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.”

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.

Flera marknader = flera konton?


Idag skriver Fritjof Andersson, från “Social Business”, ett inlägg om “Varför ditt företag ska ha flera, nischade konton på Twitter”. Fritjof menar att “om du har ett nischat konto som ger intressenten just den information hen vill ha, rätt paketerad och vid intervall som intressenten gillar – då lyssnar hen. Om du har många oilka produkter eller verksamhetsområden och kommunicerar alla dem via samma konto till flera olika målgrupper så måste kunden själv filtrera informationen, vilket gör den till mindre intressant brus“.
Fritjof skriver att “om du till exempel följs på Twitter av en person som följer 2000 andra konton, men inte är med på den personens twitterlistor, då finns du inte för den personen. Om du däremot har ett nischat konto som ger personen exakt det hen vill ha så kanske, kanske du kvalar in till listan av konton som personen faktiskt lägger tid på att läsa“.

Mina erfarenhter är att ju mer du anpassar dina budskap efter din målgrupp desto mer jobb, men samtidigt desto större chans att målgruppen får den information de önskar. Var gränsen går kan bara du avgöra.

Det mesta bygger förstås på att du känner och förstår din målgrupp. När det gäller Twitter så kan du ju inte välja dina följeslagare. Men du kan ju med fördel välja ut din målgrupp bland såväl dina följeslagare och som alla twitteranvändare i stort. Du kan med fördel välja ut de följeslagare du finner intressanta, följa dem och lära känna dem, genom att engagera dig i det dem har att säga. Och du kan självklart också följa dem du finner intressanta trots att de inte följer dig, kanske i någon förhoppning om att de en dag också väljer att följa dig.

Däremot vill jag inte på rak arm säga att det alltid är “bättre” med fler konton än färre. Jag brukar säga att man får det man förtjänar. Väljer du att skriva om ett nischat ämne, på ett nischat språk, så kommer du med största sannolikhet attrahera en nischad målgrupp. Postar du få och ointressanta tweets, så kommer få att följa dig. Släpper du många ointressanta tweets så kommer ingen annan än din mamma att följa dig. Släpper du några intressanta tweets så kommer du få några följeslagare. Släpper du många intressanta tweets så blir de fler. Börjar du engagera dig i dina följeslagare och ge riktigt bra feedback, så kommer de snart börja älska dig, och du kommer få fler och fler följeslagare.

Är ditt företag verksam inom fler mer eller mindre nischade områden, på fler mer eller mindre nischade marknader, så kan företaget göra klokt i att “borra sig ner” i varje enskild marknad. Genom att tillsätta dedikerade twittrare som sakkunnigt och engagerat kommunicerar om exakt det ämne marknade är interesserad av på dess eget språk, både innehållsmässigt och språkligt. Kanske via flera olika konton. Det kommer förmodligen att ge massor, men också kosta massor.

På MyNewsdesk brottas vi lite med dessa frågor också. Till skillnad från Twitter så skiljer vi på konto och marknad. Vi har skapat förutsättningar för företag att administrera ett eller flera pressrum med ett och samma konto. Exempelvis så har Norwegian, med ett och samma konto, förlagt pressrum till fem olika länder (geografiska marknader) där de är verksamma. De har valt att jobba med för varje enskild marknad dedikerade presskontakter och anpassad information på marknaden språk. Exempelvis finsk information på finska från finsk presskontakt, dessutom taggad i finska geografiska regioner och ämnen. OSV.

Norwegian har skapat pressrum för fem olika marknader/länder.

Norwegians finska pressrum

Ett annat exempel är KGK, som valt att bryta ner sin kommunikation på varumärkesnivå, där man med ett och samma konto skapat pressrum för varje enskilt varumärke, men ändå visat att de ligger under moderbolaget KGK Holding. För varje varumärke har man en dedikerad presskontakt, bilder, pressmeddelanden, nyheter, osv.

KGK har skapat pressrum för varje enskilt varumärke - och knutit dessa till moderbolaget KGK Holdings eget pressrum.

Ett av KGK's varumärken - Hella - har fått ett eget pressrum med för målgruppen dedikerad information och presskontakt.

Båda dessa företag har ansträngt sig till det yttersta för att tillgodose sina målgruppers intressen vad det gäller skräddarsydd information och kommunikation. Vilket har kostat i tid och engagemang, men också givit mycket tillbaka.

Men vi har även många exempel på föreag som finns på många olika marknader, men ändå valt att jobba med ett “one size fits all”-koncept. Samma pressrum, pressmeddelanden, presskontakter, nyheter, bilder, osv, på samma språk för alla. Kostar inte så mycket men kanske heller inte ger så jättemycket tillbaka.

Exakt vilken strategi ditt företag ska jobba utifrån, kan bara ni själva avgöra.

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.

Bli lika (a)social som Telia på 20 min


Huruvida ett företag har en blogg, finns på twitter och Facebook säger inte ett mycket om hur bra de är på att bygga goda relationer med sin marknad och målgrupp. Det ger möjligtvis en indikation på att ambitioner finns men inte mer än så. Det är snarare hur väl företagen och dess målgrupp lyckas kommunicera via dessa tjänster, som kan ge indikationer hur bra de är på PR. Därför blir jag återigen så förvånad när jag ser tendenser på att folk i branschen fortfarande tror man plötsligt blir social bara för att man “finns på” Twitter.

Jag syftar på Episervers undersökning av sammanlagt 40 svenska företags hemsidor där de flesta företagen inte kunde svara “ja” på fler än max fyra av nedanstående 13 frågor. En av “vinnarna” var Telia som kunde “ticka av” (som Telias kommunikationschef uttryckte det) nio av ovan nämnda 13 kriterier.

  1. Finns blogg?
  2. Finns forum/community?
  3. Finns ”Följ oss på twitter”?
  4. Finns ”Detta sägs om oss på twitter”?
  5. Finns ”Följ oss på Facebook”?
  6. Finns ”Detta sägs om oss på Facebook”?
  7. Kan man dela innehåll via flera kanaler?
  8. Kan man betygsätta innehåll?
  9. Kan man ange favorit (gilla)?
  10. Finns film/webb-tv?
  11. Finns chat/automatiserad chat/webbrobot?
  12. Kan man maila via mailformulär alternativt mailadress/er?
  13. Finns telefonnummer

Kommunikationschef, LG Wallmark, var därefter snabb att utse Telia som vinnare i kundrelation på sin egen blogg med rubriken “Telia bäst i Sverige att använda sociala medier för kundmötet på webb”. Om jag inte hade känt LG en smula, och vetat att Telia faktiskt är rätt bra på att hålla en hyfsad kontakt med sin målgrupp på några av webbens mer sociala plattformar, så hade jag bara fnyst åt uttalandet. Men jag tycker trots allt att rubriceringen är en smula förhastad. För – som sagt – inget av ovan nämnda kriterier säger hur bra ett företag är på “att använda sociala medier för kundmötet på webben”.

Värt att nämna är att MyNewsdesk i dagarna har skapat förutsättningar för vilket företag som helst att inom loppet av 20 minuter bygga upp ett “social media newsroom” som uppfyller majoriteten av ovan nämnda kriterier, till en mycket blygsam kostnad.

Och – nej – det gör dem inte heller särskilt sociala – hux flux. Därför är rubriken på detta inlägg lika förhastat fel som LG’s. Men förutsättningarna att bli duktig på att skapa relation med sin målgrupp har aldrig varit så bra som nu. Upp till bevis.

Så går det när en PR-kommunikatör och en journalist byter jobb


Journalister och PR-kommunikatörer har alltid hyst någon form av hatkärlek till varandra.

Hat när den ena helt upphör att förstå den andres situation och behov. Hat när PR-kommunikatören försöker pracka på journalisten irrelevant smörja på fel sätt, vid fel tidpunkt. Hat när journalisten fullkomligt ignorerar de mest sakliga, ödmjuka idéer till uppslag oavsett vad de handlar om, eller förvränger en historia till oigenkännlighet med ett gytter av sakfel.

Kärlek när den ene hyser respekt och förståelse för och kunskap om den andres situation, behov och integritet. Kärlek när PR-kommunikatören sakligt, ärligt och öppet redogör för vad som har hänt. Kärlek när sakkunniga tillåts svara på frågor istället för medietränade. Kärlek när när information görs tillgänglig istället för otillgänglig. Kärlek när journalisten utnyttjar den sakkunnighet och stundtals rika källa till information som företag och dess representanter faktiskt utgör. Kärlek när journalisten kritiskt granskar det som verkligen hänt och redogör för det, istället för att frossa i snaskiga ovidkommanden.

Tidningen PRWeek’s Kate Magee och Bite Communications PR-konsult Mat Gazeley bytte jobb under en vecka för att försöka sätta sig in i och förstå den andres situation. Lyssna till deras erfarenheter:

Mot bakgrund av detta kan det vara intressant att kika på resultatet av den undersökning som Cision och Bulldog Reporter nyligen gjorde med syfte att försöka ta reda på hur väl samarbetet mellan PR-kommunikatörer och journalister egentligen fungerar. Undersökningen ger dig 1.729 journalisters syn på saken.  Och här följer en sammanfattning:

  • over 57 percent said that PR people help them generate story ideas at least every month. Slightly more than 30 percent said such assistance happens at least every two weeks
  • overall, 94 percent said that PR assistance helped generate at least one story idea during the course of a year, while 6 percent reported never getting PR assistance
  • 17 percent of respondents rely on PR assistance and press releases to develop 40 percent or more of the stories they file, although 61 percent use those aids in only one to 20 percent of their stories
  • 52 percent reported that they promote their stories on the social Web
  • about 54 percent reported editorial staffing cuts
  • 46 percent noted a demand for greater story output
  • 24 percent were asked to work longer hours
  • 24 percent were asked to take on multiple beats
  • 45 percent said they were annoyed by PR people who don’t know the subjects or beats the respondent covers
  • 59 percent said that PR people send irrelevant material
  • Almost 27 percent said PR people don’t fully understand the stories and subjects they themselves are proposing for coverage