I know, I know — I’ve been horrible about blogging. I’ve been going through the yearly planning, yearly wrap up and yearly over justification process. It’s been painful, educational and enlightening all at the same time, and I have several posts floating around in my head from it. But I need to gain a little perspective before ranting and raving.

In the meantime, I’ve been cleaning out my Bloglines clippings folder, and found a handful of posts worth sharing. I realize a few are several months old at this point, but I reread each one and they’re still great references and all-around-good-reads. So check them out.

• From Pandia Search Engine News: The definitive top 5 online RSS reader – a must read for those of you who aren’t using an RSS reader to stay up on news and blogs (and looking at my traffic stats, that’s a lot of you).
• From Mashable: When a Blogroll Isn’t a Blogroll — a particularly compelling idea (I think) for agency folks.
• From Liberate Media: Social Media Tools List – From Analytics to Digg — a huge resource for all your social media questions.
• From Jeremy Pepper: PR will lose Social Media to Advertising Because of Sex — great commentary on who should/will “own” social media.
• From Chip Griffin: Throwing Out the Social Media Rulebook — points out that not every “rule” in the emerging social media world should be followed, and why.
  
• From Jeremiah Owyang: List of Resources for the Analyst Industry — a list of several analyst-related social media resources.
• Also from Jeremiah Owyang: A Complete List of the Many forms of Web Marketing in 2008 — a great breakdown of the many forms of web marketing and the social media technologies related to each.
• From Now Is Gone: Finding Savvy Social Media Consultants — helpful suggestions for anyone looking to hire social media experts.
• From Brian Solis: The Definitive Guide to Social Media Releases — regardless of you think about the social media release, this post includes an interesting picture of what each press release wire offers.
• From Kathy Kerchner: Bad Press Releases Feature Boring, Ridiculous Quotes — PR folks are notorious for overwriting press releases, but this provides great examples of what a release could be.
• From Brendan Cooper: PR Friendly Index — a fabulous list of 100 PR focused blogs. Pick a new one each week to explore!

Greg Jarboe wrote a great piece a few weeks ago on SearchEngineWatch.com called “Measuring PR in cold, hard cash.” He talked about the need to “measure public relations in both PR outputs and business outcomes.” The article resonated with me because I spent most of the last six weeks trying to do just that.I’ve been all over the web looking at case studies and searching for ways to quantify – in business terms – the results of my PR program. I actually found some great ideas and will be sharing that in a post this week. But first, I want to talk about what I didn’t do.

In the midst of my digging for ideas to map PR results to business outcomes, I received a direct mail piece from a NY-based PR firm claiming last year they “achieved an average ROI of 500% on behalf of its clients.” It’s quite a claim and it definitely caught my attention. But then the letter went on to claim that “for every dollar [X PR company's clients] paid for public relations, they would have had to have spent at least five times that much to achieve similar results with advertising.”

(sigh)

Okay folks, I know a lot of PR people fall back on the advertising value equivalent as a measure of success. As an industry, we struggle to attach dollar figures to our results – something that the c-suite wants. So I can understand the appeal of this comparison. But it is flawed on so many levels.

First, let’s accept that a comparison chart is not proof of ROI. ROI, as you know, means return on investment. Specifically, it’s defined as: the ratio of money gained or lost on an investment relative to the amount of money invested. The key words in that sentence are money gained. NOT money saved. NOT money that could have been spent elsewhere. Simply, money gained. To show true ROI on a PR program, you’ll need to attribute sales to that program. When the amount of sales exceeds the entire cost of the program, you’ve got positive ROI. Of course, this is difficult to track specifically to PR, so the PR person who can demonstrate ROI is few and far between.

Assuming you accept all of the last paragraph, I’ll admit I can still see the why folks try to show that PR is more cost efficient than advertising – because many times we must compete for the same finite budget. That’s where the practice of calculating advertising value equivalents comes into play. This is the practice of measuring the relative size of an article, mapping that to the cost of a similarly sized ad in the same publication, and then claiming that the article was worth the same amount of the cost of an ad.

Even if you’re trying to show why budget should be allocated to PR over advertising, it’s still a very flawed practice for oh-so-many reasons. First and foremost, ads are created by the company. That means they’re on message, positive in nature, typically have a call to action and the company in the headline, and don’t mention the competition, except to bash them. How much of your editorial coverage fits that exact description? Exactly, so you can see how quickly the comparison falls apart. Also consider how much an ad on the front cover of BusinessWeek would cost, since it’s impossible to get. Or the value of PR results in the form of analyst endorsements, industry awards, speaking opportunities, and even a presence in the blogosphere. How much would advertising there cost? You get my point. (For a great list on why this method is incredibly flawed, check out this post.)

I still agree with Jarboe that we must start mapping PR outputs to business outcomes, but we can’t take the easy look-at-how-great-these-numbers-are way. We also can’t simply push coverage numbers and call it a day. I think the right answer is a hybrid of good ol’ fashioned PR results, such as coverage and industry accolades, measured against business outcomes, like increased traffic or leads, with a quality overlay to account for improved perception. I’ve been experimenting with several ways to do that (with zero budget), and will present those in my next post for your feedback. I don’t claim to have the answers, but I’m hoping as an industry we can figure it out (and soon).

Today’s news that Marketwire has revolutionized the social media release caught my eye. In case you haven’t seen it, Marketwire is integrating social media components into their newswire.

However, I don’t think this “Social Media 2.0″ is going to be the press release’s salvation, because it’s still plagued by bad, buzzword-laden writing. For example, take the second sentence of the release, where I think Marketwire is trying to say something about distribution:

Social Media 2.0 advances today’s press release format, offers public relations professionals a multitude of content options, and distributes news in a variety of mediums to distribution channels beyond traditional media distribution networks.

I also think there’s some subtle irony to a social media release — designed to reach online users who frequently embed links in their text and know to click on a hyperlink — using the phrase “click here” so many times (Perhaps last night’s Patriots loss has me a little extra snarky).

If you can get beyond the actual release, I do think this is good news for the PR world (assuming they aren’t charging an arm and a leg for it). I’m particularly interested in the assortment of tagging and tracking capabilities. But, as a profession, we still need to work on the quality of our release writing. Otherwise, we’re just putting lipstick — and new distribution — on a very ugly pig.

Everyone’s talking about last night’s 60 Minutes interview with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. I watched it and came away thinking “what a wasted, multi-million dollar PR opportunity.”

The piece started out sounding like an early Valentine for Zuckerberg, but then it turned into an uncomfortable — and sometimes painful — interview. I won’t spend much time on his actual performance — it’s safe to say that he’s in desperate need of some media training. Even Lesley Stahl interjected at one point that Zuckerberg has been described as being awkward.

More than his uncomfortable performance, I was really surprised that Facebook/Zuckerberg squandered such a huge opportunity. I flinched each time he was thrown an excellent transition question and he missed it. For example, here are a few key topics that he didn’t insert into the interview:

1. For all it’s hype, Facebook is still the #2 social network behind MySpace. Why would I join Facebook over MySpace? I’ll admit I was waiting (and hoping) for a slam about MySpace’s multiple cameos on Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” … but they never came. I was expecting to hear Facebook’s value vis-a-vis MySpace, though.
2. No really, why do I want to join Facebook? Early on, Lesley got excited when a former colleague reconnected with her after setting up her profile — which gave him a perfect segue to throw out a dozen other examples of people reconnecting, business people networking, or even someone finding their college sweetheart. Anything beyond Scrabble? Given the demographics of 60 Minutes’ viewers, I was particularly expecting to hear a few reasons why the Gen X and Boomer generations should join. Instead, he talked about Scrabble. Now, I love the Scrabble app just as much as Zuckerberg apparently does. Unfortunately that’s about the only use I’ve found for Facebook so far, and I was waiting for him change that.
3. Can a 23 year old really run a $15 billion company (setting aside that it’s not actually worth that, for a moment)? Lesley brought this up a few times, and Zuckerberg’s three word answers didn’t cut it. Why not point to how quickly the company is growing? Why not talk about him solidifying funding and Microsoft’s investment? Surely there could have been a FEW examples to address this. Why not point to what he’s already accomplished as CEO?
4. Is Zuckerberg really a visionary? This one came up a few times, most notably when he was compared to the Google Gazillionaires. What a great opportunity to talk about where he sees Facebook going, how innovative the company is vs. other hot startups, etc. Yet, we got nothing.
5. Was all the bad publicity wrong about Beacon and Facebook’s ads? With this one, Zuckerberg gave a little answer, but I don’t think “Facebook needs to pay its employees” was the right answer. I’ll grant him that it’s a legitimate reason to start monetizing Facebook’s audience, but he should have given several other, much more compelling, reasons. And then immediately followed those with an explanation about how/why the privacy concerns of Facebook users have been addressed.
6. Why should Facebook employees feel proud about working for him? At any point, Zuckerberg could have talked about how revolutionary/innovative/etc. the company was, but he didn’t. I don’t even remember him smiling when he spoke about the team working for him.
7. What’s next? I wasn’t expecting to hear any product news, but Zuckerberg could have thrown in a few teaser comments to keep me interested in Facebook in the coming months.

As I write this, I wonder how involved Facebook’s PR team was with this opportunity. From my vantage point, either Facebook doesn’t view PR as a strategic component to the company’s success, or Zuckerberg is a classic example of a CEO who thinks he knows PR and won’t take guidance. Or, he needs a new PR team. Regardless, I think the entire Facebook team botched a huge opportunity last night that might not come his way again.

What did you think of the interview?

Today, I was struck by a major difference between working for a PR agency and doing PR inhouse — perspective.

I’ve talked about how great the camaraderie is at an agency, and it’s still something I miss. But I realized today that in-house PR folks are exposed to so many more perspectives about a company than an outsourced agency could ever be.For example, I sit next to a team of people focused on client retention. I hear their calls all day to existing customers, and get to hear some interesting conversations. Internal planning meetings typically include an interesting sampling of people across job functions who all represent different stakeholders (our customers, our technology, our investors). It’s fascinating to hear how everything affects everyone else.

At the same time, people with such varied backgrounds bring entirely new perspectives to any conversation. The questions are different, the thought processes are different, the examples of what has worked are different. I find that it brings a new level of understanding and access to the PR program that I don’t believe you can get over the phone.

I will say that I think agency PR people benefit from a different type of perspective. I loved working with multiple VPs because I found they all approached problems from a different perspective. And while the fundamental programs were relatively similar, each one offered a unique view. Mix in the ability to work on multiple clients across industries (something I craved — having completely different clients kept things interesting), and you’re presented with yet another perspective. Often, I’d brainstorm ideas and challenges with multiple people just to see their different approaches. Ultimately, looking at a problem five different ways becomes a great asset.

I’m still not ready to say one is better than the other, but more I do the more I realize just how different they are.

As follow on to my last post, here’s a great blog entry by Rohit Bhargava called, “7 Lessons On How To Be a Great Client.” It provides great advice for clients looking to build lasting relationships with PR/marketing/communications agencies.

Read Rohit’s piece for more details, but his seven key pieces of advice are:

1. Provide clear direction
2. Invite us to the table early
3. Be honest about success factors
4. Take the advice you are paying for
5. Know what you don’t know
6. Understand that changes affect timelines
7. Ask our advice

Have any others you’d like to add?

1. Don’t be a jackass. You laugh, but I’ll wager that every agency person has worked with an abusive client at one point. Maybe it’s a VP of marketing who used to have a $15 million budget and ran PR for a F100 company who doesn’t understand why their $50k annual budget doesn’t get the same jumping-at-the-sound-of-their-voice reaction. Or maybe it’s a new CMO that thinks business reporters should jump at the chance to cover a startup with no customers, no shipping product, no real strategy, and no known investors. Or, perhaps that day-to-day contact is just over whelmed and can’t do everything being asked of her.Regardless of the reasons why, there’s never an excuse to be an ass to your team. I promise, yelling doesn’t make them work harder and won’t make them respect you. And going over the manager’s head every other day doesn’t build a strong relationship.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t expect a lot from your team. My top three favorite clients are also the most demanding clients I ever worked for. They respected me and I respected them … I’d go out of my way to help them and my team made sure they looked good internally.

2. Your 18 I-know-this-isn’t-PR-related-but-can-you-deal-with-it-anyway requests ate the budget. Especially with startups, agencies are often asked to fill in on projects, write webinar media alerts, track down reprint costs, etc. when the internal staff is overworked or non-existent. Unless you’re in a super hot company in a very popular industry, not focusing on media relations will always result in less coverage. Asking a team to jump on these minor tasks is understandable (if temporary), but if this is your situation, you need to accept there will tradeoffs and these “easy” projects can tend to be time consuming. If your priority is coverage and results, make sure you’re not the agency’s biggest obstacle.

3. That’s a dumb idea. I’m sorry, but sometimes it just is.

4. You’re not the only client. And 10 p.m. isn’t business hours. Oh, and my private cell phone … is private (okay, that might be three things). Think that contradicts client service? I don’t. I believe if a client/agency relationship is mutually respectful, the client needs to understand that parameters exist. I think I was a rare bird in the agency because I actually told my clients that one, I turned my cell phone off as soon as I entered the office building (my mom didn’t like that rule either); two, I couldn’t promise I’d answer a call or email in the evening unless I was expecting it; and three, if I didn’t pick up a page, I was probably on the phone with another client. Having a client email me, IM me, call my cell and call my office all in a matter of 30 seconds was too much for me, and ended up distracting me and creating an unnecessary level of anxiety. So at one point, I finally stopped it. I was always diplomatic in how I explained it to my clients, but I was honest and upfront about where my work/personal boundaries were.

I get that the core of agency service is client service. But unless you’re Microsoft, your agency most likely has more than one client. Especially when you’re working on more than one client, and with all the distractions that technology provides, agency people need to be able to focus when they can. That’s why your agency provides a team … if one person is unreachable, chances are you’ll find someone else (And I guarantee if your panic attack is related to a syringe being found in your product, even the most junior person on the team will know enough to find a senior person pronto).

Side note to all you agency readers and minor rant coming: To me, there is nothing more annoying and disrespectful than scheduling a team meeting only to make the junior staff wait while you talk on your cell phone, thinking your time is more valuable than theirs. Likewise, your clients are people, too, and if you work with them to meet all the deadlines during the day (which means sending that release at 4, not 8), then there’s no need for evening calls. You’ll never convince me it’s necessary for a client to call you at 9 p.m. to talk about a pitch going out two weeks later, or for you to call your client on Friday night to talk about an award due the following Wednesday. If I send my agency an email at 10 at night, it’s because I’m catching up. I don’t expect a reply until the next day

5. All that coverage doesn’t just happen. There always comes a point when a client starts thinking they’re all that, makes an agency switch for some random reason (less money, they can do more for less, etc.), and then the coverage disappears. I actually had a client that we took from 60 pieces of coverage to 500 and then almost 1,000 in two years (and they were high quality, on message) … then hubris kicked in, they made a switch, and went down to about 12 pieces of coverage the following six months. Yes, it happens that quickly. No, reporters don’t just “call” PR people to talk to you. When you start thinking that securing those massive amounts of coverage is like shooting fish in a barrel, it’s time for a reality check. It has more to do with your PR team kicking ass and maintaining key relationships than you think.

Wow. I feel better now … some of those have been bottled up for a few years.

This week’s ad:tech was insane … my feet are still sore. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to sit in on a lot of sessions, but I did hit a few and got some great nuggets that relate to PR/communications:

• I think I might want to (eventually) work for a consumer company. With lots of money. Several All of the coolest social media case studies I heard came from consumer companies.
• The “holy grail” of social media — whether it be social networks, blogs, video, etc. — is to move from B2B marketing/communications to C2C communications, where your brand advocates are carrying the message. This theme popped up a few times, and one attendee commented that using the “C2C” description to his execs resonated more quickly than social media did (who doesn’t love a good acronym, right?).
• One panelist from Fox Interactive Media talked about the “momentum effect” of social media. Here are two articles talking about the study back in April. They’re geared toward consumers and advertising, but it includes some great stats that could be helpful selling social media internally.
• Content continues to be king. But in the world of social media and consumer generated content (read: content overload) it needs to be more than simply relevant and interesting — it needs to add value to the community.
• Authenticity, authenticity, authenticity.
• And finally, don’t engage a community and then abandon them (I feel like I’ve broken this rule lately).

And now, I’m off to soak the feet

Everyone’s focused on the Facebook/Microsoft investment news. It’s been a topic in the rumor mill for several weeks, so it’s really not that shocking anymore. I’ve been watching the rumors and the news closely, though, because on the PR front, we all knew that at some point before the official announcement, the rumor would be inadvertently confirmed (it always happens with news that big). The questions we were all asking were when and how.

A few news sites confirmed the rumor with “un-named” sources, but did anyone see ValleyWag’s confirmation post? They happened to notice that key PR contacts at both companies had friended each other on Facebook. Clearly, ValleyWag made a (not so) huge leap of faith, but as we embrace more social technologies, this is something for us all to keep in mind: the scoop oriented media (read: bloggers) may be watching the company you keep.

Rohit Bhargava recently posted a presentation he gave about marketing in a Web 2.0 world that got me to thinking about transparency and authenticity.Let’s face it – transparency is one of the most used social media buzzwords (perhaps not too far behind conversation, blogosphere and, well, social media). It’s also a word that is both easily defined yet hard to grasp. I find this especially true when we talk about companies becoming more transparent in their communications, particularly when trying to balance the needs of the company with the requests of the online world.

Rohit’s presentation resonated with me because I agree – it’s not necessarily about transparency in communications, it’s about authenticity – in everything you we do.

If you accept that businesses are around to make money, you must also accept that there will, necessarily, be limitations on how open a company can/should be. That means that sometimes, this “transparency” isn’t always the right choice for companies – particularly when discussing future plans of the company.

However, I believe it is very possible for executives to be authentic while still maintaining a competitive edge and protecting proprietary information. In the end, it’s all about adding a lot more “human factor” and removing the corporate speak — which ultimately helps build trusting relationships with employees, shareholders, customers and partners, and even the media. All this is done by simply allowing a spokesperson to be honest and forthcoming (without disclosing company secrets).

Looking for proof that we’re all still trying to find our way in the blogosphere? Check out a recent gaf by a PR newbie pretending to be someone else. Todd uses the event as a reason to remind PR agencies that to err is expected, but to publicly acknowledge mistakes is demanded in this social media world. And to their credit, Racepoint uses it to educate others.

To me, the most interesting take away from this online discussion is a reminder that as PR evolves, it leaves a bumpy road for agencies. We all understand (well, we’re starting to understand) the boundaries of PR engaging with the blogosphere. Open, honest, etc. But as far as PR agencies go, I think we’re only beginning to agree on where the boundaries are. As blogs become more mainstream, more and more PR people will be required to build relationships with bloggers. Already, agencies are starting to promote relationships with bloggers as prominently as relationships with the media and analysts.

But, here’s the catch: Traditionally, PR agencies took great strides to NOT act as company spokespeople (I remember a few times I was cited in stories, and I’ll tell you my clients weren’t happy). The rules of engagement have changed, though, and many bloggers prefer public comments over private emails. At what point is it okay for an agency PR rep to respond? Is it considered on a client-by-client basis?

AND, when the PR rep isn’t pushing a client agenda, does it make sense for them to post comments on blogs? I think so, but I was also on the agency side and I’ll admit, having junior staff publicly exposed like that scared the hell out of me. Yet, to only have senior folks comment kills the relationship building. I certainly don’t think it can be a free for all, with PR people openly commenting on blogs to promote their clients. I’m also not convinced that encouraging a PR person to post comments related to their clients is really how to go about building a relationship in the first place (I actually think that’s exactly what not to do, but others disagree).

At the same time, I wonder if it makes sense for agencies to begin developing content experts who can engage industry bloggers in thoughtful debate, publicly? Or is that counter productive to thought leadership campaigns with their clients? And at what point, as an agency, do you open your most junior staff up to public scrutiny, and where do you shield them? I don’t have a solution to offer here, and my gut tells me a lot of agencies are grappling with these very topics internally. I’m sure their clients also have opinions (probably 30 of them), which complicates the topic even more. And then, of course, the bloggers (both independent and media) probably have another set of opinions. It would be a facisnating round table discussion, that’s for sure! What about you? Where do you think the boundary is (or should be)?

Here’s a post about Facebook that resonated with me, as I suspect it will with many of you in PR: Should CEOs be on Facebook. Lois (who I used to work for) really captured an ongoing debate I’m having with myself about Facebook as the next great social media tool: do I jump in feet first, do I wade in, or do I stay on the dock? AND, how/where do I incorporate Facebook into my PR program … or do I?

As Lois points out, “It’s wonderful that the media are on Facebook. It is a good way for conversations to take place and that would be a benefit for CEOs who are open to really building and maintaining a strong relationship with influencers.”

The Internet flattened the world, and PR people now need to build relationships around the country and the world, often virtually. That makes a platform like Facebook’s is very compelling, and is why, I believe, so many in the PR and media circles have embraced the social networking phenom. And I agree with a lot of the potential benefits of executives joining the interaction circles on Facebook.

But, something is still holding me back from joining. Actually, several things are (in no particular order):

• It’s a huge time suck. And an even worse perception killer. I can justify the need to network with media, but I could easily burn several hours a week on the site. That in turn could fuel a perception that I’m the one always on Facebook, which would rank me just above the YouTube watcher on the perceived productivity scale.
• My friends are on the site. And sometimes, it’s just too easy to be distracted.
• Did I mention my friends are there? Merging my personal and business networks isn’t something I’m quite ready to do. Granted, I socialize with people in my business world outside of work. And it’s possible (even likely) that I could run into a friend at a professional networking event. But I’m still not ready to introduce my professional contacts to my college roommate or my mother [Facebook just announced friend grouping, which may help address this]
• And finally, no matter what people say, Facebook is not set up for professional networking, at least not to me. For example, right next to your picture is your marital status and orientation. It’s subtle, but riddle me this — when was the last time your introduction at an in-person networking event started out with “Hi, my name is John. I’m a straight married man” or “Hi, I’m Heather and yes, I’m single”? The intro alone sets the tone for informal socializing. It’s fitting for friends and great for college kids, but awkward (or creepy) for executives. If Facebook really plans to cross over into the business world, subtleties like that need to be adjusted.

Even with my concerns, I still believe there are several very compelling arguments for where and how Facebook can complement an existing program. But until I come to terms with whether or not I should join, and whether or not I should encourage my execs to join, I’ll continue to be an interested observer (and will continue looking for a better solution, which I think I’ve found … more on that in a few weeks).

What about you? Is anyone else holding out? Or do you think I’m letting the Facebook parade pass me by?

In Brian’s post, “Get a F#ck!ng Blog Already,” he writes about his desire to “convince companies to stop asking questions and accept the fact that they need to engage. The only question they need to ask is,’what do I need to do?’” He goes on to point out that many companies are talking about social media, yet very few are truly embracing it. I agree, yet disagree, with Brian. True, only a few companies have embraced social media yet. However, I don’t think they should rush to create a blog.

So why all the talk yet very little movement? My personal opinion is that so many companies are getting bogged down with the technology, terminology and all the “expert” advice and end up over thinking social media. In turn, they never move beyond discussions and brainstorms. I wholeheartedly agree that companies need to understand what they’re trying to achieve, and the larger ones should have blogging policies in place. But I think most companies are spending too much time creating blogging strategies (if there is such a thing) and researching what other companies are doing, and ultimately end up with analysis paralysis.

I sat in on a Forrester webinar today called “The Right Social Marketing Strategy” with Charlene Li. She said she’s hearing from a lot of folks who think they need to have a blog in order to embrace social media. She also said that many marketers are so focused on the various new technologies (Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.), that they lose focus. Her advice, which I think is very relevant to PR folks looking at social media, is to “create a strategy by focusing on relationships — not technology.”

With that in mind, and as promised yesterday, here are a few easy steps to get you going with social media (in no particular order). It’s completely over simplified by design. I truly believe that as you start experimenting, it’s easier to understand what works for your company/client, and what doesn’t. And please note that nowhere do I suggest starting a company blog — that comes in the next wave.

1. Start by listening and understanding both what your customers are reading and what they are saying. PR is about building relationships and influence within a universe of media/analysts, and you don’t define that universe — your customers do. So understanding who and what they’re reading, as well as what (or if) they’re writing, is critical if you want to engage with them (which is the intent of social media).
2. Once you’ve defined this universe, begin outreaching to a few bloggers. Just like any member of the media, do your homework first. Read what they write. Read their about page, read their PR guidelines page. Once you’ve determined they’re definitely relevant to you (or, more importantly, that YOU’RE definitely relevant to them), introduce yourself and begin a conversation. Always be upfront and honest in your communication with them, and never spam them. You’ll learn quickly what works and what doesn’t — and then you can replicate that to a broader audience.
3. Treat bloggers like you would any other industry influencer. If they write in-depth product analysis, treat them like your traditional reviewers and let them see beta products. Solicit their feedback and provide more context for them. If they focus on the industry and competitive landscape, treat them like an industry analyst. Share metrics that help show your growth, etc. If they’re news oriented, treat them like news reporters. If they’re writing about their experience with your product, treat them like a customer … Etc., etc., etc.
4. Read blogs, and respond to them. The biggest hurdle to embracing social media is giving up the notion that PR is about controlling the flow of communication from a company. If you see a blog post that’s inaccurate about your company, email the blogger. If the blog post “dings” your product, post a comment thanking them for the feedback. You may even be able to agree and let them know you’re working on a fix. No matter how much you want to, though, don’t ever bait the blogger into a debate without having hard facts to back you up … otherwise you’ll lose. Realize that even with the facts, you may still lose. But at least your message will be shared in the comments.
5. As Charlene points out, don’t focus on the technology. Focus on building relationships. If none of your customers are in SecondLife, it’s probably not where you need to be.
6. Make information easy to get, and easier yet to receive. Gone are the days of paper press kits, but there’s still a need for a lot of that content. Make sure your online press room has valuable content. This could include links to videos on YouTube, etc. And once you have this content available, don’t assume the media will visit it frequently. Get an RSS feed set up so you can make it easy for them to see updates (including news announcements, newsletters, etc.). You’ll be amazed at how simple this is, yet how many companies don’t do it.

I realize I just over simplified an entry-level social media strategy. But, my belief is that the PR strategies are vastly the same — technology has just created new mediums and redefined who the media (i.e. content creators) are, and several factors have led to a culture of openness in communications. This is also why I don’t think it’s wise to treat social media as its own practice, but rather incorporate social media into your existing PR and communications programs.

How about you — care to share any tips on how companies can ease into social media?

Behind the Buzz posts a list of the “9 worst practices in social media.” Communicators should take note, as this list is focused on social media strategies that just don’t work. The nine worst practices, paraphrased by me with commentary in bold, are:

• Create a fake site — today’s Web readers will sniff out and kill a fake site faster than you can create it.
• Publish a fake blog with fake writers — WalMart still gets buzz from this fiasco (see first bullet for why).
• Ghost post for your company’s living caricature — I believe PR folks should encourage executives to blog, but don’t bother with those cute little cartoon characters (remember how annoying Microsoft’s Clippy was? He’d be worse if he had a blog).
• Post template comments from said caricature – see last bullet. no matter how “cute” it sounds, it’s not …  unless maybe you’re promoting Disney to a set of tweens.
• Astroturf — fake grassroots support is still fake, and it’s insulting
  
• Disrespect bloggers/treat bloggers as second class citizens — as the lines between traditional media and bloggers continue to blur, you need to be very careful when tiering your outreach list. Don’t assume you can pitch the WSJ with an exclusive and then get day-of coverage from some bloggers.
• Spam bloggers with the cookie cutter release — the spray and pray mentality never worked with traditional reporters, and it doesn’t work with bloggers.
  
• Ignore criticism — one of the driving tenants of social media is fostering a conversation which, by definition, is two-way. That means that you need to embrace feedback, even when you don’t agree with it. Often, it’s a great starting point to win over a key influencer who will then create a lot of positive exposure for you.
• Have no social media plan — this one’s obvious, but the post goes on to point out that sometimes, your social media plan can be simply “to listen”

What I like about this post is that it’s a good list of things to avoid. Unfortunately, we’re still figuring out how to best integrate social media into PR and communications so there isn’t a list of rules. But, as a community, we’ve discovered several strategies that just don’t work while recognizing that everyone needs to pay attention to social media.

Wondering how to insert social media into your ongoing PR program? I’ll dig into that topic tomorrow!

I had a great conversation with a former client last week. He was convinced he didn’t need to care about bloggers as part of his communications plan. I asked him his reasoning, and he replied, “None of my customers blog.”My response was simple: “I’ll bet none of your customers write for BusinessWeek either.” He still wasn’t convinced, but he at least got my point.

Companies want to get in front of potential customers (or investors, employees, partners, etc.). When it comes to identifying the key influencers/targets for your PR plan, remember to focus less on who’s blogging and more on what your ideal audience is reading. If a blog holds court with your ideal customers, you should know the blogger and the blogger should know you.

(warning … rant coming on)

Tradeshows: They often provide a platform for coverage and can be great PR venues to meet press, bloggers and media. They are even better venues to have meaningful conversations with those same people and begin building relationships. Unfortunately, they’re also the time when a growing population of PR pros gives the rest of us a bad, used car salesman-like, name.

During the last few tradeshows I’ve been to, I’ve been surprised at how many PR people think it’s okay to literally accost anyone with that coveted color-coded name badge. It apparently no longer matters if that reporter/editor/blogger/analyst actually covers the right space. I’ve listened to reporters say, repeatedly, that they are only interested in X and still, they must endure a product pitch on Q. Usually, they’ll give in and hear the pitch just to get away … but I’m sure that following the event, they are still bombarded with calls and emails wondering why they didn’t write something based on being cornered at the event.

With the fall tradeshow season in full swing, I’m asking you to remember you’re not a used care salesman. Do your work before the event – schedule meetings if you have news or an interesting (relevant to the event) story. If a reporter says she’ll stop by the booth, watch for her name and introduce yourself. Talk with her, not at her. Talk about how the show’s going and introduce her to your executives. If she doesn’t have time for a demo, respect that and offer to set up a follow up discussion after the event.

During the event, take advantage of the networking opportunities built into the schedule. Focus on sitting next to reporters during lunch or going up to them at a cocktail party. Try asking them questions not related to what you’re pitching. How’s the show going? What’s the hottest trend you’re seeing? What did you think of the keynote? Did you catch the football game? Comment on their blog if you really read it. (It’s called networking)

When you do introduce yourself to a reporter, be upfront about being a PR person and tell him which company you’re with. Ask him about his coverage before diving into your elevator pitch. If his focus isn’t relevant to you, don’t just walk away. You’ll be surprised at how interesting a non-self serving conversation can be … and eventually, his focus or your company/client will change.

And finally, for heaven’s sake, don’t jump in front of them, don’t try to tackle them and don’t accost them in the line to the bathroom. All that does is annoy the reporters and honestly, it’s embarrassing for the rest of us.

Interesting blurb in Boston.com’s Business Filter today about blogging being mainstream:

“Blogging has only been around a few years but a new study reveals that “eight out of 10 Americans know what “blog” means, and almost half have visited the blogosphere – some as often as daily.” While it’s not surprising that 90 percent of 25- to-34-year-olds are blog-aware, what’s shocking to me is 64.5 percent of those age 65-plus are too. 8 percent of Americans have their own blog. 14 percent are men and 20 are women.”

I think there’s still some debate about how “mainstream” blogging is, but for those of you finding it difficult to convince your execs or clients to embrace bloggers as part of your PR program, here’s a tip: drop the “social media” title, and treat them like any other influencer. I think more companies get hung up on the “social media” space, because it’s that scary, new, wild west. However, it’s pretty easy to make the case that a key blogger with 200,000 daily visitors (focused on the market you sell to) belongs on the top tier influencer list, next to the professor who writes a column for that key trade magazine and the analyst who also edits a newsletter that all of your customers read.

Start small, and once they appreciate how to approach a blogger and cultivate a relationship, you can add a few more to the list. Then, you can start incorporating other social media outlets — again, sans title. Once you’ve got the results to build a case for a more focused program, then introduce the word “social” to the planning conversations. I think you’ll find an open mind at that point.

I’ve been reading a lot lately about measuring PR and “proving” ROI. Both were hot topics on the agency and corporate side — but I’m beginning to wonder if people understand that difference between the two (warning: quasi rant coming…)

On the measurement side, I’m surprised at how often the archaic “advertising value” vs. “pr value” comes up. Not to digress, but I stumped as to why any PR person would go along with this measurement. Perhaps if someone were evaluating whether to invest in PR vs. advertising, but even then, PR always loses, no matter how you spin the numbers. First, no one ever pays the rack rate for advertising. So whatever figure you assign to do your math should automatically be cut – sometimes in half. Second, in order to provide a true apples-to-apples comparison, you need to level the playing field. Advertisements are created by companies, so they’re typically 100% on message, focused on the company/product, include no mention of competitors, feature the company in the headline and insert any quality-related criteria we place on editorial. Now, pull out all your PR hits that are also 100% on message, focused solely on your client, etc. IF you have one, include your cost for the year vs. the advertising cost. I guarantee you’ll lose, no matter what numbers you come up with.

On to ROI – here’s another area that I don’t think enough PR people understand. Comparing the costs of PR vs. any other type of marketing doesn’t point to return on investment. Let’s go back to the flawed ad value comparison. Say a company was able to prove that a PR program cost 40% less than an advertising program. So what? It may be cheaper, but that doesn’t mean it’s more effective. It also doesn’t mean any ROI exists.

Now, let’s move on to this blog’s actual topic – measurement and ROI. All PR programs should be measured because if you can’t measure your results, how will you know if you’re succeeding? And measuring PR is actually very easy to do. The challenge is knowing what your objective really is, in order to tailor the measurement. Looking for broad exposure? Count your clips. Trying to build thought leadership? Track how often reporters call for commentary. Building a brand? Validating a product? All of these can be measured across multiple areas, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Spend more time at the beginning of any effort to truly understand the objective and agree on what success is, and the measurement falls in place (monitor and measure as you go).

None of these metrics, mind you, prove ROI. Why? Because in my opinion — and I’m sure some of you will disagree — there are two ways to show ROI. First, is with the money. Most marketing programs are closely tied to to ROI goals. Spend $5k on an ad for $50k in sales. It makes sense, and it’s easy to track. PR, by it’s very nature, doesn’t always lead directly to hard ROI, though many would argue it seeds the market for the rest of marketing. So, we often move on to other ROI qualifiers — increased traffic, shorter sales cycle, more demo requests, etc. There’s literally countless ways to measure the ROI of a PR program because (I think) ROI is really in the eye of the beholder. The challenge, again, is knowing what your objective is as early on as possible. Going for broad market exposure? Increased traffic, increased “buzz” and coverage, incoming calls, etc. — all can measure that. Too busy to devote time to the program? Having someone else do it could be enough ROI.

What do you think? Are measurement and ROI different or the same?

I’m back from vacation, filled with fresh ideas for my blog, how to make it better, and a list of topics I want to focus on. Oh, and I managed to relax, refresh and get a little sun [burn] in …

Last year, I took a vacation at about the same time, and came to a startling realization: I loved my job, the people I worked with and the companies I worked for. But I was bored and it occurred to me that I had become complacent. I was using phrases like “that’s good enough” and “it’ll work for now.” I wasn’t making mistakes or slacking, but I didn’t have that fire in my belly that I was known for. So, I thought it was time to shake things up and try something new.

And with that, I left the only PR world I knew — agency life — for the unknown corporate gig. I’m having a great time, and while it’s unnerving to be in such a different environment, I think it was a good call (though I still miss my old home). Almost a year later, I’m still debating which I’m better suited for agency or corporate life. I realize I don’t need to make that decision anytime soon, but I have been reflecting on the differences and similarities of the two positions lately. Two huge differences I’ve noticed are:

1. Camaraderie: Agency folks are spoiled, and I don’t think they realize it (at least, I didn’t). Certainly, there’s a wide range of experience and skill levels, but across the board, everyone understands the value of PR. They also understand how frustrating clients can be, how challenging it was to get that huge hit, and how fun a major launch is. It’s a world where all you have to say is “my client has no customers but wants to win a customer award” and everyone understands your frustration. It’s a world of bonding over briefing documents, meeting logistics and driving directions and working late to finalize every last detail. And it’s a world where everyone really understands that PR is a process, and getting profiles in business press takes months (and sometimes years) of work. Your colleagues understand that changing strategy every six weeks is counter productive. They realize that you can’t decide on Monday that you want vertical press coverage the following week. And they realize how much effort goes into a lot of the little successes along the way.

As I interact with colleagues outside of the PR world (from developers to salespeople, etc.), literally everyone thinks they know PR. Apparently, at least I’m told, it’s mostly common sense. That’s a much different environment than I was used to, and it’s made me think about how I present ideas and promote PR successes, because I’ve found that I also need to sprinkle in an appropriate amount of education. I will say I’ve found a different kind of camaraderie internally, which has been great. For example, it was exciting to see all the work that went into a complete relaunch of our search engine in April. But, sometimes I miss that sympathetic, all-knowing nod.

2. The make it work mentality: Another difference I’ve noticed — and I think this is probably true with any client service industry — is that at the agency, our job was to make “it” work. Even if our counsel to a client was to do the exact opposite, at the end of the day, our job was to accept the client’s decision (within reason) and then make it work. And we almost always did. Teams banded together and figured out how to make whatever the initiative was a smashing success. Often, it was the client throwing the highest hurdles at us. Yet, the mentality was always “find a way to make it happen.”

I work with another former agency person, and we both have commented on this. I think that mentality is a huge asset internally, because we’re never the “that won’t work for X reason” person in the room. It’s in our DNA to come up with alternative suggestions and brainstorm a way to make it happen. I have noticed that I need to catch myself sometimes, though. For example, my PR team was pitching a press tour in San Fran for July, and we were finding that most of our reporters were on vacation. My first instinct was to come up with additional targets and brainstorm new pitch angles, and then it occurred to me — I had chosen the date, and if it wasn’t going to work, I could easily move it. It was a part-light bulb, part-DUH moment. So now I’m trying to better balance my “make it happen” mentality

A year later, I can safely say that I don’t think one — agency or corporate life — is necessarily better than the other. They’re just very different in a lot of ways. As I reflect on this past year of my transition, I’ll be comparing and contrasting agency and corporate life more in an ongoing series. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts: What do you think is the biggest difference between the two (or similarity)?