Sometimes people get stories by digging instead of being fed them. The pros have gotten lazy, they only take the feeding tube stories, and they expext to get them too. How did I find out what O'Reilly and Werbach are charging keynotes? I didn't wait for their PR people to point me at them. (Truth is, readers of my site went digging and fed me the links.)
Mike
· 3 years ago
No NDA was/is required on Office 12 except if Microsoft doesn't want feedback. Which then makes you wonder why they didn't wait until beta 2 before go public.
Creates frustation for both those that were left out of beta 1 (remember it was needlessly selective) and those that were selected for beta 1 (can see it, but can't talk about it).
Seems to me Microsoft wasn't so sure about the ribbon, and did that "locked-out thing" to ensure they would push it anyway without anybody able to ask otherwise (including large customers).
I still wonder why the classic UI isn't left as an option. Would make things soooo much simpler for everyone.
Chris
· 3 years ago
I agree with Dave, mainstream press dealing with Microsoft has gotten used to being fed stories, be it from Microsoft PR or sites like Neowin.
From my experience, PR departments haven't fully realised what blogging involves. They are still a dinosaur when it comes to speed of response and much happier handing out detailed and precise press reports than issuing an off the cuff response. Nowadays that just doesn't cut it, meaning that bloggers who do have something good to post just cut out PR all together.
nicheplayer
· 3 years ago
I view a number of sites that break tech news (almost before the tech even exists, it seems), but I still read Mossberg's column.
There's breaking news, and then there's thoughtful analysis. It seems to me there's still plenty of money to be made at WSJ, NYT, and The Guardian from thoughtful analysis.
As for PR, well, information exists to be known. From economic and legal standpoints, I believe in the concept of an NDA. The best way for companies like Apple and MSFT to manage this "problem" is to do a better job keeping track of access to sensitive data internally.
Dave Winer
· 3 years ago
Corporate PR still has an important role to play, esp at a large company like MS. Scoble probably doesn't see this, because he has a corporate directory, but I don't. If I want to talk with a rep for a particular product, I send an email to Frank Shaw at Wagged, and he gets me a name, and makes the intro. This way I don't have to work on a relationship with every product manager at MS (impossible, the company is too large).
I've been trying to explain this to Yahoo, a large company that does not have a corporate PR function. As a result I can't just get in the loop of any manager, I have to first fumble around trying to find out who it is and then hope they've heard of my blog. Meaning for the most part PR with Yahoo is strictly a one-sided thing.
Scoble doesn't see this because he has a Microsoft directory, and the people at Yahoo aren't really expecting a call from him. :-)
Ellen Wallace
· 3 years ago
In Europe most PR people still insist that staff talk to the media only once they've seen a legitimate press card, and that usually means one issued by the government or press group. Ditto for attending briefings, press conferences, etc. I have a Swiss press card but out of curiosity have tried to attend a couple meetings by handing out my blog address. No luck. I didn't really want to go anyway, just testing the waters.
jaseone
· 3 years ago
Here is a novel idea, why doesn't a company just post company news on their website and let it disseminate from there?
There was a recent mockery made of the billion dollar branding campaign AT&T is running.
I know that SBC bought AT&T. I know that they are using the name AT&T. I know that they changed the logo. I know that they are now the largest US telco.
I've seen the TV commercials, the billboards, the Times Square signs, the web banners, the web sites, the hack blogs, and the skywriters.
Still, I received a fancy paper mailing from AT&T explaining all of this to me.
AT&T doesn't know that I know all about their branding. So they've resorted to addressing me through just about every medium available. That's how you spend a billion dollars.
How complete is a PR campaign that only publishes on a web site or pumps stories to bloggers?
Even if PR wants to "engage in conversations" I think they still want to author the opening line.
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
Well I disagree...imagine that.
Exclusives and scoops, still exist, and always will, but if given by a PR pro, they aren't "exclusive", merely SELECTIVE. If someone GAVE you that info, someone ELSE already has it, hence not exclusive. This is basic journalism, don't always trust what you are force fed.
1. "work with them to build trust, build relationships"? Not true at all. It's about control, about spin. You can fancy marketing-droid call it "building relationships", but said "relationships" STOP the minute you offend your source. The reporter, never wishing to offend, becomes a tool; quite a common practice among the Beltway journalist wolf pack'ers, not wanting high-level access cut off. And then easily abused, as PR can play favorites. It's best to be democratic about it. Otherwise you create an elitist 'in-crowd' grouping, which is easily dismissed, the marketing wholesale backfiring.
Walt and Steve? High-sugar low-volume one-off Mediabistroish happy-feature pieces, aimed at mass market audiences; Chris P. being a parody of himself already, with stupidly crass attention-getting antics. Real decision makers, with the power of the purse, discount them all already.
2. Now every single one of us has the power to have “the exclusive.” - Exclusives come from digging, from research, from fact-checking, they don't come ready-made spoon fed, it's hard work. Now everyone that does the legwork has equal access, but merely having a blog means little beyond distribution. And it also works the other way, if everyone can "exclusive", everyone can spread rumors, falsehoods and outright lies. And (once again) any “exclusive” not of your own merit is a PLANT, always two-sides to a story.
Running with things overheard at parties, gets misrepresented as "exclusives" by blogging robots, but that doesn't play in the real world.
Any PR Pro playing the "exclusive" game, will get his hand bit off eventually. Others will resent, and do hit pieces, or take a more in-depth look at the dark side of said company. To all, for all, at once, and then deal with any issues that come up. Otherwise you will look like a Google that gets in a huff and childishy refuses to talk with this or that news outlet that dares offend the ruling Politburo.
Jake
· 3 years ago
The Mossbergs, Levys, Pogues, Dvoraks and other columnists play an surrogate role of some sort: they are something between columnist, journalist, industry analyst and industry cheerleader.
They react to things in predictable ways. Well trained PR professionals can lead them down a path and get desired results. Ultimately, they make cash registers ring in Walmart, Best Buy and Circuit City. They define the "safe" thing for an IT manager to do.
It takes care and feeding to develop these relationships.
Until corporate PR can count on the Technorati 100 to behave in the same way, they will not rely on the Technorati 100 as the first option for PR.
fp
· 3 years ago
There are changes going on. There is a short comment thread at Dan Gillmor's Bayosphere Blog relating to the recent FON Blog PR. Dan points out that the mainstream press was involved too. I try to make the point that dealing with bloggers in a PR context should be more than sending out boilerplate to highly placed "friends of the product." Particularly when you're dealing with a PR moment and a press release it might be wise for bloggers to add value by digging a little deeper and stagger-stepping the timing of their post... who needs a scoop when it's a PR number anyway?
I cannot agree more with Scobleizer, let's revoke the "insider trading" culture ! :cool:
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
Minus a China policy, investigative reporters you will always have, PR you will always have, alternative and niche media you will always have, no matter what the form. No hubris about "flattening" or any self-huffed chest-beating. I don't understand this techy eternal desire for a zero-sum game.
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
Let’s revoke the “insider trading” culture? Good. You can start with Michael Arrington. Just a game, but I have no doubt, that would be his modus operandi, assuming the market would dare stomach Web 2.0 e-coli.
My strategy: I plan on buying shares of companies just before I write about them, and selling quickly afterwards.
If the VCs aren't gonna sign them, do you think bloggers will?
~G~
Ellen Wallace
· 3 years ago
"PR...Has a continuing important role" - which is what, exactly? Protection (information, image), that's part of it. Just plain getting information out the door, that's also part of it. I've spent a lot of time on both sides of the fence and I am convinced that most PR people don't remember people, they just remember the media outlet. So one day you're Time Magazine and the next day Jane Doe. That's okay until Jane Doe has a blog + journalism skills and starts to look around. Then the scoop isn't dead at all, but it's moved away from Big Media. Which is what the public is doing, slowly but surely.
Thomas Hawk
· 3 years ago
Microsoft is smart. They have already begun opening up their PR to bloggers. And if you don't know anyone at WaggEd they have a very visible public blogger, Robert Scoble, who is pretty much accesible to anyone in the blogosphere big or small at this point. Much of what WaggEd and Scoble can do is connect you with the right people at Microsoft for whatever story you are working on.
Additionally though, smart companies will be proactive in recognizing the value of PR in the blogosphere in combination with PR in the mainstream press.
WaggEd/Scoble have put together two blogging dinners with Senior exec Jim Allchin that I have been a part of. In addition to just getting the press release and news like everyone else, we were also able to spend Q&A time with Jim in the same way that the New York Times or CNET would. As my writing is focused on Media Center, I was able to report from a Media Center enthusiast's perspective which is different than how CNET or Mossberg might decide to spend their time with a Senior Microsoft exec.
On Monday I had lunch with an exec from TiVo and was able to report on that as well.
Smart companies are realizing that even a small blogger like myself can be amplified. Slashdot picked up both my dinner with Allchin as well as my lunch with TiVo's E. Stephen Mack on Monday, driving far more traffic than I would have on my own.
What's more, given a few links on an interesting story a blogger's story oftentimes can end up on the first page search results for a company that they write about. Davis Freeberg wrote an article a litte under a year ago for thomashawk.com on an Wedbush Morgan analyst opinion on Blockbuster vs. Netflix and now that article sits on the first page of search results for a Wedbush Morgan search.
Although smaller tech companies don't have the PR budgets of Microsoft, I think that they would still be well served to do some very basic searches and try to network with the top bloggers blogging about their company. By doing a Technorati blog search ranked by authority on your product or company, or even by typing your company or product name into Google with the word blog next to it, you will find who is talking about your company with a reasonable amount of authority.
Setting up group dinners, including top bloggers on your company as press equivalents in your PR, emailing these bloggers, inviting them to come tour your company and meet executives, etc. are all ways that forward thinking companies should embrace the blogosphere from a PR perspective in the future.
Microsoft already gets this and although I'm sure extra special care is paid to the Walt Mossberg's of the world by WaggEd, they also do include representatives from the blogosphere in their campaigns as well.
As bloggers though we need to be careful as well. If we are going to be treated as press we need to keep press embargos that we are given and report fairly and responsibly on the companies that we cover.
As for NDAs, I don't sign them anymore. There's a whole big world of news out there and if that means that I won't get to see some software early or be able to get a scoop review on it that is fine -- I can always find something else to blog about.
Jack Krupansky
· 3 years ago
Robert says "The “Z list” should have access to info as soon as the “A list” does", and I can't disagree with that, but it does raise the question of what precise meaning we want to attach to "as soon as".
Personally, I have zero interest in the scoop/breaking story issues. In fact, I'd rather wait a few days "for the dust to settle" since so often there is a lot of confusion when "news" first comes out.
The really important thing is that I get accurate, raw information ASAP, with emphasis on accurate, regardless of whether a get it a few minutes or hours or days earlier.
Yes, I want access to raw data ASAP, with as little media/PR filtering as possible.
I think we're seeing a little bit of the "shoemaker's children" syndrome here in the tech world.
In the economic world, I personally see the latest economic data as soon as most other people, courtesy of government web sites.
In the finance world, I see a lot of company financial reports pronto, courtesy of SEC Regulation FD and the Web again.
But in the tech product/service sector, we have this whole bizarre information disclosure/filtering/gatekeeping infrastructure that distorts the dissemination process, despite the fact that there is no technology reason for the distortion.
Yes, there is a lot of history going on there and so much inertia.
Yes, we have trouble properly interpreting quality issues in pre-release versions of products and services.
But, I personally suspect that we probably *can* move past all of that now. Sure, the anti-Microsoft "forces" will jump up and down with great glee whenever a bug is discovered in any new product or service, but so what? I don't think there is a lot of historical evidence that people *aren't* able to quickly move beyond temporary setbacks that are quickly addressed.
But PR wasn't helping with those NDA/bug issues anyway.
I propose that we *keep* PR efforts, but use them as a "skid greasing" function to assist in facilitating the rapid flow of information rather than being gatekeepers and damage control.
In truth, the issue is more about our own outside-looking-in attitudes towards PR rather than PR itself.
Also, we should be more clear about what we're really talking about when we say PR. Are we talking about PR agencies in particular? Are we talking about a PR *department* at a company? Are we talking about all of "MARCOMM" (marketing communications)? All of marketing? Developer relations? Etc. Etc.
For some, PR refers to *anything* that attempts to *control* information access or *influence* the "message" that "the market" receives.
I have no disagreement withthe latter, but that would include Bloggers under the umbrella of "PR", and I think we should have a clear distinction between messages and messengers and "us" and "them".
I think Robert was referring to basic PR function of broadcasting the chosen "message" to "the masses/market", but I can't be sure.
Ultimately, there is the distinction between what the company thinks a product or service can do, what pundits and commentators (and other externally-appointed information gatekeepers) think products and services can and can't do, what free-thinking bloggers think about products, and ultimately what real end-users think about the products and services. Sure, it's all one big loosely-integrated (loosely-coupled?) mess, but it helps if we make an effort to understand who is playing what roles and to avoid confusing the distinct roles.
Flattening? Hardly. I think, if anything, we're seeing the creation of new and even more elaborate *structures* for controlling information flow. For example, A-listers and Z-listers do *not* have the same impact on the "general sentiment" about products and services, so clearly there is at least *some* structural difference.
-- Jack Krupansky
Goebbels
· 3 years ago
Nothing's changed. You still have NDAs, not openness. You still favor some writers over others, you still want to control the message. Weeks later when everyone realizes that even the exclusive hype is lame and no one cares about Office12, you say: whippe, everyone should be writing about it.
So where's the change you claim exists?
BryanF
· 3 years ago
I think Microsoft should stop trying to pander to journalists period. Bloggers are non-professionals, but they're often more inciteful and actually have something to say.
However, I don't think it is appropriate to conduct all communications through blogs. There's still a place for "official" statements, but I think those statements should be written for normal people rather than journalists.
Jack Krupansky
· 3 years ago
BryanF: I agree that bloggers are "often more inciteful", but I also think that they can be more insightful as well.
Actually, inciteful isn't really a word, but it should be since it does fit so many bloggers, especially those without any significant insight.
-- Jack Krupansky
dahowlett
· 3 years ago
I never saw the kind of 'show me the press card' thing Ellen alludes to during my 15 years in MSM. But I did see plenty of favouritism. I disagree with Dave Winer's assertion that MSM is lazy - certainly not in the UK. I can't think of a single hack I've ever known who used to reprint press releases the way it happened in the US. If anything they'd likely toss releases as soon as they knew who to contact to get the story. Having said that, I am wondering whether there is a sort of favouritism emerging among those who want to influence influential bloggers. For once I'm in agreement with Steve Rubel when he talks about the media exclusive.
podtech
· 3 years ago
I got a few exclusives...anyone can get them from their social network and hey this is a social media revolution
Dmad
· 3 years ago
this seems to assuming the majority of any population puts bloggers on their list of "news" sources. That's not even close to being the case. Until people stop paying for news, bloggers will still be an echo chamber the serves miniscule percentage of the overall market. As long as there's still $ to made off of news, there will be the need for PR and "exclusives". Scoble, get it through your head... you reach fewer people than the worst rated TV show on the lowest rated cable channel.
BryanF
· 3 years ago
Damn homophones! Thanks for the correction, Jack. :-)
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
Ahhh, this is discussion is getting too 'us vs. them' polarized, as is typical of blog flame fests. It's like Dot.Commie 'No Copyrights' vs. iron-handed facist-tactics RIAA, both are wrong.
Scoble thinks blogs have flattened things, Rubel says control is always needed, indeed worked into the fabric of the system itself. Both are wrong. PR as information gatekeeper was never correct to begin with, but the idea of a blog revolution making this happen is downright farcical.
Playing favorites never works, why does Silicon Valley justify the byzantine maze-like structure of NDAs and hoop jumping? But that's an easy question to answer, it reduces ego power and kills bubbles. Hence Sarbanes Oxley-like approaches are exactly what is needed, and indeed REQUIRED now.
Controlling access to information is NEVER called "marketing". And open betas are a management and time-consumption problem, not a marketing problem.
But exclusives aren't dead, you are just looking at it from the wrong end. Even PR pros don't have access to all the information all the time, nor contextually lay it out. It takes the sniffer, the investigative reporter (or blogger if you will) type to sniff said info out. You need someone to tie together seemingly disparate threads into a cohesive whole. That doesn't happen from PR and generally doesn't happen from bloggers.
Sarbanes Oxley ahoy. The more the Valley and PR whines about the 'record-keeping requirements' of Sox, the more you know it was exactly what was needed.
scott
· 3 years ago
What's the dirty part? And what's the secret part?
Jim Grisanzio
· 3 years ago
Robert ... The "exclusive" may not be totally dead for marketing/PR people and executives, but for developers I think it's pretty much toast. I can't think of a story about OpenSolaris that has appeared in the press before it appeared in our blogs and/or on our mail lists. There may be a few out there but not very many. In fact, what gets me is the massive amount of "news" our community generates quite openly that never makes it into the press! Most developers don't care, of course, and neither do I. Many do, however, and it offers an innovative marketing/PR pro an opportunity to mine the blogs and mail lists for stories and context and to point a reporter to that conversation so he/she can engage. That may not be an "exclusive" but it's a gallon of news nonetheless and it's just sitting there. Here's the catch, though: for marketing and PR people to be able to do this they *must* join the community and participate as openly as everyone else does. You can't fake this, you can't do it from the outside, and you can't do it from the perspective of an executive client -- it has to be done from the context of the developers within the community. That's the only way to earn trust in a meritocracy -- join and participate. The information is open, the developers are open, so the marketing has to be open as well. Layering a traditional marketing/PR strategy of "exclusives" (which favors someone special and closes someone else out) over the top of an open community is counterproductive.
All Comments
Creates frustation for both those that were left out of beta 1 (remember it was needlessly selective) and those that were selected for beta 1 (can see it, but can't talk about it).
Seems to me Microsoft wasn't so sure about the ribbon, and did that "locked-out thing" to ensure they would push it anyway without anybody able to ask otherwise (including large customers).
I still wonder why the classic UI isn't left as an option. Would make things soooo much simpler for everyone.
From my experience, PR departments haven't fully realised what blogging involves. They are still a dinosaur when it comes to speed of response and much happier handing out detailed and precise press reports than issuing an off the cuff response. Nowadays that just doesn't cut it, meaning that bloggers who do have something good to post just cut out PR all together.
There's breaking news, and then there's thoughtful analysis. It seems to me there's still plenty of money to be made at WSJ, NYT, and The Guardian from thoughtful analysis.
As for PR, well, information exists to be known. From economic and legal standpoints, I believe in the concept of an NDA. The best way for companies like Apple and MSFT to manage this "problem" is to do a better job keeping track of access to sensitive data internally.
I've been trying to explain this to Yahoo, a large company that does not have a corporate PR function. As a result I can't just get in the loop of any manager, I have to first fumble around trying to find out who it is and then hope they've heard of my blog. Meaning for the most part PR with Yahoo is strictly a one-sided thing.
Scoble doesn't see this because he has a Microsoft directory, and the people at Yahoo aren't really expecting a call from him. :-)
http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/13/can...
I know that SBC bought AT&T. I know that they are using the name AT&T. I know that they changed the logo. I know that they are now the largest US telco.
I've seen the TV commercials, the billboards, the Times Square signs, the web banners, the web sites, the hack blogs, and the skywriters.
Still, I received a fancy paper mailing from AT&T explaining all of this to me.
AT&T doesn't know that I know all about their branding. So they've resorted to addressing me through just about every medium available. That's how you spend a billion dollars.
How complete is a PR campaign that only publishes on a web site or pumps stories to bloggers?
Even if PR wants to "engage in conversations" I think they still want to author the opening line.
Exclusives and scoops, still exist, and always will, but if given by a PR pro, they aren't "exclusive", merely SELECTIVE. If someone GAVE you that info, someone ELSE already has it, hence not exclusive. This is basic journalism, don't always trust what you are force fed.
1. "work with them to build trust, build relationships"? Not true at all. It's about control, about spin. You can fancy marketing-droid call it "building relationships", but said "relationships" STOP the minute you offend your source. The reporter, never wishing to offend, becomes a tool; quite a common practice among the Beltway journalist wolf pack'ers, not wanting high-level access cut off. And then easily abused, as PR can play favorites. It's best to be democratic about it. Otherwise you create an elitist 'in-crowd' grouping, which is easily dismissed, the marketing wholesale backfiring.
Walt and Steve? High-sugar low-volume one-off Mediabistroish happy-feature pieces, aimed at mass market audiences; Chris P. being a parody of himself already, with stupidly crass attention-getting antics. Real decision makers, with the power of the purse, discount them all already.
2. Now every single one of us has the power to have “the exclusive.” - Exclusives come from digging, from research, from fact-checking, they don't come ready-made spoon fed, it's hard work. Now everyone that does the legwork has equal access, but merely having a blog means little beyond distribution. And it also works the other way, if everyone can "exclusive", everyone can spread rumors, falsehoods and outright lies. And (once again) any “exclusive” not of your own merit is a PLANT, always two-sides to a story.
Running with things overheard at parties, gets misrepresented as "exclusives" by blogging robots, but that doesn't play in the real world.
Any PR Pro playing the "exclusive" game, will get his hand bit off eventually. Others will resent, and do hit pieces, or take a more in-depth look at the dark side of said company. To all, for all, at once, and then deal with any issues that come up. Otherwise you will look like a Google that gets in a huff and childishy refuses to talk with this or that news outlet that dares offend the ruling Politburo.
They react to things in predictable ways. Well trained PR professionals can lead them down a path and get desired results. Ultimately, they make cash registers ring in Walmart, Best Buy and Circuit City. They define the "safe" thing for an IT manager to do.
It takes care and feeding to develop these relationships.
Until corporate PR can count on the Technorati 100 to behave in the same way, they will not rely on the Technorati 100 as the first option for PR.
Here's the link to Dan's post and comments:
http://bayosphere.com/blog/dan_gillmor/20060205...
My strategy: I plan on buying shares of companies just before I write about them, and selling quickly afterwards.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/02/12/the-web-20...
Fred Wilson writes, "I have been in this business for 20 years and to my knowledge, I have never signed one."
See Brad Feld's article, "Why Most VC's Don't Sign NDAs"
http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2006/02/why_m...
If the VCs aren't gonna sign them, do you think bloggers will?
~G~
Additionally though, smart companies will be proactive in recognizing the value of PR in the blogosphere in combination with PR in the mainstream press.
WaggEd/Scoble have put together two blogging dinners with Senior exec Jim Allchin that I have been a part of. In addition to just getting the press release and news like everyone else, we were also able to spend Q&A time with Jim in the same way that the New York Times or CNET would. As my writing is focused on Media Center, I was able to report from a Media Center enthusiast's perspective which is different than how CNET or Mossberg might decide to spend their time with a Senior Microsoft exec.
On Monday I had lunch with an exec from TiVo and was able to report on that as well.
Smart companies are realizing that even a small blogger like myself can be amplified. Slashdot picked up both my dinner with Allchin as well as my lunch with TiVo's E. Stephen Mack on Monday, driving far more traffic than I would have on my own.
What's more, given a few links on an interesting story a blogger's story oftentimes can end up on the first page search results for a company that they write about. Davis Freeberg wrote an article a litte under a year ago for thomashawk.com on an Wedbush Morgan analyst opinion on Blockbuster vs. Netflix and now that article sits on the first page of search results for a Wedbush Morgan search.
Although smaller tech companies don't have the PR budgets of Microsoft, I think that they would still be well served to do some very basic searches and try to network with the top bloggers blogging about their company. By doing a Technorati blog search ranked by authority on your product or company, or even by typing your company or product name into Google with the word blog next to it, you will find who is talking about your company with a reasonable amount of authority.
Setting up group dinners, including top bloggers on your company as press equivalents in your PR, emailing these bloggers, inviting them to come tour your company and meet executives, etc. are all ways that forward thinking companies should embrace the blogosphere from a PR perspective in the future.
Microsoft already gets this and although I'm sure extra special care is paid to the Walt Mossberg's of the world by WaggEd, they also do include representatives from the blogosphere in their campaigns as well.
As bloggers though we need to be careful as well. If we are going to be treated as press we need to keep press embargos that we are given and report fairly and responsibly on the companies that we cover.
As for NDAs, I don't sign them anymore. There's a whole big world of news out there and if that means that I won't get to see some software early or be able to get a scoop review on it that is fine -- I can always find something else to blog about.
Personally, I have zero interest in the scoop/breaking story issues. In fact, I'd rather wait a few days "for the dust to settle" since so often there is a lot of confusion when "news" first comes out.
The really important thing is that I get accurate, raw information ASAP, with emphasis on accurate, regardless of whether a get it a few minutes or hours or days earlier.
Yes, I want access to raw data ASAP, with as little media/PR filtering as possible.
I think we're seeing a little bit of the "shoemaker's children" syndrome here in the tech world.
In the economic world, I personally see the latest economic data as soon as most other people, courtesy of government web sites.
In the finance world, I see a lot of company financial reports pronto, courtesy of SEC Regulation FD and the Web again.
But in the tech product/service sector, we have this whole bizarre information disclosure/filtering/gatekeeping infrastructure that distorts the dissemination process, despite the fact that there is no technology reason for the distortion.
Yes, there is a lot of history going on there and so much inertia.
Yes, we have trouble properly interpreting quality issues in pre-release versions of products and services.
But, I personally suspect that we probably *can* move past all of that now. Sure, the anti-Microsoft "forces" will jump up and down with great glee whenever a bug is discovered in any new product or service, but so what? I don't think there is a lot of historical evidence that people *aren't* able to quickly move beyond temporary setbacks that are quickly addressed.
But PR wasn't helping with those NDA/bug issues anyway.
I propose that we *keep* PR efforts, but use them as a "skid greasing" function to assist in facilitating the rapid flow of information rather than being gatekeepers and damage control.
In truth, the issue is more about our own outside-looking-in attitudes towards PR rather than PR itself.
Also, we should be more clear about what we're really talking about when we say PR. Are we talking about PR agencies in particular? Are we talking about a PR *department* at a company? Are we talking about all of "MARCOMM" (marketing communications)? All of marketing? Developer relations? Etc. Etc.
For some, PR refers to *anything* that attempts to *control* information access or *influence* the "message" that "the market" receives.
I have no disagreement withthe latter, but that would include Bloggers under the umbrella of "PR", and I think we should have a clear distinction between messages and messengers and "us" and "them".
I think Robert was referring to basic PR function of broadcasting the chosen "message" to "the masses/market", but I can't be sure.
Ultimately, there is the distinction between what the company thinks a product or service can do, what pundits and commentators (and other externally-appointed information gatekeepers) think products and services can and can't do, what free-thinking bloggers think about products, and ultimately what real end-users think about the products and services. Sure, it's all one big loosely-integrated (loosely-coupled?) mess, but it helps if we make an effort to understand who is playing what roles and to avoid confusing the distinct roles.
Flattening? Hardly. I think, if anything, we're seeing the creation of new and even more elaborate *structures* for controlling information flow. For example, A-listers and Z-listers do *not* have the same impact on the "general sentiment" about products and services, so clearly there is at least *some* structural difference.
-- Jack Krupansky
So where's the change you claim exists?
However, I don't think it is appropriate to conduct all communications through blogs. There's still a place for "official" statements, but I think those statements should be written for normal people rather than journalists.
Actually, inciteful isn't really a word, but it should be since it does fit so many bloggers, especially those without any significant insight.
-- Jack Krupansky
Scoble thinks blogs have flattened things, Rubel says control is always needed, indeed worked into the fabric of the system itself. Both are wrong. PR as information gatekeeper was never correct to begin with, but the idea of a blog revolution making this happen is downright farcical.
Playing favorites never works, why does Silicon Valley justify the byzantine maze-like structure of NDAs and hoop jumping? But that's an easy question to answer, it reduces ego power and kills bubbles. Hence Sarbanes Oxley-like approaches are exactly what is needed, and indeed REQUIRED now.
Controlling access to information is NEVER called "marketing". And open betas are a management and time-consumption problem, not a marketing problem.
But exclusives aren't dead, you are just looking at it from the wrong end. Even PR pros don't have access to all the information all the time, nor contextually lay it out. It takes the sniffer, the investigative reporter (or blogger if you will) type to sniff said info out. You need someone to tie together seemingly disparate threads into a cohesive whole. That doesn't happen from PR and generally doesn't happen from bloggers.
Sarbanes Oxley ahoy. The more the Valley and PR whines about the 'record-keeping requirements' of Sox, the more you know it was exactly what was needed.