------------------------------
Q: PR/comms always used to be about building relationships with the media and with influencers; as client demands have increased, has the industry lost that ability and become too competitive and too task focused?
A: I think the competitive edge has always been there; now it’s just in a more public place... ;-) I do think there’s a danger of becoming too task-focused. Many agencies make things a lot more difficult than they are. Possibly because of the economic climate, a lot of agencies are letting clients dictate the project, when it should be the other way around. You were chosen for your expertise; the client should be aware of that, and let you do your thing.
That’s not to say you ignore client input - far from it. But at the end of the day, they need your expertise. If you’re adding to project tasks because of client 'demands/suggestions', and that’s pushing your focus elsewhere, you need to ask yourself if you’re really bringing benefit to the client. They’re looking to you for direction; if you’re not giving them that because you’re doing every single thing they ask, why do they even need you in the first place? They can deal with the media themselves. So... to cut a long ramble short... if you’re not building the right relationship with your client, how can you expect to build the right ones with the media and influencers?
That’s not to say you ignore client input - far from it. But at the end of the day, they need your expertise. If you’re adding to project tasks because of client 'demands/suggestions', and that’s pushing your focus elsewhere, you need to ask yourself if you’re really bringing benefit to the client. They’re looking to you for direction; if you’re not giving them that because you’re doing every single thing they ask, why do they even need you in the first place? They can deal with the media themselves. So... to cut a long ramble short... if you’re not building the right relationship with your client, how can you expect to build the right ones with the media and influencers?
Q: Is fear and/or a lack of understanding or knowledge responsible for the PR/comms industry not fully embracing new digital marketing tools such as Twitter and Facebook? And if so, what are we scared of?
A: I think a large part of it is fear. Not so much fear of the tools themselves, but what happens when these tools are used effectively. Look at some of the PR black eyes recently in social media - JetBlue, BP and HP are three that spring to mind right away.
Where PR has always had a decent amount of 'control' is how a message is shared, and then reacted upon. With social media that kind of dissipates a bit. There’s just too much going on to grab every piece of reaction about something you’re promoting. That’s not to say you can’t take control, though. While you’re never going to stop a negative view from spreading about you if someone is determined enough, you can still use social media to offer some control of the response. Connect with the influencers reporting the negativity; post video responses to YouTube criticisms; set up Twitter chats to explain situations, etc.
I’ve always found the PR industry to be pretty willing to adapt new tools and platforms (at least, the good ones). So I think it’s more fear of what can be as opposed to lack of understanding. Understand that you can use these tools to deflect negativity and correct inaccuracies as much as they can be used to create these problems, and I think a better understanding will happen all round.
Where PR has always had a decent amount of 'control' is how a message is shared, and then reacted upon. With social media that kind of dissipates a bit. There’s just too much going on to grab every piece of reaction about something you’re promoting. That’s not to say you can’t take control, though. While you’re never going to stop a negative view from spreading about you if someone is determined enough, you can still use social media to offer some control of the response. Connect with the influencers reporting the negativity; post video responses to YouTube criticisms; set up Twitter chats to explain situations, etc.
I’ve always found the PR industry to be pretty willing to adapt new tools and platforms (at least, the good ones). So I think it’s more fear of what can be as opposed to lack of understanding. Understand that you can use these tools to deflect negativity and correct inaccuracies as much as they can be used to create these problems, and I think a better understanding will happen all round.
Q: Digital media is changing the face of the communications industry and yet many CEOs and MDs in PR/comms agencies seem unwilling to learn the evolving skill sets needed to drive the industry forward. Do you feel that the onus is falling on individuals to take personal responsibility for their own learning and development in this area and, if so, is this a good or a bad thing?
A: Think back to when the only way to promote something was the newspaper. Then think how telephone interviews changed that. Then think how TV and cinema ads changed the reach we had; then online, with blogs and YouTube. Today we wouldn’t think twice of using multiple channels, but back in the day, the newspaper was all we needed. Or so we thought. So any CEO or MD that thinks the current is all we need is way off the mark, and they should be asking themselves how effectively they’re managing their business.
I think it’s a great idea for individuals to learn about new technologies, platforms and other mediums that is going to affect both their career, and how they understand the industry they’re working in. You want to know how something works? Take it apart yourself. Make mistakes along the way (as long as it doesn’t implicate your employer) and learn from them. Then you can decide if the company you’re working for is going to be able to fulfill you professionally, or if you need to be where the really smart people work. Don’t let yourself be restricted by the narrow minds of the currently satisfied.
I think it’s a great idea for individuals to learn about new technologies, platforms and other mediums that is going to affect both their career, and how they understand the industry they’re working in. You want to know how something works? Take it apart yourself. Make mistakes along the way (as long as it doesn’t implicate your employer) and learn from them. Then you can decide if the company you’re working for is going to be able to fulfill you professionally, or if you need to be where the really smart people work. Don’t let yourself be restricted by the narrow minds of the currently satisfied.
Q: The ‘new generation’ of PR/comms professionals, which is embracing the social web, appears to be far more collaborative and supportive than the more competitive and guarded old school. Do you feel that a chasm is emerging within the industry between the online community and those who are less progressive? And if so, what are the effects on the industry as a whole?
A: There’s definitely a bridge being built. Part of me thinks it’s just the natural progression from the 'stuffy boss that knows everything versus the junior exec or intern that has great ideas not being heard'. Take that mindset and replace with the 'old media versus new media' mantra.
The downside of this is that agencies are in danger of becoming less effective. The great minds that see the benefits of a combined traditional and social marketing/PR campaign compared to a purely 'old media' one will leave. They’ll go where they know their views are in tandem. That leaves the other agency struggling to keep up. And if they can’t keep up...
The plus side is that it’s forcing agencies to look at how they’re developing, both internally and externally. This is leading to more adapting the 'well, we better take this stuff seriously and see if we can use or adapt it'. That can only mean a better offering for clients, and a more progressive atmosphere for employees. You have somewhere folks want to work, that comes across to your clients. Everyone wins.
The industry is in a weird place right now. Most of the big PR stories you hear are the negative ones, but they’re easy - anyone can criticize. Why not be the PR agency that makes positive news via social the norm? That’s where you can effect your industry as a whole, and help others understand it’s not all bad.
The downside of this is that agencies are in danger of becoming less effective. The great minds that see the benefits of a combined traditional and social marketing/PR campaign compared to a purely 'old media' one will leave. They’ll go where they know their views are in tandem. That leaves the other agency struggling to keep up. And if they can’t keep up...
The plus side is that it’s forcing agencies to look at how they’re developing, both internally and externally. This is leading to more adapting the 'well, we better take this stuff seriously and see if we can use or adapt it'. That can only mean a better offering for clients, and a more progressive atmosphere for employees. You have somewhere folks want to work, that comes across to your clients. Everyone wins.
The industry is in a weird place right now. Most of the big PR stories you hear are the negative ones, but they’re easy - anyone can criticize. Why not be the PR agency that makes positive news via social the norm? That’s where you can effect your industry as a whole, and help others understand it’s not all bad.
Q: The PR/comms industry has a poor reputation for being ‘spin doctors’ and PR flacks. Who do you feel is best placed to build credibility, educate business owners and consumers, and change this reputation, and how do they go about it?
A: I actually feel it starts at the top. You can have some of the best minds come into the industry ready to change perception, but then you have the ego head at the top of the chain who feels they’re doing alright, and everyone else is to blame. Besides, what does anyone know about my industry? You know the type... Unless the decision-makers and those that define how an agency works are willing to effect a change in practice and perception, we’ll continue to have the PR industry looked at as spin doctors.
Agencies can help themselves as well. Much of the negativity is built around the premise that PR folks will do anything for money. So stop that image in its tracks. Walk away from the shyster clients that are borderline lawbreakers. Make companies that screw up account for their actions, and be public about it. Call out the crap and only work with the good. Otherwise you’re just perpetuating the view that as long as the paycheck is worth it, so is silence...
Agencies can help themselves as well. Much of the negativity is built around the premise that PR folks will do anything for money. So stop that image in its tracks. Walk away from the shyster clients that are borderline lawbreakers. Make companies that screw up account for their actions, and be public about it. Call out the crap and only work with the good. Otherwise you’re just perpetuating the view that as long as the paycheck is worth it, so is silence...
Q: With regard to the competition between PR agencies, specialist digital agencies and full service marketing agencies, how do you think things will play out over the next five or ten years? And what will happen to the PR/comms industry if things don’t change?
A: Stop the competition and admit that, at their core, all these solutions are offering the same thing. We’re here to promote a brand or service, and make it look good and something the public would want. You can call it PR; advertising; marketing or whatever, but essentially the framework is the same. Yes, the industries have their differences and PR is much more than simple dinner gals and cocktail parties. But so is every industry - it’s the duck and water syndrome. The beautiful stuff happens in public; everything else we see.
But accept that, primarily, we’re after the same results - equity for our client. Let’s understand that; let’s help the public understand that and be less confused. If I’m Joe Consumer, I don’t care that your agency won Award X for PR or Marketing/Advertising. That means nothing to me - all I care about is: was your message relevant and does the product or service meet my need? Get that right, you have my sale.
So let’s just call it what it is - Perception. Heck, if you still want to call it PR, it can be Perception Relations. All that matters is how your client is perceived. Everything else is circumstantial. If we don’t change, and we continue down this PR vs. Marketing vs. Advertising vs. Everything Else, we lose. The client loses. The customer loses. Meld the strengths; reap the benefits of that combined knowledge.
But accept that, primarily, we’re after the same results - equity for our client. Let’s understand that; let’s help the public understand that and be less confused. If I’m Joe Consumer, I don’t care that your agency won Award X for PR or Marketing/Advertising. That means nothing to me - all I care about is: was your message relevant and does the product or service meet my need? Get that right, you have my sale.
So let’s just call it what it is - Perception. Heck, if you still want to call it PR, it can be Perception Relations. All that matters is how your client is perceived. Everything else is circumstantial. If we don’t change, and we continue down this PR vs. Marketing vs. Advertising vs. Everything Else, we lose. The client loses. The customer loses. Meld the strengths; reap the benefits of that combined knowledge.
Keep track of this series of posts on The Flock Facebook page or by following the hashtag #flockfriday on Twitter.
Recent #flockfriday posts: Deidre Breakenridge, Adam Vincenzini, Beth Carroll, Darika Ahrens, Kerry Gaffney, Chris Hall, Lauren Fernandez
Recent #flockfriday posts: Deidre Breakenridge, Adam Vincenzini, Beth Carroll, Darika Ahrens, Kerry Gaffney, Chris Hall, Lauren Fernandez
Like This Post? Subscribe to Tribal Boogie
0 comments:
Post a Comment