Visit speed website Earlin' PR abuse home
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.

April 16th, 2010 by Steve

PR department of the future, final part: evolution theory

So I’m hoping to wrap things up with this post, having covered quite a lot of ground already:

- A quick history lesson and thoughts on a new intermediary role
- The fragility of agility: why as conventional and social media all just become media, speed is the need
- Are agencies even worth hiring? The myriad of choices for PR buyers today and what the future may hold

Let’s start with a question. If you work in-house, think of your own team. If you work for an agency, think of your clients. Question: how has the PR department modernised or changed to capitalise on media change in the past five years?

My point here is not that it has all gone stale and that PR teams are failing to move with the times. It is that all must realise that PR is going to look quite different in the future and we are all in the midst of an evolutionary process. You may well have your finger on the pulse of media change and have taken many smart steps to up your game in the past few years. More, much more, is yet to come.

Reputation: no control
Brands have never really had control of their reputation. But unless they keep track of and respond to media change through the way their communications functions operate, influence will be harder and harder to come by.

If you’re going to try to understand how you should evolve in order to protect and develop your reputation in the future, you must first understand and continue to chart media change. Reputation is the result of what you do, what so you say and what people therefore think and say about you. The digitisation of media can put you in greater command of it, but only if you play it right.

Spin gets thin
I’ve already outlined that in my view conventional and social media will evolve rapidly in the next couple of years and before long will all just be ‘media’. These posts are all intended to give some thoughts on how PR teams must evolve to align to that changed media landscape and get the right value out of the agencies they work with. There’s no magic formula for what the ideal PR department should look like and do, as needs obviously vary.

But while I’ve looked at the need for faster action in meeting media information requests reactively, let’s just quickly consider what the PR department will need to do in order to influence a media agenda in the future. I say influence rather than dominate, because spin as we know it has changed. It’s probably dead, of if not dying fast. With a handful of newspapers, fewer broadcast outlets and limited online publications it used to be far easier to set and lead a media agenda. Today the attention of major conventional media is still a big asset, but there are dozens of other influential channels that attract the same audience, often simultaneously. Plus a brand that attempts to be anything but completely honest with the media can be quickly shamed via social media.

Priorities for evolution
This bit should really be a conclusion, but I think I’ve already tripped across that several times: PR departments must evolve to meeting changing media needs or they will become less effective in influencing reputation. Worst case, their influence will slip away.

Here are what I see as the priorities for making sure a PR department is ready for the future:
1. Acknowledge that media change will affect you
2. Start a conversation about all of this with the people in your organisation responsible for how PR is funded, undertaken and supported
3. Recognise that you need to be able to move faster. If not, it won’t just be a case of a few missed opportunities, it will be a case of your reputation in the hands of others
4. You will have to continually assess which media is creating the influence you seek. This will not be comfortable or easy, but needs pragmatism and a long-term view rather than being swayed by any hype or FUD
5. By all means talk to agencies, but do not put contracts out to tender before you are clear about what sort of service you need. The word ‘might’ can be dangerous. Figure out what you want to do commercially, define your brand strategy, then look at how and what PR can best deliver for you. Then you can assess who you want to reach and understand what media is best, and what content you’ll need. And recognise that media change will be ongoing, so your plans must be agile too

Hopefully this is all useful, even if in places it is fairly obvious. One final question, if you’re in-house, you should probably ask your agencies is how they plan to evolve to meet the requirements of media change.