Communication Overtones Comments
Great post, Kami -- I should have done the same rather than comment as his e-mail invited me to do. Nevertheless, it stirred some interesting discussion. Maybe Noel should get a job in PR -- but then I guess we would no longer be able to trust him. On second thought, Noel, we PR and marketing people are doing just fine without you...
Well said.
I hate to fall back on martial arts, but it is appropriate here.
Some styles employ what we call Hard Energy. These are the ones marked by direct linear strikes, and designed to generate force. Here you find your Shotokan Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and boxing.
Soft energy styles are about re-direction and absorption of energy. Movements tend to be more subtle and circular, and there is a distinct flow of energy in both directions. Here we see your Aikido, Kung Fu, Tai Chi, and grappling.
The notion that PR people are "gatekeepers" presumes a binary paradigm: Yes. No. You can speak. You cannot. It is asynchronous.
The "facilitator" definition makes the PR practioner a part of the process. Not just a regulator, but an integral voice.
There are a lot of things to like about "soft energy." You can't beat it. You can't overcome it. You can't outlast it. At best, you can stalemate it, but never dominate it. And the only way to stalemate it is with your own soft energy.
Soft energy seeks a level where all who succeed are peers. And that's where the flow of information becomes free and enlightening.
Excellent post, Grasshopper.
I have no idea what Ike just said, but it sounds totally cool 
I got that invite, too. Not that the invite was poorly done, but it was so transparent...I just ignored it.
On the one hand, I am among those who believe that there are lessons to be learned, still, from the Edelman flap.
But I am also beginning to feel like we are all engaged in some navel gazing.
Basically, so far as I can tell, Kami's right about everything. Let's agree on that and move on, eh?
Seriously: Hail, Queen Kami!
p.s. - By posting separately, I think you're giving the fella more linklove than if you'd just commented at the site. (Or ignored him.) Just a thought.
Me either, but I am honored to be the "grasshopper" and not the "grappling" person.
Really, I like it, the soft energy thing is cool, and I have never been a heavy striker anyway.
And Gary, you have made some excellent observations. Noel practices PR and calls it an invitation, but if anyone else does it, it is deception.
Todd; True, but I was all out of ideas today (I almost didn't post), and what he wrote bugged me, so he benefited this time.
As for navel gazing, I think I see some lint.
I almost started the post, "I am sick of this topic too, but doesn't this just bug you?"
Hey Kami, thanks for stopping by.
All of you here seem to work in public relations so your job is spin. Personally, I don't like spin. Nevertheless, it may be possible that your job is necessary. As one commenter posted on our site, "when you need specialist help, hire a specialist." It may be, Kami, that when you work for a client you see your job as a 'communications facilitator.' Fine.
Richard Edelman loves the blog world for a reason. He thought and thinks he has found a way to cut out the middleman (traditional media) and go straight for the brainwashing jugular. I see what Richard Edelman has tried with Walmart as not straight. We discussed in July the possibility of PR being spun in the blogosphere and I told him that I thought it wouldn't work. Blogging is conversation and debate formed from honest opinion, not spin. I don't like what Richard Edelman is trying and don't tell me Jeff isn't in on it when they appear side by side on CNN.
As for inviting people to my site, I don't see what the big deal is. I love business and would not have the chance to discuss it with such a variety of people if I didn't invite them over. When I post on something, I am interested to hear what other people have to say. I may think I am right, but how can I be sure if I never listen to another point of view? Besides, I am not trying to con anyone into buying electric tooth whiteners, or control their thinking on Walmart's image. Nor do I hold a gun to their head and say "Hey, be there or else!" Drop on by if you like and if you don't, okay. Occasionally people say no. I don't mind. I don't want a person to feel obligated.
I have heard one silly objection: the idea that I am not being personal. This is actually not the case. If a subject interests me enough to write about, I actively look for other people it interests or affects too. Then I read what they have to say. If I think they are clever or interesting (or have a right to defend themselves), I write to them and invite them over. To me this is fun. It also gives me the opportunity to do research for the books we publish. I have no intention of stopping and if someone for whatever reason doesn't like me having contacted them, I put them on a list so that I don't mistakenly contact them again, though rarely do I write to the same people twice anyway.
I have no problem with what you did Noel, but you are basically doing PR for your brand, your books and your blog. So does that mean you are spinning me, I don't really think so.
I never said I was crazy about the Edelman approach on this one (read my prior post on this topic and you will see I am not), but PR that works in the blogosphere does just what you say, it invites participation in a conversation, and it is upfront about its interests. Just as you have been here. You want some feedback, conversation and research for your books.
PR is not automatically spin, just as you sending me an e-mail in your blogger outreach is not necessarily direct marketing, though it could be construed as such. PR is relating with the public.
Send me an e-mail anytime, it was just the hypocritical way that you used a PR outreach technique, albeit with a different goal than the Edelman campaign, and then slammed PR in the same breath.
As for Jarvis, I am not in his head, but your claim is a little overblown. There are other reasons for him appearing on CNN that you don't consider, such as it raises his personal profile as a blog expert. His post the day of his appearance isn't all that kind to Edelman either, let's have some context here.
Kami, you can say I am doing PR for my brand or my books or my blog, but I'm not and if you read my blog, you will see I'm not. Every opinion posted on our blog is our honest view. This is not true with PR where people are paid to put forward a version of the truth, though I can understand you seeing everything in terms of PR since you work in PR.
The point here is that we both agree Edelman handled the Walmart account badly. I go further and say PR has no place in blogs and here we disagree.
Agreed, we disagree.
My point in "questioning your motives" for contacting me and others offline was a bit of sarcastic ad hominem.
You take a broad brush accusation, of the same sort, against people that work in PR, just becuase they do this for a living.
For instance, your blog promotes your book, in fact it is a key piece of your blog. So, using your own line of argument, we can't completely trust your motives.
In the real world, it isn't so black and white. In truth, I don't know you very well, this has been our first interaction, so I inherently don't trust you. Add to that the fact that you are "attacking" my profession, and well, there it is, even less trust.
However, give it a few more months, and we each may start to understand the other's point of view (even if we don't agree) and maybe even build up a kind of respect. This is because deception about your true motives over time, especially in the blogging arena, is hard to maintain.
My point is that relationships, the kind that companies must build with stakeholders (say in blogs), occurs over time. The stakeholders then decide who they will and won't trust.
Public relations already is playing that role of facilitator, and as the space matures, I would be willing to bet it will continue to do so.
your blog promotes your book, in fact it is a key piece of your blog.
Kami, our blog features an ad on the sidebar for our book. I think that's reasonable, considering it's our blog. Our posts, however, are not about our book.
There is no deception about our "true motives." Agree or disagree, but no one is paying us to say anything.
I agree if companies want to engage in open and unfettered conversation in the blogosphere, they should. My point is that they do not need PR firms to guide them on how to go about doing that or try do it for them on their behalf. When PR firms get involved in the blogosphere, we get spin. And that was my point with Edelman and Walmart.
You can have an honest conversation or not, but you cannot have a crafted conversation. As you have said, it is hard to maintain a deception for long online because your credentials, the tone of voice that might lead someone to be embarassed, the power you may have to turn your back on someone - these things don't matter online. You don't get to see a person's sincere-looking eyes or emphatic gestures. Just the inside of their mind as expressed through words. All that matters here is the merit of what you say. Something else we agree on.
Since honesty is important to you, Kami, maybe you are in the wrong line of work. Maybe you should leave PR and go into investigative journalism. Your experience in knowing how people present information so as to give a certain impression would prove invaluable in uncovering the truth.
Thanks for the career advice Noel!
I think that the PR world is exactly where my skills are needed, and indeed, I have many friends that I went to school with that are now journalists. So, we all developed the "nose for news" together.
However, I am not the only one that sees through "spin" as you say. Others see through it too, and in today's world, a failed tactic is front-page news, as we have seen.
In fact, I work with my clients to directly interact with the customer and be transparent.
My experience lies more in working in PR directly for organizations as an employee, which I did for over eight years. This makes you an expert in your organization, so as you talk to the stakeholder, you are really the true face of the company. I concede that this is not as easy to do in the agency world, but it is my philosophy.
I have been under my own shingle for about four years now (in April) and I still take the same approach -- become an expert on your client's business, and help them to see the intrinsic value (including the strong business case) of operating in the arena where the interests of the stakeholders (customers, etc) and the organization intesect.
This is not spin, but it is an art and a science. Maybe conflict resolution would be a better alternative for me 
But wait, that is my blogger friend Andrea's schtick.
Well said. I am sick to the back teeth of people putting down the hard work we do because they have not taken five minutes to find out what we actually do. anyone can write but to provide excellent PR requires a bit more.
Kami - Excellent post and nice job sticking to your guns.
I think you said it best here: "Rather than controlling the message, which I too think is likely to fail in the blogosphere, I think the goal should be to provide an avenue for engagement. As such, companies would be crazy to not engage bloggers and customers whenever possible."
That's dead on, and there's really no way to argue with it. Blogs extend the conversation and companies who seem to *get it* are trying to enter the extended conversation. Either you're there or not. What's better?
As I see, there are three chioces:
1. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that people aren't talking about you and/or your competitors.
2. You can listen and use the intelligence to improve
3. You can listen, reach out and build a relationship with your fans and critics - to anthropomorphize your organization to your stakeholders.
One makes you obsolete, two makes you better prepared to move forward, and three, at this point anyway, makes you unique among your competitors.
You at least need to be at two, one is just getting to be no longer an option and give it a few more years and one will be corporate suicide.
Maybe, but companies interested in listening and responding to what's being said about them on blogs do not need a PR agent to handle that for them. They can do it for themselves.
Some will be able to do that, and some will not. Also, internal PR will always be involved. Agencies, maybe not so much in the future, it depends on how much the agency is a contination of the corporation. I do believe you have to be an "insider" to be effective.
It's the attitude that matters, not the tools. Those companies who do not have a professional customer service operation that can look at blogs as just another way of listening to what customers and prospects are saying would be better advised to leave blogs alone.
What do you mean by "insider"? Do you mean someone who works directly for the firm because that's what an "insider" is. Are you suggesting companies should handle their own PR and not outsource to agencies?
I agree that the attitude matters.
First of all, a comapny must be doing the right things, no amount of PR or blogging will save them. I have always said, "you can't make a purse out of a sow's ear." In other words, "blogging alone will not save you.
Second, public relations must be at the management table (meaning management has to listen to them) to be at all effective. If PR just rubber stamps stuff and gets it out, then I agree, it is probably just spin. In my opinion, the role of PR is to be critical of business proposals in the light of the consumer and ensure humans and not just business concerns are represented.
Management must be willing to listen, and to change course, if PR gives them information from the customer that indicates they are going the wrong direction. This requires a unique relationship of trust and respect. If the agency can develop that relationship, all the better, if not then someone in the PR function on the inside must do it. That insider might hire an agency to help with the details, but they would need to drive.
As for blogging, I feel that an insider (BTW, some agencies actually provide on-site staff that become a part of the team but are paid by the agency) is best suited for that job. Microsoft, for example, chooses to let its employess blog, I am sure within some contraints. Other companies apppoint people to blog and yet others hire "product evangelists," or people that already have an intense interest in the product or technology to blog for them, to be the "face" of the product.
I guess it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Very interesting, Kami. Thanks!
Noel: Your definition of PR seems to only include lying. If you think lying is bad, why not just say that?
Helping a company develop a plan for telling its story, then helping it tell its story may or may not involve lying. The role doesn't require deceit, so why tarnish all PR practitioners as if they can't do their jobs without being pathological liars?
I do think lying is bad and find it interesting that your definition of PR does not preclude lying, that you do not deny that lying takes place. It "may or may not involve lying," you say. This is comforting. Thanks! But the question remains, how do we know when PR agencies are lying or telling the truth on behalf of their client?
As I said on Paul Holmes' blog, I do not trust spin doctors.
Commenting by HaloScan
