Lauren Vargas takes me to task for my post on PR 2.0.
She believes that what’s required when it comes to PR, and the new brave world of online services, is a revolution:
“While tools may be evolving, a revolution in the communicator’s mindset must first occur. We do not have time for a gradual change of a communication professional’s thinking. Thinking is our problem! However ironic this might be for our creative industry. Part of the existing toolset is the mind and this needs an overhaul. Techniques/tools are a symptom manifested from our thinking. Scary concept.”
Mmmm. I’m still not buying.
The only thing that matters here is your audience. How is your audience finding, sharing and using information? Are they exclusively doing that all online? Maybe some very small sub-niches are doing that, but the majority are not… certainly not yet.
Life is rarely that simple. People still read newspapers, still listen to the radio, watch TV, talk with friends etc. Why are we in such a hurry to throw all that away for the online alternative?
I don’t buy it.
For some PR practitioners there is an increasing online element, for others it’s very limited.
If we can agree that successful communication is about the audience, and I am assuming we can, then our focus should be on building better insights into how those audiences want to communicate. It’s about being pragmatic about how we communicate, whether that is in townhall meetings, direct mail, media relations, face-to-face, by telephone, e-mail, instant messaging – whatever.
Talk of a revolution reminds me of the boom, and the boom failed because people thought of revolution rather than evolution.
Let’s all relax. Let’s focus on getting a better understanding of how our audiences want to communicate and then let’s focus on doing that well.
Rushing off to the shiny new new thing isn’t the answer. Effective, pragmatic communication is all about taking the best of what we have and merging that with best practice online. I realize that this may not by sexy, cool, hip or ground breaking, but it’s likely to be far more effective. That’s what pays the bills.
A revolution in thinking is not a “shiny new thing” — it is getting back-to-basics and the revelation of giving up control to the customer/audience.
Tom,
I agree with you here, coming from a perspective – in agency land – of serving a whole range of different client needs, each with a different audience profile.
Effective communication means connecting with the audience on their terms and across multiple media. The one point where online media do now have pre-eminence is in speed of delivery so if speed is of the essence, then online most likely should have the lead role. That though refers back to your core point – what will work best, in a a given context, for the particular audience being targetted and while it might be the internet for instant update, it may be TV for impact or tone and a Sunday newspaper for analysis.
The same applies for internal communication. The Intranet is a powerful tool but not the solution to every need.
it is always easier to argue for revolution, because it is inherently more interesting. And, it is almost always more true that we see evolution. The same skills and experiences that made for great PR in the past are valid today – great storytelling, understanding of audiences, creativity, rational risks. The speed today is faster; there are more tools, but the change is evolutionary.
Tom, you’re definitely on the right track. I’m a journalist for a major wire news agency and I’m thinking about shifting to PR. Having read quite a bit about PR strategies over the past few weeks, however, I’m really scratching my head. Do these people actually talk to their contacts at real news providers and ask them the best way to communicate with them?
Wire services like Bloomberg, Reuters, Dow Jones and MSN market watch, among others, are still much faster, broader and more reliable than most on-line news services — be it newspaper webistes or bloggers — and have been for decades. How? When we aren’t out pounding the pavement or manning the phones for exclusives, we ask companies and institutions to keep it simple: hold a news conference or send us concise information in a news release or by phone. It’s simple to see why. We anticipate and pre-write the background to any big stories like company results, project launches, or court decisions. The idea of wading through podcasts, video feed or interactive wikipedia definitions (what respectable hack would need these definitions anyway?) on the day of writing is hilarious. If these things contain news, a rep should be spell that out very clearly in a news release, and if not, what’s the point with the extra filler? News releases are still the fastest and clearest way to reach people other than live or broadcast speech.
Of course technological applications have an important place in PR strategy. Corporate websites are a perfect place for blogs and podcasts. Feature or magazine writers might trawl these things for fluff to fill out their stories. TV or radio reporters will also be well-served by having video and voice stream available quickly, perhaps on a web site. That would definitely be a more cool and efficient way to push a message than a battery of 10-minute interviews to a number of stations. Power point emails with graphics and pictures can also spice up news releases. But in most cases, journalists want to be able to ask questions, and no amount of “feed” can replace that.
Finally, as a text journalist, I should say that offering people like me a huge range of choices is missing the point. Remember, journalists are busy people too. We already have a job, and that is sifting through mountains of information to present concise, understandable copy. Does introducing podcasts or blogs improve this process? Certainly, they can provide more information. But what journalists really want is more FOCUSED information, and I’m not sure internet and XML or other gimmicks do anything but put you a click away from something that can be spelled out in a simple news release. Ultimately, it’s the text, the data, and meaningful quotes from policy makers that matter. And getting that to your audience in the simplest format is the best way to go.