Archive for the ‘PR’ Category
Will PRs and journalists own natural search?
July 23rd, 2008
You might say, “who cares?”, but for me this is a refreshing new angle on the ‘who owns online PR?’ discussion that has been going on within the social media industry for a while. Of course I’m going to like suggestions that PRs might be in line to own SEO, but setting my vested interests aside, this line of thought helps explain why it is crucial that journalists and PRs understand the long-term trends that are happening in natural search.
Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker made his own rather crude observations on the subject on Monday, in his overly optimised article, “Online POKER marketing could spell the NAKED end of VIAGRA journalism as we LOHAN know it.” He doesn’t say anything new - online headlines have always been important for driving traffic and natural links, and the only difference is that journalists are waking up to the impact optimised copy can have on their authority and popularity rankings - but the article drives home the SEO control that journalists have at their fingertips, should they choose to use it intelligently.
Similarly, Leon Bailey Green has today contributed a post to the E-Consultancy blog entitled: “Is the role of the SEO dead and should PRs own natural search?“, where he argues “off-site optimisation, link building or link baiting, should actually be in the domain of PR professionals”. He concludes “so if a web developer can build a search engine friendly website, a content writer knows how to write search engine friendly copy and an online PR guru can get blogs/websites/forums to link to that content, where does that leave an SEO?”
Regardless of who might own SEO in the future, or whether anyone will, it’s becoming more and more important for PRs and journalists to have a basic understanding of how relevancy, authority and quality of content will increasingly be the metrics used by search engines to rank sites. In addition, social networks are in some cases beginning to displace search, by creating trusted networks of relevant recommendations - which will make the role that PR plays even more important.
The tactics of PR and journalism don’t necessarily need to change, but individuals working in these sectors will have to be very good at what they do.
Natural search can appear very scientific, and I personally am on a mission to understand the techniques as well as I can…but ultimately, PR as an industry needs to focus on the quality of its output. There’s no place for fakers!
Nike judged on 10 year-old brand name
July 18th, 2008
Those of you reading this in the UK will know that knives are hot news in the British media at the moment, due to a spate of stabbings mainly focused in the London area. It’s an unfortunate and horrible youth culture issue which has reached the highest level of Government and is covered daily by all the major news outlets.
So, on reading that Nike has had to withdraw its shoe range oddly titled ‘Air Stab’ i was a little surprised to say the least. Not that the range had been withdrawn, but that it existed in the first place. Surely no brand could be that callous or stupid to actually try and benefit from this horrible situation? Well no, of course not, but the headlines may have already done the damage.
On further investigation, according to the BBC’s article, it turns out that the shoe was first launched in 1988 as a STABility running shoe, which led to the name: Air Stab. The range was then relaunched two years ago, and Nike made the decision to remove the range from its London store in the light of recent issues. Some might argue they should have removed it earlier, but it’s not quite the story that one might first assume.
However, and unfortunately for Nike, the story doesn’t end there. Nike also has a shoe range called Pocketknife, and the discussion around whether this should be removed as well is gaining pace, check Brand Republic’s forum as an example.
From my perspective i certainly don’t think the name of a sports shoe will affect crime, but it could be argued that the names are ill-advised. I expect Nike’s UK PR team have been busy over the last few days.
Chris Littmann’s post on the Sporting Blog tells the other side of the story.
The 5 stages of Twitter from a PR perspective
July 16th, 2008
I began experimenting with Twitter at the start of the year, and in that short space of time have observed a dramatic change in usage patterns of the micro-blogging tool.
From a communications perspective, this can be broken down into different stages of adoption, which I feel offers valuable lessons in how user behaviour is evolving as a whole across social networks. Only today, within my own network of followers/followees, I felt we might be on the cusp of a new adopter stage, and so I thought it might be a useful exercise to analyse this in my own words, to see what lessons can be learnt.
- Discovery - at the start of the year (and admittedly the year beforehand), Twitter was very much in early adopter stage. The tech-savvy were the first to try it and decide whether or not it was a useful communications tool. This stage was characterised by a sense of ‘elite’ ownership i.e. those using it felt inspired by the fact that they were living at the cutting-edge of social media.
- Experimentation - Twitter asks the question : ‘What are you doing?’. Following early-adopter phase, users experiment with how they can respond to this question in an interesting way, increasingly pushing the boundaries of usage. Functionality moves from basic status updates to more engaging conversation.
- Self-promotion - as Twitter networks grow, users realise the profile-raising potential of the communications tool. Until very recently, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of people using Twitter for PR/self-promotion purposes. A growing trend has been to use the tool as a platform for seeding blog posts, product launches etc.
- Collaboration -we’ve been heading towards this for the past month or so, but today I saw Twitter come alive as a truly collaborative tool. Social media encourages openness and honesty, and within networks Twitter can be a great place to ask advice and receive timely, expert feedback. It’s a great virtual tool for the sharing of ideas, and bouncing around of creativity.
- Criticising - it’s bound to happen. Just as Twitter reaches its usage peak, people will start to want more than the tool is technically capable of delivering. Users will start asking “what’s next?”.
Which leaves us with ‘Migration’. I think Twitter has a bit more life left in it yet though!
Credit crunch: it is time for celebrities to use their PR influence for the greater good?
July 9th, 2008
I’m a big fan of Phil Spencer and Kirstie Allsopp, the presenters of C4’s Location, Location, Location, and was impressed to hear a few weeks back that they were going to be lobbying the Government to make changes to Stamp Duty. As Kirstie said, “I’ve been advising the Conservatives on some policies but this is bigger than party politics… it’s people’s lives.”
Good on ‘em I thought…about time someone in the public eye stepped up to use their influence in a meaningful way. But what’s happened since? Very little as far as I can tell. The lobbying campaign is still in planning phase it seems, while the property crisis contines to worsen.
I realise that many celebrities do a lot of work for charity, both and home and overseas, but at a time when the country is facing recession, should celebrities active in relevant sectors make better use of their thought leadership status? It always helps to have a recognisable name when you want to get your views heard on a matter.
The hugely successful Jamie Oliver ‘School Dinners’ campaign always comes to mind in conversations of this sort, but few others jump out at me.
I’d be keen to hear of UK-specific examples where celebrities are using their PR voice to lobby on matters of national concern, as it’s a subject that I’m interested in investigating further.
Phil and Kirstie, if you fancy responding, you’d make my day!
What’s wrong with digital agency comment?
July 1st, 2008
“Client side comment only please…no agency comment needed at this stage…desperate for brand-side comment – can you help?”
In recent weeks we’ve spotted a growing trend in such requests from digital trade journalists, either directly or through feature tracking services that we subscribe to. It seems journalists are increasingly less interested in digital agency comment, and more and more focused on brand-side opinion only.
As an ex-journalist for New Media Age, I can appreciate the need for big brand comment, but what I don’t understand is why those at the coalface, the specialists in digital marketing, creative and design, are being sidelined?
I thought a story always had two sides?
Reading between the lines, the problem is being compounded by an absence of readily available client-side comment on digital matters. From my experience this is either down to a brand not prioritising a digital trade comment opportunity, or acknowledging that the subject matter might be out of their depth.
At Liberate Media we’re always willing to do a journalist a favour and help out with these sorts of requests, but it’s getting increasingly frustrating to have to battle to offer the agency side of the story. If you want to talk to a brand about their digital investment, why not also speak to the agency in charge of their digital strategy?
I’d be really interested to hear what features writers/editors think about this. Is it a growing trend, or merely coincidence?