I don’t think when Jim Grunig and colleagues thought up two-way symmetrical communication they would have conceptualised the internet and social media, for instance, nor:

• electronically changing signage at sporting arenas
• signage on bus shelters
• in elevators with further messaging
• incredibly integrated manner in which sponsorship, marketing, public relations and other business disciplines have become so enmeshed.

The opportunities for information provision have accelerated and become more dynamic as technology has advanced. It would be nice to see more of the law of the jungle applied to this growth in ‘media’, but whilst avenues such as print media have had their influence decline, unfortunately the jungle has primarily fostered growth on growth.

The information thicket is evolving into impenetrability.

Of course, and this is encapsulated by younger people as they are born into this battle zone of media and content, we are evolving to cope with, counter and take advantage of the growth in media and content. But the opportunity to engage with and enrich stakeholders is getting slimmer and more slippery all the time.

And whilst communication will always be necessary to discuss attributes of organisations, products and services, without a customisation of all three to the needs and wants of their stakeholders then they are destined to go the way of dinosaurs. Unless, and this is a big unless, those responsible for these big three take an unethical, entirely self-centred approach and do things like engage in lobbying for their own – and their own alone – interests.

Many of us in public relations preach the thought leadership gospel, seeking a higher content ground on which to engage our stakeholders. And it’s a gospel I subscribe to. But even then, thought leadership is hardly thin on the ground. And this blog is an example of being part of the problem – more information!

Quality not quantity in PR communication

Part of the solution is communicating less and doing it better.

This goes to two of the basic precepts of effective public relations, customisation and targeting (underpinned by a third – knowing your audiences through market research). I think we often talk a grand old talk in this regard but mostly we trip over miserably in the walking of it.

Customisation means refining the content of our communication until is suits, as precisely as can be, our target audience. Too often we are happy with a ‘broad embrace’ of content, one that tries to tick too many boxes. This is an ineffective way to gain ROI. It will actually lead to disenchantment and intellectual and emotional ‘calluses’ being formed – scar tissue that builds up barriers to being affected or influenced.

The ‘broad embrace’ thinking applies equally to target audiences. We say that we have a specific target audience in mind, but really we’re happy for more than this audience to receive the information, in the hope it might generate a sale or pique the interest. It’s a real long shot, guys, and once again doomed to deliver dodgy ROI.

So how do we improve our customisation and targeting? Well, market research is your first port of call. And it should frequently be integrated into the communication to help with speedy feedback and ROI. Social media provides plenty of opportunities for this but so do nearly all other forms of communication:

• Who liked your Facebook post?
• How many click throughs/sales occurred through a Facebook or blog post?
• How many comments did you get on your Facebook post/blog?
• After a speaking engagement what did the attendees say about the presentation?

There’s many more, but undertaking thorough, evidence-based market research is the most reliable way of moving forward.

Moral dimensions of communication overload

There is a moral dimension in regard to information overload, too, as well as its customisation, as Kathy Cripps recently implied. Studies have confirmed the negative impact on health of too much information. It is a psychological burden.

We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. We can help people with quality, customised relevant information or we can essentially ‘junk mail’ their brains with clutter.

We can also use meaningful forms or modes of communication, as Kathy also points out, such as images to help facilitate information flow if, of course, the target audience is receptive to and/or prefers receiving information in this manner.

There is a tension, of course, between the information that people want to receive and the information an organisation wants to supply them with – such as the promotion of a new product, for instance. But such is our lot – balancing commercial/organisational interests with stakeholder well-being.

Changing the focus of public relations

It isn’t really changing the focus of public relations as it is meant to be. It is changing the focus of what we in public relations are trying to achieve, a constant refrain of this blog.

The greatest value in public relations resides in its ability to understand the needs, wants, issues and preferences of both the organisation that employs it, as well as organisational stakeholders. We are the boundary spanners. We are the bridge between an organisation and its stakeholders.

Our role is to provide information and counsel to organisations and their stakeholders to assist all parties in being aligned. The most powerful way of doing this is often prompting an organisation to change the way it operates. If we focus more on this dimension of the discipline and less on generating reams of content – no matter how well intended and customised – then our profession will add more meaning to the organisations we work for and the society in which we exist.

Are you up for the challenge?

Do you ever reflect on the impact the abundance of communication we in PR distribute in the context of information overload? Do you think we have a moral responsibility to reduce the amount of information we are responsible for distributing? How can we solve this issue? Where do you think public relations should focus its effort in organisational business life?

[This is a guest post by public relations and communication management specialist, Judy Gombita.***]

Helping to flow stakeholders to relevant and useful pools of information about our companies or clients is definitely a worthwhile investment of resources. When monitoring what stakeholders self-select – particularly when they land on and dive into organizational reservoirs of core offerings or knowledge and expertise – opportunities exist to refine and shape the direction and current of corporate story telling (from both a mediated and disintermediated standpoint).

The sustenance and water analogies aren’t a prescriptive diet to abandon traditional PR practices; rather, think of it as adding new dimensions and value as an internal journalist and SEO pro. It’s a natural progression, as the 21^st century PR regime really needs to be looking to the internet as a legitimate outlet for ‘earned media,’ particularly via our own ‘media’ sites. (See my interview with Ira Basen about Engineering Search: The story of the algorithm that changed the world.)

By examining subject choices and phraseology, the focus of PR pros can move from a ‘how’ to attract attention, to a ‘why’ (and about ‘what’) search perspective. And, in assuming the role of internal chronicler, the organizational narrative can then be framed and shaped accordingly.

Support from research

From a strategic PR and marketing perspective, lending credibility to these supplementary-role suggestions are two recent studies:

• Pew Internet ‘Generations Online’ research, succinctly summarized by MarketingProfs
• (In particular) the annual Edelman Trust Barometer (Executive Findings 2011 PDF page numbers referenced below).

Top-line takeaways

What do both studies tell us? No matter what their age, increasingly people[ii] are using the internet to search for information, verified and/or analyzed by subject experts (both externally and internally) and, to a less significant extent (in terms of generations and numbers), to connect directly with organizations.

They are searching for organizational collateral beyond products and services offered. People want to determine if a business is a ‘good’ and humanized one, which can be trusted in the way it treats a variety of stakeholders (e.g. its employees – Trust Barometer, page 26).

Although companies continue to funnel resources into social media, results of the 2011 Trust Barometer suggests the self-collecting of desired information (much of it by way of search engines) remains more prevalent than the ‘two-way symmetrical communications’ (beloved by many in PR) afforded through new media channels (corporate blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc).

And yet, I see some tremendous opportunities to build on early social media efforts (partly by using search), based on the data provided.

Edelman Trust Barometer 2011 news release (January 25, 2010)

“Trust in business may have stabilized globally, but it is different and conditional, premised on what a company does and how it communicates…. Search engines rank No. 1 as the place people go first for information about a company, followed by online news sources and print/broadcast media. Traditional news, in one form or another, rank as the most trusted sources in major markets… (business magazines, radio, television, and newspapers, respectively).” Richard Edelman

Working with the Trust Barometer data

From an organizational PR perspective, following are 2011 data extracts that I see as significant in terms of areas for consideration and future focus.

PR-perspective mashup: internal experts

1. From a strategic corporate perspective, what’s particularly significant in the 2011 findings is that the highest ranked (and new) trusted internal source is ‘Technical expert within the company.’ This information is important, as likely internal experts (e.g. engineering, HR or financial staff) were hitherto under-used in ongoing organizational narratives.

Suggestion: don the internal journalist’s workout gear and start sourcing internal experts and information that might be of interest to stakeholders. (Use existing ‘search’ information gleaned from corporate websites and/or social media channels to influence the nature of the experts and information used.)

2. Given how often PR practitioners make use of the head honcho as the organization’s public face, it’s encouraging to see that the CEO position has increased in perceived trust (by 19 per cent, globally) over two years, regarding credibility.

Perhaps now is the time to push for implementation of (and real commitment to) a corporate blog and/or Twitter account, with at least some of the postings (or tweets) coming from the CEO. The organization’s various ‘technical experts’ could contribute posts, too….

Corporate blogs allow for both disintermediation (i.e. a nimble platform of wholly owned real estate – versus some third-party social media sites, such as Facebook, where your organization is really a sharecropper[iii]) and the humanizing of the organization (from the top down).

It’s prudent to implement disintermediated social media platforms prior to an unforeseen crisis or even before monitoring efforts unearth information searches from stakeholders that use negative terminology. Both potential circumstances should move the ‘do-we-need-a-blog?’ debate onto the critical-priority list, with lightening speed.

3. Although trust in the ‘Regular employee’ rose two per cent, overall the rank-and-file descended to the bottom of the ‘trust’ (or ‘interest’) heap. This undercuts declarations by social media gurus who believe the focus of organizational digital channels should be on ‘regular’ employees.

Rather than rejecting participation in corporate social media channels entirely, involve employees in figuring out what information and stories might be of the greatest interest and through which channels, particularly in regards to age preferences (as per the Pew Internet ‘Generations Online’ research).

Being platform-SEO savvy

As discussed, increasingly the success of organizations being heard or seen in the important online sphere, is dependent upon SEO earned media, whether it be through online news sources (i.e. mediated ‘pick-up’ of your organization’s stories or spokespeople, products or events) or via your corporate real estate (i.e. disintermediated corporate information and narratives).

Note that external journalists use search engines to find the same corporate stories perceived to be of interest (‘Why should this matter to me?’ and ‘How does this impact on our readers/viewers/listeners and what would they find of use and interest?’). Don that same (internal) journalist perspective during the ‘research’ and ‘subject-expert sourcing’ stages, in addition to the actual writing (for website, blog or Twitter) or telling (podcast or video) phases.

Original and valued information, whether on your corporate website (‘11 per cent trusted’), blog or other social media channels, can serve as resources to a traditional journalist researching a story. Third-party endorsement of corporate information (‘earned media’) and online (news) links only adds to your SEO clout.

Case studies of digital communication

Check out PR Conversations interviews with:

• Tom Murphy, of Microsoft, who focuses on the company’s CSR narrative
• Mike Spear*, of Genome Alberta – learn about the GenOmics site, a highly customized Facebook page that serves as a 24-hour science newsroom, collecting stories from around the world and laying them out like a digital magazine
• Andrew Arnold*, of LEGO, who makes use of social media, both for education purposes and to discover ‘brand champion’ communities around the world
• Avril Benoît*, of MSF Canada, who branches out the international NGO’s work onto a variety of platforms, whilst fiercely protecting a correct and sensitive portrayal of both its medical volunteers and the countries and victims served
• James Topham, of War Child Canada, who partners with musicians and pushes the boundaries of social media ‘games’ and depictions in the NGO’s fight for attention.

Is it a coincidence that three* out of five of these remarkably nutritious, fat-free ‘storytelling’ PR practitioners are former journalists? All five appear to have ‘worked up’ a pretty good handle on SEO, too.

***With more than 20 years of experience, primarily in the financial and lifelong learning non-profit sectors (employment, board member or committee), Toronto-based Judy Gombita is an accomplished, internationally well-networked and creative public relations and communication management specialist. In-depth experience includes initiating, planning, budgeting and maintaining integrated communication programs. Her skill set includes resource development, relationship building and reputation management. She values collaborative working environments, where strategy and ingenuity are valued. Judy can be networked with through the PR Conversations blog she co-edits, her LinkedIn profile or on Twitter @jgombita.

[This post is included, with many other posts, in a free strategic PR report that can be downloaded from this blog by email subscribing to it. The report - Public relations 2011: insights ideas issues - features professional practice-adding value from 10 global PR leaders (and me).]

Thank you to quality graphic design consultant, Pennington & Co, for its assistance with graphic elements of this post – CP.

[ii] Edelman Trust Barometer: 5,075 informed publics in two age groups (25-34 and 35-64) in 23 countries.

[iii]‘Sharecropper’ analogy courtesy of Valeria Maltoni, a prolific and articulate blogger who champions the necessity for ‘business transformation.’

We’re lucky these days. The internet is a university. And some of the best lecturers (practicing professionals, academics and their hybrid sisters) in the world have blogs, which is where I’ve learnt a hell of a lot about not just social media, but a range of public relations, marketing and business issues. It is incredible just how much you can learn from great blogs and, underpinning that, how generous people are to provide their insights and advice.

One of these blogs’ best characteristics is that they cut to the chase. They’re pithy. You get some theory but so do you get the cold, hard, slap-in-the-face and here-and-now of what matters and what you need to do about it.

Content is king ipso facto content marketing is NOW

Content management and its nimble sibling, content curation, are the new marketing central. In this online-centred world with its reliance on search, its appetite for quality content and its proclivity to send it viral, quality content and its intelligent leveraging is almost unspeakably important for marketing and public relations.

And, partly because of the sheer NOISE of all this online activity, this means that thought leadership, value and insightfulness – and let’s not forget HUMOUR – are more valued than ever before.

One set of content management stats = this:

• 80% of business decision makers prefer to get company information in a series of articles versus an advertisement
• 70% say content marketing makes them feel closer to the sponsoring company
• 60% say that company content helps them make better product.

So that’s two posts I’ve flagged with only one promised. But the real point I want to make is encapsulated in the issue of where does content marketing belong in the social business? Now, this is an entirely valid question but, more importantly in my view:

What business cannot afford to be social, when so much of the conversation about it will be online?

The question of where does content marketing belong, however, is articulately explored in the conversionation post linked to above. One upshot is that if you have no single person or business unit coordinating content generation and utilisation, you do so at your peril:

• Content may not appear
• It may be shoddy and reek of a lack of professionalism and care
• Different elements may contradict each other, either in a specific tactical sense or an organisational branding sense.

In any of these cases: disaster.

Being a winner at getting targeted traffic for your blog or website

A post was published recently on Problogger by marketer Eric Enge that I consider one of the most important marketing/PR posts ever written. That sounds like hyperbole, but I’m sincere.

The reason it is the most important is that it provides an easy to understand explanation of long tail keywords and how to leverage them on blogs, websites etc. it is important because:

• as we now know, the internet is the number one source of information, after word-of-mouth (in fact, it’s often another version of word-of-mouth, but let’s not go there just now…), for many, many people
• searches/Googles for the most searched for keyword terms are extremely competitive, so being strategic about how we articulate content on our sites (i.e. the application of keywords) is absolutely stone-cold imperative
• the use of long tail keywords means that we will be able to funnel the most targeted, relevant search queries to our online real estate (and please remember, identifying target audiences as opposed to those who are generally irrelevant is crucial for effective marcomms).

Eric talks about Google Adwords keyword tool as the baby to use, but Google’s Wonder Wheel is another fun and very useful tool to consider utilising as well – both free!

And if you’re a B2B marketer or PR professional, don’t think long tail is not for you. In fact, I think the incredible specificity of much of B2B marketing makes long tail even more valuable.

PR and marketing needs to identify, cultivate and harness the power of 3rd party advocates

3^rd party credibility is a fundamental strategic approach that excellent PR and marketing uses. It works well with thought leadership, in fact. This is because not all thought leadership needs to come specifically from the organisation that wants to leverage off the goodwill and brand impetus 3^rd party credibility delivers.

Using a non-organisational employee to deliver thought leadership that the organisation benefits from is a subtle form of brand advocacy. But there are other reasons why your company should use brand advocates:

• They create lots of content
• They are influencers
• They talk a lot!
• They use social media a lot
• They care about their own reputation and like to share and influence
• They are loyal to brands they love/like/respect/ have a personal ‘thing’ with…

3^rd party credibility, thought leadership and brand advocacy are not the sole property of online communication, either. They are relevant to the entire big, wide world of marketing and PR.

Are your assumptions about media relations in PR on the money?

In a recently syndicated post, public relations and communication pro Greg Matusky explored five media myths that he believes apply to many public relations and marketing professionals.

• Sometimes it’s actually okay to say ‘no comment’. The main message here being don’t interact with the media solely on their terms. Organisational imperatives are important, too
• The media can play dirty. They cannot always be trusted. Don’t take them on their word unless you have good reason to
• If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Query a journalist on their rationale for the story. It might actually help to provide them with information that suits the needs of both the journo and your organisation
• You can negotiate with the media. If you don’t try, then you’re leaving options and opportunities unexplored
• Media can sometimes surprise you by taking a perspective or running a story that logic doesn’t always tell you they will. It goes back to the section on content noted above. Have you got the content and rationale to convince?

For mine, another myth you can also add is that a PR media relations pro needs to have a network of journalists to get good media placement. Rubbish. The main element a PR pro needs for this is decent content, insights, thought leadership, POD in perspectives.

It is simply not necessary to have a journalist relationship that requires them to be a Facebook friend, to be going to each others’ kids bar mitzvahs or to have season tickets to the same sporting teams. Relationships, of course, help. But how do you think the PR pro-journalist thing became a useful relationship in the first place?

Because the journalist was consistently provided with quality content, customised to their needs with probably a little bit of ‘exclusivity’ icing on top.

Why we don’t need to measure PR

Measuring the impact of business activity, and oh yes that includes PR and marketing, is somewhat of a no-brainer for any pro that is serious about their work having an impact. How else can you tell whether your work is achieving meaningful, business-relevant outcomes?

Determining what those objectives should be is one thing, but taking an arch-eyebrowed contrary view, Sean Williams argues that sometimes, well, you don’t need to measure PR. Sean says don’t do measurement when:

• you’ve been flickpassed a dodo. No matter what you do it won’t make a difference
• your organisation isn’t going to change or do anything to meet stakeholders’ needs and wants. Clearly, stakeholders are going to crucify you. All you can do is hand them the hammer and nails and grimace politely whilst they are put to use
• the cost of measuring exceeds the cost of the program or work you are measuring. Time to take a punt on the impact. Or talk to a few of the target audience. Measurement for the price of a pint. There are worse ways to do business…

On the other hand, do measurement when:

• you care about the program’s results. Really care. You might even depend on the results for your own organisation’s or your own (i.e. Le job) existence
• you know you need to change and data is the way to convince the purse-wielding powers that be
• you want insights and information to speak confidently and persuasively on your key issue(s).

What are your thoughts on the propositions put forward by each of these five (plus) posts? What is missing from the arguments put forward? Should there be another topic included? Is there anything here which has challenged your own perceptions of what we need to prioritise and implement?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,500-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interacting with me through Twitter. You can also learn more about my PR and marcomms business through my About page.

It is marketing 101 to say that keeping a customer is cheaper than acquiring one. Ipso facto, it is cheaper to keep an employee than recruit one.

One dimension of this equation is that it is more productive for the organisation, too, as keeping employees obviates downtime lag which occurs as new employees get up to speed with their new position. Business continuity is not just optimised by retaining employees; its momentum is probably going to be enhanced.

Based on this thinking, it is arguably more important for employer branding to prioritise current employees than potential ones. The reality, of course, is that there needs to be a focus on potential candidates as well, not least because of some industry’s increasing levels of turnover due to social and demographic changes (did anyone say Gen Y?), including:

• what constitutes acceptable job tenure
• what employers should be doing to retain employees (doona days, anyone?).

It is with internal target audiences (i.e. employees) in particular where dialogue has an opportunity to profoundly engage. This truly is a captive audience. And it is an audience where public relations (in its internal communication or employer branding guise) should really be excelling.

The more that employees feel they are an intrinsic and valued component of an organisation the more loyal and productive, and hence efficient and value-delivering, they will be.

Media and social media for employer branding

Important and influential conversations and information on organisations can be found in both traditional and social media. This provides an opportunity for organisations to enhance their brand (for both external and internal audiences). One reason for this is the third party credibility of these conversations, whilst another is the momentum that increasing SEO will bring to bear on organisational branding (with its attendant, more specific, ‘employer branding’ roll-on effects).

For each organisation there are three relevant media segments that can be leveraged to gain employer brand benefits:

• Media relevant to the specific industry an organisation operates in (e.g. finance, engineering etc)
• HR/recruitment specific media, in both a vertical B2B and metro media
• Metro media that is not specifically related to HR/recruitment, but is interested in topical issues with POD.

Further to this, there is social media activity that is relevant to each organisation and very different and dependant on the organisation’s industry sector.

Another important facet is that there is a lot of both metro and vertical media that is online. An implication of this cross-fertilisation of media formats is that the SEO of specific organisations, due to conversations or articles on them, is impacted on.

 Thought leadership helping employer branding

Thought leadership is a highly strategic approach to reputation management and/or branding that can be applied across both media and social media with the specific aim of enhancing employer brand equity.

At the heart of an organisation being perceived as providing thought leadership is generating content. Generation of content occurs in three ways:

1. Interviewing the relevant leader who will ‘front’ the organisation in this program and determining what thought leadership he or she possesses, as well as his or her interests, passions, ambitions and capabilities. In many cases thought leadership content will be driven entirely by this one person. A variation on this is if there are multiple leaders who are going to be put forward as thought leadership leaders

2. Identifying ‘non-leader’ employees that can generate thought leadership content or who possess thought leadership capabilities. This content can be used in two ways:

- As ‘ghost written’ or ‘ghost generated’ content that has the leader’s name attached to it

- As content actually ‘authored’ by the employee, even though they are not being positioned as a leader as assertively as in the point 1 option

3. The communication professional researching, building and recommending content based on the interests, passions, ambitions and capabilities of the designated leader of this program that can comfortably fit into their vision and they are happy to put their name to.

An extrapolation of these approaches can be undertaking market research that provides insights in itself which can form the basis of thought leadership. Another layer, however, should be added to this wherever possible. This is the perspective that a leader will value-add to the content the research generates through analysing its implications and, if you like, adding insights to the insights. All three basic approaches noted above can be applied to this extenuation of the process.

In all of the above the communication professional adds value to the thought leadership content generation process, acting as a both a prompt and digging deeper, as well as a devil’s advocate. This entails undertaking desktop research and, potentially, speaking to other industry stakeholders to enrich the content.

Additionally, there is no reason why a multiple-pronged approach cannot be applied to thought leadership content generation.

The designated thought leader, of course, will always need to feel entirely comfortable with the content that is put forward under his or her name.

A challenge in the thought leadership content generation is making it relevant to the sponsoring organisation as well as the professional lives of the target audience (and potentially their personal lives as well). Believe me, as much as the upper echelons of organisational hierarchy like to think that their industry, their company and their thoughts make for fascinating reading, this isn’t always the case!

Whether it’s through market research or simply a solid bout of reflection and desktop research, it’s always worth having a good think about what content will actually achieve two very important goals:

• Engagement of target audiences
• Enhancement of employer brand.

For this thought leadership-driven employer branding to deliver best-possible outcomes, a communication SWOT will need to occur which, if applied in a best practice manner, includes a social media audit that includes the organisations’ competitors and their social media and traditional media activity.

How to apply employer branding at a tactical PR level

In my next post I’ll continue along the themes noted in this post. I’ll go into some tactical dimensions of how to roll out thought leadership for employer branding for both internal and external audiences.

In the meantime, why not share what experiences you have had with employer branding in the PR or marcomms space? Does PR have a role to play? Have internal audiences been focused on and, if so, how? This is a relatively young area of marketing and business communication – what do you think should be focused on? What are the strategic keys to the palace?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,400-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interacting with me through Twitter.

Other factors impacting on the teaching and practice of public relations driven by social media include:

• It is a new strand to include in the subtle weave of business communication that was not previously available
• There are a wealth of social media platforms to choose from
• For best practice utilisation, there will not be blatant duplication across the platforms, so customised and greater amounts of content may need to be prepared, which demands more resources
• The need for content to be produced in a style suitable for this form of communication (often brutally short and/or written in a pyramid style and not a more traditional narrative – intro, plot, climax denouement etc – style), placing more demands on the skill that PR pros need above any other – good writing
• It is often video, pure voice (e.g. podcasting) and/or images that will communicate more effectively through social media, so the need for skills in these areas has increased
• The rate of change in social media is eye-popping. This relates to both the number of social media platforms available, as well the continual change occurring on them: Facebook specialists, anyone?

Tactics vs. strategy: the real social media challenge

So the actual tactical implementation demands have emerged almost out of thin air (some skills are transferrable from website communication). This has led to pressure on where and how to include them into communication strategy, as well as the need to teach these skills at university before graduates hit the workforce.

My view is that because of the mind-bending plethora of technical subtleties in social media it is actually easier to write a social media strategy than to do the implementation. This is, seemingly, logic turned on its head. Now if you are the boss/leader and you have people reporting to you that are more savvy in social media to you – how do you work that one?!

The experience of youth

I’ve written before that the emergence of social media has allowed some younger practitioners to climb the career ladder more quickly than they might otherwise have been able to.

And pity the poor uni lecturers. Many have practical experience and most are no doubt very good at their job, but it must be hard work teaching social media skills to students who are quite possibly are lot more savvy and ‘native’ at its application than they are! It has certainly emphasised the value of internships whilst at uni and probably with agencies not in-house, as the latter are clearly looking to former for the lead in this area.

PR needs to get its head around SEO

A further challenge/opportunity is SEO, as Judy Gombita points out in an article in the Public relations 2011: issues insights ideas report. Judy purports that social media and the importance of web search as a means of sourcing information has emphasised the importance of PR pros getting their head around search engine optimisation.

Of course, SEO existed before social media, but the increasing move to online for information, relationships and communication – even of the most asinine kind – means we need to understand it and know how to practice it. Even if only at a content and technical helicopter level (e.g. keyword, metatags, H1 H2 tags etc in blogs).

What are the challenges you have found that the integration of social media into the PR portfolio of tactics has presented? How ‘up’ are you on SEO? Can you talk about it in a literate manner? Have you or your peers been accelerated up the PR career chain ‘before your time’ due to social media expertise and what are your thoughts on this – was it warranted and why?

The reasons for this range from its ability to help PR practitioners do our job to, to its commercial vigour how it impacts on the discipline’s place in the catalogue of activities that occur in business.

Social media and dialogue

The emergence of social media is giving PR and its practitioners an opportunity to practice dialogic communication (this should be a tautology, but in business this is, sadly, not the case) in a manner and on a scale not experienced before.

Dialogic communication is fundamental to the most rigourous conceptual underpinnings of public relations, that of two-way symmetrical communication, which provides us with a light on the hill to guide our journeys and, sometimes, pilgrimages.

Social media helps with both the reach of communication and its targeting. Inherent in the latter is that if resources allow, the communication can be customised more effectively to specific stakeholders. Much is made of customisation, but it takes time and money so the talk is often more impressive than the walk in this regard.

You can argue that dialogue – talk – is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Yes, I know the proof is in the pudding (okay I’ll stop now), but without dialogue opportunities for understanding are limited. So some talk is better than none. Assuming that at least some listening is being done by an organisation that is engaged in dialogue there will hopefully be some incremental organisational change, if that is indeed what stakeholders want.

Losing command and control in reputation management

Social media inherently provides stakeholders (including employees) with more ownership in an organisation’s brand equity. The platforms for speaking on a topic:

• have increased greatly
• are close to being free
• often have large audiences and/or very targeted ones, ranging from key influencers to stakeholders
• enable comments/messages/information to go viral at incredible speed.

Even for those organisation that haven’t been dedicated to a command-and-control approach, it is often a slap-in-the-face hello! for an organisation to realise their brand is controlled as much by their stakeholders as themselves.

Social media platforms are excellent for building a brand and selling products and services, but so do they present enormous challenges. Not least in crisis management scenarios.

Social media helping PR make money

New commercial opportunities have presented themselves to PR agencies due to the emergence of social media. Go to any social media conference. Who’s speaking? It’s not often in-house pros, I’m telling you. It’s agency folk.

This is doubtless partly because agencies are keener to market themselves to peer professionals than in-house pros, but it’s still a qualitative indication of the reality, as is the fact that more agency PR pros blog than do in-house operatives.

Agencies are the innovators, leaders and bosses of the knowledge bank in social media at the moment. So the best and most adept ones are creating new revenue streams and more money until – if ever? – in-house pros catch up and start creating a sophisticated in-house capability.

In-house PR should not build a social media capability

I’m a strong believer that you shouldn’t have an in-house graphic design team. Far better to have a panel of external providers in this area that you can use for different jobs. Some can be for bigger impact brand type work, some for more functional tactical work. Some for more complex work, some for more straightforward.

This has cost, brand and creativity benefits. And it keeps everyone on their toes, working hard and being very nice to you. Consultants are paid to be nice. Pains in the asses need to stay in-house because they’ll go broke or get sacked working in an agency (#PR truth!).

Analogous to this point is that due to the accelerating speed of social media, it might just be best to leave it to those really dedicated to the area. And to those who have to stay in front of new developments to be seen as literate in the area to get work (i.e. agencies much much much more than in-house pros).

Whether it is the deepening complexity and available options in Facebook or LinkedIn, or the emergence of new forms of social media, or changes in the preferences, use and jargon of social media users, it really makes a lot of sense to me just to leave it to an external expert. Then if they drop the ball (which can be determined through market research and results) you can go to a different supplier.

One caveat: you’d better still have someone in-house running the account who is educated on social media to at least some degree or else you won’t get sufficient ROI and the whole process will be one helluva potholed road.

Social media helping PR become a more influential business discipline

This is a topic that is also discussed in depth in the Public relations 2011: issues, insights and ideas free report. Suffice to say that due to social media’s scale, profile and ability to facilitate impact on reputation, relationships and sales, if PR gets it right it can be in the ear of the CEO, board, ministers and other power brokers more often than it could before.

There is also the ‘side-issue’ of how this will affect the marketing-public relations paradigm.

Marketing dinosaurs still think PR is a synonym for media relations. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but, no, some are still around. Marketing also often thinks they should own social media, whereas I believe it makes more sense for us to rule the roost (in jolly consultation with relevant parties, of course). But then again, I think marketing should report to PR anyway.

No matter the logic of either the PR or marketing industry on this issue, there is territory here to, let’s be frank, fight over and claim the ascendency on.

Don’t underestimate this issue. Social media could well be the BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY PR HAS EVER HAD, or will ever have, to get the ear of the organisational dominant coalition. And getting their ear because of this platform could obviously lead to enhanced esteem  for PR within organisations, potentially usurping marketing’s advantage in this area.

So what do you think – am I on the money or am I overestimating the scale of this opportunity? What are the challenges you have found that the integration of social media into the PR portfolio of tactics has presented? Tell us about how you have leveraged social media and, perhaps, integrated it effectively into other communication tactics. Has your reputation and influence (with anyone) grown because of your use of social media?

[This is a guest post by Trevor Young, aka The PR Warrior, Director of Strategy for Edelman Australia.]

The fact that many in-house communications departments have grown significantly in size means in some ways the need for external consultants has, to a degree, lessened. In reality, though, the fact that agency PR professionals are at the cutting edge of communication knowledge acquisition and implementation means they are a resource that cannot be done without.

Then the media landscape changed.

Not quickly at first, but it soon became pretty apparent the social web was unlike anything the modern-day communications industry has ever experienced:

• Blogging moved from being a geeky pastime practised in a darkened room to a highly visible mainstream activity.
• Backyard podcasters started gaining an audience (and therefore influence).
• YouTube became the world’s biggest search engine (after Google).
• Mark Zuckerberg – if you believe the film ‘Social Network’ – ripped off the Winklevoss twins and guided Facebook to half a billion users in under seven years.
• Twitter went from being a time-wasting novelty to an incredibly powerful, game – changing real-time medium.
• Then, just when you thought you had a handle on everything, Foursquare emerged and grew by an astonishing 3,800 per cent last year alone.
• And now Quora is taking the world by storm, with some observers boldly declaring it the future of journalism.

Shot in the arm or pain in the arse?

To some in our industry the advent of social media is one giant pain in the arse. It has upset the ‘communications applecart’ and meant we’ve had to learn a whole lot of new things, not to mention unlearn many old habits.

To others, however, the social web is a ‘shot in the arm’ for our industry – new technologies have levelled the playing field and changed our profession forever.

As professionals we need a raft of new skills in our vocational kitbag. We need to change the way we write. We need to be able to think and respond in ‘real-time’. We need to know our way around digital technology as well as we do a TV newsroom.

Agency PR leads the new world social order

A cursory glance at the most followed Australian PR people on Twitter reveals an over-representation of agency folk. It’s a similar thing with blogs and podcasts, online video, Facebook conversations, and ‘shiny new things’ like Quora. (LinkedIn I’m not so sure – I think in-house PR pros are well represented here).

But of course it’s not just about the technology, but what you do with it that matters.

It’s about immersing yourself in the culture of the social web as a way of better understanding its nuances and etiquettes. It’s about participating and interacting and learning and sharing. It’s about attending offline social media events and building connections that lift one’s profile (and that of their business or employer) in the broader online community.

In my experience, agency pros appear to have adapted pretty well to the changes brought on by social media, while their in-house brethren are still adjusting to the ‘new world (social) order’. While my observations for this article are confined to Australia, if I look at what happened several years ago a similar situation occurred in the US and UK (i.e. it was the agencies leading the new media charge).

While in-house PR practitioners were weighing up the risks of putting their names ‘out there’ on blogs, on Twitter or in YouTube videos or podcast interviews, consultants were taking a chance and experimenting with these new media channels.

Of course, this is understandable given agencies are commercial businesses that rely heavily on reputation and connections and therefore need to be out amongst it.

But by becoming more digitally savvy earlier in the piece, I think you’ll find agency pros started to kick away from their in-house peers. They experimented more, learned quicker, built connections and deepened their levels of knowledge in the social space.

So why is this the case and what does it mean for the PR profession?

Here are my thoughts – you might have alternative views and in the spirit of open dialogue that is the social web, I’d love to hear them. Am I heading in the right direction, or am I on the wrong tram altogether?

Agency people cross more boundaries day-to-day – they tend to be more entrepreneurial and participatory by sheer dent of the type of work they do, so it kinda makes sense they would gravitate towards the social web where connection is king and conversation is everything.

In-house practitioners on the other hand tend to be more narrowly-focused – they concentrate on the one business (their employer’s) and often have to answer to a conservative senior management that to this day is still trying (unsuccessfully) to control the message from within the confines of an ivory tower we call the boardroom.

I think it’s fair to say many in-house pros probably work in a culture that is inherently conformist and risk-averse. Big organisations hate change, and social media is ALL ABOUT CHANGE. This has to have an influence on in-house communications personnel.

Consultants, however, tend to operate in environments that are more open and dynamic and therefore are freer to experiment and take risks. More often than not they work in smaller companies and aren’t weighed down by process, protocol and policy.

Revitalisation of the PR consulting business

The agency business is being rejuvenated in a big way. All of a sudden clients need help not only with strategic communications generally but also in navigating the social web.

They face significant challenges in communicating effectively in a real-time networked environment and web-savvy PR consultants are ideally placed to provide independent and objective advice in this area. To join the dots with traditional communications methods, as it were.

But importantly, because external consultants tend to work across numerous industries and clients (and therefore are exposed to a broader variety of briefs, challenges and cultures), the level of knowledge and intelligence picked up along the way – and experience gained – is invaluable to smart in-house PR pros who can tap such skill and know-how for their own, and their employer’s, benefit.

* FOOTNOTE: Oh, I also know some savvy in-house practitioners who really get the social space, and, conversely, a number of agency people who are lagging behind so much I doubt they’ll ever really catch up.

[This post is included, with many other posts, in a free strategic PR report that can be downloaded free from this blog by email subscribing to it. The report - Public relations 2011: insights ideas issues - features professional practice-adding value from 10 global PR leaders (and me).]

So what do you think about Trevor’s thoughts? Are in-house PR pros dragging their feet? Are they following agency professionals’ lead? In what areas can in-house pros teach agencies something?

Trevor Young is a PR Warrior on the Frontline of the Communications Revolution – he’s a popular blogger, speaker and presenter who stands (precariously) at the intersection of public relations, marketing communications and social media…and tries not to get run over! In reality, Trevor works for Edelman Australia as its Director of Strategy + Innovation. He loves challenging the status quo of not only the PR profession, but the broader marketing communications industry. A journalist by profession, he has worked with some of the biggest names in the PR consultancy world before spending 12 years as an entrepreneur establishing three companies in the areas of public relations, experiential marketing, strategic communications and social media consulting. Trevor can be networked with at his PR Warrior blog, his LinkedIn profile and on Twitter @trevoryoung.

Based on the volume of digital chatter, I would have thought that apps were the drop-dead-gorgeous winner over mobile websites, though maybe apps are sexy but single. The corporate website may be a staid middle-aged gent with a spreading waistline and diminishing athleticism, but with the appearance of his charming multilingual sibling, mobile web, the dating game has entered another dimension.

The ground shifting move from desktop/laptop computer access of the internet to mobile phones with internet access – aka smartphones – is a tipping point, one on par with the emergence of social media. Both are of enormous importance to professional business communicators because of the internet’s increasing influence as a means to convey information and as a platform through which people can be influenced.

Of course, it is not the internet itself or smartphones that are informing or influencing people, it is the information and those ‘influencers’ who inhabit the jungle. But that is a side-point to this discussion.

For me, it is fairly straightforward in most cases for the mobile web to be prioritized over an app. An app may well be a beautiful thing, with all manner of aesthetically pleasing elements and easy-to-access games, but if it’s an either/or argument, mobile web is the default winner.

Describing mobile web and apps

A mobile website is one which will adapt to the smartphone that you are using (they run on different operating systems, though iPhone’s OS dominates). It takes whatever data the mobile website has decided it is appropriate for you to see and downloads it to your smartphone. You do not, therefore, get to see ALL the information that exists on the primary website you have accessed.

This ‘skinnying up’ of information speeds up your access to the website. The speed is also enhanced by the way in which the information is formatted. It will probably have fewer bells and whistles than a normal website.

The formatting customisation to the mobile web should mean smartphone usability is enhanced, making the information easier to navigate and read.

An app is similar to the mobile web in fundamental ways. The app also organises information in a manner that is conducive to ease-of-use on the smartphone. Key differences are identified below.

Cost: mobile websites are roughly one third cheaper based on my (admittedly minimal) research

Access and barrier issues for communication adoption

There are a range of download and access factors to be cognisant of when weighing up the mobile web and app options:

• Each time you access a mobile web (or normal website, for that matter), any updates that have been done to that site since you last accessed will be downloaded to whatever device you are using to access it – you therefore get the latest and greatest info
• There is no cost for accessing the mobile website
• To access the app the user must go through a download process that is more onerous than accessing the mobile website
• Some app providers charge for the app download, though often it is a small cost
• Once the app is downloaded to your smartphone, it will generally be quicker to navigate and find content than if you were accessing the mobile website. This is because all the app information is actually in the smartphone and doesn’t have to be ‘transmitted’ through the internet
• An implication of this is that if an app does an update, you must go back through the app download process to get the updated version. I imagine that the updates often don’t cost anything, but it is still a process and is a barrier to adoption
• The wireless internet speed of the location where the mobile web is being accessed will impact on its utility. For instance, in regional areas and especially remote areas with poor mobile/internet access, you can see the sense in having an app, such as for guides to national parks

• A subtle dimension of this is the importance of text to mobile web platforms, as opposed to imagery or video, as the latter can take up more bandwidth, slowing down the efficacy of the mobile web site. Of course there are low bandwidth approaches to imagery, but it is still a factor that needs considering
• This means apps have an advantage over mobile web as the former can contain more graphics and operate at a comparably faster speed than the latter.

Corporate website comes alive!

For me, the emergence of the mobile website seems to be an opportunity for the frumpy lady of digital communication, the corporate website, to get a lift in importance and relevance. Superseded, often incorrectly in my view, as communication mechanism by its beautiful and more intelligent social media daughter, the website now has a another chance, through customisation and speed, to get some skin back in the game.

Social media can still be accessed by smartphones, and in a very user-friendly manner, but for straight information on products and services, rather than opinions, the website is hard to beat.

Content development resourcing

Arguably, the content for a smartphone-customised website will be easier to produce than for an app and demand less human resources (i.e. content development, IT support), including for ongoing maintenance.

The speed of the whole process of development is likely to be quicker for smartphone-customised website.

Future-proofing public relations investment

The future is unknown in regard to apps and competitors/options to apps. But the web is standard (and stable for the long-term future) so the smartphone-customised website approach is future-proofing the work and the investment

Analysing user experience for communication excellence

Analytics are more advanced for smartphone-customised websites than apps, so user behavior and experience can be more effectively understood than with an app and, hence, mobile web can be more effectively customised on an ongoing basis using these findings.

Their ROI can also be, potentially, more easily determined through researching content accessed and concomitant impact on stakeholders.

Money can be made more easily from apps…for now

Revenue can be generated for organisations through sales of the initial app, as well as for various value-adds that the app may offer, but not include in its initial package. Advertising could be included in a customised app as well, which may not be an option on the corporate/mobile website.

Advice I have received said that the web is still in its infancy for revenue generating options, however, so expect more movement in this space in years to come.

Content is still king

I find it interesting from a public relations perspective that the emergence of apps as a competitor to websites only emphasises the importance, yet again, of content and writing, not to mention customisation of content for platforms.

This brings into play two fundamental PR skills:

• Getting the strategy right so your stakeholders are targeted in the right way using the most effective content
• Writing!

Summary

A website will be the first ‘port of call’ that most people with a digital communication mechanism or preference go to. An app will be, for the majority, a second tier preference, no matter whether it is free of not as there is still the barrier of making the effort to actually download it.

What comes first for you – mobile web or apps? Why? What do you personally prefer interacting with as a medium through your smartphone – web or apps? What are the pros and cons of each that haven’t been IDed above? Do you have a case study tale to tell to help us better understand issues noted in this post?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,300-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interacting with me through Twitter.  

PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial perspectives.

The report’s discussions baulk at mouthing status quo platitudes. The accepted is rejected. Plain sailing is spurned for the allure of stormy waters, where the risk is greater but the excitement heightened.

It will be a must-read for contemporary public relations practitioners who want to improve their skills, strategic capabilities and thinking; and for those who care about their profession. Stay switched on for its imminent launch, but in the meantime here is a sample of what to expect.

Issues management and social media

“The rise of social media has created untold new tools and channels for all public relations practitioners,” says Dr Tony Jaques. “But in the field of issue management it is having a dramatic impact not just on the day-to-day practice of the discipline, but is changing forever an organisation’s stakeholder relationships and the expectations of its stakeholders.

“The rise of social media is commonly described as creating a more level playing field between those with power and those affected by exercise of power. However a less recognised impact of social media is the way in which community expectation is changing, which has significant implications for the future of issue management.”

Public relations strategy

“Public relations is driven by strategy – comprised at its core by the who, what, when, where, why, how of communication and engagement – which is sometimes made to sound more complex than it actually is,” asserts Paul Roberts.

Paul says, “At the end of the day, what most people call public relations strategy can be boiled down to some very basic elements.” He calls these push and pull and contextualises his discussion around product launches and recalls.

“No one is going to care about your new product unless you make them care – push. When issuing a product recall your job is to communicate your company’s message in a much more reactive manner – pull.” Paul divides his explanation into…

• messenger – The Who
• message – The What
• timing – The When
• medium – The Where
• rationale – The Why
• logistics – The How.

The importance of teaching PR theory for PR professionalism, excellence and impact

“There is widespread if not universal agreement that education and training are important to advancing a field and helping it gain legitimacy and recognition as a profession,” says Professor Jim Macnamara, who leads the teaching of public relations at Australia’s leading PR-teaching university, University of Technology, Sydney. “But what is not agreed, and often controversial, is the balance between theory and practical skills.

“From my years in practice, I am sympathetic to these demands. But here’s where I am likely to stir up debate: I argue that we need to teach MORE THEORY.”

Professor Macnamara extrapolates his thoughts based on five key themes:

• It is a myth the PR academia is disconnected to practice and/or has no experience in it
• The importance of developing and teaching theory as well as practical skills and integrating theory with practice
• Devising communication strategy, with its attendant outcome-delivery tactical manifestations, requires depth of knowledge
• Critical thinking helps produce alternative, positive and proactive approaches. It is not an exercise in negativity or destructive approaches
• Challenging norms is facilitated by the teaching of theory, with positive implications for both the PR profession and engaging in, “wider debates and discussions of society.”

Derailing the dependence on Facebook for professional marcomms

“Facebook is nothing more than a media channel, albeit with a range of accompanying problems and issues that are both constructive as well as destructive,” says Dwight Whitney. “It is fun, entertaining and superficially interactive, which is why some people think of it as the new way to communicate versus being a channel for that action.

“The problem,” emphasises Dwight, is…“that these abbreviated versions of the ‘real deal’ are, in fact, creating people who now know of no other means of interaction.

“As communicators, we have a duty of care and obligation to understand the nature of this social media beast. Rather than being dewy-eyed cargo cultists, it behooves us instead to take a critical look at the pros and cons of this phenomenon.”

Dwight talks about how Facebook is bringing out the worst in some people (e.g. bullying) and that, “… intimacy and emotions are being replaced with a mega mall concept of friendship where ‘more is better’ and immaculate consumption replaces genuine connections.”

Ten PR professionals and academics from around the world (plus, ah, me…) are contributing to this report. What did you think about the views expressed in this post? Does there exist a healthy level of reflection within public relations around the world – on a strategic level, in the way we utilise tactical options such as Facebook and public relations status in the areas of business and society? What PR-relevant thought is keeping you up at night?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,200-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interact with me through Twitter.

PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial perspectives.

There are reasons why PR pros become proficient in a range of tactical disciplines before and/or during their career ascent:

• It gives them an understanding of the discipline and it’s potential
• It helps them manage and empathise with those who report to them that are responsible for their use
• It allows them to envisage where in the panoply of strategic options the tactic sits
• It builds their credibility in the eyes of colleagues, peers and potential employers
• It provides opportunities to take their future career in a lateral direction.

Genius PR blogger

In my view, I don’t think you should be allowed graduate from a PR course at uni until you have proven you can write a decent post, until you know the basic rules of how posts should be structured and until you know a few basic elements to do with blog backend, such as alt tags etc and their SEO implications.

Blogging has other benefits as well.

Writing is PR’s number one skill

I could leave it at that. But being me, of course, I can’t do that…

Writing is the number one skill of PR practitioners. It’s more important than being a nice person. Seriously.

I reckon it is used more frequently than face-to-face and telephone (i.e. verbal) communication. And it would be interesting to see, balancing out the frequency and strategic weight given to the different modes of communication, whether verbal or written communication carries more overall influence.

Whether it is email, media releases, social media comms, PowerPoint decks etc, so much communication is undertaken in a removed/remote manner by the PR pro. If you’re in PR and you ain’t got the skill, in my opinion you’d better:

• work damn hard to get the skill
• get very good at your other skills to make up for its lack
• try a different profession!

The logic to this point? Basically, blogging is an incredibly good way to become a better writer:

• You get to actually write (I know I know, practice sort of helps make perfect, or as close as you’re ever likely to get to it!)
• Due to the feedback that comes from blog commenting, you get to realise where you were and weren’t effective in your writing, helping you to improve your cogency and customise your writing to your readers’ needs
• The comments, the posts’ backlinking by other bloggers and, possibly, discussion through other blogs and even media, helps your self-esteem and encourage the realisation that, hey, you have talent!

(And as for being more important than being a nice person, sadly, you can still be a dropkick and work in PR, but it will make life miserable for you and your colleagues!)

Blogging is social media’s number one tactical skill

Oh-ho! Now we are talking.

Truthfully, the jury is out on this one. But if blogs aren’t the engine of social media communication then they are very, very close to it.

Clearly, depending on the social media campaign – its issues and objectives – then different platforms will be the most important.

From a reputational branding and thought leadership perspective, however, blogs are arguably the most important single digital communication platform. For some organisations, this includes the corporate website. But the website and the blog are for different purposes, in the main, so that is a bit of a void comparison – it’s conflict, though, and this is what the gurus tell me matters so conflict is what I’m giving you.

Thought leadership in particular is the Holy Grail for organisational differentiation and positioning. It exhibits expertise. It often provides it for nix. And it tells stories that, implicitly or explicitly, explain what the organisation stands for and/or is about.

Blogging is like exercise

Social media is like exercise. How can you develop the muscle to do the job if you aren’t practicing it? Ipso facto, how can you develop competence in blogging and, until you’ve done it for a while, provide advice on blogging?

Same goes for LinkedIn, too. How any PR or marketing pro can exist these days without a professionally filled out (and utilised, not just a passive obligatory-done sorta thing!) LinkedIn profile is beyond me. 

Making it real – tactics PR folks need to know

For me, if you say that PR pros don’t need to blog to get good at blogging, then you may as well say:

• PR pros don’t need to do media relations
• PR pros don’t need to be able to put together annual reports
• PR pros don’t need to be able to run an event
• Senior PR pros don’t need to be able to produce crisis management strategies.

In fact, PR professionals don’t need to practice much of what we are paid to do at all. So easy – I wish I’d known this years ago!

What benefits of PR pros writing blog posts did I miss out on? Or are blogs and their communication potential overrated? What skills do you think are the most important one for PR professionals to have?

PS: In a few weeks I am going to be launching a free e-report featuring the views of some of the world’s smartest PR professionals (and bloggers!) on this blog. Stay tuned for further news.

PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial perspectives.