How Tumblr is changing the PR industry


Well the original title from the Read Write Web is “How Tumblr is changing journalism”. But it doesn’t really matters. I think content curation activites, and related tools for that, already has, or for sure will change, the way we share stories with each other, as information junkies, as journalists. as PR communicators, as people.

A few month ago I wrote a post about “Why Marketers Should Care About Content Curation”. As a matter of fact I didn’t write it. I just curated another post by Derek Edmond from Search Engine Land with a similar headline “Why B2B Search Marketers Should Care About Content Curation”. And he wrote it from a SEO perspective:

“B2B search engine marketers realize new content creation is a critical tactic in an effective SEO strategy. But it is also realized, as illustrated in the Marketingsherpa chart below, the level of effort required to successfully develop new content may be significant, in comparison to other tactics. Therefore, with limited resources and immediate lead generation goals, it is not surprising when we find that new content generation falls behind other SEO initiatives on the priority list. Enter content curation. While not a substitute for new development, content curation can help B2B organizations provide important information to their market.”

Since Google launched the Panda I don’t know If this matters anymore? Because as you might know, Google Panda is the “filter designed by Google to spot low-quality content”, as Catch Pope from the Australien “Curated Content Agency” put it.

If you’re not sure what “low-quality content” is, maybe Amit Singhal, Google’s head of search, explanation on the official Google blog, make sense? He says:

“Below are some questions that one could use to assess the “quality” of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.

  • Would you trust the information presented in this article?
  • Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
  • Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
  • Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
  • Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
  • Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
  • Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
  • Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
  • How much quality control is done on content?
  • Does the article describe both sides of a story?
  • Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
  • Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
  • Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
  • For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
  • Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
  • Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
  • Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
  • Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
  • Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
  • Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
  • Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
  • Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
  • Would users complain when they see pages from this site?”

And as you might see, some of these bullets seems to criticize the curated content; or at least some of the curated content seems to be “low-quality content”. And Google might punish your site for that, seen from a SEO perspective? But… I still think marketers (and others) should care about content curation, because that’s a great way to share interesting stories etc with your stakeholders, the people you care about. And not to forget – it’s not just about sharing, it’s about contribution and reflections as well.

Therefore I was not surprised when Richard MacManus recently wrote the article “How Tumblr is changing journalism” for Read Write Web.

As you might know Tumblr is a super easy and smooth blogging tool, but also a sharing tool, or a content curation tool. Becuase that’s pretty much how people are using it. Tumblr themselves says the tool “lets you effortlessly share anything”.

And I don’t know if the curation trend is one of the reasons why Tumblr, with it’s 12 billion page views per month, just hit knockout on WordPress, which is not a curation tool?

So I think it was just a question of time before the journalists, who are already experts on rewrites, would start using the tool (or others) “to power” their news websites, as Richard MacManus put it.

He mention the Tumblr-powered news service, ShortFormBlog, as an example.

“The concept behind ShortFormBlog is very simple: to publish really short posts throughout the day. The site publishes over 200 posts per week, an average of about 30 per day.”

Pretty successful as far as I know.

So now we’re waiting for the trend to really take off in marketers and PR staff’s newsroom.

As a matter of fact, IBM were using Tumblr when they already in November, 2008, launched the Smarter Planet project to help people grasp IBM’s Smarter Planet initiative. The site “uses frequently updated, “microblogging” entries to illustrate how the Smarter Planet vision is unfolding across IBM and across the world.”

Social Web continue to grow – the companies follows – without beeing social?


Check out the new stats and infographic from Search Enginge Journal. The web is getting more and more social. Rapidly. No wonder… after all we’re human beings who are pretty much social, right? Numbers of users and contributors are just booming. And companies are following.

But what’s their socializing status? Really? God knows.

71% of the companies (which?) are using Facebook, 59% are using Twitter, and 39% are using blogs in their “marketing”.

My experience though is that many of the companies are still using social media as another channel for their content. Take a look at their Facebook pages for an example. Some of the companies are just pushing their stories out, without listen, and then they’re counting the numbers of “likes” without answer the questions: Am I really committed to my audience? Am I engaged? Who is really engaged? If the likers never comment the companies updates or never contribute with anything to the wall. And vice versa… what’s left of the social part?

Let me refer to what Kevin Roberts, CEO World wide, Saatchi & Saatchi, says in his book “Lovemarks“:

“Forget the information Economy. Human attention has become our principal currency. Job number one for any marketer these days is competing for attention. Whoever you are. Wherever you are. But once you’ve captured that attention, you’ve got to show you deserve it.

The process really only has two steps – so why does everyone find it so hard? I think I’ts all because we obsess over the attention part and forget about why we need that attention in the first place…. We need the relationships.

Emotional connections with consumers have to be att the foundation of all our cool marketing moves and innovative tactics.So it’s time to stop racing after every new fad and focus on making consistent, emotional connections with customer and stakeholders. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.

The great journey from products to trademarks and from trademarks to brands is over. Trademarks are tablestakes. Brand are tablestakes. Both are useful in the quest for differentation and vital to survival, BUT they’re not winning game-breakers.

Today the stakes have reached a new high. The social fabric is spread more thinly than ever. People are looking for new, emotional connections. They’re looking for what they can love.”

The company’s social graph – and how to benefit from it


I had a inspiring session during the Sweden Social Web Camp (SSWC) at Tjärö a few weeks ago. We were ca 50 social media evangelists that did discuss what ever a company has a social graph or not? And if it does exist; how does it look like, and how can the company use it?

At least my conclusion was that I don’t think the company itself nor the brand itself has a social graph. Because a brand is not a human being. Anyone may be connected to, and even have relations with brands but not social relations. Because you got to be human to socialize. But your brand is a social object and your products as well. Because people are talking about them. Some are more engaged than others, and some more angry than others. But people are sharing their thoughts about your brand. And I guess the sum of these people, that have your company (and/or your brand) as a social object, are the same thing as the company’s social graph, or at least the sum of the parts of their social graphs that are related or relevant to the company and/or their brand. We’re talking about the company’s employees, customers, stakeholders, and others.

Further on – if that’s the case – I do think the company can use and cultivate that kind of a social graph – with an extreme outcome. I’ll tell you why and how further down in this post. But first – let’s take it from the beginning:

We’re all human beings, right? We’re people. And people are social. We group ourselves into social networks, and talking to each other about different kind of social objects, and engage ourselves in communities.

It doesn’t matter if we’re consumers, suppliers, communicators or journalists. We all got to understand how we socialize, which is “the process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies through conversations, behaviors, practices, rituals and education”…. that “provide the individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within their own society”.

A network is just elements connected to each other. But social network is individuals connected to each other.

And the Social Object is “the node” in these social networks. The Social Object is the reason why two people are talking to each other, as opposed to talking to somebody else.

And a group of individuals that have these social objects in common and share these interests with each other – are members of a community. Everyone on this planet is a member of a community, I guess?

Then Mark Zuckerberg took a part of this social environment to the web, and more or less invented the term “Social Graph” which describes the relationships between individuals online. Frankly it’s the global mapping of everybody and how they’re related.

My experiences are that companies and their marketing staff intellectually do understand the situation, and are in some sort of consideration phase, but that they are truly stressed about this “social graph” and the relationship-humbo-jumbo talk.

But if we do agree that “the sum of the people, that have your company (and/or your brand) as a social object, are the same thing as the company’s social graph, or at least the sum of the parts of their social graphs that are related or relevant to the company and/or their brand”. Then it wouldn’t be to hard for the company to benefit from this social environment. Let me give you a few examples what you as a communicator can do:

  1. Identify who’s connected to your brand.
  2. Find out if your brand is a social object (with sub subjects), and if that might have resulted in different kind of communities.
  3. Find out how these communities look like.
    1. Who are members.
    2. What exactly are they talking about.
  4. Become a member by yourself and serve the other members in these communities.
  5. Inspire those who are only connected to your brand but not talking about it, to become members and engage, the company’s employees in particular.
  6. Help these communities to grow and flourish as a whole.

I think for an example these guys (and organizations) might be connected to your brand, among many others:

  • Employees (and former employees)
  • Members of the Board
  • Owners
  • Customers (and former customers)
  • Supppliers
  • Retailers
  • Partners
  • Industry spokesmen and thought leaders
  • Industry colleagues
  • Competitors
  • Ambassadors
  • Journalists

They know your company. And they are all connected. And they all are important to you. But that doesn’t mean they are talking to each other nor with you or your staff about your brand. They might only be connected. They might be connected to your brand and talking to each other about it, but not with you and your staff. They might be connected to your brand, yourself and your staff as well, but not talking about it with anyone. Or they might be both connected to your brand, yourself and your staff, and talking about it with everyone.

These ones who are talking about your brand, have for sure different kind of needs and wants. And they probably talking about that specific angle of your brand in different kind of forum, in different sub communities.

No matter what group they belong, they all can be a member of these communities that talking about your brand.

Can your company own a such communities? Probably not. You can’t own a social object. You can’t even own your brand as a social object. They all are parts of the social environment!

But you can help an existing community to grow and flourish. Especially the ones who are connected to your brand.

You can be a proud member of the existing ones. You can invite other peoples to the existing ones. You can also set up “your own” (another) forum for an existing community to help it grow. And you can call that “your community” if you like. Just because that’s the community you’re involved in, or created a new forum for (as the owner / administrator).

But a community is boundless. Some of the members can easily pop up somewhere else, and the rest of the members will follow.

If you’re interested in this topic, please read “Your company has a social graph” as well.

Communication a huge and confusing melting pot


Everybody in communication business talks about it everywhere! The new and ever-changing communication landscape has turned the media industry on its head. The confusion is now complete. Much of what we have learned and become accustomed to is no longer valid. This applies particularly to media, journalism, public relations, marketing, and sales. The professionals within each of these fields are either desperately holding on to their old identities, or are groping around for new ones.

The role of journalists is questioned. Previously clear concepts such as “journalist” and “journalism” have become blurred. The same goes for “media”. What is a media today? And “PR” … what is PR? It’s obviously something else today than it was yesterday. And what about “marketing”…

“Markets (and marketing) are conversations” as the Cluetrain Manifesto puts it. Conversations are based on relationships. Just like PR. Because PR’s is all about relationships, right? It’s all about relationships with both the market and those who influence it, including journalists. However, since all consumers now have access to almost exactly the same “tools” and methods as traditional journalists, it seems like the market has in some way also become the journalists. The market represents a long tail of new journalism and new media that perhaps has the greatest influence on a company’s market and might perhaps be their key opinion leaders. “Put the public back to public relations!” as Brian Solis put it long ago.

People have started to talk to each other in social media at the expense of, or sometimes in tune with, traditional media. They’re no longer writing letters to editors. They would rather publish their news ideas directly on the Web. Media consumption, and production, publishing, packaging and distribution in particular, have rapidly moved in to the social web. And both the PR and Marketing communicators are following, or are at least gradually beginning to do so.

As the market moved to the web, and the web has become social, marketing communication has become “social” too. Companies have started to talk directly with their market. And I mean “talk”, not pushing out information. Campaigns with no social component become fewer and fewer. “Monologue” ad banners, with decreasing CTR and increasing CPC, are becoming less acceptable. Google revolutionized with Adwords, Adsense and PPC. Press releases written by former journalists synchronized with Adwords and presented as text ads, turned things upside down.

Aftonbladet has been very successful with advertorials where only a small ad-mark distinguishes the ad from an article produced by journalists. This method is about as successful – and deceptive – as “product placement” in TV and film. That method has gone from small product elements in parts of a program to a complete sellout of the entire series or film. (In Sweden, think Channel 5’s Room Service and TV4’s Sick Sack.) But what can the television business do when the consumer just fast-forwards past the commercials, or worse still, prefers looking at user-generated TV like YouTube?

What will newspapers do when consumers ignore their banners? They will convert advertising into editorials. Or vice versa: they will charge for editorial features and charge companies to publish content on their platform, without involving any “investigative” journalism.

IDG calls their version of this “Vendor’s Voice”, a medium where companies publish their “editorial material” (it used to be called press information) directly on IDG.se and its related websites. The service is conceived and hosted by Mynewsdesk. It works pretty much like the Apple App Store; it is possible for any media to set up their “channel” (the media) on Mynewsdesk, promote it, and put a price on its use.

Essentially, when companies publish their information in their own newsrooms via Mynewsdesk, they can also easily select any relevant channels for the information in question. The service still has the internal working title “Sponsored Stories”, which today may seem a little funny when that is the exact same name Facebook uses for its new advertising program, where a company pays for people in its network to share information about that company with their own friends.

Isn’t that pretty much what PR communicators strive for? It’s in the form of an ad, but this type of advertising is simply bought communication – just like some PR seems to be – with the purpose to “create attention around ideas, goods and services, as well as affect and change people’s opinions, values or actions…”

But the press release… That’s information for the press, right? Or is it information that is now a commodity, often published in the media, directly and unabridged, much like the “sponsored stories”? Maybe it is information that can reach anyone that might find this information relevant. They might not be the press, but they are at least some kind of journalist, in the sense that they publish their own stories, often in same media as “real” journalists, in platforms created for user-generated content.

Everything goes round and round: side by side are readers, companies and journalists. All collaborate and compete for space and reach.

The causal relationship is as simple as it is complicated. People are social. People are using the Web. The Web has become social. People meet online. The exchange is rich and extensive. The crowd has forced the creation of great services for production, packaging, processing and distribution. These are exactly the same building blocks that have always been the foundation for traditional journalists and the media’s right to exist. Strong competition has emerged, but there is also some  interaction and collaboration.

People have opted in to social media at the expense of the traditional media. They rely on their own networks more and more, which has forced advertisers to find a place in social media too. Traditional ads are replaced by social and editorial versions that are designed to engage or become “friends” with your audience, talking to them as you would talk to friends.

The media are in the same boat and are becoming more social and advertorial. Users are invited to become part of both the ads and the editorials. UGC (user-generated content) is melded with CGC (company-generated content) and even JGC (journalist-generated content). Journalism goes from being a product to being a process characterized by “crowd-sourcing”, before ringing up the curtain on a particular report or story. As the newspaper Accent writes on their site:

“This is a collection of automated news monitoring that we use as editors. The idea is that even you, the reader, will see and have access to the unsorted stream of news that passes us on the editorial board. Please let us know if you find something important or interesting that you think we should pick up in our reporting. ”

This is similar to how companies today present their increasingly transparent and authentic communication in their own social media newsrooms, where the audience is invited to contribute their own experiences and opinions, and partly acts as a source of story ideas for journalists.

All in all, it’s a wonderful, fruitful, but oh-so-confusing melting pot.

PR-kommunikation om Steve Jobs fick välja


I ett blogginlägg ifrågasätter digitale PR-rådgivaren Tor Löwkrantz PR-kommunikation som bara bygger på det kommunikatören vill säga istället för vad hans publik vill höra.

Tor menar att PR-kommunikation inte sällan handlar om att trycka ut budskap om något, som enligt kommunikatören, handlar om något stort och viktigt som har hänt. Ex:

“Världsledande supermojängen ger oöverträffade möjligheter att tillgodogöra användaren försprång i varje utmaning genom att sammanföra befintliga kärnkompetenser…”

Tor kan själv konstatera att denna typ av kommunikation är värdelös för att inte säga skadlig (om jag tolkat honom rätt).

Tor menar att “Ingen bryr sig överhuvudtaget om vår supermojäng. Vi är oviktiga för de flesta. Ingen väntar på att svälja vårt budskap”, och syftar sannolikt på sig själv som PR-rådgivare. Och drar själv slutsatsen att alla PR-kommunikatörer bör “tala på publikens villkor”. Och inse att det sällan handlar om “mottagare” och “målgrupper” som per definition bara passivt tar emot, utan just om kommunikation mellan människor på bådas villkor.

Jag håller med Tor i mångt och mycket, men inte i allt. Jag håller med dig om att framgångsrik kommunikation måste tillgodose alla inblandades behov och önskemål, och på så sätt bygga på alla berördas villkor.

Men jag håller inte med dig om att ingen bryr sig om supermojänger. Folk älskar supermojänger. Många älskar att få höra spännande berättelser om supermojänger. Folk älskar att passivt konsumera historier om supermojänger utan att aktivt behöva bidra.

Men folk hatar i allmänhet skryt om supermojänger. Folk hatar tråkiga, och irrelevanta historier om supermojänger. Folk ogillar folk som bara pratar utan att lyssna. Folk ogillar självupptagna människor som pratar om sig själva utan att fråga.

PR-kommunikatörer är inget undantag.

Därför gör PR-kommunikatörer, liksom alla männsikor, oklokt i att trycka upp sin målgrupp i ett hörn (inbox) med självupptagna, skrytsamma, tråkiga, irrelevanta budskap utan att först varken lyssna eller förstå.

Men desto klokare i att först lyssna och förstå sin omgivning, och med utgångspunkt från det, förse sin omgivning med kul, intressanta historier, utan att kräva att den aktivt ska delta i någon form av konversation, men vara öppen och mottaglig för konversation, om så önskas.

Slutligen finns det ett stort värde i att överraska. För folk vet inte alltid vad de vill ha. Det är därför Steve Jobs aldrig gör marknadsundersökningar. Eller som Henry Ford sa i samband med att han lanserade T-Forden: “Hade jag frågat folk vad de ville ha, så hade de sagt en snabbare häst”.

Båda deras “supermojänger” blev en skräll. Och om de jobbat som PR-kommunikatörer, så kanske de skulle gjort samma sak, som de gjorde som grundare av två av världens största bolag, tillika intressantaste supermojänger.

De skulle ha haft en egen idé vad som är bra och dåligt, gjort verklighet av den bästa idén, och släppa den där folk enkelt och effektivt kunde hitta den.

Kritik mot Facebooks Sponsrade nyheter


Jag gillar inte Facebooks nya social ads i form av sponsrade nyheter. Lika lite som jag gillade deras första sociala annonsprogram “Beacon”. Frågan är om jag någonsin kommer gilla den typen av program. För jag har också svårt för Tupperwarepartyn. Och känner avsmak inför Buzz Agents.

Men vad har de gemensamt? Alla använder “vänner” som kommersiella budbärare. Och det gillar jag inte!

Facebooks nya sociala annonsprogram “Sponsrade nyheter” funkar som så att när dina vänner “gillar”, checkar in på, eller delar med sig av annan information från företag på Facebook, som också är anslutna till annonsprogrammet ifråga, så visas aktiviteten inte bara i dina vänners nyhetsflöden, utan även som en annons i spalten längst till höger.

Bild: InsideFacebook

Facebook säger sig ha testat detta under några månader, och menar på att det givit en massa mervärden till deras kunder (företagen) i form av ökad exponering och varumärkeskännedom.

Facebook hyllar sitt eget nya annonsprogram - Sponsrade nyheter

InsideFacebook skriver:
“Seeing that a friend has checked in at Starbucks is a much more compelling reason to visit than a standard advertisement telling a user to go get a coffee.”

Men vad säger användarna? Borde det åtminstone inte vara opt in på såna här program. Många menar det och somliga anser att Facebooks sponsrade nyheter just är en tam variant av det tidigare och så hårt kritiserade Beacon.

InsideFacebook fortsätter:
“Some users may not want their content turned into ads, and since there’s no way to opt-out or turn off Sponsored Stories, some protest should be expected.”

Pressinformation på Facebook – hot eller möjlighet?


Journalister vill inte bli pitchade på Facebook. Det är heller ingen källa till press- eller företagsinformation. Det framgår av PRWeeksMedia Survey 2010 där 43% av de tillfrågade journalsiterna i USA blivit pitchade via sociala nätverk. Trots att de inte vill det.

Information om och från företag säger sig åtminstone dagstidningsjournalisterna hellre få direkt ifrån företagens hemsidor (90%), med hjälp av Google sök (82%), direkt kommunikation med PR-ansvariga (79%) eller från webbaserade pressinformationstjänster (opt in) (36%). Trots det använder 33% av journalsiterna generellt sett sociala nätverk i sin research. Men bara ett fåtal genom att bli ett “fan” verkar det som.

Frågan är om Facebook är rätt plats att för dig som PR-kommunikatör att möta journalister på? Att förmedla sin pressinformation på? Och i så fall hur?

Den klassiska frågan från kommunikatörer nu för tiden är huruvida de ska använda social media i sitt PR-arbete, och i så fall hur?

För många är det närmast en självklarhet, för andra helt otänkbart. Mitt korta och generella svar på frågan är att om du som kommunikatör vill skapa goda relationer med ditt företags marknad (och målgrupp) så bör du först lyssna på den för att förstå dess behov och önskemål. Och sen börja engagera dig när och där du får indikationer på att målgruppen mottaglig för dialog och utbyte.

Det är dock långt ifrån säkert att hela din målgrupp är social på webben, eller ens får information från sociala medier. Och även om den är det, så är det inte alls säkert att den är intresserad av information eller en dialog med ditt företag där, eller någon annanstans. Men eftersom människor idag i allt större utsträckning söker sig till webben för socialt utbyte, inte sällan i sk sociala medier, så är sannolikheten ganska stor att man också kan bedriva framgångsrik PR i dessa sammanhang, trots allt.

Det fina med den sociala webben är att du som PR-kommunikatör på ett betydligt effektivare sätt nu än tidigare kan bygga bra relationer direkt med din marknad, och inte nödvändigtvis via “språkrör” som journalister. ”Put the public back to public relations” som Brian Solis uttrycker det i sin bok med samma namn. Dessutom har alla dina intressenter som väljer att ventilera sina åsikter ett väldigt stort inflytande på varandra.

Men i detta gytter av relationer med inflytande på vandra, har det förmodligen aldrig varit viktigare, och kanske mer gynnsamt, att slå vakt om just dina viktigaste opinionsbildare; de som har störst inflytande på ditt företags marknad.

Journalisten har (fortfarande) ett mycket stort inflytande generellt sett. Så pass stort att man som PR kommunikatör gör klokt i att slå vakt om och tillgodose dessa och andra nyckelpersoners (key influencers) intressen mer än någonsin.

Frågan är vilka behov och önskemål dessa personer har? Frågan är var de finns, var de är mottagliga för information och ev utbyte? När? Och hur?

Även om du som kommunikatör kan konstatera att din marknad finns på Facebook, och att du därför dragit igång en Facebook-sida, så kvarstår frågan huruvida journalisterna och andra av dina viktigaste nyckelpersoner finns och är intresserade av din närvaro där?

Enligt PRWeeksMedia Survey 2010 så har 79% de tillfrågade journalisterna ett konto på Facebook, och 61% av dem har blivit pitchade den vägen. Men hur många är egentligen mottagliga för pitchar i detta sammanhang?

Min tro är att de flesta journalister väljer att endast visa en del av sin profilinformation. Vilket betyder att de endast kan få meddelanden från sina vänner. Således krävs det av dig som kommunikatör att du först bli vän med journalisten för att kunna pitcha henne. Men om man får tro PRweeks undersökning rätt, så vill ingen av de tillfrågade dagstidningsjournalisterna bli pitchade på Facebook. Det framgår när de svarade på frågan: “Vilka av följande media vill du att PR-kommunikatörer använder när de pitchar dig?”


För rent krasst; hur många journalister finns på Facebook av profesionella skäl? Enligt undersökning ovan använder 33% av dem sociala nätverk generellt sett som verktyg för research. Som del av denna research vet jag att en del av dem väljer att bl a följa företag och liknande på just Facebook. Vilket betyder att de måste bli ett “fan” eller “like” som det numer heter. Vilket blir lite knasigt då en journalist som vill “bevaka” ex Sverigedemokraterna på Facebook måste “gilla” dem för att följa dem.

Knasigt blir det också när journalisten inser att företagens uppdateringar ofta är riktad till företagets kunder med budskap anpassade därefter.

För när Chadwick Martin Bailey och iModerate Research Technologies frågade 1.500 personer varför de hade valt att gilla företag på Facebook, så framgår det att majoriteten av företagets “fans” är just kunder, eller liknande.


När PRWeek frågar journalisterna i samma undersökningen “på vilka sätt de vanligtvis får information om ett specifitk företag”, så visar det sig att hela 92% av journalisterna hämtar information från företagen från företagens hemsidor. Ingen önskar få den från Facebook.

Av detta kan man dra slutsatsen att Facebook kan vara ett utmärkt sätt att möta och interagera med sina konsumenter och liknande. Men kanske inte det bästa sättet att nå ut till journalister och liknande.  Men även om det inte är det bästa sättet, så kanske det trots allt finns anledning att erbjuda journalister och liknande det dem efterfrågar även på Facebook. (I synnerhet för det fåtal som nöjer sig med en Facebook-sida som sin hemsida.) För likväl används de sociala nätvärken allt oftare för research.


Journalister önskar bra uppslag till nyheter och reportage; rå och kärnfull information, som snabbt och sakligt svarar på frågorna vad, när, av vem, hur och varför?

En variant, som vilat på MyNewsdesks skrivbord en tid, är att ge dig som PR-kommuniktör möjlighet att synkronisera din befintliga kommunikation med journalister under en dedikerad flik på Facebook-sidan; eget ”rum” för journalister där de får sitt lystmäte tillgodosett enligt ovan.

Pitchengine.com var en av de som först förverkligade den möjligheten. Jag har personligen inga höga tankar om att lägga kommunikation utanför statusuppdateringarna där aktiviteten är som störst, men heller inte negativ, då detta kanske är den hittills bästa lösningen, trots allt.

Ni journalister, PR-kommunikatörer, och liknande – vad anser ni?