Murphy's Law

“Nothing will motivate a blogger to link to a particular blog or article, more than content that supports her or his opinion.” – Murphy’s Law’s Law (first in an occasional series)

I, among many others, believe that the changing media landscape will be less revolutionary – certainly in the short-term – than the digerati would have you believe.

There will of course be change, traditional publishers will have to address the growing online audience but newsagents won’t have to find an alternative for those news stands anytime soon.

In support of that view, Andrew Smith quotes a feature from UK trade magazine FullRun which finds that print continues to be the primary medium…

“These days, it’s becoming fashionable for tech PR agencies to quietly criticize clients who display a continuing preference for print-based coverage. But if Thurman and Duncan are correct, it’s hard to criticize
anyone who thinks that print still plays a major role in influencing buyers and significant others.”

This issue is covered in today’s episode of the ever-excellent For Immediate Release. Guest contributor Sallie Goetsch references a survey from Deloitte: The State of the Media Democracy which finds that:

“72 percent enjoy reading magazines over finding the same information online”

 

And in case you think we’re just talking about “old” people, 71% of the young ‘uns agreed….

John Collins points to a related item , Jack Trout has some advice for traditional publishers in Forbes.

“In my estimation, newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post have to pursue a similar “read only at” strategy. They have to work hard at aggressively branding their writers such as The Times‘ Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman. The more powerful these brands become, the more I’ll have to buy the paper or pay to read them on the Internet. Also, the more I’ll be willing to pay for the paper. The sports world understands this. If Tiger Woods isn’t in the tournament, television ratings take a big hit. Why do you think that Los Angeles soccer team paid so much to get Beckham to kick a ball around?”

So there you go.  It appears there’s life in the old dog yet. 

But then I would say that wouldn’t I?

I have to say I often enjoy reading the fine rants and general insults provided by the UK’s (if not the world’s ahem) best PR curmudgeon: “The World’s Leading…”

Today they have an amusing post on how they’re not happy with their growing readership and in fact they are finding that more readers means less quality comments.

They’re evaluating how to “manage” their readership.

Here’s their graph on reader volume:

Graph courtesy of The World’s Leading… [course I didn’t ask]

Of course I don’t condone this sort of thing at all. That goes without saying….

PS:

I read most blogs by RSS, does that mean I’m part of the problem or am I being too literal? 🙂

Picture yourself standing in a public space waiting for a friend to arrive. A complete stranger sidles up beside you.  He catches your attention and whispers: “Buy Tom Murphy Inc. stock, they’ve just won a major contract.” Then just as quickly the stranger moves to the next person beside you and does the same thing.

What are the chances of you buying the stock? Pretty low I’d imagine.

Yet spammers do the online equivalent (500 million times in fairness) and Prime Time Group stock goes through the roof.

I think this gives us three insights:

1) People are less sophisticated online than they are in the real world

2) We treat online information differently

3) I’d question Darwin’s theories on evolution…

So, how does this impact PR? Is education and influence easier online?

Search me.

*This post was originally titled: “Practicing how to get lucky” but the more smutty minded among you have kindly informed me that the title may have suggested content unlikely to be found on a part-time Public Relations blog! 🙂

Success takes time, planning and effort. 

Success rarely falls into your lap.  In the oft-quoted words of Gary Player, “the more I practice, the luckier I get”.

Take Todd Andrlik‘s Power 150 list which has now been adopted by Advertising Age. To make the top 150 you need to be relevant, well read and be willing to invest your time in your blog.

That’s what the folks at the top 150 places have done and those who will hold those placings in the future are doing now.

I come in at #172 and I’ve no quibbles with that – in fact I’m secretly impressed – though obviously that’s less of a secret as of about eleven words ago.

Over the past five years, my blog authorship has gone from manic, to dormant, to “managed” – this is what managed looks like.

The same can be said of good communications.

Good, breakthrough, communication demands effort, planning, time and application.

It’s not easy. It typically involves effort, time and yes sometimes some luck.

We all know that information volumes are continuing to grow.  We all know that PR people are struggling to balance traditional communications activities with new online channels. But that can’t be an excuse for shoddy pitching to blogs or journalists. 

Let’s be honest here, it’s not just about the brave new online world.  This was an issue long before the Internet.

We need to think about our pitching habits.

If, and it’s a big if, the rise of social networking starts to see good professionals being favoured (more than they are already) by bloggers and media, where does it leave you? Is it worth that badly written, badly targeted, irrelevant e-mail to the journalist or blogger?

Which is worse: not pitching or pitching badly?

As we move online, I think the latter is probably more damaging.

Think before you press send.

I think this quote from Herbert Simon, which I have hastily lifted from Mr. Smith’s blog is worth considering today:

“What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.”

Think about it….

MyRagan’s fictional blogger Cassandra has a recent diatribe on her dealings with HR which has generated a lot of discussion on the site.

The post was well timed because the relationship between PR and HR is something I have been thinking about for some time.

However, I think I am coming to it from a different angle! 🙂

PR people often have a unique perspective across the depth and breadth of an organization.  Our work with different divisions and departments gives us excellent visibility and one of the only other departments that has that reach is HR.

Whether working in-house or on the agency side I have always found that HR is a fantastic partner.  Often our objectives are aligned and the HR folks can provide additional perspective that is an incredible asset for any PR practitioner.

The reality today is that people are the number one asset for every company on the planet – and people are at the centre of any successful PR campaign.

For me a strong working relationship with HR is an absolutely non-negotiable for PR. Building that relationship is essential for every PR practitioner whether you are in-house or on the agency side. The benefits, from better insight into internal challenges to increased PR opportunities are worth every minute of your time.

My advice is understand HR’s challenges and objectives.  Align yourself with them and you will create a fantastic environment which will have a positive impact on your internal and external communications programmes.

It’s all about building a strong partnership. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about. 

Sometimes we all get caught up in the excitement and the new smell that emanates from Web 2.0, when we clearly still haven’t mastered Web 1.0 and technology from before 1994.

Given that journalists all around the globe consistently give out about misdirected, irrelevant pitches – we can assume that many PR people and firms don’t have the most rudimentary knowledge of databases, or more concerning don’t have the common sense to read a publication before pitching it.

Stories like this make me despair. [Via The World’s Leading..]

The growth of Web 2.0 and social networking should provide loads of opportunities for more bungles and disasters.

A busy July, what’s that all about? 

Why isn’t everyone off on holidays?

Facebook’s rapid adoption among us old (>30 it appears) people continues.

I enjoyed this WSJ story via Kevin Dugan… the mortification of your old thirty-something boss hanging out in Facebook… of course our revenge is the job interview… hahahaha… or maybe not.

Stuart has a link to a story on out-law.com where an IP expert claims that your employer might be able to take ownership of your social networking identity in certain circumstances:

“If a social networking site is used to hold any information which relates to your employment, if that information is prepared in the course of your employment you are dealing with company property,” said Turner.

[Allan Jenkins has an interesting post on the topic]

Of course we all (should) know by now that information is currency on the Internet and once it’s out there…. (from the WSJ):

Prospective employers also seem to have no compunction conducting searches on job applicants before they call them in for interviews. “We’ll Google them and I know that we’ve done MySpace searches,” says attorney Caroline Kert of prospective hires.

She’s mostly looking for slams against a former employer or exposed proprietary information. She says she’d never hold against applicants something like, say, a photo of them wearing a fur bikini. Good thing. Ms. Kert, a regular at the Burning Man Festival, has pictures of herself sporting just that on MySpace.

Kevin (who I am getting a little worried about) has also mapped the number of connections vs the length of membership between LinkedIn, MyRagan and Facebook – [he’s doing better than me across the board I should add] and it confirms that Facebook has taken off incredibly quickly with us oldies in the past month or so. [No disrespect Kevin 🙂 ]

I think LinkedIn and Facebook serve different masters (though LinkedIn won’t like my synopsis].  At it’s best, LinkedIn is a very select networking tool where you can keep track of contacts changing locations and roles with very little maintenance.  Facebook on the other hand – if it’s to be used effectively – requires a lot more effort.

Neville also provides us with his perspective on the Facebook adoption curve.

Interesting stuff. 

PS:

Congratulations to Stuart on the official launch of his new agency Wolfstar!

I’ve kept an eye on all this online stuff for a long time, I’ve moved through phases from passionate advocate to bored pragmatist and back again, but the big question that no one has the answer to is: where is all this stuff going?

Are we moving into a world (eventually) where everything is online? Are we moving into a hybrid world that blends online with traditional – and if so, what’s the mix?

This is a really tough question. It’s not enough to wave the Web 2.0 flag, nor to keep one’s head in the sand.  This is a serious matter.

I’m waiting for an answer.

I do still believe – that for the foreseeable future – we’ll have a blend. I think we’ll see some re-balancing with traditional media offering more online content, with channels such as blogs and podcasts capturing more visitors, with broad and special interest publications remaining important.

But that’s a guess – and not even a very educated one.

Maybe we need to wait for a shake up before we’ll get a better view.

In the meantime the vast majority of PR practitioners will continue to work with traditional projects, tools and channels while slowly blending online elements for specific clients or projects.

The Online world is impacting everyone’s reputation,but we’re still waiting for the tools that will enable PR practitioners to have a “conversation” with 3.2 million consumers.

I think there’s some preparatory work to be done in better understanding how out audience(s) is moving online.

Maybe the recent explosion in Facebook (even among the old farts) adoption will give us an insight into the broader implications of the online network.

Change is coming, but where, how and why is still a little unclear.

For those now tempted to write a startlingly intelligent comment about how “I don’t get it” and if “you’re not online it’s too late” – don’t bother. Here in the real world it’s not quite that simple.

We should embrace change – I do – but that doesn’t mean it’s not puzzling and confusing.

That’s why you have to keep your eye on it.  Try it.  Measure it.  Review it. Again. And again.

If anyone has the answer, drop me a line, we’ll keep it our little secret and clean up 🙂 . 

If you haven’t already done so, can I recommend you take ten minutes to read Paul Holmes’ “Manifesto for the 21st Century PR Firm”. [Paul’s blog is here].

This is a recommended read in terms of looking at how some of the changes taking place online may impact PR firms.

Very interesting stuff.

Our PR blog leader, Mr. Rubel has a similarly themed post, though while the message resonates, I can’t help feeling it’s a little simplified.

The reality (and the challenge) facing PR professionals today, both in-house and out-house, is understanding how we can support new outlets, techniques and channels while maintaining existing channels – which are still effective and important – and will be into the future.

That’s the really hard part.

I recommend both posts.