The Day The Walls Came Down
I write this blog on digital PR, and that’s fine, but the problem is it makes many people think there are two distinct silos: traditional PR and this new digital thing.
But in reality, they are not bifurcated. They are seamless. They are mix and match. One morphs into the other and then back again in a moment’s notice.
Actually without notice. Really, in a nano second. That’s the challenge of it. That’s the fun of it.
What do I mean? Let’s say you land a Wal-Mart executive on CNBC to talk about the company’s successful forays into key global markets. The interview goes great, your client comes across as sage and sincere and the producer tosses out the idea of doing a one hour special on the company’s extraordinary history.
Wonderful. But even as the interview is live on the cable, the wonderful turns partly terrible. A network of anti Wal-Mart bloggers - and there are legions of them who hate anything American, capitalistic and successful - go into a viral frenzy about the company.” Wal-Mart starves children. Wal-Mart destroys unions. Wal-Mart killed Lincoln.”
Even though the traditional media can be biased, it does have an editing process. It does have a fact checking process. And most of its reporters and editors work hard to pass through the screen of impartiality. But the blogosphere is filled with renegades, many of them angry at this, that or the other thing, and free to say, rant, scream about whatever they (we) want, whenever we want to.
So here’s the crazy quilt aspect of all of this. You land a great segment on CNBC and then the bloggers turn it against you. When you and your client go on air you have to be factual; the bloggers don’t have to be anything but alive.
So if you think traditional PR and digital PR have walls between them and if you think you can leave digital PR to the punky kid in the office next door, sorry. The world isn’t neatly packaged like that anymore. Not since the day the walls came down.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I think your example of anti-Wal Martist bloggers is fairly biased. The issue isn’t that these bloggers are anti- large American companies: it’s that they use cheap tricks and low-ball techniques to buy products from their distributors at a far-below market price; they employ cheap labor; they sell cheap products, most of which are *not* made in America, anyways, thus supporting foreign economies (rather than AMERICAN economies. If Wal Mart is going to claim to be an American company, they don’t seem to be doing much for the labor-force.); and the list goes on….
As a PR professional, I would hope you understand the importance of credibility and quality, neither of which Wal Mart portrays in a great way. Of course you’ll see criticism for WM’s practices and ethics! This is America, like you mentioned, and even though the First Amendment has been in place for longer than blogging has been around, Americans can feel that they now have a voice and an outlet for their opinion, thanks to social media. We don’t all see eye-to-eye, so I appreciate social media for bringing opinions and ideas to a more popular and powerful level.
I agree that you have to be factual when you’re on an interview - but wouldn’t it help if you were factual ALL the time? - and not just when you felt you needed to be? Social media (blogging included) is here to stay - crisis communication strategies now need to be tailored to this type of content. But to think companies have kicked up their feet and took a back seat to this form of media is a joke! Just like word-of-mouth campaigns, social media is a very powerful publicity strategy that shouldn’t discredit any blog post, myspace comment, or del.ic.io.us bookmark. So if these blogospheres “filled with renegades” have pushed companies to follow more “factual” practices and take liability for their actions, then good! Because god knows we need more *ethical* “American, capitalistic, and successful” companies in this country.
on October 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Mark, I think your comments were on point. The world is shrinking…and expanding. I do, however, agree with Steph when she speaks about Wal Mart. You did clearly show a bias there. Okay, you CAN show a bias if you want to. Just like other bloggers, you are not being held to mainstream journalistic standards. However, at least for some of us, the bias interferes with your message. You might want to think about that (or not).
Bobbie
on November 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi, hello, privet
toyota tundraa d
on November 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Hi, hello, privet
extracapsularsurgery