Bernaisesource

Over the holidays, I was going through piles of magazine clips from technology and business publications. The stack on my floor had become unmanageable. Most of the pre-2007 clips had outlived their usefulness. What was news just a year ago was at best a historical document today.

The PR professional lives by the motto “now is gone” where everything is for immediate release. The sheer volume of news and the speed of its dissemination make it so difficult to put a price tag on information.

Which only makes the $21 million paid for a copy of the Magna Carta at public auction so interesting. As James Gleick wrote in last week’s New York Times, “Twenty-one million is, by far, the most ever paid for a page of text, and therein lies a paradox: Information is now cheaper than ever and also more expensive.”

To be sure the Magna Carta has historical significance. But living in the age of digital gluttony, we value a physical copy of the Magna Carta for its permanence, its rarity and its connection to the past.

Our profession is not about permanence or rarity. The news we generate is meant to be digested as quickly as possible by as many people as possible.

If the Magna Carta is worth $21 million, how should we measure our output? We all struggle with “return on investment.” As billions and billions of bits of information whirl around the blogosphere, it’s not about documents - physical, digital or otherwise — that we produce. It is not even about impressions, page views, clicks, or rankings.

At the end of the day there is a measurement far more intangible. Our value is determined by the connections we make over time with reporters, bloggers, colleagues and customers.

The quality of these connections separate one professional from another. They tell whom we know and who knows us and reveal how we treat others and how others treat us. But ultimately, the strength of these relationships translates into tangible results for our clients and companies. Unlike the Magna Carta, our mission is less about the authority of kings; rather it’s more about the stuff that drives power in the marketplace.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Magna Carta; James Gleick;

Save to del.icio.us

Seth Roseman, a friend of mine, recently confided in me about the challenges of getting publicity as a CEO of Payless Décor, a discount window shades and blinds business here in Atlanta.

“At my current company, we have a very compelling mix of quality and price, but in a competitive market, it is difficult to get the word out in a cost effective way. Also, since we go straight to the consumer most general corporate communications devices have little chance to get to our target consumer.”

If you are Google or Apple, getting coverage and maintaining an online presence is not a challenge. You have plenty of resources at your disposal and even no news is news. But what can small businesses and news-challenged companies do? How do they extend their brand to a wider audience with a limited budget?

One much discussed solution is repurposing the tried and true press release with Search Engine Optimization. Releases are a great tool for optimizing rankings within natural search by creating new content external to a company’s main web site, with relevant linking. To my friend Seth and many others, the number of people who actually read a press release is not a key performance metric — it is the search-engine spiders and how they handle the press release that concerns him.

“The intriguing thing for me is that old-world devices such as press releases would have such completely different value today to a large extent because Google incorporates them in their algorithm.”

50 Percent Adoption Rate

Despite its obvious strategic advantages, adoption is not universal. While it’s difficult to nail down a percentage, Sarah Skerik, vice president, distribution services at PR Newswire, estimates that more than 50 percent of all releases use SEO.

Part of this adoption rate may reflect a lack of awareness or confidence in SEO’s utility or value. Seeing themselves as media relation’s experts, some PR professionals view SEO as marketing. They are resistant to the rules of engagement, which require new ways of writing and organizing information. Paying attention to such tactics as key word ratios and links may not be a priority. Beyond the issue of job description, others may be resistant out of concerns of “gaming” the system. Manipulating or abusing SEO can lead to changes in the underlying algorithms and black listing a company’s domain.

For some perspective on leveraging SEO, I went to Sarah with a few questions. On any given day, PR Newswire distributes between 800 and 1000 releases a day.

Daniel Greenfield: Who is more likely to use SEO, big or small companies?

Sarah Skerik: The size of the company really doesn’t seem to determine the SEO program. Some companies (small or large) are doing a great job, others are just beginning to utilize SEO.

Greenfield: For most non-material announcements, is there a growing sense that press releases are being increasingly used more for SEO than for the actual news? If no, will it ever be more valuable?

Skerik: Many companies are challenged when it comes to developing content for their web sites. However, fresh content that’s regularly updated is a cornerstone of a good SEO program. Search engines give extra consideration to sites that are regularly updated. For many companies, press releases are an important source of fresh web site content, and the company’s SEO plans should include a strategy for press releases.

There’s no question that more companies are issuing press releases for reasons other than disclosing financial news. That said, the content of the release still matters. Press releases are still public record, and function as online ambassadors, introducing new audiences to a company’s message. Issuing releases that are bereft of news, or are poorly written, is never a good idea, and will do little to achieve publicity objectives - online or offline.

Greenfield: What are the biggest mistakes that companies make in using SEO?

Skerik: I suppose you can start with not using SEO in the first place.

Not taking time to understand what search engine optimization really is - and how it’s really done, and the timeframes involved - is the number one cause of poor results and thus disappointment and frustration. Issuing a press release and seeing it on Google News is not search engine optimization, for example.

Search engine optimization is the art and science of being found. It means understanding intimately how your audiences are communicating about your product, service or issue, and crafting your communications using SEO techniques to ensure that your message is relevant for certain keywords — and thus highly ranked in natural search results for those keywords. SEO requires an understanding of how your public communicates about your subject, and then requires you to use that information, in the form of keywords, as the cornerstone of your communication.

As you build upon the foundation of those keywords, good SEO requires the communicator to adhere to certain rules, such as using those keywords within the headline, lead and release body, measuring the density of those keywords within the message, and linking from those keywords to related web pages (for starters.) Optimization involves the actual release content.

Greenfield: How can SEO be used most effectively?

Skerik: It’s most powerful when it’s integrated into the company’s overall SEO strategy, and communicators are using the keywords that have been identified through the company’s web site optimization efforts in press releases and other communications. The end goal is building the overall relevance and visibility of the company web site for specific topics, and press releases can contribute powerfully to that effort.

Greenfield: How can you measure its results?

Skerik: Get next to your webmaster, and get a regular look at the analytics report for your web site. This report will illustrate by day, week, or month (or other timeframe) exactly how many visitors each page had, and what site referred the visitor to that page. From that information, you can learn whether or not your press releases were a driver of traffic to your web site.

One important thing for PR people to keep in mind, however, relates to the timeframe for SEO results. We’re often used to immediate results. SEO results, however, measure human behavior — specifically, the number of times people searching the web find your message using keywords that they generate. Good results indicate that you’re in touch with your audience and are communicating with them effectively.

Greenfield: Isn’t there a danger in gaming the system and how do search engines like Google and Yahoo guard against it?

Skerik: The search engines are actually pretty good at identifying sites that try to ‘game’ the system. I advise against going head to head with the ranks of Internet geniuses that these companies employ to develop and refine their search services! Write naturally in the language of your audience, and you should be fine.

Greenfield: Lastly, we have seen a lot discussion about social media releases as a replacement for traditional ones? Does either format leverage SEO more effectively?

Skerik: Relevant links within and assets such as photos that are arrayed around a message can reinforce the relevance of your message, because search engines do consider the inbound and outbound links from a page, and they look at the content on the other end of those links. Even if you elect not to adopt the social media release format entirely, you can use elements of the SMNR to enhance your release visibility and contribute to your company’s overall SEO results.

Greenfield: Thank you Sarah for your insights.

————-

Over the past few years, there has been much debate over the press release’s future. Some stick to the traditional press release, while others swear by the social media release. Regardless of the form it takes, its function is changing along with that of a PR professional.

Given that SEO is still in its early adolescence, PR pros can use press releases and other tools to widen their role as subject matter experts and seize a territory that traditionally was in the realm of marketing and advertising.

More fundamentally, the web is changing the relationship between news generators and readers. Through SEO, news challenged companies can draw traffic to their websites as my buddy Seth is doing. It can also help companies bypass reporters and communicate directly to their customers or potential customers. In fact, last year Information Week reported on a study by the research firm Outsell that found that press releases have surpassed trade journals as the leading source of information for knowledge workers — truly a PR professional’s dream. Of course, what you get in disintermediation, you lose in third party validation.

But as SEO plays an increasingly larger role in content distribution, the barrier to entry is no longer the reporter; it’s an algorithm. I am not sure it is any more forgiving.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: PR Newswire; Sarah Skerik; SEO; Search Engine Optimization; Mahalo; Gaming the System; Press Release; Social Media Release;

Save to del.icio.us

For news, the goal was to reach the largest news outlets in the shortest amount of time. Smaller news outlets were nice to have but not critical. It worked particularly well for clients and CEOs who wanted the instant gratification of Wall Street Journal type coverage.

I decided to take another look at my formula as a result of a recent posting by Robert Scoble. He wrote:

“But lately I’ve seen a new PR trend. One where companies don’t show their cool stuff to the A-list bloggers in expectation for coverage. Kyte.tv was a good example of this. They just turned on new features last week and let the bloggers discover it organically (when I saw the new features I knew I had to go over and get the scoop).”

Slow burn is viral marketing, which is to say no marketing at all. In a Zen-like way, viral campaigns are not really campaigns. They are successful because they happen organically, on their own. Campaigns that try to be viral generally fail. For some successful examples, check out Thomas Baekdal’s posting and what HP has done.

Slow burn is not issuing press releases – traditional, social media or otherwise. It is what Mike Manuel calls the art of the unlaunch.

Save to del.icio.us

Shel Holtz’s posting from earlier this week about the United Auto Workers strike against General Motors prompted me to reflect upon the value of social media in a crisis. As large companies go, General Motors has a been a vocal supporter of social media with, not one, but two corporate blogs FYI and Fast Lane.

Labor Situation

By Christopher Barger, Director, GM Global Communications Technology

“As you are no doubt aware by now, today the United Auto Workers chose to call a national strike against GM. We’ve seen a number of comments coming in regarding this situation, and we appreciate the interest and opinions that you, our readers, have about this matter. But as I am sure that you can appreciate, these are sensitive times involving sensitive negotiations; a public blog is not the appropriate place for us to be commenting about them, nor do we think it’s constructive to entertain a discussion of labor issues here.

“This afternoon, we issued a statement regarding the UAW’s decision; to this point, that is our only statement on the topic. Any future comments we have will be issued via press statement, and not here on FastLane. Thanks for understanding.”

By way of comparison, I visited the UAW site and didn’t see a blog.

As crisis communications expert and author Eric Dezenhall told me, the most successful communications in a crisis are the ones you never hear about because a resolution was found before the crisis became public.

A lot depends on the Company’s objectives. Was it to break the strike or resolve it amicably? Depending upon its perspective, it may be better to negotiate behind closed doors. At least GM considered the social media option.

• Lastly and most importantly, if GM was forced to contend with negative reaction from its customers or the strike had severely compromised the customer experience or raised safety issues, and a public forum was needed to restore confidence or address customer concerns.

If such situations had arisen, I would have reconsidered my initial position with direct input from my legal and HR departments. I would only permit the official corporate blog to do the talking. Given the material nature of the negotiations, it would be unacceptable for unauthorized employees to make comments on their blogs. Following the advice of Erin Byrne, managing director of interactive over at Burson Marsteller, I would only consider responding to blogs that were open to a broad range of opinions that I had assessed for tone and content.

Generally speaking, I see social media as an important vehicle to address customer concerns and not a forum to bash the opposition. I will leave that to the folks waging political campaigns.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: GM; General Motors; UAW; United Auto Workers; Eric Dezenhall; Crisis Communications; Blogging;

Save to del.icio.us

The genesis of today’s posting was Hamilton Nolan’s analysis (June 11, 2007) in PR Week (subscription required) – “Opinions Vary on Editorial Page’s Outlook” – which I found to be a very useful launching pad to consider the value of opinion and authority in the PR profession.

In an age that seems to value opinion and subjectivity over fact and objectivity, how ironic is Wikipedia’s ever widening readership and influence.  Consider Jonathan Dee’s observation in a recent New York Times Magazine article:

“Wikipedia may not exactly be a font of truth, but it does go against the current of what has happened to the notion of truth. The easy global dissemination of, well, everything has generated a D.I.Y. culture of proud subjectivity, a culture that has spread even to relatively traditional forms like television — as in the ascent of advocates like Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly, whose appeal lies precisely in their subjectivity even as they name-check “neutrality” to cover all sorts of journalistic sins.”

A quick and easy information source, Wikipedia, the six-year old, global online encyclopedia, can be edited by and added to by anyone. You need not be an authority to submit – an opportunity for wide and varied discussion, but maddening for PR professionals.  I am a frequent user, but its single-minded focus on neutrality limits my ability to edit or add submissions about the company that employs me.  I am an authority, but not the right authority. I personally think the wikipedia community should be confident enough in its position to tolerate a wide array of opinions and postings – even by those who get paid for having or making them and as long as they are honest, accurate and fair.

Wikipedia brings me to my final point today:  Andrew Keen’s new book, The Cult of the Amateur. 
  

This book about the value of user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing has certainly generated a lot of discussion and heat, including Alerati, Geektronica, P2PFoundation, and Corante.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Andrew Keen; Cult of the Amateur; Wikipedia; Jonathan Dee; Hamilton Nolan;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Last year, I distributed a social media survey to EarthLink’s vice presidents to gauge their attitudes and knowledge of social media.  This year, I modified the survey to focus on adaption and guage comfort level for transparency.  We are still tabulating the results internally, but I wanted to share the template.  Feel free to download the survey.

Among its questions, the survey asks participants

• to rank the importance of various new and traditional tools to reach customers
• to list the ways they use social media
• to indicate the number of hours per week they use social media
• to rate the importance of social media in their job now and in two years
• to measure their comfort level with open, transparent customer forums

The survey is intended as a tool to develop a social media communications strategy.  It doesn’t look at the dynamics of social media or advocate the use of any one tool over another.  Nor does it offer up a roadmap for product development.  It’s meant to establish a baseline needed to build consensus and adoption.  In looking at the results, you may find that social media is not right for your company.  A company’s culture, employee understanding and customer usage patterns are critical to effective implementation.  

In the addition to the answers themselves, you may find the cross tabulations equally or more useful.  For example:

• Look at various levels of employee adoption over the next two years (questions 4 and 5), then factor in hours of usage (question 3) with those figures
• Look at answers by department (question 13),
• Look at the survey results based on those who did and didn’t answer why they don’t use social media (question 7),
• Look at the survey results based on answers to whether social media should be part of an employee’s job description (question 6), then factor in hours of usage (question 3)  
• Look at level of support for public disclosure (questions 8, 9 and 10) with ways to disclose (question 11)
   

There are countless other ways to slice and dice the survey results, but hopefully these are a start to evaluate the data and understand employee motivation.

I encourage people to download the survey and submit ways to refine the survey questions. 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Social Media Survey; Social Media;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

I read recently that ad agency Wieden + Kennedy had lost part of its Nike account.  It was a big deal.  Apparently the athletic footwear and apparel giant was dissatisfied with Wieden + Kennedy’s digital expertise and its online efforts to reach their target audience.

I suspect Nike’s move is a wake up call for both PR and ad agencies.  In this day and age, press releases and 30 second ads are losing their utility.  We are all grappling with the changing set of expectations set by consumers and clients alike.   Similar observations were recently made in Bob Garfield’s excellent story in Ad Age, in a blog posting by Richard Stacy and in a piece by Matt Shaw, vice president of the Council of Public Relations Firms that a friend sent me.

Is the Term “PR” Still Relevant?

Shaw raises some interesting points that should embolden and unnerve PR agencies – depending on their place on the adoption curve and the level of their digital teams’ talent.  In particular, Shaw cites a prediction made by a marketing consultant who said that the term PR firm won’t exist in 15-20 years — that changes taking place will require a new name.

The number may be 15-20, but I am thinking months, not years.  And one thing is for sure, once the dust settles, it won’t be called a new media firm either.  By then new media and old media will just be media. 

So why are firms like Widen + Kennedy failing to keep up?  No question the demand for digital expertise is outpacing supply.  But perhaps the problem is that we have not adjusted to the new boundaries or absence of boundaries that new media has created for PR, advertising and marketing. 

This discussion is all too familiar territory for folks running about in the new media space.  We regularly talk about the morphing of PR and the changing face of advertising.  Clearly Nike’s move with Wieden + Kennedy demonstrates that the issue is far from resolved. 

Now I can see why ad agencies are having a hard time with new media.  It disrupts the entire economic model that they are used to.  It requires radically new ways to interact with customers.  It disperses expertise over an ever widening group of people.  Executives everywhere are trying to keep up and, more importantly, monetize it.

For PR firms wanting a seat at the marketing and strategic table, these changes should be most welcome.  It is not surprising that Shaw cites a recent study showing that headcounts in the public relations sector have increased 44 percent since 1990 – more than 3 times faster than that of advertising.  Clients are demanding that firms understand transparency, relationship building and the importance of conversations.

PR’s bread and butter and advertising’s jam

Such demands are not new for us; they have been PR’s bread and butter for years. Viral campaigns, user generated content, and buzz marketing are all forms of what PR folks call “free” or “earned” media.  But now our bread and butter has become advertising’s jam – something to spread on top of making commercials, building brands and buying ad time and space.  I suspect the only real difference is that PR has historically charged less for these services. 

And so what will PR firms look like a few years out?  Will advertising become PR’s jam?  Or will we need a whole new food group metaphor?  The easy part is defining what we do.  Traditional media relations will only be a portion of the portfolio.  Circumnavigating new channels of communications, embracing new technologies, managing greater and greater information sources, and corralling a widening number of spokespeople will become the bulk of our time and billable hours. 

Monetizing these services will be more difficult.  So will measuring the results.  As corporate communications experts, we ourselves will need to do some “PR” or, depending on your perspective, advertising to help clients and management understand our potential.  Old habits die hard – especially with the old guard.  A hit in the Wall Street Journal still carries more weight. 

If PR agencies and ad agencies continue to morph, who will get there first and be able to charge the most?   

“Show Me the Money”

Maybe Cuba Gooding’s famous line in the movie – Jerry McGuire — is instructive:  “Show me the money.”  Citing Matt Shaw’s piece, if we can leverage our expertise, demonstrate results and figure out how to monetize these efforts, then we will be able, as PR veteran Lou Capozzi said, “add a zero to the (public relations) budget and call advertising a public relations tactic.”

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Corporate Communications; PR; Advertising; Marketing; Nike; Wieden + Kennedy; Bob Garfield; Ad Age; Lou Capozzi;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Recently a colleague sent me an article in the Puget Sound Business Journal about a CEO whose blog caused a stir because the post sparked a rumor about a potential sale.  The CEO eventually deleted the entry.

As blog ging becomes more acceptable in the business world, more CEOs are starting to consider  blog ging.  CEO bloggers are still in the minority, but they stand in good company.  Sun Microsystem CEO Jonathan Schwartz is one prominent example of a successful CEO blog ger. He has gotten a great deal of positive press for his blog .  But I would tread carefully.  There are plenty of people offering plenty of reasons for CEOs to blog .  Here for your consideration are ten reasons not to:

10:  Your CEO heads up a start-up and wants more people to pay attention to his or her company.

9:  Your CEO heads up a Fortune 500 company but wants to stand out from the pack.

8:  Your CEO thinks he or she should because his or her employees are blogging.

7: Your CEO thinks blog ging is less expensive than hiring professional PR and marketing teams.

6:  Your CEO does not have the time to write his or her own postings.

5:  Your CEO is not a good writer.

4:  Your CEO is not comfortable with candid feedback or criticism.

3:  Other CEOs are blog ging and he or she doesn’t want to cede a competitive advantage.

2:  Other CEOs aren’t blog ging and he or she wants a competitive advantage.

1:  Your CEO thinks he or she should.  

Most PR folks have enough trouble getting their CEOs to blog .  But blog ging for the wrong reasons can be far worse than not blogging at all.  No one, whether they work in the mailroom or the executive suite SHOULD blog . 

Blogging is for those who passionately believe they have something to say and who are willing to engage in an open candid conversation with the public.  Especially for a CEO, blogging is an opportunity to put a personal face on a company’s leadership.  It is forum to exhibit thought leadership and to add context to publicly disclosed information. For the CEO who understands the new communications reality, who is not afraid of criticism and who has the time to be personally engaged on a regular basis, then blog ging can pay big dividends. 

For us in PR, we should encourage our executives to blog, but be prepared to explain that it is not a PR substitute.  We need to explain the rules of engagement, but should also be prepared to advise against it when we feel it is not in the best interest of your CEO or the company to blog.  A personal face to the company is one thing; discussions that don’t have a clear strategic advantage is another.  (Gossiping or comedy routines would be bad reasons to blog.)  But if your CEO chooses to blog, it may be difficult, but we need to step back and let him or her communicate freely with minimal PR oversight.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: New Media; CEOs; CEO; CEO Blogging; PR; Corporate Communications; Blogging; Social Media;

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

I keep thinking about the notion that all PR is good PR.  Yes, it reinforced Microsoft’s bad guy image among the
blogger community, but it clearly has the blogosphere buzzing about Microsoft and whether they have a legitimate beef.  More broadly, it shines a light on the conflict of interest policies of Wikipedia.  As discussed on makeyougohmm, it wouldn’t be the first time that Wikipedia got something wrong. 

The whole controversy centered around Microsoft being unhappy about the open source entry on Wikipedia.  Based on Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, they could not post their views directly to the site.  Unable to persuade editors to accept their “corrections,” they offered to pay a third party PR person – one Rick Jelliffe, chief technical officer of Sydney computing company Topologi – to insert the changes for them.   

The proposed payment was supposedly for Jelliffee’s time, not for his endorsement.  Unlike last year’s WalMart grassroots campaign, Microsoft was upfront in what it was doing.  From what I have read, Microsoft employee, Doug Mahugh, encouraged Jelliffe in an email to be straight forward about their relationship and reassured him that Microsoft would not approve any of his Wikipedia edits. 

According to the AP, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said “the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a ‘white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside website and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.”  A valid approach, but unlikely to draw the interest of many who regularly use Wikipedia. 

Personally, I find Wikipedia incredibly useful even though I am not incredibly happy with EarthLink’s entry.  The service is popular, influential and viewed as a credible source by the millions who use it.  Once more, it is free, easily accessible, and I like the collaborative, emergent spirit that is its guiding principle. 

But the whole controversy puts me in a quandry. I would not have taken the path that Microsoft took.  Payment would not be an option, but I am sympathetic to their situation.  I get paid for what I do.  I am also upfront about whom I represent.  I don’t want my compensation to get in the way of a fair hearing.  As Scott Karp points out on Publishing 2.0, Wikipedia wields a lot of power.  In the mainstream media, companies unhappy with their portrayal in an article would not be denied a forum or an opportunity for inclusion just because they represent a particular point of view.   

Microsoft or any company, for that matter, has a real challenge on their hands when it comes to influencing the debate and defending itself on Wikipedia and in the world of new media.   Where the goal is transparency, openness and honesty, payment of any kind is frowned upon, even if the intent is to be transparent, open and honest about the point of view that is represented.   

In the age of new media, companies will need to work doubly hard to be acknowledged and get their point of viewed accepted.   The good thing is that PR does not have to solely rely on reporters to reach the public.  The challenge/opportunity is that we now have many more citizen journalists to contend with.   Aaron Uhrmacher who works on the EarthLink account at Text 100 suggested an alternative approach.  Perhaps Doug could have begun a conversation on his blog and try to get people to correct the mistakes on their own as vigilant and knowledge XML community members. Or as Michael Arrington suggests:  “It’s clear that the only way to safely clear the record on Wikipedia when you are an involved party is in the discussion area of a page.”  

In the end, no matter what your intentions, making direct changes yourself or paying third parties is not the answer – even if the opinions are unbiased.  On Wikipedia or in the blogoshere, collective intelligence is the currency of power.   That is a hard lesson for companies that cling to traditonal ways of communicating. 

Let me get back to you. 

Technorati Tags: Microsoft; Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales; Rick Jelliffe; Doug Mahugh; Social Media; PR; Corporate Communications;

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

PR 2.0, Social media press releases, Second Life, Wal-Mart and Edelman, the Dell corporate
blog, YouTube, Amanda Congdon and Rocketboom, Robert Scoble leaving Microsoft, Ambushed AOL/Comcast call center reps, Social Media Club, GM’s Response to NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, viral videos (Coke and Mentos), user generated content, customer engagement, Chevy Tahoe ads.

SIDEBAR:  What do you think is the most notable development in 2006?  

Collectively, these news events and trends reflect shifts in who controls the message and how and the message is delivered.  To gain some perspective on the year (and demonstrate the growing relevance of bloggers), a group of us bloggers
 including Todd Defren Kami Huyse, Eric Kintz, John Wagner, and Grayson Daughters agreed to share our perspectives on the following question: 

What was (were) the most notable PR/marketing social media trend(s) or event(s) in 2006 and why?  

My vote: The op-ed and email exchange between General Motors and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

I wrote about this in July.  If you recall, Mr. Friedman wrote a piece rebuking General Motors for its SUV marketing strategy — likening the auto giant to a drug dealer.  General Motors called the characterization “rubbish,” but the Times wouldn’t print GM’s rebuttal unless it cleaned up its language.  GM refused and used its corporate blog – FastLane Blog  to state its case and post their back and forth emails with the New York Times as the two parties hashed out a compromise.  In the media circus that engulfed this event, The Times felt compelled to respond to GM’s blog (which may have been a first).  In fact, it was GM’s unilateral decision to “publish” the behind the scenes correspondences with the NY Times that helped drive the public’s and the media’s interest in this incident.

What makes this significant is threefold.

1)       It elevates the importance of corporate blogs as a communications platform for PR departments.
2)       It demonstrates that corporations are no longer beholden to mainstream media to convey their message. 
3)       Subsequently, it redefines the power relationship between the media and corporate communications departments. 

Clearly, the rules of engagement between public and private and “on-the-record” and “off-the-record” have profoundly changed for the PR profession.  PR can put the media on notice.  It can state its case more forcefully and publicly when it disagrees with a story and take interactions out of “context.”  In the age of blogs, cell phones and digital cameras, every private conversation and moment become fair game – which may explain why we are seeing a lot more public apologies these days.

2006 saw a further increase in the first wave of this sea change – companies bypassing the media to reach their audience which in turn forced the media to cover them.  The second wave which I suspect will become more prominent in 2007 is the growing reliance on the public to drive the message in conversations with itself and corporations.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: web2.0trends2006; web2.0trends;