UPDATED: Why Social Media Releases are Moving in a Bad Direction - Questionable Ethics in Masquerading as "News"

By Tom Foremski - October 17, 2007

Brian Solis from FutureWorks PR and and Todd Defren from Shift Communications have collaborated on a post called: " The Future of the Social Media Release is in Your Hands."

They have both been strong supporters of my call for a different type of press release described in my post "Die! Press Release! Die! Die! Die!" Mr Defren quickly came up with a template for my ideas. And over time, it began to be called a "social media release."

Shifttemplate.jpg

I have welcomed such efforts simply because it can make my life easier in assembling the information and materials I need when I'm writing stories.

Make my job easier

The whole point of my rant about the press release was that it was not suitable for use in today's online world. Put some links in it, (still, very few press releases have links), tab/label various sections so I can quickly find relevant information; give me links to relevant stories; give me a page of analyst quotes and customer quotes; provide me with links to stock price; provide links to other media formats such as podcasts and vidcasts. It is all very obvious stuff, imho.

Also, I prefer the term new media release, it is a more neutral term than "social media release."

But there is a much bigger and more worrying difference than just the name. The social media release is evolving into something much different - it seeks to bypass journalists altogether.

Mr Solis and Mr Defren write:

...search engines are an incredible catalyst for news distribution: people are finding news through Google and Yahoo and as a result have become more accepting of press releases as legitimate information resources, on a par with trusted trade journals (this has been documented by several analysts tracking the media space).

Their argument appears to be that a social media release is a good thing because readers will attribute the same trust to a social media release as to content written by trade journalists. Self-serving content will appear as if it were unbiased content.

Not a good thing

Why is this a good thing? It is clearly not.

Journalists are accorded a certain level of trust by readers because of their independence. Press releases are accorded a lower level of trust because they come from self-interested parties. Social media releases (SMRs) are taking advantage of readers mistaken perception that Google and Yahoo News carries content created by journalists.

This is not a good thing. This a questionable ethical PR practice. (I'm sure this is NOT what Mr Solis and Mr Defren are advocating, I know them both and they are extremely ethical and trustworthy. However, their post is encouraging further development of the social media release to gain even wider distribution.)

SEO for social media releases

Mr Solis and Mr Defren complain that not all search engines discover social media releases. Technorati is one of those problematic search engines. Which I would say is a good thing, that the Technorati algorithm, unlike Google and Yahoo's, recognizes the difference in the content between self-serving corporate releases and the posts of bloggers and journalists.

They offer tips and techniques to overcome such limitations for social media releases and go on to conclude:

The key to the SMR’s long-term success will be the ability to truly be social; to not only deliver the news in a snazzy new format, but also to facilitate discovery through Social Media channels, encourage sharing and spark conversations, all in a way that brings customers, journalists, bloggers, and analysts together around your story and your community.

And they issue a call to action:

How you develop and issue SMRs is ultimately up to you, and given that these are the early days, the interest level is high in making sure we get this right. We’re all in this together.

My advice is don't. I am a huge fan of the work of Mr Solis and Mr Defren. But on this issue of making social media releases that can find even wider distribution to readers by using various tricks and techniques I part company.

Our society needs high quality information and it is the job of journalists to sort through many sources and try to come up with something that reflects a truth.

Companies and their PR firms create self-serving materials. And if those materials, under the disguise of social media releases, fool readers into thinking these are the same as if written by journalists-- it does not make the world a better place.

Similarly, if those self-serving materials find wider distribution than news stories written by journalists because of sophisticated tricks and techniques--it does not make the world a better place.

Let's go back to the concept of a new media release: the release of relevant content in formats that make the job of a journalist easier. Readers can still discover the original materials that the journalists use to write their stories and thus companies will still be able to present their side of the story.

Brian Solis replies:

Tom, well said, and honestly, I think we all agree here.

Perhaps we weren't clear enough in our post and for that, we will have to update it.

This isn't a call to action for people to take garbage to new levels of distribution and reach.

It all starts with thinking about what you want to say and figure out why it's important to those you want to reach.

A crappy press release is still a crappy press release regardless of multimedia or social bling.

Our intention is the furthest thing from offering tips and tricks to manipulate people.

Writing the news in a way that's helpful, informative, and relative is a critical starting point for any release to be successful now and in the future.

The reason for this post is to remind people that tricking out press releases for the sake of tapping into a trend doesn't do anyone any good.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Press releases, for better or worse, ARE already showing up in search engines as a natural part of the wire distribution process. It's just a "benefit" for the $1,000 fee you pay.

According to Outsell, Inc. over 51% of IT professionals are reporting that they get their news from press releases in Yahoo and Google news over trade journals.

It's a fact that is changing the game for PR, and it's not only being driven by journalists, but customers too.

What it really represents is an opportunity, dictated by necessity, to do things better.

As we talked about last week, PR won't change until it has to.

Our post simply explains the differences between multimedia and social media versus the packages that you, as pr pros, are buying and what/where it gets you.

Tom, there are vendors now that are selling social media release packages that aren't full social. So, we're calling attention to the building blocks and the channels to help people understand the entire game and to guide them how to tell a better story without adjectives.

As you say, "...the release of relevant content in formats that make the job of a journalist easier. Readers can still discover the original materials that the journalists use to write their stories and thus companies will still be able to present their side of the story."

This is a call to action for PR people to stop and think about the entire process and take the challenge for improvement, whether multimedia or social.

What we all agree on is that we have a responsibility to you and to our customers that we need to finally take seriously. And, in order to build/continue relationships, we have to provide information in way that works for the different groups of people that want info, without the usual b.s. or spintastic hype.

Thanks Brian I certainly agree with you on these issues and I'm glad we can both point to the dangers in moving the social press release beyond its charter. There are many people in the PR industry that love the fact that they can capitalize on flaws in the search engines to move corporate messages into the mainstream.

Technorati Tags: , ,



Share this article

 Subscribe in a reader

By Tom Foremski - October 17, 2007 | Permalink | Comment | Category: New Rules Communications
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile

Comments (11)

Kami Huyse:

Of course, nothing on the Internet is just for one constituency anymore (i.e. journalists).

That said, I think that most people wouldn't mistake the links and assets associated with this type of release as unbiased journalism. The format belies that.

As for the call for these releases to be more conversational, I am not as convinced of the value. Right now, the issue is that more and more people are becoming content creators. The purview of content creation extends beyond professional journalists and into the everyday person. The SMR or NMR should facilitate breaking out information for all content creators, not bypass the media, but keeping in mind the citizen journalist and enthusiast.

Posted: October 17, 2007 2:07 PM

Withheld (seriously, my real name):

(1) Based on experience, many clients -- and their customers -- don't see a difference between a press release and real reporting.

(2) At a macro level, journalism is in worse shape today than PR when it comes to credibility.

Neither of these bode well for those who want balanced, unbiased facts.

The real challenge is for the reader/viewer to question what they read, watch and hear and pull information from multiple sources.

Posted: October 18, 2007 12:56 PM

Eric Eggertson:

Tom:

My understanding is that part of the rationale for social media news release is to make the information, graphics, etc., more flexible for re-use.

It's not just for journalists, unless you include people who comment about things on blogs, micro-blogs, podcasts, websites, performance art, analysts' reports, videos, etc., as journalists.

As for journalists providing links back to the guts of a social media release, it's a nice concept, but most media organizations are so stingy about links that it's much more likely that most mainstream media uses of the content will strip out any links back to the source.

Sorry for the run-on sentences!

Posted: October 19, 2007 3:13 PM

Tom Foremski:

Yes, a social or new media release does provide reusable media components which is great because legal can clear each one and once cleared it can be reused.

I'm not sure how many people other than journalists would want to create content around corporate messages.

As for journalists being seen as less credible than PR people - you've got to be kidding. Yes, journalists make mistakes especially when they are overworked because of newsroom cuts.

And that people can't tell the difference between journalism and a press release, again you've got to be kidding.

If that were true, then PR would have to confront a serious ethical issue-publishing self-serving, biased content that is perceived by readers to carry the same trust as news stories. That is a very bad thing for society.

Fortunately, there is no need to examine PR ethics on that issue because readers can tell the difference between the two.

- - -

Yes, a social or new media release does provide reusable media components which is great because legal can clear each one and once cleared it can be reused. And it can be reused to craft pitches that are targeted for different communities.

I'm not sure how many people other than journalists would be creating content related to corporate announcements...

Posted: October 19, 2007 4:18 PM

Withheld:

It's not that they are less credible, it's that the lines have blurred (not for journalists and PR pros...they know the difference). There are still people who believe that a release getting picked up on Yahoo is a "hit." There are still many who believe that Fox News is balanced (likewise for others).

And that is why this thread you've started -- quite easily the longest running thread on the modern day web -- is so important. I disagree with you that people who aren't journalists or flacks know the difference, but agree wholeheartedly that the laziness of the audience is a bad thing for society.

Don't let this thread die. It's too important. Heck, it's the very backbone of a democratic society. Kudos, Tom.

Posted: October 19, 2007 5:20 PM

Dominic Jones:

While Brian's intentions are pure, the fact remains that the SMR idea is being abused.

The sleazy side of PR now has a new and effective tool -- a press release that looks like a blog post on TechCrunch or something your friends on Facebook might produce.

While the intention was never to confuse people into thinking a press release was something else, that's the unintended result.

The genie is out of the bottle...


Posted: October 21, 2007 7:29 PM

Tom Foremski:

I still think that people do know the difference between content that comes from a company or its surrogates (PR firms.) If I'm wrong and PR professionals are deliberately using a social media release to fool people then they should stop using the social media release now. Or mark it: "Not to be distributed on Google News or Yahoo News or on any other aggregator of news written by journalists."

Posted: October 22, 2007 5:13 PM

Withheld:

I don't think the PR pros are using SMRs to be unethical. In fact, I think most are using it to add content that might be helpful. Rather, I think the issue is with readers not making the decision (or, worse, not caring that there's a distinction). I think it's more widespread than you think. Now, your disclaimer about distribution...that's another good discussion starter.

Posted: October 22, 2007 5:31 PM

TJM:

Give us readers a bit of credit. I always think about the source of some article, whether it is a journalist, analyst, PR person or blogger and judge the content accordingly.

Also, aren't trade and business journalists tainted too? They are often ra-ra about the companies and products they cover, and they write so much content that I doubt they have time to really think. From that perspective, the press release might be more accurate as the companies have a vested interest in getting it right.

Posted: October 22, 2007 7:22 PM

Dominic Jones:

This is purely anecdotal, but it's not just the readers, it's the journalists who are confused. The anchor of a local public TV current affairs program I like to watch has in the past week or so twice used the expression "The Canada Newswire reports that..." As if Canada Newswire is the work of impartial journalists. The guy, who is highly respected, is presenting press releases as news articles. I'm not making that up.

Sure, he's quoting traditional releases as fact and perhaps he wouldn't do the same thing with social media releases. But you have to wonder how people can tell that something is a press release if it doesn't look like one any longer.

Posted: October 22, 2007 11:41 PM

Robert:

Sad to say, too many lazy reporters simply rewrite news releases. Sometimes there's a rush to deadline to get something done, but more often than not a news release will get a cursory re-write to comply with the news outlet's writing style, with no serious vetting or original reporting. But even with that sort of laziness, there is still at least a minimal filter to determine whether something is "newsworthy" or not.

Posted: October 23, 2007 6:07 AM

Post a comment