robbyslaughter
iPhone: 39.869591,-86.142387
- 29 comments
- 5 likes given
- 16 likes received
Troublemaker and productivity/workflow expert. www.slaughterdev.com
Excellent execution! Every element eloquently emoted. Each elusive extant effortlessly explained. Essential, energetic, efficient encouragements. Everlasting effusive excitement! @jacqsays
@getsocialpr Touché, sir!
"Earned media" is placements that the audience thinks are organic, but are actually the work of skilled PR experts. What we should call it is "lobbied media." But that wouldn't sound as nice.
We might also call earned media by the name "paid media", since you have to pay your copywriter to produce it and your PR pro to get it placed. But we already have the word "paid media" for advertisements. Both require payment: the difference is who gets paid.
Nevertheless, earned media is incredibly effective, because the audience <em>thinks</em> it came about because an editor or journalist dug out the story. This is unlike paid (advertised) media, which the audience <em>knows</em> is bought. That's why it's less effective.
If I could start over, I would focus on strategy from the beginning.
I would emphasize automation and analytics. I would develop style guides and best practices. I would think big rather than just replying to whatever seemed interesting.
It's very hard to do that today, since I have so many habits in place!
Great thoughts, Chris! Any time an email comes back as a "hard bounce", I see it as an opportunity to find out what life event happened for the company and for the recipient. And that chance to reconnect always helps strengthen the relationships.
@NancyMyrland I don't see a conversation after a seminar as analogous to a blog comment.
I think about blogging as the 21st century extension of the <strong>discourse of letters</strong> among scientists and philosophers.
We are all editorial columnists, and instead of responding with letters to the editor that the paper may edit, censor, or discard entirely, why not respond in newspapers of our own?
I really don't like comments on blog posts. To me it seems like an inelegant way to carry on the conversation. If I want to respond to your post, I should do so with a post of my own, on my own website. That way there can be no question about whether or not you are censoring anyone. And there's no limitations with regard to formatting, length or capabilities. And finally, my comment is not then lost in a sea of other comments.
But that doesn't seem like it's going to happen, so Nancy is right.
My beef with Outlook is that most companies don't do any training on Outlook, so most people don't know how to use it.
If you know how to use the tool correctly, it's incredible. It's ALREADY a social network.
You madam, are a social media pontificator.
Here's a rule-breaking email I wrote. Read this post http://www.spamresource.com/2011/01/informal-definition-of-spam.html and read the comments.
Ugh! Once again, Google is trying to influence the nature of the web by restructuring properties they technically own but everyone else thinks of as being separate and "owned" by the users.
The reason this is a problem is because Google did not rename YouTube when they bought it. If they had, we'd all expect for Google to have +1 buttons on their own sites.
For now, Google needs to fix their login system. They need to allow you to merge accounts, login as multiple accounts simultaneously, and configure particular sites to associate on-site actions with certain accounts.
Email is the number one technology-centric productivity problem at the office. In fact, we have a whole series of workshops around email that are designed to radically change your perspective on email so that you can get more done.
An empty inbox is part of the process---but what is more important is to train other people through your own email behavior. The WORST thing you can do is respond to an email instantly. That teaches individuals to think you are always available.
Instead, you should respond to emails AT LEAST four hours later, if not the next day. That forces people to call you if they need you (which is hard to do) or try to find the answer themselves. It gives you time to deal with real work, which happens outside of email.
Email is killing us because we use it for EVERYTHING, INSTANTLY. If we only used email for meaningful, non-urgent interaction and didn't try to store our entire lives in a folder system, we'd find ourselves able to get so much more done.
JustHeather The reason you feel left out is not because you're not awesome. (News flash: You're awesome. Feel free to print this out if you need a later reminder.)
No, the reason you feel left out is because you don't understand <em>why</em> they picked the 46 that they did.
Had they said something like: "We're going to try to pick a diverse range of people to represent Indianapolis. We may have a lifestyle blogger or two, we might have a PR pro, and perhaps some random people who are just enormous football fans."
Seriously. That's enough. Then you wouldn't have this weird feeling.
Why is it so hard for folks to see that this is just a good idea?
steveboller Only if they are singing the Super Bowl Shuffle.
JayBaerIndianapolisVet Of course it helps people to publish selection criteria. Every institution which is selective and successful has some degree of transparency about their selection process!
- The lottery is clear that anybody can win and they put the procedure on television
- Every university and scholarship announces what they are looking for in applicants
- Bars and restaurants with dress codes put up SIGNS with their requirements
- Other local social media contests, like the current <a href="do317.com/rollingstonecontest/">Rolling Stone Do317</a> or <a href="http://www.indyhub.org/blog/join-the-2012-zoobilation-twitter-team/">@indyhub's #indyzoob</a> program do it.
This is human relations 101. If you help people to understand what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how you're going about it, they are not going to around assuming conspiracy and secrecy.
Jay, you seem to think that AllisonLCarter believes that:
<blockquote>companies and organizations should be required to publicly state how they determine who to include in outreach programs.</blockquote>
Well, you're putting words into her mouth. Here's what I think she's trying to say. But more importantly: I believe it (although I have done a bad job of trying to explain it to chuckgose kyleplacy indymike cjtheisen and others in the past)
<blockquote>If you're going to select a handful of people to participate in an exclusive public program, everything will go more smoothly if you define and publicize your selection criteria and your objectives well in advance.</blockquote>
<em>Of course</em> companies can do whatever they want (FTC disclosure requirements notwithstanding). But for some reason, people who organize contests and promotions seem to think that the public isn't going to want to know how they decided to pick the winners!
So what are the takeaways?
1. Want massive public appeal for an exclusive opportunity? Help ensure the crowd doesn't turn on you by explaining your approach and rationale for the exclusivity. That's just common sense.
2. The bigger the event, the farther in advance you need to plan it. We should have been working on selecting the Social 46 perhaps a year ago. Even if they organizers had made the same blunder back then, at least we'd mostly be over it by now.
That's it!
ginidietrich KimDavies Then I guess it's a matter of definition, because most of those (and all of them, if you count internal audiences as a public) sound to me like "publicity. " Wikipedia says that "publicity is the deliberate attempt to manage the public's perception of a subject."
I know that's a rather sharp way of putting things, but I'm looking for an aspect of PR that *doesn't* have as its primary objective the intent to manage perception. I think that the reason people are confused about PR---and the reason they foolishly associate 95% of bad social media campaigns to PR agencies---is they think that PR agencies are willing to take ethically questionable actions in their pursuit of perception management.
I feel like everything I've ever known a PR professional to do falls under the heading of managing public perception. That's just fine! That's the reason clients hire PR firms! The question is *how* PR pros do this work. Some (most!) are very ethical and professional. A few aren't. Enough bad things happen to inspire ridiculous "95% statements" and here we are.
haganblount I've been struggling with this question for a long time. It's easy to demonize the media relations/publicity part of the job, but it's just a "small part of PR."
Yet if you take a look a a typical <a href="http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/p/types_of_job/public_relations_officer_job_description.jsp">job description</a>, pretty much everything is related to publicity or developing a strategy for publicity.
Even the <a href="http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Documents/Official%20Statement%20on%20Public%20Relations.pdf".Official Statement on Public Relations</a> from the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) seems to include six pullet points, which are all basically about publicity. You know: analyzing public opinion (publicity research), advising management on public opinion (publicity advice), executing program actions to affect public understanding (publicity), managing people and resources (coordinating to achieve publicity) and various academic study related to public interactions.
Ultimately, the Wikipedia definition of publicity is "the deliberate attempt to manage the public's perception of a subject." That seems like the general definition of public relations, which leads us back to the fundamental question.
KimDavies What are some PR activities in that other 90% that CLEARLY fall under the "not publicity" heading?
Most of work in environments in which there are no work-related emergencies. If you're a surgeon or a firefighter, this isn't the case, but if you operate in almost any office environment than there's no such thing as a work-related emergency. In these situations, any potential critical event is a personal crisis. If you or a loved one experiences an emergency while you are at work, the answer is obvious: leave work!