[newmedia] Richard Edelman
I’m at a conference put together by Edelman PR that mixes academics, media folks, and PR folks. [Disclosure: I have in the past worked for Edelman. I am at the conference for free.]
|
NOTE: Live-blogging. Getting things wrong. Missing points. Omitting key information. Introducing artificial choppiness. Over-emphasizing small matters. Paraphrasing badly. Not running a spellpchecker. Mangling other people’s ideas and words. You are warned, people. |
Richard Edelman begins by saying that the traditional media and PR models are melting. Authority is being dispersed. We’re “consuming” more media than ever. “Digital pennies are replacing print dollars.” TV’s share of media consumption goes down across age groups, from 84% among 65 to 48% for the young. We’re moving to a one-newspaper-per-city model. Wire services are expanding to fill the void. Online sites are breaking news. Online video is improving rapidly.
The implications for PR: Fewer reporters, so “pitch and catch” isn’t efficient. Mass is dead, so it’s hard to aggregate audiences. Less control of message. More “pay for play”: e.g., sponsor names on athlete’s uniforms.
The way forward for PR, says Richard, is “public engagement.” Companies cannot only aim at maximizing shareholder value. Companies need to cultivate social value as well as stakeholder value. The tenets of public engagement include: It’s what you do as well as wat you say. Integrated into search. Engage with influencers of all stripes, beginning by actively listening. “Digital is inherently social and rewards those who are in a community role.” Go to where the conveersation is, and always be truthful and transparency. “Every company is a media company,” as Andy Haywood at CBS says: A company needs to put forward a point of view.
So, 1. PR people need to become advisors on policy, not the folks with the megaphones. Spinning is a “disastrous strategy for the PR industry.” Users want companies to be socially responsible. Companies should engage in “private sector diplomacy” to learn how to behave responsibility “Business has lost the mandate to lead unilaterally.”
2. PR needs to participate in “reputational search”: Finding who has “link love” and engage with them. Also, “social search,” e.g., searches at Twitter. Engage “embassies” inside social networks, to egage in the conversation.
3. Mobilize influentials and amplifiers: democratci and decentralized. Find the people who want to engage in discussion, and then find amplifiers. Ashton Kutcher is not an amplifier because his ideas have reach but not influence.
4. Inform the conversation. Go where the people are. Identify yourself; be transparent. Have a point of view. Be factual, be humble, and be present. If you can create utility, it can be “hugely valuable,” e.g., iPhone Recipe app.
5. “Every company is a media company.” E.g., the J&J Baby Center. British Airways Metrotwin.com for what’s going on in NYC and London. Let users repurpose your content. Do it across the range of platfroms, using best processes such as RSS. Also, sometimes curating works.
6. Be present everywhere. People need to hear/see things 3-5 rtimes before they’ll believe it, because their trust has been violated. Collaborate on FAcebook, entertain on YouTube
7. Democratic and decentralized. Facilitate repurposing. Put up the good and the bad comments.
Richard puts up a 2×2: open to controlled, communication to collaboration. The controlled communication quadrant is the traditional one, and it has its place, he says. In the open collab quadrant contains wikis, etc. Richard’s point is that PR has to expand along both axes.
How to do this? E.g., Shell wants to get people to drive slower, to save fuel. Participants are encouraged to get training. Upon completion, they get a fuel discount. E.g., Wondebra, the “Science of Sexy” video went to #1. [Not sure where the "do" part of that is.] E.g., EnergyTomorrow.org is an advocacy site for API. People can get info and talk, and they can communicate with their Congresspeople via Facebook, et al. E.g., AXE gave away products based on Faebook wall posts. [I presume and hope this is not pay for post.] E.g., the turkey talk line provides mobile texting advice, hosts web chats, partnered with Top Chef…
Richard says it’s evolution, not revolution, even though the changes in the environment are fundamental. Business professors need to make sure their students understand the depth of the change.
Q: A lot of data says broadcasters are not thriving. My students don’t like TV. TV is quaint.
A: Yup.
Q: Edelman hires a lot interns. What are the qualities you’re looking for?
A: Facility in the digital world. Are they participating? Multilingual. Someone who has an interest in purpose, in giving back.
Q: If done well, PR can substitute for journalism
A: Absolutely not. We can create a playing field and let the people become the journalists. We must nevr position ourselves as authorities. We are simply introducing opportunities for experts — with credentials or credentials based on passion — to play. J&J finds experts and highlightts women who have expertise based in their experience, but J&J is not the expert, nor is the PR agency.
Q: Isn’t this issues management?
A: I think it’s broader than that: The future of marketing and of reputation management.
Q: I’m concerned about fraudulent reviews on travel sites, etc.
A: We have to have zero tolerance for that sort of behavior. I met last week with the people who created the MBA oath of ethical behavior. I would love to work with academics on an ethical code for the industry.
[...] It is a view shared, for example, by PR giant Richard Edelman. [...]
[...] Weinberger hat live gebloggt (mehrere Beiträge, die Überschriften beginnen mit [...]
Richard Edelman says mass is dead and the future is public engagement. But public is mass (people in general considered as a whole).
If the future (if not the present) is about aggregated – atomized – audiences then public relations is dead, too. Richard Edelman cannot have it both ways.
I would have thought that we all knew the meaning of the word public. Least I had supposed so.
However, you are reporting what Richard supposedly said. So, did he say what you said he said, or have you misreported him?
But – regardless – the concept of mass (as in experiences, consciousness, action even) is still visible in Iran, is it not? The election of Obama? The outrage over MPs’ expenses in the UK? Princess’s Diana’s funeral? September 11, 2001? The impact of this recession? Is mass dead? I think not. Evolving, but not dead.
Paul, I believe I reported relatively accurately. The difference is that I don’t think (and I don’t think that RE thinks) that all publics are mass. Some are, of course, and, as you say, they remain important. But there are lots of smaller publics. In addition, you can have a one-on-one meeting or relationship in the mass public. I don’t see why a PR company can’t say that it’s going to deal with all of these different sorts of public; they may be more successful at some than others, but I don’t see it as a logical contradiction at all.
I agree with the spirit of the points you make. There are also – as Richard Edelman reminds us – unique challenges that today presents that the past did not – media/digital fragmentation, culture of cynicism/contempt and decline in trust that undermines traditional authority etc.
However, that said, the starting point for all of us at any point in history was always ourselves and our immediate family and surroundings. People experience the world first as individuals (not as public or publics); then find, discover, make and break their group (s) identity (ies) as they go through life after they have had various formative experiences.
Hence the term public was always questionable to the extent that Prime Minister Thatcher once said “there is no such thing as society”. Richard Edelman makes the same ‘mistake’ (overstatement) when he says the mass is dead.
Here’s a PR case study – Hilary Clinton’s messaging and campaign appealed to fragmented markets at the micro scale, while Barack Obama went for the mass market general macro appeal that united people beyond their entrenched boundaries. She lost, he won the battle and ended up as President. But he never neglected the micro level, but it was always secondary.
The nature of the mass and the route to the mass (the public or as you rightly say publics) and what appeals to them changes all the time. Hence, I’m for “public engagement” and reject any notion that the “mass is dead”.
Last, even on Twitter – the ultimate collective fragmented medium – it is CNN that tops the popularity charts. Discuss….
Aha. I see that the problem is the exact phrase “mass is dead.” D’oh.
I don’t remember if that was a paraphrase or a quote, but either way, I doubt RE means that as literally or as bluntly as it sounds. I suspect he agrees with what you’re saying. I know I do. In fact, one of the things I enjoy about Twitter is its ability to be both a mass communication tool (you listening, Ashton?) as well as a local comm tool … as is any Net medium that can be characterized by a power law distribution (i.e., that has a Long Tail).
[...] I was dismayed to hear reports quoting Richard Edelman recently saying that the mass is dead and the future is public engagement. If that is so public relations is dead [...]
[...] traditional media, which was known as mass media (again, Richard Edelman’s concession that the mass is dead has not been helpful, not least because the word public in public relations is all about [...]