John, I worked for a PR agency in Ireland but I'm now pursuing a degree in Anthropology at Rice U where I'm focusing on developing an anthropological understanding of PR & corporate communications.
So I was interested in what you proposed here.
For a start, I'm not familiar with the debate about how PR people are no longer needed. I read the link you supplied. Does that sum up the discussion on that point of view? I'm trying to see the logic of how 'always-on communications' could mean that PR people are no longer needed. (What exactly constitutes 'always-on' communications?) Rather I would tend to agree with your assertion of PR people being in greater demand in such circumstances.
Also, you suggest that "we need to think less about controlling messages". Do you think that PR ever really did control messages or was that the goal - achieved or not? People like to call PR 'rhetoric' - often meant in that negative 'controlling' way. Do we really believe that 'script' about PR? What would you say to the idea that our work has actually been about matching a relevant message to an 'attuned' audience, which can only have been composed by 'listening' in the first place? Or has there been a genuine change? And, though I think that your point is a matter of emphasis, I wanted to clarify what you mean about thinking more about being 'understood and believed'. How is that different to what we have aimed for in the past?
Finally, if I'm getting your point correctly, then what you are saying here is connected to a point you made at PR Day. I was interested in your view that there is a need for PR to be more personal (or was that comment strictly in relation to blogs?)
I'll stop here!
Thanks for your time.
Elise.
Elise:
Thanks for your comments and questions ... I want to encourage others who stop here to add to anything I say so we can have a real conversation.
The idea that PR people aren't needed has been tossed around by many in the tech community, where blogging is far more common and where programmers, designers, etc., communicate directly to their peers or consumers. The rise of super bloggers like Microsoft's Robert Scoble has advanced this theory ... these rank and file bloggers ARE the new PR people according to some. They break news, they articulate positions, they speak on behalf of themselves AND the company. And they do so in authentic voices that aren't hampered by a PR person's sensibilities.
Regarding PR and messaging, I don't know that we ever totally controlled what was being said, but we certainly tried. And the general public did not have the tools or technology to really counter our messages.
As long as we were able to get the mainstream media to print our version of things, we had been successful. Today, anyone with a computer can start a "publication" and be very, very powerful. Just Google "Jarvis +Dell" and you'll see what I mean.
I also don't think that PR people -- and others in corporate America -- cared completely whether their messages were believable or not. Spin is about avoidance and obfuscation in most cases, right? Again, as long as the media didn't nail our clients, we were happy ... regardless of whether we communicated anything that was believed.
Obviously I'm speaking in generalities. But I think it's an accurate portrayal of much of PR in the U.S. over the past several decades.
Thus ... I do think PR needs to be more personal ... marketing, too. More real, more human. One reason I did not prepare a presentation for PR Day is that I wanted to be more "real" than I would be if I labored over my words for weeks.
Being more straight-forward is risky in any setting or any media, but the results are worth it.
We need to stop the use of corporatespeak and gobbledy-gook releases that don't really say anything, and start using language that is real and personal.
I hope this helps ... if I missed any of your questions, or if you'd like me to give more thought to something, by all means let me know. - jw
John,
Thanks for your reply.
I know such concepts are difficult to articulate but how do the bloggers believe they can be more 'authentic'? I suppose the question is what is the anatomy of authenticity? Is it timeliness? Is it using a certain kind of language - informal perhaps? Is it possible to pin it down to a list of ingredients (and if so, and if used, might that disqualify its authenticity) or is there an intangible 'something' that consumers recognize?
I guess I could ask the same questions about the ideas of being more 'personal' or more 'human', more 'real' or more 'straight-forward'. Or what is it that we are doing now that does NOT match up to these to these things?
Also, in your view is the impetus for this change coming from the idea that consumers do now have the tools and technology to counter our messages?
Sorry to get philosophical so early in the day!
Thanks.
Elise.
Elise:
I think a lot of it has to do with language and point of view.
I would liken it to a conversation you have with a friend about a new movie or restaurant.
If you were recommending something, for example, you would most likely explain your thoughts in terms that are "off the cuff" and familiar. You wouldn't resort to using sanitized puffery ... which is what most news releases these days contain.
Spend some time and read PR Newswire or Business Wire and you'll see exactly what I mean. It's a game -- everyone knows that people don't talk that way, that no one really said or believes those things, but we continue to distribute the releases even though it's a farce.
A blogger might talk about the same product release or corporate announcement that was in a news release, but he/she will do so in a way that is much more real, more human. Kind of like my posting about my friend Mike being promoted.
Advertising has for years thrived by portraying fake people enjoying fake benefits of products that rarely live up to the hype. Can a perfume really make you beautiful and desireable? Can a floor wax really help you have the cleanest house in the neighborhood?
People don't believe that stuff anymore.
The other aspect of being more "real" has to do with admitting mistakes, or taking responsibility, or at least recognizing that consumers have choices.
I think you are on the right track in terms of making a list of what constitutes authenticity:
1) Language that is real, honest, not fake or puffed up.
2) Accountability for actions and willingness to admit mistakes or take responsibility.
3) Awareness that consumers have choices and use them. A sense that the company and its products aren't perfect 100 percent of the time.
4) Communication about the products or services we are promoting that is accurate and real.
5) Timeliness of communication.
There are probably others ... I'd like for some readers to chime in? Readers??
Finally, I do think the impetus is coming from technology and the tools we possess. We're more jaded on the one hand, but more passionate about the products that truly deliver. And we have a "bully pulpit" to communicate our thoughts in ways no previous generation has ever had.
I think authentic has to do with not only the truth, but specific truth - give me a detail so I know it's real - for instance my family is writing a blog for my brother who's running for governor or Maryland (duncansfordoug.com) - anyway - she wrote a comment about dropping fliers arounder her neighborhood (500 of them)she told me later that she was going to say that she did all the house except those with dogs in the front yards because it scared her - so those people were out of luck. I told her that's the kind of detail people respond to - they can relate - besides spicing up a mundane report - i think authentic sometimes means 'personality' too - just tell it like you would tell your best friend.
Nellie:
Ahh ... great example. The details do lend authenticity and reality to communication. Especially those that show we are human.
Personality is good. And it's not corporate.
Commenting by HaloScan
