understand that new media / social media aren’t “replacing” traditional PR, but supplementing it as a part of a larger strategy.
Seeing comments, blog posts, etc. from more “enlightened” professionals goes a long way in giving me hope for the rest of the PR industry (hope that once they’re done being googly-eyed for things like blogging and social media, they’ll remember their primary responsibility is to their clients and what works for them).
“Reputation management is still a PR task, but should only be managed by folks with more than two brain cells to rub together.”
Hi Jennifer, couldn’t have said it better but I doubt the ‘management’ part of it a little bit. Smells like antagonism when talking about the PR industry :-)
Then my advice would be to get more acquainted with real PR folks, and not just the sometimes “over-zealous,” or overly-conniving minority that tend to give the rest of us a bad name. Letting them speak for all in the PR profession would be like me judging you and all other bloggers based on someone like John Chow…. ewwwww. ;)
There are to many PR Jennies and Cindies out there to believe that it is an easy task “to get more acquainted with real PR folks” with ‘real’ standing for ‘excellent’.
I am still happy that you jumped on that freebie hook :-)
OK, back to subject.
> Yes, blogs do have a gatekeeper function.
But the blogosphere and the Internet doesn’t. I am sure you know what I am talking about.
> Yeah, they can, but most don’t…
> (Edited for better understanding) Yeah, blog posts can spread like a wildfire, but most don’t…
Just to turn the argument around: May I remind you of the Walmart/Edelman case. This ’stealth PR stunt’ story was viral by construction and executed by ‘real PR folks’.
> Researching before running your mouth … it’s your job.
No Jennifer. My blog post is a call for discussion and basically has three parts:
- Preamble: “the gatekeeping theory is old media news only”
- Thesis: “Gatekeeping is dead in the blogosphere” Which mainly contains quotes from another blog.
- Comment: “Don’t ask for ‘the relevance of a blog! Monitor the search sources instead.”
Nothing worthwhile is easy. ;)
Using pronouns is evil.
I guess it’s a good thing this is just my “fun,” casual, conversational blog then, isn’t it? There’s no need to go all “grammar snob.”
The only way you can say the blogosphere doesn’t have a gatekeeper function is if you’re referring to the fact that you can find all sides of issues covered somewhere. That’s the same case with more traditional media… the fact that you have to put more work into finding it doesn’t change that fact. Bloggers rarely cover all sides of an issue on an individual basis, just like other news outlets, and readers will gravitate to what they agree with and what they trust no matter the outlet. Bloggers decide what people will see as much as any PR folks, company execs, or members of the traditional media.
I don’t think I’ve ever condoned Edelman in any of their PR 2.0 (god, I hate that term) snafus. The fact that a firm is large doesn’t mean they’re qualified in online PR, as they repeatedly demonstrate. I fully lump them into that over-zealous and overly-conniving group, worrying more about making a name for themselves in the Web 2.0 world than doing what’s necessarily best for their clients (I wouldn’t consider that real PR by any stretch of the imagination).
Jenn, in case you missed it, Ira Basen left a great comment on the PRC post Objectivity in public relations and journalism: essential for the credibility of both professions, and for different reasons. I think a lot of it applies here in regards to the need to be “fair and balanced.” I’ve excerpted the most relevant parts.
“…. I have no illusions about journalistic “objectivity”, and I understand that journalism today faces many serious challenges as a result of more than a decade of cutbacks and demands to “do more with less”. Under-resourced newsrooms are full of young, inexperienced, over-worked journalists for whom PR people are an indispensable resource. This has helped shift the balance of power in favour of PR. And with great power comes great responsibility. While some PR people might take advantage of a reporters’ lack of knowledge and time to give their client a positive “spin”, I have no doubt that most PR practitioners continue to operate honourably and ethically when dealing with the press. Public relations is an essential part of journalism. It always has been, and always will be…. I remain uncomfortable with the use of the word “objectivity”, even in a relative sense, when describing the work that PR people do. And at a time when the word is falling out of favour in journalistic circles (to be replaced with words like “fairness” and “balance”), I’m not sure why PR people would want to grab this falling torch. Journalists don’t expect PR people to be objective, but as Toni says, “so what”? Journalists expect the information they get from PR practitioners to be accurate and honest, but they also understand that the PR person is a paid advocate, and has a vested interest in how the story ultimately gets written. Can this really be squared with “objectivity”?
No self-respecting journalist needs to be told by a PR person that they should be making more phone calls, and though suggestions are always welcome, they shouldn’t be relying on PR people to tell them who they should be calling. The failure to vigorously pursue different sides of a story (which happens far too often) is a failure of journalism that neither can nor should be corrected by public relations. As one senior PR executive in Toronto told me in an interview, “you don’t have to just buy what I say. You can talk to whomever you want. My job is to make the story from my perspective as clear as possible, and that’s really it. It’s not my job to say the story begins and ends with what I’ve told you. It’s not my fault if you don’t make another phone call”. Most journalists understand and accept this as the basis of their relationship with PR. The attempt by public relations to improve its relationship with journalists or other “interlocutors” by appearing more “objective” is probably unnecessary, and likely doomed to failure.”
Judy: Great comment/quote.
I agree esp. with the “I have no doubt that most PR practitioners continue to operate honorably and ethically when dealing with the press” part.
Jennifer, let me show you a small case study which shows that classical PR is not necessarily needed and that the positive spin comes from a blogger (me), the marketing people and many collaborative users and follow-ups in the social media sector.
I bought a little mini-tripod and published an article about the Gorillapod. Then I opened a Flickr group Gorillapod Love and did some simple promotion to kick it off. I sent a mail to the manufacturer Joby. The reaction from the marketing was prompt: They offered a special Gorillapod Love coupon code. It started with a 10% rebate, since 2007 the coupon code brings in a 15% discount. The group has 644 members right now, contains 1,395 photos, offers a valuable forum and is linked to from the Joby homepage.
Interesting in this case is that Joby has absolutely no control about the whole process. Instead the company can only react by offering great service, support and nice products (which they do as can be seen from user reactions).
I believe that it was crucial for the success of the group and the company that it was no PR stunt but an organic process made possible by the existence of social media itself.
I would love to hear your reactions from a PR point of view.
As you pointed out yourself Markus, the reaction was from Marketing; not PR folks. It’s not quite the same thing (PR folks shouldn’t be going around offering sales-oriented incentives / rewards). Or are you saying that a marketing reaction shows there’s no need for PR? I wonder where those marketing folks would be hiding, and who the company would turn to, if it were negative attention they were getting… if PR folks suddenly went poof because people mistakenly believed we were irrelevant in some way.
Most word-of-mouth marketing is organic (and I’m not quite sure why it sounds like you would consider anything non-organic to be a “stunt” - not true). It’s great they got exposure. But as you said, they didn’t play a part. Does that mean there’s no need for traditional PR? Absolutely not. 644 members is great, but it’s a far cry from the exposure they would get from something like major media and highly targeted coverage on a regular basis through a strategic, long-term PR campaign.
I’m not saying bloggers have no role. They have a very similar role to journalists in that they choose what to cover, they choose what to say, and they control their own message and agenda to their specific audience - they never have to simply publish what a PR person gives them. That’s not really anything new from old media… just a new platform. The vast majority of the public still doesn’t use blogs, and frankly traditional media still caries more trust for most, meaning touting new media as a PR / old media replacement (which quite a few have done recently) is beyond premature. You may have been able to reach a certain sector of their audience / market, but you could never reach all of it - something PR people have to attempt to do, at least on a greater scale.
You go gurl! Personally, I do a lot to monitor my company’s online reputation, as well as use other ways to measure impact beyond eyeballs. Most specifically, I’ve been looking at analytics for referring site visits, as well as possible sales leads through PR.
Thanks for your impressive response to Markus’ post.