So I’ve been trawling through my PR RSS feeds and I’m including some interesting posts below, but before I get to that indulge me for a moment…
Mini rant: What was interesting in reviewing these posts is the fact that the ‘PR 2.0’ moniker continues to live. What is PR 2.0? Should my business card say that I’m a PR 1.0 practitioner, or a PR 1.7.5 practitioner or maybe I can get ahead and say I’m a PR 3.1 practitioner? Here’s a secret truth. There’s no PR 2.0. There’s just PR. PR practice is either good (using the right tools and channels to reach, inform and engage the right audience in the right place at the right time) or bad (not using the right tools and channels etc. etc.). There’s no 2.0. Stop trying to make yourself sound more interesting.
 |
The award for the most obvious statement(s) of the week goes to John Bell at Ogilvy in this PR Week story. I was going to include a quote, but there’s too many. Far too many. Lord. |
 |
Andrew Bruce Smith has an interesting post on whether PR really is about reputation management. |
|
|
Aven Hames has a report on Paul Holmes’ predictions for PR in 2012 – there are some hardy annuals in there (e.g. PR in the executive suite). |
|
|
Paul Seaman shares some interesting thoughts on the Edelman Trust Barometer. You can find more news and views on the Trust Barometer here. |
|
|
Heather Yaxley has kicked off and interesting discussion “Are you too smart to work in PR”. David Reich also chimes in. I’m not  |
|
|
Finally a nice post by Ariel Kouvaras on three things to keep in mind as the tools and channels of PR change and evolve.
|
Enough said.
Murphy's Law 