Where is PR now (and where am I……?)

So far this blog has attempted to identify what new media is, the challenges new media provides, and different ways PRO’s can grasp the new trend.

It seems that blogs are the most hyped communication tool for PRO’s. Blogs can include anything. Information, news, pictures, debate forum, videos etc. etc. The difficult aspect however is how PRO’s should grasp this opportunity. There are many examples of successful attempts, as well as the hordes of unsuccessful. So many has there been that the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive have suggested a law against ‘flogging’. Fake blogs where people claim to be someone they’re not. This brings us to the ethical aspect of Public Relations. This is a ‘traditional’ problem for the industry, but as the communication trend is said to be shifting, isn’t it alarming that young PRO’s had no problem voting against the motion ‘PR has a duty to tell the truth’ at the debate held at the University of Westminster in February. At the same time as everyone is talking about new media, KPMG releases a survey that claims traditional media remains popular, and that PRO’s shouldn’t concern so much about getting the hold of the web 2.0.

From talking to a number of people about this trend, it seems that the survey has been a relief for many. Several people claim that they haven’t quite got the grasp of this new trend and still need some time to understand this new way of communicating. Although they love the idea of new media, and that you can find all the information you need (or want…) online, many PRO’s are far from experts in the field. Even I have problems understanding the possibilities of the digital revolution, and I’m supposed to be one of the ‘innovators.’ I can’t help but feeling ‘old’ when I think about those days when internet first came, and when everybody suddenly needed cell phones. I enjoyed ‘texting’ my friends, and I even learned some cool abbreviations. Then came WAP, MMS, MP3, Ipod, MySpace, YouTube, Blogs ++++ and I completely fell off. I have still not managed to get on the top again, and every time I learn and understand one thing, something new and un-understandable pops up.

New media is a new challenge for PR practitioners, and certainly for me. However I’m sure we'll find a way to get on top of the trend, and when we do, great things will happen!!
CUL8R ;-)

Traditional media remains popular

A recent survey conducted by KPMG states that traditional media is still popular. The global network explored how different generations across the world are using new media and technology, and found that 72% of the respondents said TV and newspapers were still their primary source of news. Even for the young respondents, the under-25’s, traditional outlets were listed as first choice for news information.

My blog has attempted to debate the new challenges the new media provides, but could there be that new media won’t even be an issue for Public Relations. If you think about it, how many people can honestly say that they regularly visit blogs? I conducted a little survey, worth mentioning that the sample is not big enough to say it’s valid or reliable, on some persons my age. These persons are educated and active members of society, but they had no idea on how to find blogs on specific topics online. One reason could be that they’re not interested in the ‘internet revolution’ that is claimed to take place, but if these persons don’t use new media should PRO’s spend time trying to adapt to the new skills?

There is no doubt that new media is growing, and it will eventually play a significant role on how one communicates with each other. But it may be that it will take a bit longer than predicted. The survey stresses the growing complexity of communications and why it’s crucial to develop key messages in order to get heard. It seems that it’s the quality of the message that is important, not how it is delivered. Maybe the key challenge PRO’s are facing is to concentrate on the content of their messages rather than wondering how to approach the new wave?

The ethical dilemma

Last week I attended a debate arranged by PRweek and the University of Westminster. The motion of the debate was “PR has a duty to tell the truth”. Interestingly PR guru Max Clifford and senior lecturer in PR Simon Goldsworthy’s arguments against the motion won the debate by 138 votes to 124.

Going back to the ethical issues this blog has dealt with earlier I think it’s interesting that so many PR students and PRO’s don’t have a problem with lying. The industry is already struggling with its reputation, and with so many ‘unethical’ practitioners the tendency doesn’t seem to be shifting any time soon. And as new media gets more and more popular, will the trend be that every time you get stuck you’ll lie to achieve the greater good?

For the motion group corporate affairs director of Vodafone, Simon Lewis said that “Nowadays you have to get the news out, otherwise you’ll be reading it on someone else’s blog”. But isn’t one part of the PR practitioner’s job to make matters better for clients? Goldsworthy argued that he couldn’t imagine a world where PRO’s spoke freely about every single worry affecting their company. “It would be a foolhardy PR professional who would say that a client has a big problem.”
Max Clifford ended the debate by stating that “PR is about getting the right results for the clients….Young PRO’s before me tonight have to ask themselves one thing: to be a successful PR professional you have to get results, and you have to make up you own mind about how you get them”.

If this debate reflects the truth, that most PRO’s would lie for their clients if they pay enough money for it, then the PR industry is facing many years of distrust by the public. I agree with the motion in some ways, but I have to admit that I voted against it. I don’t think that the industry can be totally transparent. You are paid by clients to do a job, and your trust should be with them. The question in my opinion is how do you know when you've crossed the line?

Is PR being left behind by the emergence of new media?

This is my manuscript of a debate we had in class today. I was against the motion, but is it possible to agree?

My contribution to this debate will show you that PR is not being left behind by the emergence of new media, but that is simply give PR practitioners new opportunities in communicating with its stakeholders.
My key points to demonstrate this to you is that because the web 2.0 is considered a social revolution it works as a platform for sharing information of all kinds.
And because interaction is an essential part of the digital revolution, it gives PR practitioners immediate access to information.

A survey conducted by the UK telecoms regulator Ofcom suggests that 70 % of 16 to 24 year olds have used some kind of social networking site. But this cannot be considered a threat. Yes, the user is in charge, and yes, it can be unfortunate that a bad reputation stays on the web, but the interaction the new media provides makes it favourable for PR. Now they can join the debate, and their voices will be heard.

David Phillips states in his book “Online Public Relations” that the digital revolution offers a relationship between individuals and the community that was not possible before. By using social media you appear accessible and transparent, key points to make you seem more trustworthy. The social media makes it possible to build a community around a brand.
An example of how this can be done was when the South- African Stormhoek Winery wanted to crack the British wine market. They launched a blog where the winery wrote about their wines and the customers discussed and shared experiences within the community the blog provided. The blog had 200 000 hits in a month, and there is no doubt that their successful launch in the competitive British wine market was due to the effective PR.

Secondly, if you think about what the Web 2.0 offers it gives immediate access to opinion makers, consumers and influencers. It also provides first hand access to information and knowledge on how opinions are made.

The web 2.0 makes PR practitioners more knowledgeable before they engage, which makes their decisions more strategic. The web offers information about the market, online monitoring on key topics, how opinions are shaped, as well as easy access to evaluation. This information will only help the PR practitioners in being more successful in their work.

So to sum up, I have showed you that because new media is a social revolution, PR practitioners are now able to join the debate and appear more trustworthy than before. Secondly, the web 2.0 offers the possibility to interact with opinion leaders and gain essential information about the market, which only can be considered beneficial.
And finally, when others are talking about you, don’t you think it’s better to join the conversation than to be left out of it?

New law against 'flogging'

One of the main points PRweek introduced this week was that fake blogging, ‘flogging’ is likely to be made illegal when the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive passes into UK law at the end of this year. As the article notes “The directive prohibits unfair commercial practises including falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to this trade, business craft or profession or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.”

As I have pointed out earlier in this blog, Edelman was revealed as ‘floggers’ for Wal-Mart last year. They got away with an apology, but this new law is suggestion prosecution and exposing of names for people who breach the law. Matthew Yeomans (founder of Custom Communications) argues that if blogs are honest, they can provide huge advantages to the brand. On the other hand, if they’re not, they can be very damaging. No one likes being lied to, and if you are revealed people wants to see you punished.

This is an important debate. I think there definitely should be some kind of guidelines in how far you can go in promoting a client. I’m not sure if PR has to be transparent in every field of the work. Sometimes you might have to twist the truth in order to achieve the best results. However, I don’t think deliberately lying and changing identity are ethical ways to succeed.

Interview with Tor Bang on the new trend

I have interviewed a former lecturer of mine at BI Norwegian School of Management, Tor Bang, who is Associate Professor at the Department of communication, culture and languages.
It’s a relatively short interview, but I think this grasps a professional’s view on the new trend.


Does the development of the digital revolution affect PR?
Yes, of course. Every communication paradigm is rooted in the paradigm's environment. If there is a technological change, the PR industry will follow suit. I do believe that the PR industry might have to view their stakeholders less as target groups, more as individuals.

Do PR practitioners focus enough on this trend?
There has, as history shows, been little attention in the communication and PR communities on emerging technological trends. Parts of the industry are reactionary in its understanding of media channels. Many practitioners measure success in the volume of press attention.

Do you perceive the new ‘citizen journalism’ as a threat, or does it create diversity?
There is no question that citizen journalism and participation contribute to a broad diversity. In a democratic perspective, the creation of a transformed public sphere is highly desirable.

PR practitioners have created blogs on false basis, pretending to be someone else. Do you think it’s ethical that PR practitioners take advantage of people’s good faith?
Professional communicators, PR practitioners and others are in business for themselves and the companies that subscribe to their services. I do not get upset over that, although your question implies an answer of ethical indignation.

Tor Bang is Associate Professor at the Department of communication, culture and languages at the Norwegian School of Management. He can be reached at tor.bang@bi.no

What if the blogs are false?

Reading through some old editions of Media Guardian I found an interesting comment by Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor and blogger at buzzmachine.com, with the headline. Buzz off! this blogger’s voice is not for sale.
Being a PR student I’ve learned that journalists are a bit sceptical towards PR practitioners, and in this comment Jarvis is set to reveal the cynical and manipulating practitioners on the web.

His idea is that the plan of blogs was that they were of ‘user-generated content’, but that they have spawned a new commercial practice that is word-of-mouth marketing: “The dark art of trying to manipulate the public to buzz about your brand”, as he puts it. He says that because it’s now easier for PR to publish its stories and avoiding the gatekeepers in the press, they should be aware that there credibility is more important than ever.

There are many examples of PR stunts in Web 2.0 that has gone wrong. These are arguably made by people that underestimate the intelligence of the public. One example Jarvis points out is one managed by PR agency Edelman:
A weblog supposedly written by two ordinary folks who drove their camper van across America from Wal-Mart to Wal-Mart, churning out heartwarming tales about working folks there, turned out to have been paid for and managed by Edelman, the retail giant’s PR agency.

It is stories like this one that suggest that PR agencies don’t now how to respond to the new challenge of the Web 2.0. Jarvis claims that the basic ethics of blogging should be telling the truth. Using Dell as a new example they claim to have good computers and excellent customer service, but searches on the web shows that the nickname “Dell Hell” is widely spread because of people’s bad experience.
If the idea of a blog is to create a buzz around your brand, the information that is published is better off if it is the same as if you google it. If the information doesn’t match, the buzz that you wanted will be bad buzz.

So, presuming that PR practitioners are aware that being caught in false marketing will injure the brand, why do some still take the chance?