Phil:
Congrats on your anny.
I am one of those folks who sometimes (though not recently) makes value-based judgments about big firms/small firms, but I believe strongly that both have their place.
Wagner Communications can do a lot of things very well, but we certainly can't support a major client on numerous fronts, or lobby in Washington, or handle crisis communications in India. Those types of projects take lots of resources and specialized skills. So big firms such as Edelman definitely have an important role to play, and I don't think any of the technological changes we're seeing today will change that.
Dude, Congrats on the anniversary at Edelman. From personal experience, I know you definitely made the right move. Keep on rocking, ripping and shredding....
Congratulations Phil.
As a young PR pro I've got to say that I'm really looking forward to reading about some of your insights from a year in the role.
Cheers.
First of all, congratulations, and also thanks for being "real" and accessible, even in the mega agency environment.
I run what I like to call a virtual agency, I work in partnership with consultants and other agecies to assemble hit-teams to get work done.
Before that, I worked on the client-side. Working on the client side has its advantages in that you can really advocate to get thigs done and set the agenda. Less so as an independent and/or consultant.
I have never worked in a mid-sized agency, but I would think the same would apply. However, working for a very large agency, on a new program, might be a little like working on the client side, or so it seems by your narrative that I have now heard both offline and on.
What do you think?
Better start looking for a new job. Edelman's online business will crash and burn like the Walmart account. the m2revolution will be called m2firedbyRichard. For some real commentary on what's going in ur sweatshop, read my oped in this wk's odwyerpr.com
John, John, and Paull,
Thanks for your notes!
Kami,
I'll address your last point in a future post.
James,
I don't work with the Wal-Mart business. I *can* tell you that your article is, frankly, rhetorically unsound.
It assumes that Edelman's online engagements and its work with traditional media on behalf of Wal-Mart are mutually exclusive, and that one took place at the expense of the other. ("Big PR firms are learning that the blogosphere is no answer for a company like Wal-Mart that really needed a more traditional media relations lobbying campaign.")
To my knowledge, no one has claimed to "control" the blogosphere. While, short of an autocratic gov't, no one can truly "control" *any* form of media, PR firms are tasked with helping to influence an outcome to a certain degree.
And, oh... I'll be outta here by 5:30pm.
Congratulations on the one year anniversary. When Edelman hired you, it was a great choice (and that's not just because we probably look at this stuff the same way).
You're one of the good ones.
And, Bruni, um, off the meds much?
Congrats, Phil! We all look forward to continuing to learn more "haphazard, strange and useless facts that pretty much won't help us at all" ... but, it's a good read. And that's something.
Keep up the good work.
Read your fearless leader Richard's comments at that London event I referenced in my oped. He does claim that Edelman can "manage" the "charged" Blogosphere. He'll promise the Moon to clients, don't you know by now. Strumpette's betting poll on the me2 units is growing by the day.
James,
For my readers who won't take your rhetorical onanism at face value, here's the citation you mention above:
"If there's a mistake about your company, about your product, send them an e-mail, raise your hand. They will correct it. That's what our studies show very clearly. Either by striking through and writing 'here's the fact.' Or, by correcting. One or the other. Very few of them will leave an inaccurate post."This, in my experience, has been the case with most instances where a blogger has been shown to be factually wrong. (Of course, matters regarding positioning or emphasis are sure to be rejected by the blogger, resulting in a publicly hung PR guy.)
What's described in that citation is the bare minimum that a competent PR person should be doing. (Most of the Edelman engagements go a lot deeper.)
Oh, come on Phil. Quit drinking that "Edelman Koolaid".
Read the rest of that London speech.
Richard Edelman doesn't know the first thing about talking to bloggers. That's why he hired you. Back in the '80s and '90s he'd hire former journalists (I can name a dozen or so) in hopes that they could "reach out" to reporters. He hired and fired numerous who didn't work out. He couldn't pitch a reporter or blogger if his life depended on it.
Commenting by HaloScan
