Welcome to MyRagan Forum. Browse through any forum, sign in or register here and you'll be on your way to creating your own discussions and posting replies for the whole community to see :D
Strumpette continuously misdefines public relations as meaning the same thing as media relations.
While I've always valued the assertion that we need the media (and do not fancy citizen journalists as a replacement as much as an augmentation of traditional media), there is no mistaking that the public is becoming much more interested in getting some of their news direct from companies or people within a particular industry because frankly, traditional media has lost some credibility over the years for several reasons.
I thinks that's a shame, but it is what it is. No amount of erred thinking ("Bottom line: if the media ignore you, you are likely full of donkey dust") is going to change the fact because, in general, the public doesn't trust the media anymore. Instead, it looks at many outlets as just an extension of the corporations that own them.
So if the public begins to find faith in bloggers or even non-news companies as a viable news source... that cannot be pinned on Edelman or public relations pros or communicators as much as it can be pinned on the media for not doing what they used to do best of all: find the truth.
Nowadays, it seems finding the truth is the excpetion and not the rule. Instead, they have taken to finding two polar opposites to create conflict where none probably needs to exist simply because, well, conflict sells. Ho hum, it doesn't do a thing to build credilbity for the publications or broadcasters that do it.
Bottom line: Stumpette often bangs on the wrong doors. She'd be better off banging on the doors of the daily newspapers to say "hey, times are changing and you're too slow to keep up." And this comes from someone who actually LIKES the media. Go figure.
- “Strumpette continuously misdefines public relations as meaning the same thing as media relations.”
No. I am defining it as it is most practically applied... in its ENTIRE HISTORY! Are there remote exceptions? Certainly.
See http://strumpette.com/archives/425-Richard-Edelmans-Desperate-Attempt-to-Change-PRs-DNA.html . Watch the Jay Rosen movie.
-“There is no mistaking that the public is becoming much more interested in getting some of their news direct from companies or people within a particular industry because frankly, traditional media has lost some credibility over the years for several reasons.“
Indeed, you are mistaken. Show me ONE study that says that the pubic is “becoming much more interested in getting some of their news direct from companies or people within a particular industry because frankly, traditional media has lost some credibility over the years for several reasons.“
Yes, information channels have proliferated DRAMATICALLY. That does not imply that people prefer a f-ed info ecosystem. You also don’t account for the fact that most of that news still emanates from a select number of credible traditional content producers. Everyone else is just variously copying; such is the “echo chamber.”
- “In general, the public doesn't trust the media anymore. Instead, it looks at many outlets as just an extension of the corporations that own them.”
TOTAL crap. It is rises to urban myth. It is the rationale of the whole PR 2.0 bubble. During there Tech bubble, there was similar paradigm shift nonsense. It, too turned out to be pure-dee flatulence.
- “So if the public begins to find faith in bloggers or even non-news companies as a viable news source... that cannot be pinned on Edelman or public relations pros or communicators as much as it can be pinned on the media for not doing what they used to do best of all: find the truth.”
Total back-flip mind fcuk. NO Rich. Like the Tech bubble, PR is again the air in the bubble. We, with Edelman leading the way, are promoting this crap so as to cash in on the next new thing. That’s all. If the public is beginning to find faith, it is because Richard, you, Bill and friends are working very hard to create faith.
- “Bottom line: Stumpette often bangs on the wrong doors. She'd be better off banging on the doors of the daily newspapers to say "hey, times are changing and you're too slow to keep up."
Again, total back-flip mind fcuk logic. FACT: THE WEB IS A DISINTERMEDIATION TOOL. Craig’s List, etc are letting the air out of their collective MSM tires and you are blaming the flat on MSM.
Here, read this: “The internet is destroying the world as we know it” (Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460901&in_page_id=1770 ). “Your child is next door on the computer, destroying the world as we know it and wrecking two of the most fundamental values that underpin society - first, as I shall explain, the distinction between truth and falsehood; second, the inviolability of personal property.”
That vile combination is at the very root of your logic and my deep frustration.
Ten buck says we need to revisit this again. That’s why they call it a fad.
The idea that public relations and media relations is the same is untrue. I'm surprised you don't know that.
One of the better definitions is "public relations is the art and science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action which will serve both the organization's and the public interest. First World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, 1979
What word is missing? Media, perhaps?
"Show me ONE study ..."
In 2006, the magic number was 102,406 — the circulation needed as a publisher to break into the Top 100 U.S. Daily Newspapers by circulation. Not to take away from whatever East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Ariz.) is doing right, but that number seems somewhat paltry to me given there are blogs that easily draw a heavier readership.
In fact, not counting Sunday circulation (most newspapers usually have larger Sunday circulations), none of the top 51-100 broke 200,000 in 2006, according to BurrellesLuce (using figures filed with the Audit Bureau of Circulations), a leading media monitoring company. Only three — USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times — break the one million circulation mark.
In contrast, you need significantly more visitors to touch the Top 100 Web sites; several of which — Yahoo, MSN, and Google — provide news content. More specifically, many top social media outlets (blogs) have a higher readership than almost all daily newspapers.
If you need any more proof that daily newspapers are in trouble, consider that comScore Networks announced that 747 million people, ages 15 , used the Internet worldwide in January 2007, a 10 percent increase from January 2006. Or that PEW/INTERNET recently noted that 15 percent of Americans cited the Internet as their primary source of political campaign news in 2006, doubling since the last mid-term election. (Expected to double again.)
So where does news emanate from? Most of it emanates from, unfortunately, new releases, police scanners, and, lately, bloggers. It's going to get worse too as newspapers suffer greater and greater cutbacks due to shrinking advertisers and a shrinking talent pool because there are fewer people who want to be paid so little to risk so much.
Oh, thanks for link to my Ralston post. Jon's a good guy, and he happens to agree with me. Just days after that post he invited Chuck Muth and another blogger on his show and congratulated them on doing what newspapers used to do.
The simple fact is most of my information on news reporting doesn't come from public relations people, Strumpette. It comes from journalists. They are concerned that journalism, newspapers in particular, are dying.
So I'm not backflipping. Here's my post based largely on what Bruce Spotleson, group publisher with Greenspun Media, had to say and my insights into social media (it's also the very reason Greenpun Media is looking for entry points into, guess what, social media): http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2007/03/chasing-newspapers-social-media.html ...
By they way, it happens to include why I think we need newspapers and few things that I think they need to do to save themselves.
So no, I'm not backflipping. I feel the same way today, largely because I work with both publishers and public relations firms. And one solution is for them to get back to finding the truth to refute what you're talking about.
You see Strumpette, the internet is not doing anything. It certainly is not "destroying" the world. People have doing a fine job of that for all of history.
Fortunately, we seem to survive it all. So please, spare some of the Y2K rhetoric that once graced the headlines and lead-ins of every major news outlet for one reason only: doomsday stories sell. Such camp fire stories capture the attention of a lot blog readers too, I hear, those who enjoy lending ghosts credibility in order to peddle fear and entertainment.
I'm okay with that. To each there own. The Internet is only as wonderful or as dangerous as the people who wield it. Or. in other words, while your gripping, I'm encouraging companies to give back to communities.
- “The idea that public relations and media relations is the same is untrue. I'm surprised you don't know that.”
Well, to match you surprise, I am exhausted trying to get through your (plural) thick skull. Like in the last thread, you are still missing the difference between theory and practice. In theory, PR spins a nice definition for itself (First World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, 1979). In practice WHAT DO WE DO? What is 99.9 percent of what we've done throughout history? Again, see the links I site about. Please.
- For "Show me ONE study" that says that the pubic is “becoming much more interested in getting some of their news direct from companies or people within a particular industry because frankly, traditional media has lost some credibility over the years for several reasons,“ you compare apples, oranges and a patio lawn chair.
1. Newspaper readership and Website hits and NOT comparable.
2. Your analysis fails to account for the fact that there's been a proliferation of niche media in print, as well. Simple: if there are now a 1,000 cable stations, OBVIOUSLY viewership of the big three networks is under pressure. That is NOT a quality statement. That's not even a statement about preference. It is about dilution and confusion.
3. To say "If you need any more proof that daily newspapers are in trouble, consider that comScore Networks announced that 747 million people, used the Internet worldwide in January 2007, a 10 percent increase from January 2006," is again faulty logic. It is tantamount to saying 10 million people watched the last episode of the Sopranos so obviously the viewers hope that Katie Couric gets whacked. Again, your premise was/is that proliferation equals a loss of credibility... and by extension an increase in credibility of Prez Hilton, for example. That's f-ed up.
4. You then cite a Pew study where "15 percent of Americans cited the Internet as their primary source of political campaign news in 2006."
Again, apples, oranges and a patio lawn chair that does NOT support your premise. What is the primary news source(s) on the Net? Google News is not a producer; they're a thief.
- "It's going to get worse too as newspapers suffer greater and greater cutbacks due to shrinking advertisers and a shrinking talent pool."
I REPEAT (see above): "total back-flip mind fcuk logic. FACT: THE WEB IS A DISINTERMEDIATION TOOL. Craig’s List, etc are letting the air out of their collective MSM tires and you are blaming the flat on MSM."
- "Journalists are concerned that journalism, newspapers in particular, are dying."
Again, see/learn/understand disintermediation model. We ALL should be concerned that Web 2.0 is destroying the institutions that are the cornerstone of our democracy and culture. Again, see “The internet is destroying the world as we know it” (Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460901&in_page_id=1770 .
- "Or, in other words, while your gripping, I'm encouraging companies to give back to communities."
Rich... put the crack pipe down. I know this social media blogging craze is a boon for your business but you (plural) have got to get your head out of your ass.
"In practice WHAT DO WE DO? What is 99.9 percent of what we've done throughout history? Again, see the links I site about. Please."
Well, I guess I can only speak for what we do, which is closer to the definition I provided than what you and others have proposed. But then, I suppose I'm more a communicator than a pr practitioner.
And true, a Web site "hit" is not a valid measure on its own, which is why tracking time on a single post, engagement, etc. might provide a better answers. However, I might point out that newspaper circulation never accounted for how many pages are actually read by the subscriber or how deep into the articles they read (about three graphs, on average, assuming they make it past the lead line, I was told once). So what's the difference?
Sure, niche publications (and free publications) are on the rise, often written by the same people who might blog. In fact, blogs have done a fine job, in some cases, at filling those niche interests.
Does that create dilution and confusion? Yes, but blogs are not alone. Publications have become a bit soft in several areas. I think we all know, though I would never do it, if you released anything with the word "study" on it, especially if it is very good for someone and very bad for someone, you'll get runs across the country because the methodology won't even be checked.
It's as ironic as the leap you take with the Sopranos analogy; certainly not your best. Katie Couric is in trouble because the news she presents is too dumbed down for the viewers, which unfortunately has eroded her credibility as a real anchor. But alas, it's not uncommon for someone who accuses someone of comparing apples and oranges, to project, even when it's unwarranted.
Net, net, you ARE right that we might be concerned that certain institutions are having a hard time transitioning and it would be great loss not to have true journalists (the few who are left), but attacking the Internet and various public relations firms is hardly the answer. A better course, again, might be to help them find the right mix to survive in a changing world. Unless you do that, all you're really doing is complaining about the inevitable much like someone on the wrong end of any technological advancement. You only present the same argument that was made with the advent of the magazines, radio, television.
So unlike you, I suppose, I don't see a doomsday scenario of the Internet destroying the world. True, journalists will have to adapt, just as they always did. But to date, no new media has ever replaced another. Will they change? You bet. Will some die or be sold along the way or morph into more niche publications with higher circulation but no subscription price? Absolutely.
So please Strumpette, if anyone needs to just say no in this discussion, it might be you saying no to playing the part of an anonymous big brother and dedicate more team time to finding applicable solutions and best practices.
Ergo, the best stories always come from formulating the right questions. Sometimes you ask decent questions, but they are not always the right questions.
As for my business, I suspect social media will help us reach some objectives, sure, but I'm a bit more practical in my assessment of it. It's only a tool. A dandy tool, but a tool none the less. And until we remember to apply strategic thinking on the front end, all we're really doing is gambling on tactics.
- “But attacking the Internet and various public relations firms is hardly the answer.”
In light of the total uncritical support that is the essence of the bubble... it is essential for all of us to be practical and diligent.
- “A better course, again, might be to help them find the right mix to survive in a changing world.”
Not while its key proponents are hitting the pipe. That would be a waste of time.
- "all you're really doing is complaining about the inevitable much like someone on the wrong end of any technological advancement."
No. As was said earlier here, not all technical advancements are social integrateable. There are countless advances that ultimately have been deemed taboo.
- "You only present the same argument that was made with the advent of the magazines, radio, television."
No. Different animal entirely. Please do me a favor and at least read the Daily Mail referenced above. You grossly underestimate the damage this disintermediation tool has already caused.
- "And until we remember to apply strategic thinking on the front end, all we're really doing is gambling on tactics."
Okay, I read, considered, laughed about, and posted my take on the article you cited.
Hmmm... you really think an article based on the theories of Andrew Keen is going to be what we base the credibility of this theory that the Internet is evil? Surely, I had hoped it was better than a post about misconception and misdirection. A cover does make a single source of editorialized thinking any more credible than, well, you know...
This thread reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch, "The Argument." -- you might not recall it -- Michael Palin and John Cleese...
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
-------------------------------- Sean Williams is CEO of Communication AMMO, Inc. and a member of the Institute for PR's Commission on Measurement and Evaluation
Rich, if you don't understand it, let alone its import, you are the very zealot and amateur the book discusses! “Cult of the Amateur” is about people that comment on books they haven’t read. It is about the politics of popularity and not substance. It is about idiots with typewriters who broadcast opinion that’s not even slightly worthwhile. It is about smashing the institutions we have in place to vet talent for a populace mob free-for-all.
Here: Imagine a world where we not only legalize graffiti, we give everyone a can of spray paint and asked them to variously express themselves. Rich, you, one of the taggers, think it’s art. It’s not. It’s ugly urban blight. Do you really think you’re talented? C’mon.
Now back to the original thrust of the discussion, it is you and people like Richard Edelman that want to change our business DNA to foster urban blight. That’s the point. It is not that the sky is falling. It is just that you and others want to lull us into being direct marketers, Amway salesmen and intellectual pornographers. That’s sad.
Ya know there are days when I think our business is fairly hopeless. We apparently lack the intellectual capacity to see the issues that face us let alone address them. We so deserve where Richard is leading us, I am afraid.
