Missing the mark

Stowe Boyd doesn’t like the social media news release. Big surprise. Neither does Robert Scoble.

Here’s a big shock guys… neither of you are the targets of this effort. Neither of you are journalists (last time I checked) and even if you were, no self respecting PR person would be caught dead sending either of you a news release.

Feel free to roll your eyes at the above…

Which brings me to my point. The press release as currently constructed serves a purpose above and beyond generating buzz and news. It creates a permanent record and it satisfies legal requirements for disclosure, among other things. That’s why it’s not going away nor should it.

Now to my other point – if the content is problematic, you’ll find no debate from me. I’m sick and tired of ‘leading blah blah blah’ and ’solutions’ and phony ‘pleased and delighted’ quotes. But that’s not the issue the social media news release is addressing.

Bonus profound thoughts from Mike, Hugh and Chris.

Share and Enjoy:

Random Posts

Related Ways to Take Action:

Stowe Boyd

Actually, I get 10-30 press releases per week, so there are several hundred flacks out there that should immediately drop dead, according to you. (Wink).

Anyhow, I view press releases as being something like the sensationalist tabloids in the supermarket checkout lines: I know they are full of lies and intentionally overblown hyperbole (Bat Boy Found Living In Cave! Madonna Has Sex With ETs!), but they are amusing, and occasionally a glimmer of something interesting sneaks through, despite everything.

But, if your point is that because press releases aren't designed to target people like me and Robert, therefore we should shut up and mind our own business, then you are totally offbase. Many of the arguments supporting socialized press releases have to do with the surprising number of average people accesing them at Yahoo, for example. And, anyway, bloggers are obvious targets of press activities, in case you have been living in Antarctica for the past five years. And even if I weren't an obvious target, I could still have an opinion.

David Parmet

Stowe - if you are getting 10-30 press releases a week, I'm sure that between 9 and 29 of them are irrelevant. But that has nothing to do with the structure or the releases themselves, that's the fault of the PR people sending them.

Which is exactly what folks like me are trying to address. But that's a bigger issue.

briansolis

All in all, the world just needs PR to pay more attention to whom their sending information and why it should matter, to them and the people, that read their writing (or watch their videos).

Once they have that knowledge, it will, by all means, change how they reach out - whether it's in email, by phone, comments, or through blogs.

At the end of the day, bloggers are only one piece in the “as-large-as-life” social media puzzle. What's critical here, is that PR needs to step from behind its black cloak of anonymity and step into the conversation. But in order to do so, they can’t at all, come across as a traditional PR person. Just people talking with people.

Ian Green

All very interesting. But having worked on both sides of the fence - as a hack for 14 years and as a flack for five - what has shocked me most is that how many press releases I have sent out have been reproduced in national, regional and trade magazines verbatim.
These articles have appeared without the journalists checking any of the facts or - at the very least - requesting an interview with the source.
Some do - but it depresses me that too many don't. My job as a PR is to present the facts on behalf of my clients. When I was a journalist it was up to me to challenge the release and question those facts. I don't see that happening now.
PS: Is Scoble a qualified journalist? Does he have 100 wpm shorthand? Has he done his law exams for journalism?

Joel

Brian Oberkirch said it well on the Syndicate panel David and i sat on with him recently in New York (and I'm paraphrasing): releases are a bad way to communicate with people--conversations are better. Yep, I totally agree.

But, Dave is also right to note "The press release as currently constructed serves a purpose above and beyond generating buzz and news. It creates a permanent record and it satisfies legal requirements for disclosure, among other things. That’s why it’s not going away nor should it."

I'm sure Stowe and Robert wouldn't advocate having to say the same thing twice in a communications scenario, i.e.: a release to satisfy corporate compliance issues on the one hand and a friendly, more transparent and less spamm-ish blog post on the other which communicate the same thing. That's twice the effort to satisfy all audiences when one format will usually do. If a blogger who isn't concerned with compliance issues happens to get a social media release, then they're free to hit the 'delete' button. It's not that much of an inconvenience. But, on the other hand, the company who sends 'everyone' a social media release ought to make sure they're treating those who don't care for that format with special care whenever the company isn't issuing compliance-oriented releases.

Why do twice the work when technology makes it so easy to weed out the chaff and still stay so well connected?