Visit speed website Earlin' PR abuse home
March 4th, 2011 by Steve

Too much talk, not enough action

A PR person saying there’s too much talk around? Are you reading correctly?

Well in fairness, the role of the PR has long been to work to cut through all the noise that’s out there in order to communicate a message clearly, and so impart influence.

Yes, PR is changing. But is has always been changing, it’s just that the pace has accelerated. As a child of the 80s (born in the early half of the 70s, but grew up chomping on 80s media) I was as dazzled at the rest of the country when Channel 4 launched. FOUR TERRESTRIAL TV CHANNELS! Where will we look for news and information? Will our heads explode?

It was an era that brought with it mass expansion of trade, business and consumer media. Then along came satellite and, later, cable TV. In less than a generation we’ve gone from not really having much to look at to needing 20,000 eyeballs to keep up with it all.

So we play an important role in filtering the good stuff and fighting the white noise. But now that the internet has made everyone a potential publisher, and the world is overbrimming with ‘talk’, is just talking louder or smarter the way to get the message through effectively?

Of course not. Most PRs realised that quite a while ago. Even so though, we do too much communicating by talking about things, rather than trying to do things that get talked about.

What am I ‘talking’ about? Well, it’s this simple: people MAY believe what you say, but they WILL believe what you do. If they read that you’ve done something or think something, they may well take the information on board and form an opinion about you. But show them what you’ve done or why you think something and they’re far more likely to understand, appreciate and endorse you to others, providing they believe in it.

In years gone by, PR managers would scrutinise the value of activities by assessing how many people would be reached by an activity. Want us to talk at seminar when only 50 people will be there? Not enough reach, even if the 50 people are relevant. Profile piece in a magazine? The bought circulation is quite low, let’s try something else.

Now with the internet, something that engages a relatively small number of people can quickly see influence spreading to a far wider audience. Because those who’ve experienced something, enjoyed it and been inspired by it can be set loose as ambassadors. Dialogue is more powerful than monologue, but charge it with feverish enthusiasm and it becomes a weapon.

Expect to see more on this from Speed soon. We’ve organised several campaigns in the past year that have seen the word spread like wildfire from a relatively small group on the ground to a far bigger audience online.

It’s a question of doing what you say to accelerate the impact of saying what you do.

March 3rd, 2011 by Steve

What the iPad 2 really means for PR

Not a lot.

It’s a powerful little computer. It looks pretty and is apparently much lighter than its predecessor. Its chip is butch.

When the first iPad came out there was the usual smorgasbord of hype about how it would change the way people ‘consumed’ media. And it’s certainly true that tablets of all kinds are doing that. Some of the iPad apps now available from publishers provide  an incisive glimpse of where media is heading, with content delivered in an intuitive and engaging way that far outstrips other digitised editorial forms.

iPad 2 is kind of the same but better. Apart from one subtle difference – the onboard cameras. On both sides. But you knew that because of all of Apple’s pre-launch leaks.

Why does a front-facing camera make a difference for PR? Because of the potential is has for human interaction.

If you think of tablets less as a small computer and more as a big phone that you can see things better on (though the lines are ever-blurring) that makes a bit more sense. As it stands, the iPad is a great platform for consuming media on. Providing the software is right, it gives most of us the ability to read and view editorial content in a bright, entertaining and informative way while we’re on the move. It might not be a substitute for all printed and conventional broadcast media, but it goes a long way.

The previous limitation was the reader or viewer engagement was largely limited to text-based interaction. Type things into social media applications or services. Type comments at the end of a media article. Type comments and enter them into a live debate. That’s all well and good, and there are increasingly good analystics for measuring what that ‘feedback’ means for those concerned. But it’s pretty one-dimensional, a bit laborious and a fairly closeted kind of engagement.

If Apple gets it right with Facetime, and other tablet makers follow suit (which they tend to do), the camera’s capacity to enable conversation – see the face, hear the voice – has the potential to change the way in which media content is devoured (hey, that seems like a better word than the well-worn consumed) and people are persuaded.

It could be a subtle yet important development in the quest for certainty in the influence game, because media becomes more powerful.

Let’s hope that power is used appropriately, and PRs get to grips with its potential quickly.

November 3rd, 2010 by Steve

Social media influence: dodging the tossfest

It was with a tingling spine that I read an email asking me to chair a panel debate on the future of social media influence at the PRCA National Conference.

The reason for the trepidation is that the bloated and much-mystic hype which surrounds this topic has long been a subject of irritation for me. The challenge is how to chair a session and have a pragmatic, commercial and grown-up discussion about what influence is and isn’t possible, and how that may change, rather than letting it descend into a social media tossfest of long words and fancy theories.

So having polled the panel about their views, here’s what tomorrow’s panel at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester will cover, amongst other things:

- Audience: how can PRs better understand who it is they’re trying to reach, so influence can be well planned (and outcomes measured)?

- Influence first: is the PR sector too carried away with social media this and social media that? Shouldn’t we be thinking about desired commercial outcomes and what influence is required to create them first, then the media (social, conventional, mainstream; animal, vegetable, mineral) as the next step?

- Bigger thinking when planning: campaigns intended to create influence that use social media probably shouldn’t do so in isolation. There needs to be a far longer-term and better joined-up approach that considers any and all media and techniques that may be appropriate. One of the challenges is finding room in budgets to do that smarter legwork.

Should be a good session. The panelists are Mark Hanson from Wolfstar, John Kinder from Golley Slater, Steve Downes from Juice Digital and Tim Zecchin from Media Measurement.

August 19th, 2010 by Steve

Multi-tasking with media: a kick in the shins for reputation-building?

Today’s BBC coverage of the Ofcom study into how Britons now consume media features some perhaps obvious but nonetheless stark highlights. On average, we now spend, according to the study, half of our waking lives consuming media. Moreover, a lot of that time is spent consuming multiple types of media at the same time.

So we’re exposed to more media – good for those of us who work to influence reputation. But our eyes and ears are everywhere, meaning we undoubtedly have smaller attention spans and influence may be battering us from all angles – potentially bad for reputation efforts.

Or is it?

Rory Cellan-Jones’ latest blog post talks of the moral panic created by the realistation that we spend so much time staring at gadgets or listening to broadcasts. The ‘too much telly’ decry has long been a feature of applicable social analysis, but the rapid digitisation and socialisation of media makes this a whole different issue. So we’re spending a lot of time consuming information and communicating? Good. We’re on Facebook, Twitter and commenting on blogs while watching TV? Better than just slumped in front of the telly vegetating.

But the moral implications aren’t my point here. With multi-tasking firmly established in our media habits, with so many types of media that we actively engage with daily, and with media changing rapidly, the potential for influence reputation is increasing. It’s just that there are so many more options and planning how content is disseminated is now a far more intricate process. Early communication that created influence – the sermon on the mount, the town crier, Houdini’s publicity stunts that got ink – has been replaced with a fragmented media landscape and real difficulty in working out which publicity will have the greatest impact.

Which means effective PR needs to be a lot more sophisticated, and PRs must invest a lot more thought and expertise in doing things right. Which means this is no place for slackers or airheads.

PR planning must be upgraded to meet the needs of changing media and the public’s rabid appetite for it. We need to go and ask the target audience what media they consume and ask them the right kinds of questions about how how they perceive brands as a result. Equally, asking everyone will mean prohibitive costs, and even then they may not tell us the whole truth.

So the opportunity to create greater influence with more media, that people are consuming more of, is there. We just need to gain proper insight and do a lot of hard work to be effective.

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.

July 2nd, 2010 by Steve

Social media bingers ‘under the influence’ – shock

Social f&cking media eh?

If you’re a PR, it’s everywhere. All the time. Dozens of tatty bits of spam each day. Hundreds of tweets from inane PR types about the fact that they’re buying a coffee, how ‘busy’ they are, some apparently fascinating new fact (normally days after the event) or their latest Lambrini escapade. Loads of sage-like wisdom from the social media powerlords about the future, the larger social implications and the sheer exuberance that stemmed from what several dozen people had to say about a topic that’s actually very on the grey side.

If a lot of the Twitter conversations I’ve seen recently are comparable to conversations in a pub, it’s time to sup up and sod off home.

But enough of this pessimism and wholly unfair fingerpointing. The point of this post is an appeal for all PRs to get real and move on on the subject of social media influence. Of course social media has growing influence. It’s sort of obvious that if people suddenly have the ability to talk to individuals, politicians and brands all over the world, that two-way communication is becoming inevitable and that the transparency has hitherto unforeseen power, it will have influence. Yes social media has influence. Yes it is measurable in some way, because it is digitised so has an audit trail.

Yet those PRs who bleat on about how fascinating it is that influence can be measured, that ratings and supposed positivity around a brand or a person can be extracted in graph form, are spending too much time wallowing in the same wafting smells and not enough considering the bigger picture. Which is that media is changing, outcomes can be better measured but we are not there yet in making PR a fully measurable cost centre. Not by a long way.

Equally, the social media experts (they call themselves that, so clearly it must be so, given the scope of their social media influence of course) who run down other forms of media are short-sighted. Media is changing. The rules are changing. Influence is changing. We don’t know what it will look like in future, but saying something like the internet is now all-powerful and telly is less so is missing the point by a country mile.

The way I see it is this: some clever people are putting time and thought into making PR more measurable and making sense of media/technological change, and they will get their rewards I hope. Meanwhile, a lot of (by comparison) very workshy or blindly-led people are banging on about things like social media influence as if it’s the be-all and end-all of modern, better justifiable PR. My guess is they’re doing it because they’re late to the party and reckon it’ll get them sales/prevent them from looking like dinosaurs. And all they’re doing is confusing matters and making the industry look a bit fickle.

I’ve deliberately left lots of links out of this post. I could attribute much of this venting to individuals and their published content, but that’d be a cheap shot, even for me.

So instead, consider some of the emails and tweets I’ve seen in recent days from agencies and individuals offering ‘social media services’, advice and trumpeting interesting social media things:
- Five ways to get started with a social media strategy
- The power of Twitter influence
- Social media engagement and why communities work
- Building social media into your engagement framework
- Social media is good for you (because it’s so social)

FFS.

It’s the equivalent of old school PRs 20 years ago braying about why newspapers are widely read by people, why being on the front page means your story is prominent or why television can be influential given it can attract a captive audience of couch potatoes.

Social media is one of the most important developments in media ever, because it is direct to readers, is two-way and leaves an audit trail. Fact. Get over it. Get on with it. And while you’re at it, figure out how editorial influence and search marketing join up too please.

And for the love of Jesus, will someone please send me a message about how to make PR properly measurable in a very straightforward way; so that for once, finally, after years of struggle, I can clinically prove the value of what I do for a living?