Visit speed website Earlin' PR abuse home
August 16th, 2010 by Steve

CIPR Social Summer: social networking begins by opening your gob

Here’s a summary of the points I covered at the latest CIPR Social Summer meeting last Thursday. Phil Sheldrake asked me to talk about social networking in the real world. That’s pretty easy I thought, I could just bang on about what I talk about down the pub. But I then realised people have to pay to attend and I wouldn’t want to inflict that on anyone anyway.

So, what is social networking anyway? Social networking is one of those social media things that lots of clever people drone on about, but typically they’re trying to overcomplicate things. Put another way, social networking is really just talking to people. Just like in the real world. But just doing it via means of typing as well as by use of the tongue and voicebox.

If you’re just looking at how you influence reputation through a keyboard, in the absence of all of the other influences that surround us – in particular good old word-of-mouth – you are some way off the mark. Most of us network socially in the real world about the things that matter to us as well as doing so online. And only by understanding how conversations and influence develop both online and offline can we really understand how reputation develops.

Anyway, a copy of the presentation I ran through is here, giving a couple of examples and some food for thought.

Main points I covered:
- People talk: media digitisation means you can harness it and track it in order to influence reputation, but in doing so we have to understand how conversations develop online and offline – and often flit between one and the other

- Don’t get confused by all the bollocks some self-proclaimed social media experts are touting about social networks, they’re typically guffing on to make themselves look clever and charging money for doing so. The power of talk lies in compelling people to act upon it, and changing media gives PRs greater scope for doing that, albeit that planning must be far more sophisticated to what we’ve typically done in the past

- But you must really understand the audience in order to develop the content, and be agile enough to accommodate change. That can mean more in-depth research, more precise segmentation, lots of things. It varies. Overall, online you must know who you’re talking to and why they’re interested, just like in the real world

The social summer series continued this Thursday, when the scouse in the house will be the excellent Ged Carroll.

May 12th, 2010 by Steve

A new media coalition too?

Yes we have a new Government.

Forget all that though. What have the past few weeks meant for the future of media in the UK?

Given the down with Brown barbed vitriole of yesterday’s print media front pages and the broad yet tepid ‘dawn of a new era but with a big pile of stench to deal with‘ headlines this morning, it looks like the press has had a nervy and uncomfortable time of covering the UK’s General Election.

As Peter Kirwan’s excellent article in Wired illustrates, even The Sun, the infamous swinger of the polling stations, has had to do a lot of soul searching over who it backs and how it does it (and how it does it plausibly). Gone, probably, are the days of the election being the ultimate muscular demonstration of the so-called power of the press.

There was, inevitably, much online chatter during the campaign about the role social media would play in determining the new Government, ranging from analysis of what was most Twittered during the keyboard frenzy of the televised leader debates to some frothy hype around quite how influential certain online influencers might be.

What does this mean for the media in the future? Well, I’m sure the national newspapers will do an internal post-mortem of their stance, their main headlines and their editorial/leader columns today. And whatever conclusions are reached, one thing is clear: the sway they have commanded over previous elections is diminishing.

New forms of media are gaining influence – that goes without saying. What conventional media needs, in my view, is not to go all-starry eyed over social media but realise that the expectation of many readers is now that there will be some kind of meaningful dialogue with them. In social media terms, the papers must join the conversation rather than trying to dictate it, albeit that it will always both form a view and needs to ensure that its editorial is respected.

Conventional media, as the election highlighted, needs to get to grips with online conversation. It’d be like a coalition with new media: maintaining its brand equity, editorial integrity and publisher priorities while at the same time engaging with readers directly.

Proper engagement too, rather than pictures of attractive teenage ‘readers’ giving their gushing views on a leader, or a few terse letters to the editor that may not have been generated externally.