Drawing Flak from the Flacks: Transitions are always painful and emotional
By Tom Foremski - January 31, 2006
I've been drawing a lot of flak lately from the flacks in the PR industry, as I've been asking where is the disruption in their sector?
Why hasn't the PR industry joined the media industry's hand basket to hell? Media and PR industries have always moved pretty much in tandem--with maybe a six to nine month lag.
My posts have generated quite a lot of debate, and responses from leaders in the PR industry--which is wonderful. [That's one of the forgotten roles of a journalist--to be a muckraker, to challenge the accepted notions of our times.] Richard Edelman, for example, has written a lengthy post. And Steve Rubel, the top PR blogger, has also spent time discussing my posts on his blog Micro Persuasion.
I have a lot of respect for PR professionals (I use flack as an affectionate term, in the same way as I refer to myself and fellow journalists as hacks). I've worked with PR people for nearly 25 years both here and in London. We work on different sides of the same coin: we try to find and publish great, compelling stories. And the best PR folk think like journalists.
Lately, I have been challenging the PR industry to move away from business as usual because of the changing nature of communications and media.
Paradoxically...
The great paradox of the PR community is that it spotted the changes a long time ago. It spotted the emergence and importance of blogging a long time ago--several years sooner than the mainstream media. And it shows: there are more PR bloggers than journalist bloggers, and they have been around a lot longer.
Yet nothing much has changed in the way the PR industry does its job. Yes, there is a nod or two, here and there to new approaches, but 99 per cent of the industry's revenues come from traditional services.
BTW, let me say this again: blogging and related technologies such as podcasting are not disrupting mainstream media they are disrupting the PR sector; online advertising is disrupting media.
When you have huge disruption happening in the media sector--and none at all in the PR sector--you have to wonder if a reckoning of sorts is on the way.
Shift happens
Among all the feedback I've received, I've also had some of the most senior executives in the PR industry privately tell me, "Tom, you are right." Yet it is difficult for them to say it in public, and I can understand their position. It is much easier (and effective) for me to act as an agent of change since I am outside of the industry.)
I see myself as helping the transition to the new communications industry, and such transitions are always painful and emotional.
- - -
BTW, if you want to know what the new communications will look like--call me :-)
Related: Richard Edelman's essay "The Me2 Revolution."
By Tom Foremski - January 31, 2006 | Permalink | Comment
| Category: PR Watch
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile
- NEW STORIES:
- Intel Experiment Could Save Millions in Data Center Power Costs
- Will East Coast Flood West Coast in Search of Jobs?
- GOOG Founders Could Buy All US Newspapers and Still Have $12bn
- Microsoft in Bay Area Recruiting Blog Sites for AdCenter Ad Network
- Silicon Valley Rocks! Charity Event for Local Schools
- Fishwrap: Changing Media and PR . . . Plus a Great Pep Talk
- Top of my 2008 Watch: Berlin Based Plista . . . and Online Dopplegangers
- The "Experiential Gap" . . . and the Growing Cosmos of Twitter Applications
- FT Anger on AIG Bailout
- Shift Happens . . . A Visit With One of My Favorite PR Companies
Comments (5)
Tom, I do know what the new communications will look like. What if PR no longer involved the media? What if PR actually meant relating with publics. What if we found new ways - blogs, podcasts and whatever's next - to engage audiences directly in real conversations now that the media has been Googlized? Now that's something you should write about since you feel the media is already on its last leg. Some in PR will get this faster than others, but you are discounting the role that survival plays in motivating.
Posted: January 31, 2006 6:07 PM
Hi Tom -
Here's my response to your Handbasket musings:
http://pr-squared.blogspot.com/2006/01/tackling-silicon-valley-watchers-dire.html
I find it tough to believe that senior PR execs have privately told you that "you are right." I think you are right to suggest that PR needs to more aggressively embrace new media strategies, but "handbasket to hell"? I agree with Steve Rubel: we've got some time to figure this out, and, communicating to "just" the traditional media will die-out as a strategy as our industry embraces alternative strategies to influence multiple "publics."
Posted: February 2, 2006 10:14 AM
LOL
This latest saga is so similiar to your comments on how you felt SEO would die.
There will always be a place in any good marketing strategy for PR, for SEO, and for traditional advertising. Any business or marcom pro who thinks otherwise will be ground into dust by their competitors.
The reason businesses continue to spend on PR is because it works, not only to establish reputation but also to develop buzz for new products or services. Talk to anyone with a company website and they'll tell you getting mentioned in a print publication or on a tv show brings in tons of new traffic.
I would go so far as to say that targeting traditional media for PR is more important than ever because almost all media outlets now have online versions. A mention in a mag almost always equates to an archived link on a the publication's web site. That's double the fun for the same amount of investment. The problem when you have doomsday attitude about changes within an industry is that you miss out on the killer opportunities.
I'm beginning to think that whenever SVW starts getting chatty about marketing it really just means it was a slow day for tech news. ;-)
Posted: February 4, 2006 5:47 PM
I've been drawing a lot of flak lately from the flacks in the PR industry, as I've been asking where is the disruption in their sector?
Surely this is the whole point of writing this kind of post. :)
Posted: February 5, 2006 12:05 PM
Alice: Yes, of course, that's the whole point :-)
Kat: If you could measure PR you would find it does not work, or at least does work efficiently. There are more effective ways to boost the bottom line. And the more of the marketing spend we ARE able to measure, the more measureable becomes the unmeasureable in PR...
And as for SEO--I still keep coming back to this: what is the point in trying to trick a search engine to rank you higher than you deserve? It just disappoints the user.
Optimise for the user not the spiderbot let the search engines optimize themselves--and they would if SEO'rs weren't trying to fake-out the algorithms, imho ;-)
Steve Rubel: You might find it tough to believe that some of THE most senior executives in the industry have said "Tom, you are right" but nevertheless, that is the case. I think you underestimate the intelligence of your senior ranks. . .
TDefren and others: I think the pr/communications industry has a bright future but not if it sticks to its business as usual attitude and products. I'm just trying to get you guys see that there are more effective ways emerging for companies to reach the attention of potential customers. And there will be equal amonts of disruption in yur ndustry as there is in my industry--media. It is just that it hasn't hit you yet, but it will. But I promise not to say "I told you so" when it starts happening, or at least I promise not to say it too many times :-)
Posted: February 7, 2006 12:29 PM