Post titles are often meant to stir up a reaction via a generalized headline that can both be true and not be true based upon some context and description.
My favorite Molotov cocktail-throwing muse, Strumpette, has condemned the PR industry to incompetence or to some genetic limitation that will forever prevent "them" from genuinely engaging in open and useful conversations with folks on behalf of client business objectives.
I say "nay!" I do not believe that condemnation. Full disclosure: I am not a PR person. I have worked in the business for 6 years and in a creative capacity (vs. media relations, one of the other cornerstones of PR). You can review my full bio and judge for yourself if I am likely to have any credibility on this issue.
The Strumpette hypothesis starts with this scenario:
"The key to CM is that a client organization is supposed to relinquish control. So the question is: what does a manager manage in a system sans management? That’s where the real genius comes in. If you can’t manage it, you can’t measure it, i.e. you can't measure me; and if you can't measure me and are still paying me a lot of money, well trust me it must be good. If you’re the head of an agency, you’re seeing big green dollar signs right about now and feeling a little woozy."
Most ways of engaging with social media does mean giving up control. Which is why it is not for everybody. Many corporations cannot or shouldn't go down this path. No more shoving messages down the throats of people via gas-bag media outlets. No more carefully-crafted press release-like statements that mean as little as possible in order to avoid tripping some negative reaction.
Where is the "management" in this? Pretty often it looks like community management, where you spark conversation, offer interesting content, invite different points of view to the table to discuss/disagree and so forth. All done with a clear statement that I am so-and-so, I work for these guys, I know a lot about this but you judge for yourself. Can this help a client? Yup. there are plenty of brands that talk with their customers and build trust and loyalty (and sales).
And measurement? There already is measurement. Most of its equivalency measures so we are building on sand to begin with. But this will get better. I actually think Charlene Li at Forrester has patched together some promising measurement beginnings.
But the indictment continues. Here is how I would paraphrase (as inaccurately as possible, I hope) Strumpette's conclusion that PR professionals cannot engage meaningfully in the CM or the WOMM or the talky-talk or whatever:
- A PR person has too much of an agenda to participate. EVERYONE has an agenda, The trick is are you willing to reveal it with no shame? Most people (not PR people but 'people') are not and many are not even conscious of that agenda.
- Social media participants reject any hint of spin or PR and want to make their own choices based upon pure information. They reject old-school PR that paints lipstick on pigs and tries to sell you asbestos when your child is dying of cancer. Hell, I reject that crap to. Social media participants reject people who don't listen and aren't willing to put themselves out there. (as I am putting myself 'out there' in regards to Strumpette, my muse, who is right now polishing her knives....:-))
- CM/WOMM is too squishy to be measured. And TV advertising measurement makes sense? Anywho, WOMM is measurable now and it will get better over time.
- "True believers" gloss over the nasty instincts of human beings. I refute Strumpette's synopsis of our baser selves. While no angel, I get no pleasure in other's misfortune.
- "The CM mind is not aligned with the PR body.." I totally agree 100% with this. And that is why we must change. That is what we are trying to do. I have a whole get-up-on-your-chairs manifesto about PR X.0 - the next generation of public relations. It would make your heart leap, cause you to be kind to your neighbor, even want your kids to consider the business (okay, not that).
We must change. Old school PR is too stupid. But then again, I am a "true believer" in social media and perhaps hopelessly naive to PR human nature.
In general tend to agree with Strumpette - indeed, I found her story before this one, but I found your summaries generally accurate. Like you, I'm certain the CM head and PR body don't match, but I tend to see the problem a bit differently. But Strumpette's conclusion, that this mismatch is fundamental and too deep to fully overcome, is right on.
Your post misses or glosses a key point in the original article: the identity and role of the individual human being participating in the "conversation" matters. And not just a little. I'm primarily a designer, and speak a common "design" language that others in related fields readily understand. Our words, phrasings and perspective share common roots. Outsiders who enter this community unarmed will not be well received. Similarly, I would have a hard time discussing and recognizing issues in the PR component of projects I'm tasked with, especially in conversation with real pros.
I'm well aware that copy and technical writers, designers and others create products and sell things entirely outside their expertise. But when we do these things, there's a great deal of research, and the work product itself is done in collaboration with, and reviewed by REAL experts. Time, reflection, and revision are hallmarks of that process.
By contrast, CM is a gut-instinct, rough-and-tumble shoot from the hip world. How do you shoot what you can't see? How do you respond to things appropriately when you're gut's never engaged? I don't see it happening.
Bottom line: It may be comforting and good business to cling to the belief that PR pros can transform CM into a corporate marketing tool, but that hypothesis stands in opposition to the concept of genuine "conversation". PR is about shaping and spinning reality to specific ends. CM is just about reality, and perception in CM is colored by the role of the speaker. A PR pro may participate in customer channels, and shamelessly revel in his/her identity as you suggest they must, but once that aspect of their life is revealed, their statements are subject to immediate and extreme discount. Taking the other tact, hiding one's identity can lead to even greater problems. Thus, I see no legitimate role for traditional PR in true consumer conversations.
On the other hand there is PLENTY of room in CM for people inside corporations, doing the real work that affects products and customers, from the guy sweeping the floors to the the girl with the corner office and new Jag. Genuine, real connections can help far more than PR-brewed phony ones. The key is for legal departments and management to let go a bit, and encourage (even reward) those with a flair for communicating to customers.
As I see it, the real challenge is not to transform "old school PR" into "new school CM". That path is a dead end, discounting or ignoring what old school PR does well, and wasting PR pro's time (and the company's PR budget) with tasks others might do better. PR is good at getting things noticed in the MSM. CM is good at connecting producers directly with consumers. The real challenge is human and fundamental: getting people at the top to let go, and providing the people below them with the etiquette, and basic rules they need to participate in appropriate conversations.
Finally, I believe a lot of the problems faced by marketers and companies today are generational. This was made crystal clear in last week's Super Bowl commercials. Some were aimed squarely at middle aged baby boomers, complete with the Voice Of God narration we've heard since grade school, and the authoritative, swing dick alpha males fully in control. Most were aimed at other demographics, and if you were at a party with a mixed age crowd, you probably had as much fun as I did; Some boomers were indignant and actually angry about commercials they didn't get. And conversely, those same folks were offended, and silently steamed as the younger crowd made fun of the spots they thought were funny.
Any creative working today has seen this first hand. We're asked to do viral things, and shot down when we do them. There's an unstated (well, depends where you work) rule that things have to pass the Boomer Test. The boss is a boomer. If he doesn't get it, no one will, so it's a bad idea, start over.
The same thing is true in many areas of life. In terms of PR the split is just as real, but takes different forms. For instance, old school journalists might well reject a "Social Media News Release" that doesn't follow the format of conventional press releases. Many people prefer a phone call to an email, still others prefer a quick IM. Human factors will increasingly play a role, as boundaries dissolve. Awareness of other people is the key. Conversation is definitely part of that, but it would be a mistake to enter conversations ill-equipped. PR firms using staff or robot-armies to spam or post on blogs is more of a problem than a solution.
Posted by: Dave Davis | February 07, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Dave - thanks for such a long and thoughtful comment. At the end of the day, I couldn't disagree more in your assessment of PR folks being a lost cause.
I think you, like a lot of folks seem to classify PR as "media relations" which is one distinct part of what these folks do. Ogilvy, for instance, does a tremendous amount of social marketing where we are trying to convince people to change behaviors, generally, to make them healthier or live longer. That's just one example of the diverse expertises inside PR that could make PR pros great at CM or whatever we want to call it. We actually do tons of research before "shooting" and it's almost never from the hip. We try to be genuine - I do, at least, - and when we are not familiar with a community, we say so and look for help from that community. We don't pretend we know everything. We don't pretend we're your best friend. We don't pretend we are someone else.
Look, I know that stuff happens out there. The bottom line is that it doesn't have to and will become less and less effective over time. I also know some superb folks in this field who approach outreach with the same care and respect that you appear tuned into.
Call me naive, but I think a lot of great PR folks can rise to the occaision.
Posted by: John Bell | February 10, 2007 at 05:18 AM