Sunday morning snippets
A few snippets for the day - then I am off to spend the day on a boat while Ashley and the team slave away cutting code for the next Touchstone build *evil laugh*.
Revising Press Releases
An Anonymous commenter pointed out for me that my mention of Stowe's post about PR people missing the point on Press Releases left out the other side of the discussion. I didn't know there was another side at the time but Chris Heuer has a post on the issue highlighting Stowe's oversights. I like Chris - he bought me a drink while I was in SF.
Chris' point is that while real conversational engagement with your participants is the ideal, Press Releases are still a necessary way to make (and clearly mark) landmark announcements in clear, concise ways. His point (rightly I believe) is that while purists would argue that a 1st person conversation is better than a fake 3rd person declaration, a Press Release is still an important hold-over for mainstream media to get the complete picture in a bite sized chunk
Stowe argues that declaring anything a 'Press Release' is missing the point. That Press (at least press who treat their readers like eyeballs) should die and that we should all be equal participants in the social media ecosystem. By the way I like Stowe too - he also bought me a drink!
My opinion on the matter is this. I think that anyone who takes the time to invent something, lobby for it and contribute to the community is doing the right thing. That's the definition of social.
The issue, however, is larger than this one point. When considering people's opinions we must take into account their bias and their agenda. My agenda is personalized aggregation. My life and my work is based on the premise that people should find what their looking because of their Attention Profile - a fingerprint that represents their interests.
If hRelease (the reason the issue of a Social Media Press Release is being discussed at all) helps Touchstone identify important headlines for journalists, then so be it. Ideally though, the connection of people with content they find relevant should be a transparent and automated process based on merit rather than any corporate press declarations. That might mean they find negative commentary before they find polished/fake/controlled press releases from a company.
I think both can co-exist though - and the community (and some smart algorithm) will decide which they pay attention to most.
Social Media is Dead
I also pointed to the 'Social Media is No Mo' post by Steve Rubel. Some people didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I 'agreed' with him. Brian Solis commented to point me to this post.
Revising Press Releases
An Anonymous commenter pointed out for me that my mention of Stowe's post about PR people missing the point on Press Releases left out the other side of the discussion. I didn't know there was another side at the time but Chris Heuer has a post on the issue highlighting Stowe's oversights. I like Chris - he bought me a drink while I was in SF.
Chris' point is that while real conversational engagement with your participants is the ideal, Press Releases are still a necessary way to make (and clearly mark) landmark announcements in clear, concise ways. His point (rightly I believe) is that while purists would argue that a 1st person conversation is better than a fake 3rd person declaration, a Press Release is still an important hold-over for mainstream media to get the complete picture in a bite sized chunk
Stowe argues that declaring anything a 'Press Release' is missing the point. That Press (at least press who treat their readers like eyeballs) should die and that we should all be equal participants in the social media ecosystem. By the way I like Stowe too - he also bought me a drink!
My opinion on the matter is this. I think that anyone who takes the time to invent something, lobby for it and contribute to the community is doing the right thing. That's the definition of social.
The issue, however, is larger than this one point. When considering people's opinions we must take into account their bias and their agenda. My agenda is personalized aggregation. My life and my work is based on the premise that people should find what their looking because of their Attention Profile - a fingerprint that represents their interests.
If hRelease (the reason the issue of a Social Media Press Release is being discussed at all) helps Touchstone identify important headlines for journalists, then so be it. Ideally though, the connection of people with content they find relevant should be a transparent and automated process based on merit rather than any corporate press declarations. That might mean they find negative commentary before they find polished/fake/controlled press releases from a company.
I think both can co-exist though - and the community (and some smart algorithm) will decide which they pay attention to most.
Social Media is Dead
I also pointed to the 'Social Media is No Mo' post by Steve Rubel. Some people didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I 'agreed' with him. Brian Solis commented to point me to this post.
Labels: briansolis, hrelease, Media 2.0, Microformats, press releases, social media, steverubel, stoweboyd
2 Comments:
Thanks for updating the story and digging deeper into this.
One thing I did not mention in the other posts I have made is that the reason why I thought we should call it social media release is that we are all now media and the information is more easily socialized - it is not about the press, but it is still a 'release' of information. While some still think it should be social media press release and others think social news release, none of these hit the mark in my mind. Same goes for new media release, as this format and idea wont be new for long.
Ultimately it may just be called a media release or something like that, but in all honesty, calling it social media release is aspirational and identifies what is unique about the approach we are trying to bring. It is also something that traditional PR people will really notice given how social media is fundamentally changing their industry.
I don't know if that helps make it any clearer, other than exposing the alternatives I disliked in the naming conversation, but thought you might be interested in that aspect of the story. Hopefully we will see you here again sometime soon...
While I find your post far more balanced and well considered than the positions staked out by other bloggers more invested in the outcome, there remain some problems.
These analyses reduce things to binary extremes, where neither pole quite captures reality. When you suggest the options are limited to first person conversation vs. third person declaration, you gloss many points in between. Worse, you pre-assign values to each mode, suggesting first person is inherently more genuine or conversational, while third person is more commonly fake. TV news is often delivered in the third person, but isn't universally perceived as fake. Similarly, first and second person address in advertising is often heard as cheesy, salesy and fake. These are generalizations at best, and in no way do these poles represent our collective reality. So, I don't buy these reductions, or assumptions.
More critically, you suggest press releases are relevant as a means for the "mainstream media to get the complete picture in a bite sized chunk."
Really? Have you checked the press room at whitehouse.gov lately? Halliburton? In what sense are these documents a "complete picture"? When I read these documents I see spin first, questions to research and fact check second. While this may be the intention of the authors, the reality is that these documents are widely assumed to be All-Spin Zones by their audience, frequently scanned more for what's left out than what's included.
The fact that these documents come up frequently in generic Google searches suggests a need for change in the form itself, which I support. The underlying topic of changing the format of press releases generally is long over due. The goals of press releases may be the same, but the tactics must change along with their audience (I reject Stowe's complaints about the "audience" terminology; semantics don't change the nature of the underlying activity or role of passive eyeballs).
Obviously there is some resistance to the semantics of efforts to change this form. After reading the objections, some appears related to the content and intentions of the poster. Secondarily, there's a tinge of xenophobia, making the efforts to adapt the press release seem like a foreign invasion. There seems to be almost fear among bloggers of being easily replaced by paid flacks!
Is a "social media news release" necessary? Who knows? What we do know for sure is that traditional press releases are becoming less effective, and increasingly discovered (and reviled) by actual customers. We know for certain those researching us will not only read our carefully prepared statements, but Google up all sorts of related words including those of our competitors. So while I question the semantics, and targeting ("social media" is a cliche rapidly losing meaning, and suggests an inherently anti-corporate ecosystem), I appreciate the conversation, and initial suggestions.
The press release template and news room templates at least recognize the shift in markets, and aggregate relevant content in a way that's more balanced than either old-school press releases, or new media end-user reviews. The suggestions to link and respond to negatives is very sound thinking. So is the notion of dynamically updating of the product's real world trail - page changes and commenting drive search-rankings up, making the "official" version a bit more relevant.
Used properly, new media press releases can not only be more effective at exposing ideas, they can change the perception and eventually, application of press releases in general. The tactics discussed might lead to press releases that are much closer to the intended "complete picture in a bite sized chunk" and that would be good for everyone concerned.
www.dataesthetic.org
Post a Comment
<< Home