Communication Overtones Comments
I agree -- we have to work social media in as an element, not as a separate endeavor. Here's what I've been doing.
You know those "things" in every PR plan that we used to do when we didn't have much news, but we wanted to keep things humming (and earn our money if we were on retainer) -- somewhat soft feature pitches, the quasi news items. Don't shake your head at me. Everybody did it because that was what we had to work with to keep our bosses and clients happy. And every so often one hit.
Well, we don't need to do that anymore. We have a much more productive alternative. Instead, I now propose something in the social media sphere. Usually some form of blogger relations. And I document why it is a valuable expenditure of resources and what we can expect LONG TERM in return.
great post, Kami. but remember the chinese water torture is also a series of drips... 
seriously, though, I've found the incremental approach to be enormously effective. But a lot of my huge-company clients still cringe when they hear any kind of social media jargon - and I mean ANYTHING. I can't even say the word "blog" with some of them.
So I have to completely eliminate any social-media speak from my vocabulary when talking with clients. Here's a sample of stuff I've found effective:
"I'm going to find opinion leaders you don't know yet who care about your issues and I'm going to help you build relationships with them." (blogger relations.)
"I'm going to help you give the media the kinds of materials it wants these days." (social media release.)
"I'm going to help you learn which of your releases are best received, who likes them, and what they're saying about them so you can prepare better ones." (aggregators.)
And I don't use the name of any 2.0 service in a pitch unless the client brings it (or a similar service) up first. EVER.
Susan; You hint at it in your response, but what works is to show the value, however that it defined, to the client of engaging in social media. It's simple really, define some measurable objectives and then meet them.
David; You joke, but the reason that water is used in torture is that it works (maybe not as intended, but it can drive you mad).
I can relate though, for one client we called it the crisis management platform (blog + specialized forum for crisis)
Anyone else have some good alternatives. I will pull them together and publish them.
Absolutely. Show value in the context of the client's expectations.
It also helps to show who else is using these tools. For example, for companies that sell into the military, nothing is more convincing than showing that *all four* of the US Armed Services have shifted a significant amount of THEIR communications to social media like blogs and especially podcasts.
Oh, and the 2000 milbloggers 
Oh, and now the Department of State.
You know I agree on integration from an execution standpoint (holistic). While in theory your drips make sense, in practice they fail to meet the reality of the actual marketplaces I am dealing in. Again I spoke in front of business today who don't see it that way. They are at ground zero and they see social media as something completely separate from PR or any other marketing tactic.
And to be frank most PR departments stand in the way, while marketing types are getting it. I am beginning to think that PR will lose cownership of social media altogether in many companies.
Geoff;
I respect that you have had this experience, let me share mine. My clients tend to be the heads of PR in large companies. They are usually pretty influential with upper management, and when they endorse a project, their bosses tend to listen.
I agree that marketing has been quicker to adopt social media because they had word-of-mouth in their ethos. However, I think there is a danger that marketers will use social media as another push channel. There are many smart and sophisticated marketers that won't, but it is a concern of many I have talked to (including Shel Israel for instance).
On the other hand PR, with its bent toward conversation, is an excellent place for the culture that is inherent in social media to take root in a company.
I think that the biggest obstacle for PR in this regard is not command and control issues (though it is one piece), but rather fear of technology issues.
What does everyone else think?
Kami - it's not a fear or technology, just a fear of the unknown.
Jeremy Pepper hit around this very point the other day. The LA/Hollywood/Publicity crowd is very anti-blogging, because for them "blogs" are the vehicle for rumor and gossip.
I would imagine that many of today's business leaders and C-level managers never heard of "blogs" until Rather's Memogate - and for them, "blogs" carry a connotation of partisanship or politics.
For many of my projects and discusions in my shop, I've steered away from the word "blog" and gravitated to terms that describe what we want to accomplish. "Online Disaster Newsroom" is more accurate, and isn't loaded with the notion that thousands of people will slam our pages with filthy unmoderated comments.
I'm not so sure that I would agree that PR as a whole is de facto bent toward conversation. At least not with customers. Which is who we are talking about here. With the media yes. But actual customers? Not so much.
Marketers are often not much better, but talking to the customer is a more natural state for them, so it may be easier to make the transition. Once they stop calling them "consumers" that is.
The fact of the matter is that the lines between the 2 disciplines are blurring as a direct result of social media, and I truly believe it is "adapt or die" for PR and marketing pros. Post to follow
Susan -
The line is blurring because we are using the same tools for very different ends.
Where we've failed is in properly educating the client about the purpose behind the tactic. Instead, it's all about the tool - and if someone else is offering the same box of widgets...
Ike; Ah ha, the tool argument, and here is where the rubber meets the road. A tool is simply a tool until some meaning is assigned to it. Now, who is the best to wield the tool and does it matter?
I guess I take a real Arthur Page view of PR, which is more the view of PR as the strategist and the link between a company and its communities. I have never been much of the mindset that the "media is the audience." I always thought of the people reading/viewing/listening to the media were who I was interested in talking with. This was all pre Web 2.0 of course. So, when Web 2.0 burst in, I immediately saw the opportunity to connect directly.
I also didn't grow up in agency, but in inside PR for a trade group. We were very involved in listening to the voice of our membership. So, maybe that is why I have a different world view about PR than many.
Ike -- I don't agree. I don't think it is very different ends at all. I think the *needs* are changing as the "audience" does. Very defined "PR" and "Marketing" functions are going to be way less useful in the future.
Kami -- I think we are agreeing -- it doesn't matter what you call the person. What matters is that they get that is is a blending of the disciplines. And that the era of intermediation is dying if not dead.
Kami, I think the idea of dripping your way to social media makes a lot of sense. Companies take baby steps, but eventually they get there. I was also thinking that social media is just the channel, admittedly very different from most, however, a company really needs to focus on its marketing strategy and culture for this particular channel to work. Oh, by the way if the marketing strategy is more about working with customers through traditional methods it will work in the new as well.
John; I think it boils down to treating people as people rather than as a sale, or donation, or a membership (etc.). It's the personalization of PR and Marketing.
Commenting by HaloScan
