Last month, I caused an online ruckus when I published the provocatively titled post, Why PRs are the last to ‘get’ the internet.
Of course, I was referring to the all-too-common preference among many public relations professionals for securing print coverage for their clients, at the expense of digital coverage – an absurd behavioural anachronism considering that digital coverage often has greater reach and can carry multimedia content and reader interaction.
Let’s also not forget the practical benefits of coverage that is often one click away from ‘more information’.
If memory serves (from my days as a PR consultant in agency-land), the main purpose of PR is to build positive brand awareness. And this is motivated usually by a need to sell ‘stuff’ or promote a message.
And, quite frankly, there are few mediums that achieve this better than online channels – unless your target market is fiscally challenged (also known as ‘poor’), a ‘frugal’ (the parent of a baby-boomer) or based in a submarine.
My initial post prompted 35 comments.
Some agreed:
Sarah Thomas: I’m constantly surprised more aren’t embracing it, especially given the ROI of online PR compared to traditional PR.
Lesley-Ann: 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.
Others didn’t:
Amy: 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… 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.
And then, of course, I accidentally irked many more than my intended quota by using the noun ‘PRs’ to define the profession as a collective group:
jules: 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!
But I also discovered, to my pleasant surprise, some excellent examples of public relations professionals. (Oh please, can’t I abbreviate the term? Pleeeeeease?)
These people are doing an exceptional job, working with clients to demonstrate tangible returns from PR.
In particular, the approach of PR agency Publicity Queen grabbed my attention (and who doesn’t love a trademarked acronym).
As explained to me in an email from Publicity Queen’s Diane Falzon:
Publicity Queen has a unique PR methodology called TRUEpublicity which was trademarked back in 2007. TRUEpublicity is a system whereby we leverage four communication channels for our clients’ PR:
‘T’ stands for ‘Traditional Media’: What everyone thinks of when they think of PR – getting coverage in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV.
‘R’ stands for ‘Referral Partners’: Establishing strategic relationships with highly targeted individuals or organisations who are either held in high esteem by our client’s target market or have direct communication access to them.
‘U’ stands for ‘Unique Media’: One of the most powerful channels and is identified by a client’s ability to create a new communications channel and be afforded 100% editorial control ‐ examples are websites, newsletters, podcasts etc which generally are online‐centric.
‘E’ stands for ‘Epublishing’: A burgeoning channel and one in which we publish our clients’ information on other people’s online assets – examples are: twitter, facebook, blogs, you tube, article repositories etc.
What many clients and other PR practitioners haven’t realised yet is the power of online PR ‐ it’s often considered the ‘easier’ cousin. While clients often drive a focus on traditional media, as this is what gets them hot under the collar and makes them proud, online PR can have far greater benefits.
You’re preaching to the choir, Diane.
I’m not sure if there are any awards for PR activities with a digital focus but, from where I sit, I’m super-keen to hear from other PR practitioners who have embarked on digital activities and demonstrated measurable results for their clients.
In particular, does anyone have a client who actually monitors the origins of their web-traffic? Can they attribute bumps to digital coverage versus bumps caused by print coverage? I’d be interested to learn whether print coverage generates direct traffic or other forms of measurable outcomes at all.
