Week in Review: 5-20-07Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I am imagining D. S. Simon doing a VNR ad on the Center for Media and Democracy. :)
Seriously, I love conferences as much as anyone. And absolutely, the PR business can't seem to get enough of those about social media. But there's a problem. As liberating as it feels to tear down the wall between advertising and editorial... as exciting as it is to avoid any media quality control... as professionally exhilarating it is to circumvent any filter we as a society have set up in the public interest... PR's headlong leap into SM is problematic. This week, we're doing a story on the MWW Group and what appears to be a blogger payola program on behalf of Nikon. It's not good. Mark my words, you are absolutely going to see the FTC regulate this stuff just as it is now going after VNRs. - Amanda
True. Then Strumpette might have to reveal sources and true authorship or get shut down.
No. To satisfy "surreptitious selling," one necessarily needs to be selling something. I'm not.
:) - Amanda
Amanda:
Trying to understand the surreptitious selling thing. Is it 'surreptitious selling' to offer information directly to the public if we fully disclose the source? Haven't we seen countless instances when the MSM, from NYTimes to USA Today, has been less than stellar - downright dishonest - in its practices? Why are they the gatekeepers? Thomas Paine went directly to the people and sparked a revolution. Haven't we seen the blogosphere rise up again and again to 'out' shady blog practices. Aren't we increasingly seeing citizens driving news that MSM is following? In fact, most MSM have set up ways to capture citizen news to integrate with their own. * Transparency and authenticity were huge buzz words at the conference I went to, and you hear them all the time. You don't hear deceive and hide. At least this is the direction credible PR people want to go. Is it better to continue the current practice of bombarding MSM with 'news' of marginal interest or find ways to present information directly to constituents and allow MSM to pick it up if they feel it's worthy? Don't know what MWW is accused of, yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are employing the vile pay-per-post industry. But every system has abuses. So far, as far as I can see, we have been pretty good at ferreting out the bad stuff.
1. "Is it 'surreptitious selling' to offer information directly to the public if we fully disclose the source?"
Possibly. Again, the objective of the intercourse is to influence so as to optimize a position in a transaction. The media and 3rd party dealings acted as a vetting mechanism. Was that perfect, no. Have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater, yes. 2. "Haven't we seen countless instances when the MSM, from NYTimes to USA Today, has been less than stellar - downright dishonest - in its practices? Why are they the gatekeepers?" I am all for opening the gates for quality information. But that is NOT what PR is all about. We manufacture credible bias as advocates. 3. "Haven't we seen the blogosphere rise up again and again to 'out' shady blog practices." Sure. And ultimately that's why PR is being relegated to spam in Web 2.0 circles. 4. "Aren't we increasingly seeing citizens driving news that MSM is following? In fact, most MSM have set up ways to capture citizen news to integrate with their own." Again, different issue. If I were in MSM, I'd love to have a million plus free stringers. Then all I would need to focus on is fact checkers and editors. 5. "Transparency and authenticity were huge buzz words at the conference I went to, and you hear them all the time. You don't hear deceive and hide. At least this is the direction credible PR people want to go." Frankly, it is naïve to think that transparency and authenticity is just a given as good. Our job is to craft the voice of a human representation of a legal fiction, the corporation. Those in our business that say otherwise won't be in our business for long. 6. "Is it better to continue the current practice of bombarding MSM with 'news' of marginal interest or find ways to present information directly to constituents and allow MSM to pick it up if they feel it's worthy?" We don't provide information to constituents, per se. We provide manipulated information in the interest of advocacy. Regrettably, even our own business misunderstands the distinction. How can we possibly expect the audience we are directly manipulating to discern? By definition, that's fraud.
Amanda:
I wanted to post a response to see #1.1.1.1.1.1 and to say that I am beginning to see your point but there is a credible, verifiable role for SM/New Media in PR. Need to gather my thoughts. Thanks. Mark
I absolutely think there's a role for PR in SM. But in the end I think it is going to look a whole lot more like the Crisis Communications Practice than the Consumer Marketing Practice.
Add Comment
|
Fascinating week in the PR blog world, capped for me by the Communitelligence PR Online Convergence in Los Angeles. Three days of immersion in blogs, podcasts, virtual reality, social media, SEO, RSS, and other acronym-laden digitas left me wanting to totally unplug and deeply converse with a cedar tree, which I am now doing. Oh, the wisdom and peace of nothingness.