Social media's going to kill PR? Come on

Have the rules for PR changed so radically from the days when the IBM Selectric typewriter was state of the art?

The conventional wisdom says yes, though I'm less convinced.

In fact, many public relations folks are still trying to gauge the import of new tools like Twitter and FriendFeed. But they remain unclear about what it means to their profession and what's the best way to approach this new community. That ambivalence was on display at the Horn Group's downtown San Francisco offices Wednesday evening, where an overflow audience gathered to attend a panel discussion with the over-the-top title, "Is social media killing PR?"

A better title would have been "Is PR killing PR?"

PR lackeys: Now you're in hot water!

(Credit: Wikimedia.org)

Seriously.

As a tool for communications, social media obviously is of keen interest to public relations types. But let's dispense with the nonsense about it being a paradigm changer. Maybe that day will arrive, but to date, the cheerleaders have overstated the results. So it is that many PR professionals have drunk the Kool-Aid to the point where they believe that engaging the community emerging around social media should be their top priority. At the same time, they remain unsure how best to communicate their companies' message in an unfamiliar and often unwieldy new medium.

What's more, they are scared stiff of antagonizing the "influencers." Especially when one or another bloviator from the blogosphere wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and issues a fatwa. But does a relatively small circle of (mostly California-based) bloggers still command the same influence it did a year ago? Ultimately, people listen to trusted voices though, unfortunately, the deepening recession leaves fewer of them all the time.

As I listened to the panelists debate the question, I began to fidget as Forrester Research's Jeremiah Oywang offered a marketing-heavy spiel on the central role social media should occupy in any effective PR strategy. Oywang is earnest about this stuff so I can't come down too hard, and yes, social media has its place. Still, it sounded like so much gobbledygook to me.

Then the predictably prescient Kara Swisher from The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital cut to the core question which--I believe--outweighs all others: If the message is empty, why bother? There is little point in trying to push a lame product or marketing idea. That's a message some sales and marketing departments don't want to hear. But in the end, doesn't everything come back to value?

That's not a social media idea. It's an old school idea.

Update: You can check out what Sam Whitmore, who moderated last night's panel, had to say about the event.

[Lewis81]

I remember my IBM Selectric from my days at a daily. And today I am as active in social media and often consult on blogging. And you are right on target. First, social media is a set of tools, not a strategy or a solution. Should PR folks add it to their toolbox. Yep! Right alongside all your other tools. And then serve your clients well by using the right tools, at the right time, for the right audience. Often SM won't be included but sometimes it is the way to go. And, if you don't have a good story (as opposed to message) and distribute it to people who care, none of your tools will work.

[rainierco]

Charlie ? thank you, thank you, thank you for your posting on social media. I?ve watch my fellow PR agents lose their minds, their focus and sometimes their clients over the past couple years as they forget that we PR agencies are in the business of influencing markets through communication of information.

Communications mediums are always changing, of course, and technology has always been the catalyst for that change from the first time someone painted a message on a cave wall with mammoth blood. Good PR is about using every available medium to communicate, but in the end it is all about what you communicate for your clients, period, not about the medium.

One of my favorite analogies applies to the PR panic around social media. When you point your finger to show a dog something, the dog will always, always look at your finger, and not where your finger is pointing. Too many PR people are obsessed with the finger, and very few have had the wisdom to recognize that the finger is pointing, as always, at communicating the right message to the right audience in the right context and with credible relevance.

Steve

[bcarroll7]

I am a marketing professional, blogger, and I also teach a class on Marketing via New Media at UC San Diego. I tell my students that social media should be used for PR and marketing when a company's customers are using social media. If there is no audience in the social media space, then it probably shouldn't be used! I also tell them that embracing social media doesn't mean you should replace traditional PR and marketing methods. As Lewis81 said, social media is another tool in the marketing and communications tool set for reaching out to customers. The difference is that social media can make the conversation easier - as long as customers are interested in engaging with a brand via those tools.

I know it is an old expression, but let's now throw out the baby with the bath water! At the same time, let's be open to trying new things, when they make sense for the audience and the communication goals.

Becky

[markforstneger]

Mr. Cooper, I could kiss you. Great post!

[swhit2]

For what it's worth, here's the moderator's view: http://bit.ly/bpjZ

[rkp17]

I largely agree with what you're saying here. When I was working at an Agency interviewing the new crop of graduates, social media was top of mind for them and of course, for us. Up front, it was very promising (and don't get me wrong, still is) to have eager and unjaded PR pros looking to get immersed and score big for clients in social media. But what's getting lost is the desire and importance of scoring traditional PR coverage - good ol' ink - and that doesn't cut it. In todays' world, you need to be able to balance social media with traditional PR to be successful. It's not all or nothing.

[acclimedia]

This is a fantastic post, and hopefully one of many continued 'wake up calls' for the Stepford social media disciples preaching its PR power as tantamount to the holy grail. When used effectively, social media *can* be a very powerful vehicle for communicating your message. But it is only one tool available to a PR or Marketing professional, and should work in concert with other tactics, all of which should support an overall strategy. Social media is not the right tactic in all cases and is certainly not the only tactic -- nor is it a one-size-fits-all approach for reaching the market en masse.

As you pointed out, it all comes down to value. Just because you're on every social network known to man, pummeling users with your message, if it's not relevant to the audience, it doesn't matter because it will never produce results. And just because you have a million followers on Twitter doesn't mean it will translate into a million hits to your website or a million new sales of your product.

Engage relevant users in a social media environment, yes. Use the tools to support your PR and Marketing efforts, definitely. Build relationships that cultivate positive brand association and create tangible value for your customers, absolutely. But communicating the right message to the right audience at the right time still applies. As does actually delivering on the hype you create via social media. Because when the buzz has died down, if there's not a quality product, service or concept in place, all that's left is a bunch of empty words on a page. Words that would have been better used as part of a well thought out, fully integrated, cohesive Marketing/PR plan. Flavor of the month marketing only works if you're Baskin Robbins.

[rachelakay]

This is a great post. As a PR practitioner, I have yet to feel my line of work is threatened by the newest social media technologies - quite the opposite. Social media challenges us to be more strategic, responsive and quick to act than ever before. The challenge lies in getting these online conversations to work for you and your client in a transparent and authentic way. But as the others said, social media is one of a host of tools, and marketers should make sure that it is only one element of a larger, more comprehensive program designed specifically for their brand or company.

[chriskenton]

Not to be a contrarian to the general thrust of posters here, but I think you're missing the point--just as I think many PR folks are missing the point. It's not about the technology--social media isn't Twitter or Friendfeed. It's about how consumer attitudes and behaviors are shaped. The availability of technology like Twitter and Friendfeed allows consumers to share experiences and impressions about brands in ways that compete directly with the influence-peddling of marketers and public relations folks.

There's an important historical context to how this situation arose, which belies the notion that this is just a passing trend. I wrote about it in detail here: http://is.gd/7pTl-- but the general notion is that we've all grown up in a media bubble, a world in which the huge expense of mass communications ensured the message was controlled by those few that could afford it. Advertising and PR evolved in this environment, not to build relationships with consumers, but to maximize relationships with the power brokers who control media. Social media is democratizing access to mass communications, which is a direct challenge to the control of the message. PR won't be killed--companies will always need to shape and advocate their own value propositions. But they need to recognize that the balance of power is shifting, and that "influencing the influencers" is not going to be a sufficient hedge against companies who are able to build meaningful relationships directly with consumers and customer communities. Again, I wrote about this more thoroughly here http://is.gd/7pTl

[cle50000]

isn`social media greenwashing of media businesses/corporations? great post - thx a lot enjoyed it

[Mikebanks]

The concept of social media replacing PR is something that supporters and forecaster are trying to talk into existence. Won't happen. Can't.
--Mike

[csperkett]

Charles,

Thank you for your perspective. I think that you have a point about value - yes, sharing empty messages will result in nothing good regardless of what channel is used. Social media doesn't change that. What it does change is PR's role within - or on behalf of - an organization. We have an opportunity to participate and learn from not only the influencers in these communities but also industry colleagues, our clients' customers, consumers and others - social media gives us direct access like never before. But PR has to learn how to participate in the right way, and many in the industry aren't doing that.

Social media won't kill PR. Maybe it will help our industry to right itself - exposing blanket pitches, spam practices, empty messages and so on. PR executives have the opportunity to learn from social media - but only if they tak the time to understand it in the first place. Which takes time to participate, which leads me to a point I made on another blog post about this topic - slow adoption of social media by PR agencies comes down to three things: fear of losing control, lack of interest in investing the time it takes to participate and therefore, lack of understanding.

It won't kill PR - in fact it will make it better for those who are willing to learn.

Christine Perkett
Founder & CEO, PerkettPR
Twitter: @missusP and @PerkettPR

[VOMIChairman]

We're dealing here with semantics. Before we can even begin to have a healthy debate regarding this topic, we need to first agree on the definitions of both PR (which we all know) and Social Media. Until then, the most we can generate is a lot of idle or useless chatter.

I happen to be the one on the far side of the moon who believes that social media and PR are both one and the same, the major difference being that one is more exotic than the other. It's like trying to compare my old 1969 Ford Ltd with a 2008 Rolls-Royce. They are both "cars", however, the exotic gadgets and widgets, technological marvel, luxury and enhanced driving experience of a Rolls-Royce leave the Ford Ltd driver at a complete disadvantage.

Although they can both get you to the same destination, which one would you, as the driver or passenger, rather be in?

[corpcross]

Social Media is only going to enhance it.