Digital Street Journal

Much has been made about the supposed millions flocking over to Twitter to sign up for their accounts onthe microblogging service.  While that’s truly impressive, it’s also misleading because it is not a clear indication of the impact that Twitter has had on our culture.

It’s taken a study by Harvard, followed by one by HubSpot to pop a big whole in the balloon of hype surrounding the service.  This shows me a flaw in the way that many of us view social media.  Too often, to many of us stray for the concept that it is participatory phenomenon.  Sure, one can silently watch and read content.  But not with Twitter.

Let’s take a look at some of the stats.

• Just 10% of the users on Twitter create 90% of the conent.  For most social networks, it is 30% of the users.
• 55.50% are not following anyone
• 52.71% have no followers
• 54.88% have never tweeted

There are other stats, but for my point, those are the most important.  It’s obvious that of the millions that are signing up, the vast majority of them don’t end up taking the time to really participate.  They kick the tires, perhaps don’t understand it, and move on and don’t come back.

To an extent, that’s because the way Twitter is set up.  It IS difficult to understand at first.  Getting  oneself “off the ground” can be a challenge.  What to write in an update?  Whom to follow?  Or find whom to follow?  How do I get followed?  Those are legitimate stumbling blocks for the new user.  Enough of a stumbling block to make new users non-users.

The problem here isn’t social media.  It is a bit of Twitter’s - it shows a definite need to streamline the complex way of getting started on Twitter.  But the biggerst problem could be for those of us looking to encompass Twitter consluting strategies in our bevy of services.  If we don’t take into consideration the fact that Twitter is a concept that could end up being overhyped by all sorts of commentators - the mainstream media, other marketers, etc. - to the point that it loses (somewhat unfairly) it’s sizzle.

Twitter is and should continue to be a very important communications vehicle for organizations looking to get communicate, listen, and develop relationships.  Savvy firms will understand this as they establish quality relationships, offer compelling content, and listen and respond attentively to concerns.  But they will also need to show clients and prospective clients that they too understand and can see through the hype to deliver effective strategies.

That’s because the key to social networks is PARTICIPATION.  For Twitter, even more so.  On Facebook, one can put up a bunch of info on one’s self which offers others a lot of opportunity to get to know that person.  Not so with Twitter.  One’s own participation on Twitter is a matter of dedication.  And participation on behalf of an organization is a skill.

The past month I’ve been very busy helping a client launch a sustainability consulting practice that is focused on the food industry.  It’s a very inspirational project as I’ve long had a passion for both the environment and for food.

Greg Christian Consulting is the client.  Or more specifically, Greg Christian.  What an inspirational and impressive character.  Greg is an accomplished chef and caterer out of Chicago where he owned his own firm for seventeen years.  He was determined to use local organic food sources and create his masterpieces in a no waste kitchen.  The concept of a no waste kitchen amazes me because it seems impossible.  But Greg proves it isn’t.

A few years ago, he conceived and founded a the Organic School Project, an in-school program where kids learn about sustainability, nutrition, and eating right.  What impresses me the most about that is that for the past several years now I’ve heard about soft drink companies paying schools to have vending machines placed in cafeterias.  I love some soft drinks, but that within itself causes poor nutrition habits.  As a result of Greg’s work, he has become known as “Chicago’s Concientious Caterer”, a title well deserved.

I came about this opporutnity via my dear friend Jennifer Roberts, a beautiful and savvy marketer herself.  A truly classy lady in every sense of the word.  I knew her for years here in DC.  A while back, she moved to her native Chicago.  That’s DC’s loss.

I’ve also met, via the internet and the telephone, a fine young gent by the name of Bryn Griffiths.  I say “gent” because Bryn is a Brit.  He just got his MBA in finance from DePaul but is a natural in social media and I’m sure he will be a success in all he does.  Besides, he’s a dog lover, just like me.

We’ve launched an online magazine/blog for the company, Local Greenster.  Bryn and I are running it now.  It will entail stories (mostly) of local efforts and challenges toward sustainabilty.

All of this shows me work can be fun.

I’m finding it’s harder to blog consistently.  I’m finding that there is less to say.  Maybe it’s because I’m busy with clients.

If you want to read a GREAT blog post on what I’m about to write on, head over to Jason Baer’s blog and read Delegation Equals Death in Social Media.

In fact, I’m going to snag a quote directly from the post. It relates to the all too common occurance of senior level management in marketing agencies basically saying:

“Us old dogs don’t really understand all this new social media stuff, but we’ve got this brilliant young guy right out of school, and he’s getting us all up to speed.”

Jason’s conclusion on this:  Bang bang.  You’re dead.

He’ll be right on that, say, 98% of the time.

Like Jason, I’ve continually run into senior level ad and PR types who have take either no or very little time to grasp any semblance of social media digital marketing.  They playfully call themselves something related to being “old” and then seemingly pass off the learning to someone who is “young”.  And sure enough, that “young” person is usually so low on the totem pole of authority within a firm that they really aren’t taken seriously.  Perhaps the “old” ones will turn to the “young” one and ask questions, but it usually is done with the mindset that the “young” one is just a kid and all of this stuff is new and it will be, some day, pretty big.

The problem is that it’s already big TODAY.  Period.

To me, the above situation has two elements.  One, it’s the senior people calling themselves “old” and chuckling about it, as if to somehow say that it’s alright that they’ve been sitting out this evolutionary change in the marketing communications fields.  The second part  is that they seem to be putting it off on that youngster to add some flavor to the mix of offerings.  That youngster will never be able to have enough credence with the senior folks and will ultimately be overruled and not really listened to.  The result is that the firm will really not be offering social media services.

Now I can understand how this develops the senior people were trained a particular way and have been at it for years.  Digital marketing is a whole new world and social media may be foreign to them.  That’s fine.  But it’s the lack of taking it seriously that gets me.  In many cases, I hear that a company’s clients are asking for “this stuff”.  Perhaps more importantly are the POTENTIAL clients out there whose business an agency doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting because they - or the leaders of the company - can’t even talk the talk, let alone walk the walk.

If I headed up an agency, I’d make it a requirement that my staff, at the very least, got up and running with profile on Facebook and had an account on Twitter.  I’d make sure they knew how to really use them…how to interact and become a presence.

Is this an absolute necessity in the immediate sense?  Probably not, at least not 100% of the time.  But it’s big enough to justify that saying “you want to stay one step ahead of the competition”.

According to Josh Bernoff, the fact that I prefer to use the term “social media” means that I’m perpetuating the old way of thinking.  That the fact that I’m thinking of social media as being media as being media means that I’m missing on it’s greatest strength - it’s participatory.

I think not.

To me, plain and simple, the word “media” means a model of communication.

Mass media is a term that’s used to cover the larger media industries as a whole - television, newpapers, magazines, radio, etc.

Broadcast media is media that derives from one point purposely designed to reach widespread audiences.

News media is an industry that’s business model is centered on creating content based on reporting, researching and analyzing current events and then delivering that information to the general population.

Social media is media that can be created, shared, altered, maninpulated, forwarded - and participated in.

Why is that a problem?  I don’t think it is.

Now, in defense of Josh, he was talking how marketers use the term social media.  He writes,

“As I speak with companies that want to engage with their customers in the online social world, I continually find people confused as soon as they begin talking about “social media.” The reason is the baggage that comes along with the word “media.”

Who do I blame for that?  The marketers mostly.  There’s been enough discussion, enough white papers, enough conferences (or that horrible word, “unconferences”) telling us that social media is participatory and conversationaly and something to engage in, with little time reserved for being broadcast.  They should understand this by now.  They should “get it”.

My guess is these marketers are less confused by the term “media ” but instead more unable to get their heads out of a traditional mindset.  (BTW - the traditional stuff often works, social media types.)

I have a feeling that the most important stakeholders here - the millions of people who paricipate, get the term “social media” and would view it as participatory.  They’d be more tuned into the “social” part.  Maybe marketers should tune into that too.

But, instead of defining all of this, they’d rather just participate.

Just saw that AdAge is reporting that Doner let go of 100 employees this past week.  That’s sad.

It wasn’t because the agency lost a client nor was it primarily because of the poor economy.  The main reason was because the ad industry is changing as a whole.  To digital.

The article quotes CEO Alan Kalter as saying:

“We’ve been evaluating the business, trying to understand this dramatic shift from old media to new media, and how best to balance our staff to reflect that,” said Mr. Kalter. He said digital now trails only TV among the agency’s sources of revenue. “The business really hasn’t changed much since ‘Mad Men,’ and there really hasn’t been an upside-down look at the business to understand what’s the right structure looking forward.”

When I read that I wonder why Kalter and the others at Doner didn’t take an upside-down look at the business a lot sooner.  It comes across almost as a self-indictment.  For years now, there have been warning signs that marketing is changing overall.  It’s been written about, talked about, blogged about.  Why is self-evaluation going on in 2009?

Most that lost their jobs were either at-home media planners or non-digital creatives.  So another question.  Why didn’t these non-digital creatives not learn/get training about digital creative?  What caused this?  Lack of interest in the creatives part?  Did the agency not want to train or at least encourage them to learn new skills and techniques?

I realize industry changes.  Business is not static; it’s dyamic.  It’s forever evolving.  That’s especially true for advertising.  PR too.

I continually run into “pros” who show no interest in learning anything related to digital.  They’ll laugh and shrug it off.  They are likely digging their own grave.  I think it’s, at the very least, vital to UNDERSTAND these changes.

The same could be mentioned for agencies.  The leaders of some agencies (albiet small and medium ones) in some cases seem to resist it as if one avoids being near someone with a cold.  They may outsource some stuff, calling the new media types as being “techies”.

It’s ridiculous.  While I’m not really much for the “Change or die” meme, it applies to certain situations.  Ask the 100 former employees of Doner.

In my last post, I discussed the points that Qorvis’ Doug Poretz has raised regarding what he sees at two of the three major flaws of the marketing communications industry.  One was the fee and billing structure where clients pay more for hours billed than the value that actually comes from the work.  The other was the way services are divided into practice areas which, while serving a purpose, all too often become siloed.

And now he sees a new flaw.  A third fundamental flaw.  And this flaw is:

“The over-exaggeration of the importance of new media”.

That’s pretty strong stuff.  He’s got 40 years in the business of communication.  He’s no novice.  By fundamental, he means something that is at the very foundation of the industry.  It’s not just an “exaggeration” it’s and “over-exaggeration”.  And he now sees it as being  widespread.    He says that the communications industry has been seduced by “new media gurus” who have pushed the importance of “new media tools” to the extent that the industry as a whole fallen for this flaw -  with the supposed magnitude of its importance - just as it accepted billing structures and practice offerings.

Now he DOES give “new media” credit for changing the way communications is executed. But even there, he mistakenly positions “new media” as “tools”.

“But first, let’s give social, interactive, digital and other forms of new media their due:  they have changed, and will continue to change the way communications is executed from now on.  Granted 100%.  New Media is changing communications the same way the power drill changed the furniture industry:  wonderful and new tools that absolutely should be understood and fully exploited.  But they are tools, not fundamentals that should redefine the industry.”

I believe he’s wrong.  I believe that he can’t see the forest for the trees.  His defining of “new media” - what I’m going to call “social media” as being merely “tools” shows me this.  This may be because he recently spent three months listening to “new media douchebags” telling him things like how many words should be in each blog post or how wide the text should be on his blog.  (That last link leads to great video on YouTube.)  But I believe he views social media strictly from the eyes of the agency/client, and fails to include what is not the most significant part - the communities of individuals that are playing the largest role in social media.  As a whole, we’re increasingly spending a larger portion of their media engagement experience online - close to 30% according to eMarketer.  Important point here:  online is interactive and dynamic, not broadcast and static.  the game is changing. That’s not hype. That’s reality.

Before I go on, I will say that I share Doug’s sentiment that there’s a slew of social media advocates out there that DO exaggerate the hell out of the effectiveness of many of the tools that social media offers.  And there are some that treat social media as the only viable means of communication in the future.  I’ve complained and written about this, challenging what I guess he call “new media gurus”.  Here and here.  Traditional marketing strategies can still work, not everyone reads blogs, Twitter doesn’t have a business model, and I’m sick of getting poked on Facebook.  The past few years have given us a sizable amount of relatively new people in the field of marketing communications telling us that everything has changed and if you disagree then you’re an idiot.  Doug Poretz is no idiot.

I could go on and on about that.  In fact, I’m getting myself worked up about it with this long rant.  But that’s not what this blog post is about.

So now I’ll lay out my case how social media as a whole is not “over-exaggerated”, not a “tool”, and how the current adoption and acceptance is not a “flaw”.

The Industry Hasn’t Fallen for the Hype

As far as the “industry” falling for the hype, I have to say that that is just not so.  I continually run into PR professionals who, say, view the blogosphere as yet another channel to push packaged message to. Or ad agency types who view social networks such as Facebook solely as a one way delivery system for the marketing message.  I continue to meet seasoned PR and ad agency types who have yet to hear of, yet alone use most of the most commonly well known “tools” of social media.  Simply put, the adoption isn’t there.

In fact, if there is any flaw, it is often how it is used by the industry as opposed to the level of importance prescribed to it.  As I’ve pointed out many times before, Forrester’s finding that corporate blogs are not trusted because they’re overly promotional and that social network campaigns falter for the same reason are two signs that social media is being used wrong.

Social Media is Not a Tool

For the purposes of definitions, I’ll define social media in this manner.  The “media” part means to me that it’s a platform for communication.  And the media primarily takes place in the digital area.  The “social” part means that it can be created, shared, altered, forwarded, and interacted by those who are involved with it.

So social media is not a tool.  Social media is a new model of communication.  It is experienced in a shared environment by its stakeholders.  Those that experience it do so in almost a tribal fashion via thier networks.  Marketers still play a key role, but they are not there to simply deliver carefully crafted messages.

Brand Message Control

He argues, with some justification, that the future of marketing communications will tied to creating content:

While being seduced by a hype, the industry is also missing a much more significant revolution: as journalism dies or morphs into some sort of neo-journalism, those businesses that currently define themselves as advertising or PR or event or digital or whatever agencies will need to morph into content providers without any bias to any particular distribution channel(s).

As that happens, the most important value communications firms will provide will relate less to how a message gets to an audience, and more to whether the content being provided is of such value that it can compete successfully for the time and attention of the people you want to reach.  Only if and when that can be answered “yes,” will the issues of which channels should be used and how the message should be packaged become important and critical questions.  But they aren’t the priority questions.

OK.  Fair enough.  Content creation will be key.  Distribution will be paramount. But social media is not just about packaged messages and channels.  That’s what make social media different, and that’s why it’s changing the foundation of marketing communications.

Messages can still be created but via social media they are more offered than delivered.  And they are often offered through participation.  The means of offering may start with a channel, but that channel soon morphs into networks.  Networks of tribes that perhaps place value on the message, and may even accept and appreciate the packaging…but once they receive the message, the message becomes theirs.  They own this segment of the marketing communications process.  They are in control.  And the quality of the “content” created by the marketing agency is less important than the perceptions that the “target market” - again, the networked tribe - has on the quality of the product or service offered, regardless of whether they are acting as individuals or as members of a loosely formed community.

That is how social media works.  The change is fundamental.  It’s derivative from human nature.

Participation is a Message

As Chris Brogan points out, participation starts by listening.  Conversations are going in social media about brands.  That’s why listening to conversations regarding your company, your products, your services, your brand.  Listening is not a tool.  It is a process.

The “listeners” - agencies and clients alike listen to learn.  They learn about what their current and potential customers think about the brand, the competition, the industry.

Then, after carefully evaluating what was learned, participation then involves engagement.  Engagement doesn’t necessarily include marketing.  Yet effective engagement can serve a marketing purpose.  It involves respect.  And it most certainly doesn’t involve canned statements.  Engagement is not a tool.  It is a process.

By participating is social media in this way, the company can become part of the ecosystem that their customers exist.  The company needs to be authentic and transparent and they can’t concentrate on continually selling its message.  This creates respect.

It should be noted that this is one aspect of social media - a very large and important one - but it does not encompass the entirety of social media.  Participation, by itself, is not in my opinion, enough to serve as a marketing strategy.  I’m sure there will be plenty of exceptions, but it doesn’t replace traditional marketing.  Used correctly, it enhances it.

Distribution is networked based

Blogs.  Twitter.  Online forums.  Review sites such as Yelp.  That’s how many of us get information on products and services that we’re considering buying.  That’s crowdsourcing.  Online conversations are the new form of talking over the backfence.  That’s why companies have to be more authentic.  Any hint of canned hype is looked upon with derision.  And that derision can spread fast.  Many marketers don’t get that.  If the network is the marketplace, then you need to work within the guidelines of the marketplace.

The networks give its participants greater access to the information they need when deciding to take some sort of action…buying a car, going to a restaurant, choosing which babyfood might be best for an infant witha certain medical decision.

That’s another reason why the networks aren’t just a means of channel distribution of marketing messages.  As I mentioned, they’ve participitory and educational vehicles as well.

With online, we also must remember that what’s online can be online forever.  The original video of the two idiots from Dominos is long gone - after 900,000 people saw it.  But you can still see it as others copied it and uploaded for their own purposes.  The point is, marketers and PR people will need to learn how to deal with negative content.  Canned respones won’t be enough.

Cost Structure is Different

Take Bear Silber, the 26 year old pizza parlor owner who’s using social media to promote his restaurant.  He’s developed a large following on both Facebook and Twitter.  They are now effectively his mailing list.  Now he still uses traditional methods - he’d be a fool if he didn’t.  But much of his marketing philiosphy can be summed up in this quote: “Immediately when I have a promotional idea, I can tweet it.”

Notice that this goes against the grain that many social media types are declaring:  it’s promotional.  So what?  It’s successful because it’s openly authentic and transparent.  People have signed up to get these announcements.  And it’s not overdone.

His cost for sending out that tweet:  $0.

Many of the tools that social media offers reduce what’s required for an overall marketing budget.  It changes the game in that sense.

I’m seeing some entrepreneurs (albiet, mostly in the technology business) become engaged in topical blogs via comments and discussions.  They will then start their own blogs.  By the time they launch, they will have connections with prominent bloggers and colleagues and potential customers.  It doens’t eliminate the need for a marketing budget, but it can reduce the budgetary needs.  That’s because social media was used to connect with the right people.

From my perspective, social media has changed the foundations of the marketing communications industries.  It’s more than a tool and at its base, it isn’t hype.  While social media has more than it’s share of hype artists who know little beyond marketing communications than what goes on outside of their computer and cell phone screens, it’s a mistake to underestimate what its potential is and how it will affect our future.

I’ve taken to reading Doug Poretz’s blog, The Death of Time.  He’s a co-founder and partner at Qorvis, a leading communications firm headquartered here in the DC area.  The company is relatively new, but it’s seen phenomenal growth.

He talks of two three major flaws in the field of communications.  These flaws are based upon the very basic standards of operation that most communications agencies employ.  According to him, they make the process of business inefficient for both the client and the company itself.  I basically agree with the first two and disagree with the third.  Make that strongly disagree with the third.  But that will be spelled out in the following blog post.

The first flaw is the manner in which companies bill their clients:  by the hour.  Time sheets decide the revenue, not necessarily talent nor achievement nor (and this is my addition) the specific scope of the work done.  The idea is that a client may get billed, say, $10,000 a month and then it’s up to the the staff of the agency to work enough hours to fulfill that $10,000.  Once the $10,000 is attained, that’s it.  For the most part.  But what about value?  Clients in this scenario are paying for a conglomeration of hours worked by the people on an account.  It’s not really related to the value the client receives.  His complaint makes sense.  Clients want their fees to be paid into value, not time sheets.

This, in a way, addresses the complaint I had on my last post, as I both defended and criticized the PR industry.  Bring in a client, charge a monthly retainer, and make sure the staff of whatever level works the requisite number of hours to fulfill the client’s fee.

The second flaw is related to one that I’ve complained about many times before.  It’s a tricky one too:  the “siloization” of service offerings.  My experience has been mostly watching clients use separate agencies for different services in which each agency acts without any coordination with the other.  At times I’ve seen an ad agency not even know which PR firm is working for their client.  And visa versa.  And they’re working on the same campaign!  It’s ludicrous and unprofessional.  But that’s not exactly what Doug Poretz is getting at here (at least I don’t thnk).  He seems to be talking WITHIN an agency that offers supposedly integrated services.  In this case, he points out how agencies define their offerings by the segmented distribution channels of the messages.  If you journey over to the service offerings of Qorvis, it describes what they do as a “collaborative approach”.  It would be great to hear more how they manage to maintain practices but prevent them from being silos.  It’s my guess that they do.

Both of these complaints are legitimate and go against the grain of current agency practices.  They only seem to make sense because they’re standard operating procedure.  I look forward to hearing more on Doug Poretz’ vision of solving these dilemmas.  And I look forward to challenging the basis of his third complaint.

Mark Story is pissed.  Wicked pissed.  He’s probably calmer now that he’s got three posts off his chest.

One.  Two.  Three.

What’s got him pissed is Robert Scoble’s rant on PR.  Scoble is pissed too.  He’s trashing PR, calling it dead…at least as it’s practiced by lame bloggers.   Personally, I’m can’t stand the “dead” meme.  PR is dead.  The press release is dead.  Banners are dead.  Mass media is dead.  Television is dead.  Newspapers are dead.

Enough of “…is dead” crap.

PR is still very much needed and it employs a significant amount of talented people who value their professionalism.

And Scoble doesn’t do himself any favors by slashing out at PR people by saying that pitching by email is stupid…that’s the way it’s done as Shel Holtz point out here from this study.  Scoble goes on to say that he prefers to be pitched by going out to dinner.  LOL.  Note to Robert:  not everyone lives near Silicon Valley.  I’d have to haul my ass 3000 miiles for that.  And sitting at a table over dinner won’t necessarily improve the pitch…even if it’s subtle.  Not everyone is as talented and connected as Brian Solis. In fact, practically no one is.

End of that rant.

You see, Robert Scoble has a very good point.  So I guess I’m agreeing with two people who disagree.

I’m sick of seeing (and got sick of being a part of) the mad scramble of what much of PR is.

I’m sick of seeing PR companies get $10,000 per month retainers from clients that have very little worth telling, but nevertheless turn out to be press release factories.

I’m sick of seeing PR firms fetch young, quite often underpaid staffers onto reporters (or bloggers like Robert Scoble) in a desperate attempt to get some sort of coverage, where these young PR types make phone call after phone call (or email after email) about some sort of technology thing that they learned about the day before in a one hour strategy session (and then reread the notes that morning), contacting reporters/bloggers who they’ve never talked to before to see if they got the damn press release or the email.

It’s sort of a version of “OK, great.  We got this client.  Here’s what they’re about.  Start calling”.

That’s no way to do things, BUT, quite often, there’s no other way.  At least the way many agencies are set up.  $10,000 retainers, young eager employees, senior managers who want to get the job done.

Reporters and bloggers say they want PR types to get to know them first.  Establish a relationship first.  How do you establish a relationship with them without contacting them?  How does a young PR person (which I no longer am) do this when they’re often chained to their desk so their hours can be billed?  And clients want results.  Sometimes unreasonable results.  That’s because they either 1) are egotistical dunderheads  who overvalue their product/service (its’ a no-brainer, it sells itself) or 2) haven’t been fully briefed by the PR firm to set reasonable expectations.

How did it come to this?  Mark lays it out:

• Billing pressure. When you work for an agency, your job is to bill as much as you can, and quite often, falling back on old ways is the best way to make your hours. Brutal, but I believe it to be true.
• Clients are in love with statistics. Many clients would rather hear “we pitched 2,000 bloggers,” (spam, of course), than “we did our research, waited and make 10 carefully crafted pitches to 10 leading bloggers.” 2,000 versus 10? Please.
• Clients or supervisors who don’t “get” social media are reluctant to green light innovation. The “young bucks” generation in public relations agencies have a hard time selling concepts that are new and people don’t yet understand.
• The pressure. The higher you go in agencies, the more pressure you have to bill hours, supervise people, develop businesses and further existing client relationships. “Creating magic” takes some serious time - and thinking.

What can be done about it?  Mark lays it out:

1. Identify your target audience. If you are looking to reach a target audience via a publication or blog, your first step should be making sure that the outlet matches up with the audience that you are attempting to influence. Otherwise, as Shel Holtz calls it, it is just “shovelware.”
2. Think about your objectives. Why are you communicating with this audience? I know that in the agency world you are communicating because your client thinks that he/she should be above the fold in the Wall Street Journal, but if you spend some time thinking about the benefits NOT to your client or organization but to the people receiving or potentially reading the information, you’ll go a long way towards happy, shiny people reading what you have to say. And if you work for an agency, the best consultants know when to say “no, this will be a waste of your money.” Courageous conversation for sure, but things will end up better.
3. What messages are your target readers likely to want? Knowing this will make you happy and, provided that you select the right people to pitch, it will make the writers/bloggers happy too.
4. List the types of questions that individuals may ask or additional information they may want. This is how your are going to write your pitch, your press release, or if you are doing it right, putting together your interactive press release. Answer these questions in advance and reflect it in the way that you present your information.
5. What do you want to achieve? Think about this in two ways. If you send a pitch to a blogger or print reporter, what is the action that you want he/she to take? Visit a link with more info (good call). Read an attachment (bad call: Esther Schindler has correctly noted that “attachments merit the death penalty”). If you have spent all of the time and money getting something placed, I am no fan of the statement “raising awareness.” In the age of interactivity, there has to be some action that people reading your information can take besides merely processing it.
6. Surmising that you accomplish your objectives, then what? If a reporter calls you back, you had better have your act together (no “ummm, uhhh,” or putting reporters on hold while you look for your cheat sheet with talking points on it) . And for God’s sake, list your cell phone number on your voicemail. If a reporter/blogger calls you back and gets your voicemail, it drastically reduces your chances.
7. Push vs. pull. Regurgitating information all over people who may or may not want it can work, but a largely ignored pitching vehicle is simply putting information where you want reporters or bloggers to get it. Think: ProfNet, SEO, Peter Shankman’s “Help a Reporter” listserv and Web site. If your information is waiting for people who want it, your chances go up dramatically.

The reality is twofold:  1) The PR industry has to rexamine itself, but it never does.  2) Reporters and top bloggers will forever often need PR folks to clue them in on a great story.

In the meantime, everyone will stay pissed.

Geoff Livingston wrote a very important article on where social media services must be placed within an organization.  Actually, Geoff’s written several articles on this and I suggest you read them here, here, and here.

In the article, entitled “There is no social media department”, Geoff makes the case that social media should not by itself be it’s own siloed department.  I semi-made the case last year on Marketing Conversation.

But naturally, I have a caveat. First, within organizations, social media must first find its own voice.

That’s because all too often, the key personnel that already exist in organizations have yet to fully understand or appreciate what social media is about.  That’s why, for the hundredth time, social media marketing campaigns are too much push and corporate blogs aren’t trusted.  I continually see, and am amazed by, marketing communicators of various stripes show little interest in learning anything indepth regarding social media.

Many of these people are relatively senior and are in leadership positions in agencies or marketing departments.  In other words, they are the ones providing the direction of their company, division, or whatever entity they are a part of.  All too often these are the people who seek to create campaigns using traditional marketing practices (that can still work via traditional marketing vehicles) through channels that  social media provides.

And sometimes this is inevitable.  Waiting for conversations to start so you can engage at some point can take longer than watching paint dry.  That’s if the conversations start in the first place.  And clients aren’t paying you to wait, and wait, and wait. But they’re also not paying you to ineffectively use social media.

That’s why I say that, whether its within an organization or as a stand alone firm, social media must find its own voice.  It has to be allowed to create and carry out best practices, engineering successful stories that become case studies, tangible enough to outweigh the temptation by those who seek to treat it like anything else.

In the current environment, that’s a tough task.  It will be a challenge in many organizations.  Social media practitioners could end up battling for the influence that they should be accorded.

I don’t know what the short term answer is.  I don’t know if that means that it’s best for social media to temporarily be its own entity for a short time until others in the organization realize what it’s about and give credence to those that are becoming leaders within.   But I do know that somehow, social media must get its own voice.

–

On a side note, I’d like to congratulate Geoff and the team at Livingston Communications have been acquired by the PR agency CRT/tanaka.  This is great news for Geoff and for all of us involved in social media.  In fact, what it shows is that social media can find its own voice and then become an integral part of an organization and not exist as its own silo.