UPDATE: July 16: Amanda Chapel has a rather hilarious post about me today. Saw this coming -- to her credit, she warned me this weekend -- and I am not surprised with the tone and content. As I expected, it's over the top and selective with the facts. Example: she trims my quotes (especially the last one) for maximum effect. And then there's the headline. I had to laugh -- read my full post (below). I ask you -- am I really asking 99% of PR pros to quit? I'm just asking PR people to stop serving the role of "secret agents" -- fake actors in the social mediasphere. If secret agents make up 99% percent of the PR profession, that's Amanda's opinion, not mine.
All that aside, please note -- if it's not already obvious -- that the opinions in this blog are my own, and not those of my co-author Paul Rand or the Council of PR Firms. We have written what we believe to be a fair and balanced white paper, and we are most interested in hearing what you have to say about that white paper. If Amanda is providing a good forum for this discussion, so be it. I'll thank her for that.
***
My original post:
Amanda Chapel has a good post about the recent CPRF white paper. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, the paper explores the impact that social media has had on the public relations industry, and the data we uncovered is likely to provoke a mixed response from the PR community. Among the key findings -- PR is competing more and more with other disciplines, not just for social media but for traditional PR services, as well. My take -- I am a co-author of the paper (Paul Rand of Zocalo/Ketchum was my partner on this project) -- is that the PR industry is undergoing an identity crisis. Amanda's take is that the industry is going to hell, and lists five good reasons why. I'll reply to Amanda here.
1. The Blogosphere hates influence. There is absolutely an expectation of autonomy of content. However, the white paper seems to overlook that fact. The PR business is looking at the online ecosystem as a place where we can not only influence conversation, but also use superior intelligence to optimize that influence.
I disagree that the blogosphere hates influence. In fact, so much of what passes for conversation in the blogosphere is all about influence; that's why bloggers revel in influence-peddling schemes like aggregating, baiting, aggressive linking, etc. But I believe that the blogosphere hates hidden influence, and that it generally distrusts corporate influence because it tends to be so undemocratic (more money = more influence). The big challenge for PR agents and their clients is to implement programs that are not just about gaming the system. And there are both mortal and venial sins that they will need to learn about (mortal = don't set up fake blogs; venial = don't set up purposeless "communities").
2. Can the target, i.e. the persons being influenced, defend themselves? That is, will amateurs be able to discriminate?
That's a good question. But again, I'd argue that real problems arise when businesses start gaming the system (yes, plenty of PR people have been advising their clients to do that). There are more effective ways to engage. E.g., if they commit to being transparent (i.e., they clearly disclose their identities and objectives), and they provide an open environment for conversation (they accept and answer comments), they are at least providing their customers with more than the basic caveat emptor, the lowly standard in other marketing approaches (advertising, "traditional" PR, etc.)
3. Does the new PR model reduce the practice to a mere Direct Marketing function vs. the traditional "organizational voice"?
Again, another good question. But I'd argue that there's nothing "mere" about an approach that advocates direct contact with your customer. And there's little that's genuine about "organizational voice." People have voices. Businesses don't.
4. Do the tenets of Social Media adhere to our fiduciary responsibility?
This is the big question, in my opinion, because it gets at the real challenge for PR consultants: the role that they play for their clients/employers. The role they traditionally have played is "agent" -- they act on behalf, and represent, the business that employs them. But in the new world, the client is the actor, and the PR pro, ideally, has more of a counselor's role ... if any role at all. Perhaps this is why Amanda is so sure that the profession is in trouble. Is counselling a good business? We'll have to see -- too early to tell.
But if the question here is about the fiduciary responsibility of the corporate blogger -- not the PR person -- to her employer, that's a separate discussion. There's nothing in the "tenets" of social media that would make it impossible to do well in the blogosphere and still respect one's fiduciary responsibilities. Still, there are some practical challenges to communicating effectively if you work in a heavily regulated
industry (e.g., pharma).
5. Do the tenets of SM include us period? Doc Searls and other Web 2.0 experts would say, "no."
Again, the question circles around the role of the PR person. That role, I submit, is being challenged. Nothing wrong about anyone participating in the SM world, as long as they are speaking for themselves. We've spent a couple of years beating up on "secret agents" -- from the world of WOM to the world of PR -- and I think we're already tired of them. They will either find something else to do in the profession, or leave altogether. How soon will this happen? No idea, but my advice to everyone in the PR biz: no sense waiting.
NOTE: If you care to comment on the five points, I recommend you go directly to Strumpette.
Excuse me but the majority of those with experience in PR don’t find the radical changes you promote funny at all... let alone "hilarious."
Bottom line: you have an agenda Giovanni. It happens to be in direct conflict with the spirit of an industry "Call to Action" that "attempts to take as unbiased a look as possible at the opportunities and challenges facing the PR industry."
In a world where integrity matters, you would recuse yourself from this debate directly. Regrettably, I am not sure that you and other SM zealots even understand that.
- Amanda
Posted by: Amanda Chapel | July 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM