Learn more at http://www.christopherspenn.com
@PRGIRL Thanks, fixed for this year!
8 hours, 58 minutes ago on Labor Day Recipes from the SHIFT Crew
@ChrisSledzik We've found much more success with Twitter, on balance. It's more open, it's more acceptable for outreach, and it's less invasive.
2 weeks, 3 days ago on The most obvious use of Instagram Direct for PR professionals
@ScottAllen1 Thanks, Scott. It's not ONLY about earned media, but earned media certainly benefits heavily from it.
2 weeks, 4 days ago on Google validates that PR is SEO in patent filing
@Dave Schneider Working well at scale depends on having a very large network. Might be a point worth a blog post in the future. Thanks!
3 weeks, 4 days ago on State of Social 2Q14: LinkedIn Marketing Falls Behind
@Dave Schneider Thanks, Dave!
3 weeks, 4 days ago on The Beginner’s Guide to Blogging, Part 1 of 10
@Jim Sweeney absolutely, and in an ideal world, I would love to see Lazy Larry never even get hired, or at the very least have a very short tenure. Regrettably, reality rarely conforms to my wishes. I appreciate the comment, though!
1 month, 2 weeks ago on Breaking Barcelona: Why Measuring PR Shouldn’t Include Sales
@kamichat Thanks, Kami - much appreciated. It's a balancing act, especially since a fair number of CMOs will interpret "where possible" as "do it or else you have no ROI and you're fired". (I actually had that conversation recently with a client)
1 month, 3 weeks ago on Breaking Barcelona: Why Measuring PR Shouldn’t Include Sales
@ScottMonty When you can successfully extinguish a social media crisis by waving your hand and saying, "These are not the comments you are looking for", then and only then will you be a social media Jedi.
1 month, 3 weeks ago on So You’re A Social Media Guru, Right?
@Michael Shepherd The risk of presenting both to management is a Glengarry Glen Ross situation where it devolves into blameshifting. That said, we do what the client wants, right?
2 months ago on Breaking Barcelona: Why Measuring PR Shouldn’t Include Sales
@HeatherWhaling Thanks, Heather!
@Scott Robertson And here it is: http://www.shiftcomm.com/2014/06/the-value-of-pr-beyond-marketing-roi/
@Danny Brown I made an attempt to address more of the operations picture here: http://www.shiftcomm.com/2014/06/the-value-of-pr-beyond-marketing-roi/
@Danny Brown you're absolutely right in that the silos we have are for operational efficiency. To the customer, it's all one spectrum of service, from beginning to end. This post looks more at measuring your operational efficiency rather than the customer perspective. Thanks, though, for your comment.
2 months, 1 week ago on Breaking Barcelona: Why Measuring PR Shouldn’t Include Sales
@Scott Robertson Thanks, Scott, and I need to do a followup post on all of the other areas PR touches, like customer service, retention, etc.
@JodiEchakowitz Here's the thing I disagree with about that specific set of principles. Business outcomes are absolutely, positively important. That said, tying your goals to things you cannot control and have no influence over is what I take issue with. That comes from a background in B2B marketing where PR and marketing can drive enormous audiences and leads, but if the sales guys can't sell, then you have no ROI. That doesn't mean you as a PR professional failed at your job. You may have done everything right. It means that your sales guys are bad at their jobs - should you be held accountable for their failures?
PR can influence those metrics, unquestionably. Getting the right audience is absolutely our job. We see PR's impact on search, social, and media. But ultimately, at the end of the day we do not control those downfunnel functions, and I would no more hold PR accountable to a potentially bad sales team than I would hold advertising's performance to customer service metrics.
2 months, 1 week ago on Find the ROI of PR By Measuring the Value of Audience
@Joe Walton I think that's a fair point, Joe, but is that PR or marketing? I delineate the two by the outcome. Awareness, attention, and trust are the characteristics of great PR with an outcome of audience. To me, retaining and upselling customers you already have, audience you already have, is a function more of sales and marketing - loyalty marketing, in fact.
That doesn't mean PR is without a role - you can never have too much awareness, love, or trust. It does mean, though, that ultimately the audience has already been captured and now needs to be given additional reasons to trade value.
I'd love your thoughts on it, too.
@CommProSuzi That's a deeper conversation about attribution analysis and what you can do with Google Analytics. It is possible, plus you can infer indirect impacts of PR on things like organic search based on the links you help create.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Find the ROI of PR By Measuring the Value of Audience
@teamccloud Ain't that the truth!
@THINK_Lyndon I like the idea of influencers and relationships as outcomes; the catch will be quantifying them to the point where the CMO will be able to add it to a projected P&L.
@BillSmith3 Thanks for the kind words!
@Eleanor Pierce No, not in special cases like crisis comms, where you're trying to undo damage, certainly. But for most of the time when the CMO asks the VP of Comms what PR has done for him lately, he's thinking P&L.
@allpointspr100 Yep, I'm a big fan of the Paper app. It makes inept artists like me look stylishly inept.
@ClayMorgan Thanks, Clay!
@JHTScherck @cspenn Right, but I was also referring to their previous patent on co-citation, which uses word associations. Is that too far a conclusion to draw? Co-citation and word associations, with or without a linked resource as a valid implied link?
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Google validates that PR is SEO in patent filing
@bill_slawski @cspenn @ccarfi Hi Bill,
Thanks for the feedback, here and on Twitter. Their previous patent on co-citation of text clusters is what drew me to conclude that co-citation and implied links were both relevant and related for determining a brand's mentions. As you pointed out on Twitter, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I don't regularly read thousands of patents (though I probably should), so my interpretation is based only on what I've been able to glean from 8290956 and 8682892. I'm happy for you or anyone else to shed more light - one of the other commenters said that citation was more likely to be an unlinked URI, but Google seems to separate URIs in general from words and clusters of words.
Thanks for commenting.
@badams In this particular patent, Google just references the citation. However, in Patent 8290956 (linked here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8290956.PN.&OS=PN/8290956&RS=PN/8290956 ) they specifically call out URIs and URLs as identifiers, not citations. Citations and words (linked or unlinked) are kept separate and Google specifically discusses them as co-citations (word clusters).
Now, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. Co-citation of associated words and implied links are both techniques Google uses for relevance. Maybe it is the unlinked URL/URI, but we can't be sure either way.
If someone else is a patent/trademark lawyer, please do help!
@AgentBlackhat Thanks, and I agree that it would be nice to have the context of the patent, but somehow I don't see us getting that access any time soon. We do know from previous IP purchases that they do topic-focused matching as well.
@JHTScherck The part I'm concerned with in the patent specifically is the classification of links. I'm open to hearing other interpretations of that part (section 302 in the diagram) if I'm wrong.
@ScottMonty I only hope that if ever again I have an important case I shall have the good fortune to have you by my side.
4 months ago on Google validates that PR is SEO in patent filing
@ccarfi Hi Chris - I so appreciate the thoughtful comment. In regards to it, I realized I forgot to link to the actual patent itself. My interpretation of the PR is SEO section comes from the linking engine portion in Figure 3, where they make the determination about what links actually are. The part you point out above in 1 and 2 refer to reference queries and you've got the language exactly right. Reference queries can be explicit or implicit.
That said, the implied link is a determination for what resources are independent (this is Panda, so they're looking for obvious duplications from people looking to rig the game). That's how I got to the conclusion in the original post. The engine that processes link independence doesn't directly look at the reference query (from what I can tell, anyway), but is part of the score modification in Figure 5. If a set of links are judged as not independent, Google applies score modifications to reduce the prominence of subsequent, non-independent results.
The reason for my conclusion is that the independence test for links, to me, paints a larger picture of what Google looks at not only for a test of independence but also for what's relevant.
Thanks again for contributing.
@digitalbase And a whole lot of Celine Dion.
5 months ago on PR Pros: Get our new mobile app, ZiPR!
@howardgr Agreed. I have a couple of non-profit clients with very small budgets, and Facebook has been relegated to "yeah, post there, but don't expect much".
5 months, 1 week ago on How much will you need to pay Facebook?
@chrisbacke Chris - Agreed that some companies will still be there, even at exorbitant costs, because as you said, it's where the billion people are.
@KirkHazlett Kirk, I would agree that there are scientific aspects of it, but at the end of the day, anything dealing with human behavior (as PR does at its core) is going to be squishy. We're absurdly unpredictable animals!
Thanks so much for sharing.
5 months, 1 week ago on Can you automate PR?
@ScottMonty I haven't read that one in a while. Recently cruised through Adventures and Memoirs, Last Bow is next up :)
6 months, 1 week ago on A social media data warning from Sherlock Holmes
@alanbr82 While it's always been true, the risk of not being better is greater to PR folks because one bad pitch can not only ruin that particular effort, it can burn the relationship entirely, and that can be a massive setback.
7 months, 1 week ago on How Content Marketing Could Kill PR
7 months, 1 week ago on Let your core values guide employee opinions online
@KirkHazlett Thank you!
@lincolnwater In this case, we are looking at referral traffic originating from plus.google.com or plus.url.google.com
7 months, 2 weeks ago on How essential is Google+ for PR and marketing?
@WebStuPointO I completely agree that you can't declare a winner JUST on traffic, but the reality is that if you drive near zero visitors, then the likelihood of converting any of them will by default be near zero as well.
@FirebrandTalent @trevoryoung @cspenn That's a sensible question. We'll look to add LinkedIn for the next data run!
@Bernard Goldbach That's odd, Bernie - I can see it either as plus.google.com or plus.url.google.com on the sites I've checked.
@cparente Here's the followup to point #2 that you made: http://www.shiftcomm.com/2014/01/nuances-in-the-content-shock/
7 months, 3 weeks ago on The Role of PR in the Coming Content Marketing Collapse
@Kenneth James Thank you, Kenneth!
@crmurray30 @TDefren @markwschaefer It applies, but it will suffer diminishing returns at a slower rate. Crap content has already reached uneconomical, and did once Google started rolling out the Panda and Penguin updates over the last two years. Mediocre content is taking the hit now. Good content will have diminishing returns soon, and stellar content won't see it.
The challenge, then, is to be stellar or else.
@laurenkgray I think the starting point of the discussion is an understanding of costs, much in the way some companies measure retention as opposed to the cost of acquisition. Losing a lot of loyalty in one person means you have to start building up loyalty in a whole bunch of other people in the hopes that the one evangelist you lost can be found again in someone else.
@mpace101 I think there will be significant differentiation and segmentation of the audiences we do have. We have the casual folks, the engaged folks, the customers, and the evangelists, and if marketers are smart, they'll work them from the bottom up, evangelists first. Losing loyalty will have a much stiffer penalty than it currently does.