Stowe Boyd says I don’t get it
Before we get rolling on this, let me state unequivocally that I fully endorse the the conversation. People who know me know that I have advocated loud and long for company leaders and employees to blog, to join the conversation, to do so candidly as human beings and not institutions. I have lauded companies that do so and criticized companies that have failed to when they should have. The evidence is in this blog. I long for the day when the conversation becomes the primary means by which effective organizational communication can occur, because I believe in it so deeply.
But, as a realist, I don’t believe that day is here yet.
Given that, I am taking this opportunity to respond to Stowe Boyd’s response to a comment I left on his blog the other day. His post is titled “Shel Holtz is The Perfect Example of PR People Who Don’t Get It.”
Disagreeing doesn’t mean I don’t get it. But more than that, I despise the “don’t get it” fallback. It is a smug, smarmy, holier-than-thou and insulting phrase that has little meaning beyond self-righteousness. It cuts off discussion. It is a personal attack that is counterintuitive to the notion of conversation.
Nevertheless, I believe that Stowe (whom I like personally and respect professionally) and I agree far more than we disagree. In general, I think the gap between us is based on (a) Stowe’s hang-up on the label “social media press release” instead of an understanding of what this tool really is, and (b) how far along the continuum the social media have evolved. I don’t think it’s as far along as Stowe does. I really do look forward to the day when it is that far along. Until then, when public relations professionals are planning to satisfy the communication needs of our clients, multiple approaches are required in order to accomplish specific goals and objectives. We would be remiss—not to mention irresponsible—if we relied strictly on social media for the communication of messages.
Given that, let’s review Stowe’s arguments in support of the assertion that I don’t “get it”:
Stowe
“People in the blogosphere were using blogs to have a conversation. They could be conversing about anything, including the New York Times, last night’s football game, or information received via press release...the notion that companies are part of the conversation simply by pushing out press releases—of whatever flavor: social or anti-social—is just dumb. You don’t join a conversation by shouting what you want to say over and over and ignoring what people are talking about. Sorry.”
Me
I wholeheartedly agree and have said so repeatedly for years. I never once suggested that a release of any kind represents participation in the conversation. Nobody involved in the development of the hRelease has made such claim. In fact, I have on several occassions noted that a press/news release is decidedly not a surrogate for conversation, and that companies interested in joining the conversation should blog at both the executive and front-line-employee levels and engage in the other social media tools available.
The idea of the social media release is to provide comprehensive, parsed, un-spun fodder for the conversation. The traditional release is configured for print—its format does not even account for radio or television. The social media release (and again, I would really rather it be called the “new media” release) is configured to be more usable in the computer-mediated era, including (but not limited to) those engaged in the social media space.
Why in the name of Edward Bernays is this such a difficult concept for some people to grasp?
Stowe
“My point is that people should drop much of the crap that defines press releases—third party voice, bullshit quotes that no one ever actually said, and so on.”
Me
Do we have an argument here? It seems that a lot of people want to blame the tool for the way it is abused. The idea that we should kill the press release because a lot of people are writing crappy ones is no different than suggesting that we outlaw hammers because some people use them to bash in the heads of their spouses. I detest—and always have—bad press releases. It’s why I’m such a fan of the Bad Pitch Blog.
One of the nice things about the social media release is that its format discourages much of this, or at least exposes it more clearly for the BS that it is.
Stowe
“Newpapers are drastically diminishing in importance in the world.”
Me
That’s a bold statement without any supporting data. It also doesn’t account for other traditional media, such as television and radio. For example, in a survey sponsored by the BBC, the following results spoke pretty loudly:
National TV was the most trusted news source overall (trusted by 82%, with 16% not trusting it) - followed by national/regional newspapers (75% vs 19%), local newspapers (69% vs 23%), public radio (67% vs 18%), and international satellite TV (56% vs 19%). Internet blogs were the least trusted source (25% vs 23%) – with one in two unable to say whether they trusted them.
So the statistics absolutley contradict the notion that social media is more highly trusted than traditional media. In general, it’s more highly trusted among people who engage in it, which continues to be a minority. I’ll reiterate that I long for the day when everybody is engaged, but that’s a ways off. The fact that it’s a ways off may be frustrating. But it’s also inescapably a fact. It’s also inescapable that blogs are the least trusted source.
That’s worth an extra note: I don’t trust blogs and I think you’d be foolish if you did. There are 57 million blogs being tracked by Technorati and I don’t know a fraction of the people writing them. Many are probably dishonest jerks with nefarious agendas. But I trust certain people, and some of them have blogs. Therefore, I trust their blogs. It’s the person I trust, in other words, not the medium.
Stowe
“The argument that the press release is the right mechanism to transmit important information to the world because it works so well for newspapers, is something like saying that oats are what we should put into the gas tanks of cars because it works so well for horses.”
Me
Umm...that’s why a working group is completely reinventing it. As I’ve noted before, given my druthers, I’d call this the “new media news post” or something like that, since it bears so little resemblance to a press release. But given the lack of familiarity of so many organizations with the computer-mediated communication space, calling it a press release at least helps them get the gist of what it’s designed to do.
Stowe
“The same can be said for conventional TV, which just had the lowest viewer numbers, proportional to population, in decades.”
Me
The lowest, yes, but still pretty damn high—millions and millions of people, including influential and important people who just don’t happen to use or trust the Net as their source of news. (Some of the deterioration of numbers, incidentally, can be attributed to people turning to the Net to view video from the likes of CNN, so exactly the same content is being viewed on a different medium.) And given (according to the BBC) that it’s still the most trusted news source overall, it would be foolhardy and irresponsible to ignore it.
Stowe
“I have made my argument in several earlier posts about the need for an identity broker service to validate comments made by company representatives.”
Me
I love this idea. Let’s talk more about it. Let’s create it. Who’s game?
Stowe
“I never said that blogs fulfill every need, but it is a group of PR folks that are trying to socialize press releases, and bring them into the blogospher. Perhaps there are some people in corporations that would ike to have bloggers write about what they are doing?”
Me
Deep, deep sigh. We are not trying to socialize press releases.
We are not trying to socialize press releases.
Oh, and by the way, we are not trying to socialize press releases.
We are trying to make the information pertinent to a corporate announcement usable in the computer-mediated space, including the social media space.
Did I mention that we are not trying to socialize press releases?
Stowe
“My point about broadcast is that people don’t trust broadcasted messages anymore. Companies can do whatever they want, but I , and the rest of the world, now have the ability to get our information via other modes of communication: the power has shifted to the edge. They don’t control the means of our communications. Companies may feel that they have good reasons for broadcasting messages: economics, expediency, whatever. In general, however, people will tune out or simply discredit such communication as a cheap attempt to manipulate the recipients of the “message”—the “audience”—without fully attempting to engage them in dialogue.”
Me
Deeper sigh. Read the statistics above from the BBC survey (and there are many, many other studies that support the BBC survey’s conclusion). People do trust broadcasted messages. Sorry. I understand exactly where Stowe is coming from with his statement, given that people who are engaged in the conversation seek information from the edge. But again, that’s a minority at this point. In communicating messages to everybody—or to the people who would be most interested in them—we must account for the majority who still find national TV news (and other traditional channels) the most credible and trustworthy source of information. When they’re gone, or there is proof that they are not influential, we’ll stop accommodating them.
In the meantime, organizations also have to engage in the conversation.
It’s not an either/or decision.
Sorry.
Conclusion
I love the vision of the world Stowe believes exists today. I want to live in that world. But I have to work, and represent clients, in the real world. That requires recognition of the reality of both avenues. Traditional press releases continue to provide some value to some media. As Jeremy Pepper points out, they are incredibly valuable in hyper-local communication that is one-to-one in nature.
This beast that has been tagged with the unfortunate name “social media press release” is designed to make information more usable within the world of both mainstream media websites (that use links and tags and multimedia) as well as the social media space. It does not mean that the press release is being socialized. Never said it. Never thought it. Never intended it.
So if that means I don’t (ugh) “get it,” then I’ll just have to live with that. I’m so ashamed.
What is this exactly? Have a pop at Shel week?
Posted by Dave Briggs on 01/26 at 01:41 PMHey, somebody’s gotta be a target.
Posted by Shel on 01/26 at 02:27 PMHeh. I don’t get people’s issues with the social media press release anyway. Maybe it *is* the name. After all, it seems a pretty popular pastime these days to start debunking a particular term just as it is starting to be used widely - and therefore becoming useful.
I’m a pragmatist with these things, which I suspect is the approach you are taking, Shel. There will always be people who resist change and innovation. By combining the traditional press release with new media the change can be an evolutionary one - and therefore one more likely to succeed.
Posted by Dave Briggs on 01/26 at 02:43 PMI’ve been following this contretemps from the beginning and, fwiw, I think you are making a lot more sense than Stowe on this Shel.
hRelease is a great idea. There should be microformats for as many data structures as we can possibly dream up. Anything that adds to developing a semantic web is a truly important step forward. The fact that it also makes bloggers and web-oriented journos lives easier is a bonus.
Stowe’s focus on the edge (and edgelings??) seems -to me- to be misguided and ignores the fact that all channels remain critical to effective communications.
In general, however, people will tune out or simply discredit such communication as a cheap attempt to manipulate the recipients of the “message”—the “audience”—without fully attempting to engage them in dialogue.
<cite>Stowe</cite>
This inductive leap is unsupported by evidence or logic and is more an expression of wishful thinking that does Stowe little credit.
It is great to see the social media release being discussed so vigorously - it is just a shame that this exchange seems to have been derailed…
Posted by jason on 01/26 at 08:34 PMExcellent post Shel. I’ve been following this meme, and you’re making the most sense here. You’re also backing up your statements with facts. And common sense.
I long for the world Stowe envisions also, but agree with you that it’s not here yet. Not even close, in fact. I’m reminded of that every day dealing with my clients.
Hang in there.
Posted by Jeff Risley on 01/27 at 05:44 AMIsn’t there data supporting large difference between age groups regarding how much they trust different types of media? I thought that it was the under 25’s who were most distrusting of traditional media, and pensioners were at the other end of the spectrum.
If this would true, it would mean to a degree that you’re both right - though it doesn’t invalidate your points Shel.
Posted by Mark on 01/27 at 08:03 AMHere’s a thought: why not just change the name from the “social media release” to the “new media release” or “new media news release” or the “newmedia press release”?
We’re not that far down the track with this yet that the name is carved in stone, right? Is this one of the topics that the panel is considering, Shel?
Posted by Bryan Person, Bryper.com on 01/27 at 08:17 AMWe’re talking today, Bryan, and I’m going to propose it. On the one hand, it really ISN’T a press release, and the fact that it’s been labeled one is at the root of the misunderstanding. On the other hand, going to a client and suggesting we produce a “new media news container” or some-such will leave them confused until we explain, “Well, uh, it’s kinda like a press release, except it isn’t, but it accomplishes the same goals, only it...”
It’s a tough one!
Posted by Shel on 01/27 at 08:27 AMNo chance you’re going to please all of the people all of the time with this one, Shel. Good luck.
Posted by Bryan Person, Bryper.com on 01/27 at 08:36 AMMark, according to the research I’ve seen, younger people definitely skew more in that direction, but the pendulum has not swung fully that way. For example, a “Trust in Media” survey conducted mid-2006 by the BBC, Reuters, and the Media Center—which covered several countries—shows youth use online sources most. What that means, though, is that they use online sources more than other demographic groups, not more than other media. Nineteen percent of those 18-24 named online sources more trustworthy, compared to only 3% in the 55-64 range. That’s a significant difference, but it still leaves 81% of the youth in that age range finding something else more trustworthy than online sources.
Young men in particular are turning away from TV to the Net. Only 46% of young males named TV as their most important source. That’s dynamic and significant trend to follow, but it stillmeans that nearly half still rely on TV; how do you ignore that half? And only 15% of young males say the Net is their MOST important news source. That’s compared to 9% overall. So 85% of young males have other sources they consider more important.
That’s just one study. Others report similar findings.
I don’t mean this to dismiss the Net—as you probably know, I’m one of the loudest advocates for using the Net, joining the conversation, and elevating the value of the Net as a social and information source. But, as I’ve noted, being realistic means that we have to, for the time being, accommodate other media, as well—for all demographic groups.
All of which strays a bit from the central focus of this discussion, the social media news release, which (pardon me using this opportunity to reiterate the message) is all about making the information contained in an announcement more usable in the online media, whether it’s social or not.
Posted by Shel on 01/27 at 09:14 AMHello All, Hello Shel, Stowe
This is my personal recommendation and opinion that I believe Shel Holtz “gets it”. I’ve a great deal of respect for Shel as PR professional, internal communications expert, Social Media expert, and a fine human being.
I’ve listened to Shel both at conferences, read his blog, and listened to his podcast. Indirectly, he helped me deploy social media at a large corporation.
I find the critical post as a bit harsh and somewhat disrespectful for one of our industry thought and practice leaders.
Shel, great job addressing this head on, and being so open to the conversation. We’re learning from your example
Jeremiah Owyang
Posted by Jeremiah Owyang on 01/27 at 12:01 PMShel - Stowe’s holding court around one single tool within the public relations arsenal? Blogs against press releases?
“It’s deja vu all over again.”
Anyone in PR that gets it knows that a press release is still used with a broad range of non-techie trade publications...in addition to other media outlets.
You’re a tireless gentlemen in the conversation.
Posted by Kevin Dugan on 01/27 at 07:35 PMI do trust press releases, 100%, as representing the considered view of the organisation issuing the press release.
Despite the proliferation of blogs by employees, CEOs, whatever, it is still indispensable to have one official source of news that is absolutely guaranteed to be correct [from the issuing organisation’s point of view].
How can anyone say “IBM says...” or “IBM thinks...” if IBM doesn’t issue a press release? How can anyone say “IBM is lying” or “IBM is trying to pull the wool over our eyes” if IBM doesn’t issue a press release?
Posted by Joe Bruno on 01/28 at 01:18 PMExactly right, Joe. One of the points I’ve been tyring to make—but the critics of press releases in general seem to ignore—is the need for an “authoritative statement of record,” something that can stand up in court and serve as an ultimate reference. I think it’s great that leaders and employees blog about new product launches or other announcements, but a corporation is a legal entity with certain obligations that cannot be so fulfilled.
I remember when Robert Scoble was arguing that he was an official Microsoft spokesperson by virtue of the fact that he was blogging and he was an employee. But authoritative? Here’s what Robert wrote:
“...if you’re a journalist writing a story it’s best to check in with our PR teams (if you don’t know how to get ahold of them, see the “Press” link on the right side of my blog, or drop me a line and I’ll get you with them). They will be happy to give you the “official” story as well as they know who the official spokespeople are from each team and can put you in touch with them.”
Posted by Shel on 01/28 at 03:55 PMShel
The very fact that Stowe Boyd has not responded to your response to his post speaks volumes as to why the concept of blogs being great conversational tools is not always accurate and, therefore, at times, overrated. He puts out his thoughts, deingrates a concept, attacks an individual, arrogantly positions himself as one who is ahead of the game, and then treats the situation as if he is above in further engaging on his target’s turf.
He’s hurting his own point and coming off as arrogant.
You know your shit and don’t have to worry about his judgements.
Posted by Jonathan Trenn on 01/29 at 07:15 PMReally. Where is Stowe?
Posted by maggie fox on 02/04 at 04:25 PMI also see a big demand for ( antisocial or nonsocial) messages, including corporate press releases and white papers.
Walk into the doctor’s office waiting room in any US city, and all heads face the TV news - the same heads that presumably will be nodding to the doc’s advice when their numbers were called. Is this compliance to messaging a result of a lack of use or exposure to social media? I don’t know… could be that propaganda is comfort food that never whithers away.Posted by John Dumbrille on 07/09 at 11:40 AM
Next entry: NMRCast #14 - 01/27/07 - What a week it's been
Previous entry: What Reg FD says