Brace yourself for some pretty broad generalisations.
As an ex-public-relations-consultant turned-magazine-publisher, I have some strong views about the world’s oldest form of marketing.
Love them or hate them, PRs perform an important function – largely helping inept marketing managers and business owners communicate with the media in ways that don’t make the already over-stuffed craniums of news men and women explode in frustration.
There are two services that public relations people are very good at:
1. Guiding their clients away from news people on deadline:
Five PM might be a convenient time for you to put in that media call that’s been haunting you all day and launch into an unstructured waffle about your idea, widget, product, service, political views, etc. But for most media players, the only thing we want to hear at 5pm is the sound of deadlines being met – not the sound they make as they whoosh past our ears due to an ill-considered distraction.
2. Simplifying corporate speak and providing us with information in a hurry:
Your marketing guy/gal or CEO might think that words like ’synergy’ and ‘leverage’ make your organisation sound polished and professional. But when dealing with the media, call a spade a spade. For example, if you are a garden hose manufacturer, don’t tell us that you provide “end-to-end liquid transfer solutions” (true story). And please, provide us with the information you promised in a timely fashion. Once the deadline has past, so has your chance of media coverage.
There is a third way that many public relations professionals can better meet the needs of their clients and stakeholders. And that’s by limiting their tendency to treat online media as second best.
It’s my contention that most PRs still don’t ‘get’ online media.
Here’s why.
For most PRs, good online coverage on a popular website is barely worth a hardy slap on the back. At the same time, a page seven, two-inch mention in the ‘Back-Water Regional Times’ is often treated as an excuse to pop the champagne.
I, too, for a long time, was guilty of this black hole in logic.
In 2007, I recall being asked to participate in an online podcast with digital media maven Cameron Reilly on his TPN website. I was busy and kept putting the interview off.
Fortunately, a colleague had my back, pulled me aside and explained to me the way things were:
“TPN attracts over 120,000 listeners. The Australian newspaper attracts over 110,000 readers. Would you make time for The Australian?”
Of course I would! I’d clear an afternoon.
So why was I so underwhelmed by the prospect of online coverage? Was it because online is transient, while print is seemingly permanent?
On one level my prejudice might have been true (you can put your newspaper or magazine clipping in a scrap-book). But two years on, the TPN website still drives traffic to anthillonline.com and I am still approached by strangers at networking events who downloaded the podcast, liked what they heard, remember what was discussed and want to have a chat.
Talk about great PR!
It’s unlikely that even a picture piece in The Australian would have a similar result. In fact, I appeared in The Australian last month. The result? Zilch. Nothing. Nix (except for a phone call from a distant aunty).
Yet, a day doesn’t go by when the following doesn’t occur: A PR person pitches us a story for our print magazine. We offer to run something online. His/her interest immediately fades.
This is occurring at a time when online media usage is outstripping traditional media. Incidentally, earlier this year, the number of unique users visiting our website in one month doubled our print circulation (when that was a major part of our model).
So, what are we to do about our laggard friends?
Firstly, we should acknowledge that it’s not all their fault. Like anyone operating in a service industry, PRs put a lot of stock in the advice and direction of their clients. But that doesn’t mean that they should become victims of their client’s expectations. (Let’s face it, most PR clients couldn’t tell the difference between an ad and a news story. That’s why they engage agencies in the first place!)
As such, I find it hard to resist saying, ‘PRs. It’s time to take a teaspoon of cement and…’ You know the rest. 
If you work in PR and you need some hard data to back up your claims when confronting one-eyed, print obsessed clients, but don’t want to invest in Nielsen Ratings, just log onto compete.com or alexa.com.
These services might not be the most reputable measures of traffic but they’re usually enough to dazzle the most ardent luddite with their many buttons and changeable graphs. Plus, they’re both free (so you need not even pass theme off as another client expense).
Further, the Audit Bureaux of Australia – which covers Australia’s two print auditors: the Audit Bureau of Circulation and the Circulations Audit Board – launched its own web auditing service in June.
According to mumbrella, “the ABA Web Audit Service is being run by Nielsen Online, which places tags from its Market Intelligence system on websites to verify publishers’ traffic claims.”
We all get the internet, piped into our laptops and PCs (particularly a business audience). So, why don’t PRs and their clients ‘get’ it? We’re listening.
36 Comments
Jo
August 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
James I totally agree with you. PRs (and their clients) shouldn’t underestimate the power of an online artilce. Even though it’s viewed as temporary it is anything but. They stay archived on websites, provide links back to the client’s website, add to SEO and turn up in Google listings. Plus the upside for PR, because news websites are updated constantly, there’s not as much competition for media space as there is with their printed counterparts.
[Reply]
HNap
August 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Are we back in 2004? Surely this argument has been run and won. Are there really any PRs or clients in Australia who only want print coverage?! Or perhaps they just want TV!!? I’ve been away for 6 years, PR-ing in UK and Silicon Valley (so I may be biased) but this surely is no longer an issue.
Or *penny dropping* you are cleverly baiting PRs to your site and putting out the challenge to prove you wrong. Some of the biggest memes come from PR-bashing journos, so potentially a good strategy to drag PRs to Anthill (see, Jo above has already bitten). Slow news week?
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
HNap – You are a shrewd one.
Honestly, it’s a bit of all three:
1. We naturally would like PRs to embrace our site.
2. Yes, it is a bit of a slow news week.
3. But sadly, the foundation of my post remains the same.
Not only do PRs still refuse to get excited about far reaching digital coverage (yet throw parties following a few column-inches in the suburban Leader) but we still get news releases on our fax machine!!
Ye gods, how many more trees must die all in the sake of media coverage. So, here’s my call to action:
editorial [at] australiananthill dot com
[Reply]
Sarah Thomas Reply:
August 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Great post James. As someone with the inverse experience to HNap (I’ve been back in Aus since 2005 after many years in UK), I have to say that I agree with you to a certain extent but there are definitely MANY PRs here who are doing some great stuff. However, I’m constantly surprised more aren’t embracing it, especially given the ROI of online PR compared to traditional PR.
[Reply]
Lani Pauli
August 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hi James,
Great post with a strong and relevant message. As a “PR” myself I would enjoy seeing more get excited about online coverage – it is a far more interesting and evolving area!
Cheers,
Lani.
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Hi Lani – Here’s another example…
I recently attended an awards night and, despite numerous presentations, inspiring speeches, eye-popping multimedia, all I got handed at the conclusion was a dry, two-page media release.
The night was full of opportunities to collect videos, podcasts etc that I would have posted on our site in a heart-beat.
Opportunities lost.
[Reply]
Lani Pauli Reply:
August 11th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I have to agree with the opportunities lost. I recently attending a client’s national convention and there was no videographers capturing what was really a great three-days of talks, engagement and motivation. It is a shame that there are these opportunities going by.
It is all about a paradigm shift and embracing the new.
That said, being in agency land, a lot of the time these things come down to budget constraints and unfortunately no matter how many times you put the idea in front of the client and sell it to them, it is them who sign on the dotted line to have the quote approved.
I do believe times are changing though and I like to think that we’ll see a move away from the traditional PR release and into something more content rich.
[Reply]
Jen Bishop, editor, Dynamic Business
August 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Great post, James. I think it is often a question of the PR’s client not ‘getting’ online. PRs are following me on Twitter, following our newsfeed and monitoring our website but a lot are obviously disappointed when we tell them their release made on online story rather than a print one. I think the PRs themselves are savvy enough to realise online can sometimes mean better (and bigger) coverage but try explaining that to their clients. On the same kind of topic, I’ve had conversations with PR friends (yes, I do have some!) whose clients would rather a snippet in a mainstream newspaper over a front cover in trade press, even though the people they’re trying to target are exactly the readers of the trade press. But then I guess it’s part of the PR’s job to convince them of the best medium to get their message across. Then again, if the client’s happy with the newspaper mention, then they’re happy, frustrating as it might be for their PR.
[Reply]
Leila Henderson, Publisher, NewsMaker
August 11th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I agree, a great post – and I well and truly bit
It defies logic that not just PRs but their clients too underrate the power of online coverage and its ability to woo customers from search engines and news aggregators to your website. Surely that’s the point of spending all that money on PR and marketing communication – to win customers? If it’s only to boost the ego of the CEO then… hmmm. As a journo for 20+ years, and the operator of an ‘automated press release service’, this frustration is a daily occurrence.
[Reply]
Grant Smith
August 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
James…fair point, although I’d contend that you’re not talking about real public relations. You’re talking about media relations, which is but a tiny part of a real PR’s job. No definition of PR, in any textbook or course guideline, includes the words “media coverage”. Sure, it’s what lots of CEOs and Marketing Directors are after, and the sorry truth is it’s what we spend the vast majority of our time doing. Sigh. But public relations is about building and maintaining relationships, and to that end I think those PRs who do get the internet are doing it far more effectively than any who are seeking coverage for the sake of filling their scrapbook. Personally, I think that if PRs engaged the rest of their stakeholders effectively they’d find the need for media relations campaigns would drop off dramatically because other people would go into bat on their behalf more often. And that’s largely the point of media in the first place isn’t it? Getting an independent third party to tell your story so it’s more credible?
[Reply]
Jörn Sanda Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Too often PR is used for press relations. And I, working in public relations, concede that this is largely due to the industry itself. Most people I’ve worked with tend to try and solve every challenge with media coverage. Sure, clients tend to look to us for column inches – but it’s our responsibility to advise them of better mediums, if there are. And as James makes the point – there often are.
Given the industry’s infatuation with press – I’ve set myself a rule to explore every other communications medium before thinking of a good old press release. This is often met with resistance from clients and peers, but where my tenacity holds out the results speak for themselves.
At the same time I’ll admit that I am struggling to get the Internet, all of it. There’s just so much of it and so often it’s hyped beyond belief. But I’ll keep on trying and in so doing hopefully provide the correct advice/guidance to colleagues, clients and peers.
My favorite means of building and maintaining relationships is still beer. Imagine what could be achieved if the captains of whaling ships and Greenpeace boats could regularly meet up over a beer to work out their differences.
Now a continuous flow of beer via the NBN – the mind wanders and wonders…
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Well said, Mr Smith. Alas, at this end of the ‘fax machine’, it’s often our only exposure to the industry. I’ll have to cast my mind back to those sunny days of yesteryear at H&K and the similar wise words that my colleagues often imparted on me. Hang on? Weren’t you one of them.
[Reply]
Jörn Sanda Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
If the Mr Smith who posted here is the same Mr Smith who works for H&K – my apologies for not declaring that I’m also at H&K. My intention wasn’t to endorse a colleague – but merely to add comment to what I agree with.
Inadvertently I’ve become an internet nepotist. Apologies. It would never happen over a beer.
[Reply]
Grant Smith Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Ok first of all apologies if I’ve inadvertently bent the rules of the comments box, my bad – I’ll leave it to our esteemed moderator to work out the details of my faux pas. But I would point out my views are not presented on behalf of my organisation (hence why I didn’t include a website). Regardless, I still believe the premise holds – while I’m a web 2.0 luddite who has to rely on blogger.com as a training ground, I truly believe that the rise of the internet facilitates better two-way communication (being the kind where stakeholders of an organisation can actually exert some degree of influence on that organisation’s behaviour, as opposed to press agentry) than media relations could ever hope to achieve.
Mr Sanda, Mr Tuckerman, the next round is clearly on me. I consider it penance at best, and hope fervently that any PR students reading this take a long hard look at Grunig and Hunt. There may still be hope.
PRs are last to get the internet - mUmBRELLA
August 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
[...] Australian Anthill’s James Tuckerman offers some advice to PRs [...]
Lesley-Ann
August 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Back in my days in book publishing there was a great book written by one-time political speechwriter Don Watson, ‘Death Sentance – the decay of public language’. It’s as cringe-worthily funny as an early episode of The Office and the perfect antidote to reading piles of corporate blather.
That aside, what’s increasingly important to me these days though is my client’s total online presence – especially when the first thing many of us do is Google a company, person, product, place or idea when we hear about it. No-one really wants to read too much about what that company writes about itself on it’s own website – we’re wanting to see what others are saying about them and where else they’re mentioned.
Sometimes I’ve found it hard to get the point across to the client about the value of having articles published online. It’s been well worth it to me to spend a bit of time working with web developers and SEO gurus about how to get a bit cosier with stuff like Google Analytics and placing quality/relevent backlinks from well regarded sites etc. It’s an exciting world out there – even more importantly to me (and my clients) the web generates qualified leads in a fairly direct manner and it makes ROI much easier to measure.
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
What’s even more interesting is the number of organisations that do not track where their incoming traffic is coming from.
Imagine their surprise when they discover that none of it is coming from referring links. Or maybe they might pleasantly discover that only two or three organisations are responsible for the majority of their traffic (and start to get a picture of who they should be courting).
Back to my comments above (the awards event), I have no doubt that this organisation has no clue where its web traffic is coming from (and, therefore, award entries).
Sad really.
[Reply]
Lesley-Ann Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Maybe Anthill could consider running some webinars for Marketers and PRs on how to find their way around the finer points of web traffic? Be part of the solution…so to speak. Just a thought…
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Great idea! Watch this space.
Tim Burrowes - Mumbrella
August 11th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Hi James,
A most entertaining piece (and good linkbait too!).
But I reckon you may just be hanging out with the wrong PRs. These days I come across far more who do get it than don’t.
Cheers,
Tim Burrowes – Mumbrella
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Thanks Tim. But I think the difference is that people see you from the outset as a digital media company and start talking digital coverage. When the two options are available, we find again and again that even the most enlightened PRs (and there are plenty) start to salivate at the prospect of print coverage. And it will probably remain that way – particularly as print products start to vanish (supply/demand, and all that). Thems the breaks, I guess.
[Reply]
Leila Henderson, Publisher, NewsMaker
August 12th, 2009 at 12:39 am
If you’re skilful enough to tell a story that intrigues, angers, amuses or inspires, people will gather round it like ants round ant-rid – evidence above. New- wave PR.
[Reply]
jules
August 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
When did PR become a collective noun as in ‘PR’s’ rather than an adjective. There is no such thing as a ‘PR’. Surely they should become PR people or PR experts? Just a grammatical query!
Also, we (as a PR company) constantly search for online coverage and all of our clients are very happy if they get a story online. Leader be damned!
[Reply]
Michelle Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Yes, yes… This makes my blood boil (short fuse due to the eternal struggle of trying to narrow the gap between what clients want to do and what journalists want).
I work in the Public Relations industry. I am not a Public Relations.
[Reply]
Rod Bruem - Telstra
August 12th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
James, I think your comments about the value of online coverage serve as a timely wake-up call to those of us in the business who are perhaps guilty of viewing web coverage as being of less value than ‘old media’ sources. I can think of many excuses for this approach, but they’re not really valid reasons. I will also take this opportunity to ‘out’ Telstra as the company that hosted the awards night you attended (the Victoria Telstra Business Awards) that simply offered an old-fashioned media release at the end of the evening. We have tried podcasts, vodcasts and multi-media press releases – the impression I get is that most journos just want the bare basics and there’s not a lot of demand for other corporate-supplied content to justify the added expense. But we’ll be offering more content including a vodcast for the National Final of the Telstra Business Awards in Sydney next week and obviously watching closely to see what the demand is like.
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi Rod,
You may have ‘outed yourself’ unnecessarily.
In Telstra’s defence, it was actually another awards program I was referring to. In fact, your guys were swift and nimble and sent me a video package with amazing efficiency.
However, my later comments regarding where your web traffic comes from, would be worth looking into, if you do not already do that.
Only then will you know who to prepare those audio/video reels for. Because, you’re right. Most of the mainstream media will still view such ‘novelties’ with fear and apprehension.
But they’re unlikely to be the ones linking to the awards site.
[Reply]
links for 2009-08-11 — Des Walsh dot Com
August 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
[...] Why PRs are the last to ‘get’ the internet – Anthill Magazine James Tuckerman presents a compelling case for PR people to place a higher value on the potential of online marketing and acknowledges that even those who do get the point may may (will?) need to educate their clients. (tags: pr public+relations anthill Australia) var addthis_pub = ”; var addthis_language = ‘en’;var addthis_options = ‘email, favorites, digg, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more’; [...]
Amy
August 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Hi – I have to disagree with your points about PRs being the last to ‘get’ the internet.
I think it entirely depends on what the client in question is looking for. Some clients only want print coverage, so even if you get them an article on a high ranking site, they still won’t be happy! Personally whilst it’s great to get your client print coverage and it is exciting to see their name in a national paper, I equally see the value and explain to my clients the value of achieving online coverage at a site that either targets their key audience, or is a site with just as much, if not far greater reach than any paper could hope to achieve.
So whilst you may think that some people just dismiss the value of the internet, I think it’s quite short sighted of you to assume that everyone working in PR doesn’t ‘get’ the internet.
[Reply]
James Tuckerman Reply:
August 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hi Amy,
Not ALL public relations consultants – just MANY.
There’s some discussion about abbreviating public relations consultants to PRs above. And they are probably right. Because the real job of a public relations consultant is to ‘consult’.
If your client wants to appear in a print product that is not aligned with their market, has a narrow reach, is less effective than other mediums but their mum reads it (or, more likely, their board), it’s your job to consult them that they should be doing otherwise.
If they are still looking for the less effective option and are not happy with the more effective option, so be it.
But if you can give them statistics, such as referring site traffic, and ask them to compare that with less measurable mediums, you’ll soon find yourself dealing with digital converts (counting clicks can become highly addictive).
[Reply]
Sarah Reply:
August 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hi everyone
Surely it’s less about delineating where “coverage” appears…and more about PR people providing a service to media when they have appropriate editorial fodder? Good PR people should let this be the determining factor as to which media vehicles they approach and why? Less of the “junkie” hit mentality; more about providing a relevant intermediary service between business and media.
There are readers of traditional print media who will be interested target audiences for specific clients; and likewise for online media/users. And clearly there is cross over in between!
Now…having said all of that James…are you ever going to get back to this pesky PR about Ash Hunter?! I believe him firmly relevant for Anthill readers – be they online, offline, or on the moon.
Sarah @ Gun.
[Reply]
Bill Bennett
August 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
In my experience there are two clear and distinct camps. The PRs who get online often really get it. Those who don’t are seriously out of touch, but in many cases either aren’t aware of their lack of knowledge or don’t care.
[Reply]
Why PRs are the last to ‘get’ the internet – Anthill Magazine « In Front Of Your Nose: An online PR blog
August 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
[...] PRs are the last to ‘get’ the internet – Anthill Magazine via [...]
Are PRs the last to get the internet | Public Relations Sydney
August 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
[...] Tuckerman, editor of Australian Anthill thinks that PRs are the last to ‘get’ the internet. He is taking the usual journalist dig at PR people. At CP Communications we are all for online [...]
Gillian
August 17th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I think a lot of the PR consultants who have participated in this dicussion have hit the nail on the head. Often there is a discrepancy between what the PR consultant wants to do in the media campaign and what the client wants and it’s up to the PR consultant to use their vast experience and expertise in the industry (this is of course what they are being paid for) to convince the client otherwise.
I was lucky to work in a company and had international clients who had the means, resources and foresight to be able to provide interactive DVDS which had electronic media releases, images and videos that they could put directly onto their website.
[Reply]
Jenni Beattie
August 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Your readers might be interested in a report released recently entitled
“The 2009 Digital Readiness Report”.
The study was conducted by Eric Schwartzman with the support of online newsroom provider iPressroom, Korn/Ferry International, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and Trendstream and examined pr social media skills.
Key findings included:
.When searching for prospective new hires, social media communications skills are nearly as important as traditional media relations skills.
· Public relations leads marketing in the management and oversight of all social media communications channels within organizations.
· Marketing leads public relations in the management and oversight of bulk email communications and search engine optimization.
· Social networking, blogging and micro-blogging skills are the three most important social media communications skills for job candidates to have, according to public relations and marketing hiring decision makers.
You can access the report at http://www.ipressroom.com/readiness
Cheers
[Reply]
James Tuckerman
September 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
As a follow up to this post, I have just published:
‘Which PRs actually ‘get’ the internet’.
http://anthillonline.com/which-prs-get-the-internet/
[Reply]