OK so since I pressed "Publish" on my last post on this matter, there’s been some additional commentary I thought was worth following up on.
Pull back from the picture
The one-and-only Mr. Scoble weighed in on the matter of "PR Secrets". As with Monsieur Le Meur’s post, Mr. Scoble makes some interesting points, but again these people are talking about PR as if:
a) It’s only concerned with Web 2.0 and the online world – it’s not
b) PR is press relations – it’s not
There’s a couple of points I’d call out:
PR now stands for “Professional Relationships.”
No, Robert, PR stands for PUBLIC Relations, it’s about communicating effectively with ALL individuals, groups and communities relevant to a company, group or individual. While I know there’s a lot of kudos for inventing new words, acronyms and terms (think "Jumping the Shark", Smeedia , etc.) the real definition of PR is fine thanks.
Robert makes a lot of sense, but again, it’s a partial commentary that ignores much of what PR people do day-in, day-out, albeit there’s some good advice around online communications.
The reality is that PR people are going to have to continue washing and dressing and going out into the real world for some time to come.
You don’t need PR at all if you have a great product.
Oh my word. Oh my word. <sigh>
Some PR advice
What’s the issue with "targets"?
Todd Defren has a post related to Mr. La Meur’s point on the use of the term Targets.
My response? Target, target, target, target, target, target, target, target.
PR has always been about relationship building.
The tools and the nature of how that works may be changing and evolving, but relationships have always been central to great PR. That ain’t new.
So what if people use the word target? Does it really matter. What if we replace targets with Blancmanges? Is that better?
"We’re aiming at a number of blancmanges."
Let’s start calling out some of this stuff folks. Just because it’s "right-on" doesn’t mean it’s true or meaningful.
Just my two cents.