Filed under: PR 101, Social Media | Tags: chris heuer, fathom seo, jeremy pepper, pr newswire, public relations, shel holtz, SHIFT, smnr, smr, social media news release, social media release, todd defren
I’ve been speaking up on Twitter about my concerns around Social Media Releases (SMRs). I’ve apparently been flapping my gums enough to get the attention of PR Newswire, a representative of which called me yesterday to find out why I’ve been so negative. I know that social media expands far beyond marketing but in this blog I’m focusing on my concerns with SMRs further enabling sub-par PR skills.
Over at Social Media Release, Chris Heuer gives a quick overview of the purported magic of the SMR:
“The Social Media Release is intended to make it easier on people to identify and share the most important pieces of information with others around the globe while adding their own valuable perspective and/or editorial. It also takes full advantage of HTML, multimedia and the network effects enabled by the Internet by using structured data via the Microformat, which ultimately increases its findability by interested parties - which is ultimately the driving purpose of public relations and the press release specifically.”
Let’s hone in on the implication that ruffles my former PR girl feathers the most: Increasing the findability of press releases is the ultimate purpose of PR. I could’ve sworn the ultimate driving purpose of PR was to fuel company visibility and credibility with support of third-party validation, which in turn drives revenue.
Press releases, SMRs or otherwise, are sales tools and information vehicles for customers, partners and shareholders. They are not a primary driver for bringing news to the media and achieving balanced coverage. If an SMR is discovered out on the Web, even if it includes comments from third-party sources or trackbacks to blogs that support it, it is still covered in marketing slime. Can it really be any more of a trusted resource than a regular old press release?
Heuer, Jeremy Pepper, Shel Holtz and Todd Defren (the credited developer of the first SMR) had a large Twitter discussion a while back on where the SMR fits in the PR landscape. I agreed most strongly with Pepper on what is also my biggest concern: there is no substitute for good relationship building and written communications. I don’t care if the medium is an SMR or an email or a carrier pigeon or some futuristic Jetson-esque device. What helps drive good news is a) solid content and b) trusted relationships and there is no “tool” that replaces it — my friend and well-known tech journalist Ryan Naraine agrees. He’s said before that he does not care how the news is delivered, just give him good content and don’t waste his time.
The proponents of the SMR say that they never intended it to be a replacement for good PR skills and I trust them on that one. These are seasoned guys. I worry more about the less-than-stellar or junior PR folks using it as yet another cop-out for poor writing or lackluster communication skills. And if their perception might be that the sole objective of PR is to increase “findability” of marketing collateral, we’ve got problems.
Less dangerous to me is the social media newsroom, which I believe was also fathered by SHIFT Communications. I tend to like the simple and clean approach that Fathom SEO is using (the company recently released a WordPress template for such). The social media newsroom seems to accomplish what I think most companies who have a broad blogosphere presence would want, from linking to multimedia and social networking pages to integrating commentary. But if you have a fully functional social media newsroom, and a handle on truly top notch PR strategy, do you need the SMR?
In the end, regardless of what I blather here, I’m still trying to find the answer to one simple question: “Does anyone have any metrics to suggest the proven success of an SMR in *any* arena?” Especially considering their cost. I’ve asked this on Twitter on and off for about a month now and no one has yet to provide a case study.
Can you?
Filed under: PR 101, Security | Tags: bloggers, ethics, martin mckeay, pitching, public relations, rsa, security conference, Social Media
With RSA Conference approaching, security vendors and their PR agencies are in the midst of a pitching frenzy to set up meetings with media and industry analysts — and bloggers. Yep, this year even independent bloggers are eligible for media credentials. Considering that security buyers — heck, IT buyers in general — are increasingly turning to nontraditional blogs to influence their decisions, this is a smart move on the RSA’s part. Not so smart, however, is the bit of confusion this is creating amid some PR folks who aren’t aware that a lot of these independents also hold day jobs at security vendors. This confusion, in turn, is forcing these bloggers to ask themselves some ethical questions (although, anything that compels those who wield the power of information to act with more care can’t be that bad).
Since I’m no longer in the business of pitching media I didn’t think much about this divide until yesterday when I talked to my buddy Martin McKeay. Apparently Martin was receiving a slew of pitches on behalf of vendors attending RSA (which is no wonder — he and Rich Mogull host the über popular Network Security Podcast). All was well and good until he noticed a pitch from a competitor of his company. Now what? He promptly disclosed to the PR person his “alter ego” and the response was essentially, “We still want to meet with you.” Ok, so, now what?
It’s a befuddling fine line and one that is not unique to the security industry. With all of the social media blogs I read, nary a day passes during which I do not stumble across the “blogger vs. journalist” debate. This situation diverges a bit from that tired old argument, though. To me this is more of a question of — why aren’t the PR people doing their research?
Just for kicks I opened the RSA media list. There are 14 people listed as “blogger.” Scanning the list, about half of them note their company names. While the others only list blog names, wouldn’t simple deduction suggest that perhaps doing a simple Google search would reveal any potential alter egos? The answer is yes — I just did it. LinkedIn profiles abound. More than that, as good PR citizens, aren’t we supposed to research our targets before we pitch them anyway?
Now before you, dear reader, say “but if these bloggers had only listed their companies this wouldn’t have happened! Boo independent bloggers!” let me stop you. Another buddy (requesting anonymity surely due to my blog’s broad readership) who did list his company name also received several meeting pitches. I won’t go into a rant about “how to appropriately pitch meetings at trade shows” but I will simply say that journalists, analysts and bloggers are wise to the impersonal Microsoft Excel-import-and-mail-merge. I will even begrudgingly admit to getting jokingly flamed by Mike Rothman just last week by accidentally doing such to him — so trust me on this one.
I realize that some responsibility does lie with the bloggers. Disclosures should be made at some point and if briefings happen and if they choose to cover the news, it should be balanced. There’s also the nagging question of, “how much do they share with their employers?” And, might that potentially and unwittingly invite censorship into the mix?
I must call out that I am in no way implying that independent bloggers who are affiliated with security vendors cannot be impartial in their reporting. Many of them are. Martin is. But if I was a PR person who was pitching briefings discussing the intricate ins and outs of my company’s vision, product offering or sales strategy, I’d want to make darn sure I wasn’t walking into the lion’s den of a competitor.
See you all at RSA.
