“Engagement” – what everyone’s talking about but no one shows


What struck me during this year’s PRSA International Conference in Orlando was that almost none of the 100+ pr practitioners that I met, did what everyone was talking about. Almost none of the sponsors of the conference, who’s offering pr-tools, really offered what the speakers was talking about. Almost none of the speakers, I heard, recommended the pr-tools that the sponsor offered. Isn’t that a great paradox? Or/and just a shift?

So what was everyone talking about? “Engagement” of course. Engage with the people that matters. Find them, listen to them, understand their needs, serve them and treat them as humans, because they are humans, like everybody else. Not once in a while. But continuously – 24/7.

They were talking about engagement with influential people. Particularly about people with more influence than others. Some of them are (still) journalists. But these day, many of them are thought leaders, customers, industry spokesmen, blogers, and others, or a mix of these as well.

Words and phrases like “conversation”, “social media”, “share”, “followers”, “trust”, “transparency” and others, all of them intimately connected with the concept of “engagement”, were on everyone’s lips as well as on banners, magazines, give aways.

I think Pitchengine’s ad, in the program sheet, described the situation pretty well:

“I have listened to the same social media presentation over and over again. I have heard the word “engagement” 27 times today. What I need is the real thing.”

Unfortunately – I think Pitchengine stumbled at the finish line when the company claimed to deliver the entire solution as “the real thing”. Because they don’t. Maybe they  should have written: “What I need is to show engagement”, and also offer that kind of platform?

But Pitchengine offers a sharing platform for content. Maybe one of the hottest on the market right now. And invites their audience to “create your own media empire”. Great! But where’s the real engagement thing?

Marketwire, Businesswire, Cision, PRNewswire, Vocus, Meltwater Press, Mymediainfo – they’re all stucked in their solutions in terms of mediadatabases and distributionslists. Some of them, like Meltwater Press and Cision (Cision Influence), have added (or will add) value to the profiles of the targets, in form av their social preferences and previous works. And that’s great, as well! But – still – where’s the real engagement?

As a matter of fact, all of these companies (still) offer their clients “management tools” with which they can organize and manage their “target groups”. Most of them are offering monitoring services to let their clients get an idea of what’s going on out there. Some of them are brilliant, like Traackr, which let their customers to find their most powerful influencers.

But – then again – what happens with the real engagement, in terms of understand and serve this VIP’s, based on what they’re saying and eventually asking for?

As far as I can see and understand, the real engagement take place in communities and networks, not in or as a result of “management tools”?

Chris Brogan – one of the key speakers at the conference, and the author of “Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation and Earn Trust” recommend his audience to use Google Reader to build their “listening stations”. Exactly what Eric Schwartzman, co-author of “Social Marketing to the Business Customer”, did during his Social Media Boot Camp work shop.

Chris Brogan says in his book:

“Once you have determined where your community is on the web, or perhaps after you’ve built your own online presence as  a meeting place for a group that doesn’t yet have a place to belong, the next step is to engage a community.
This community may be a loosely joined group of people with individual minds and opinions who share some common interests or passions via their own unique perspective.

Here are five steps to help you reach into your community and learn:

  1. Listen comes first. Pay attention to where people (that matters to you) interact.
  2. Measure the conversations.
  3. Take small steps. The first actions you make shouldn’t be intrusive. You just want the community to know you’re there and you’re friendly. Create opportunities for small, memorable exchanges. Build you profile as someone know by being around and monitoring conversations, recognizing who’s a regular and who makes decisions.
  4. Lead a new initiative. When the time is right and you’re a bit better known, try making a move to bring your self more into the center of things.
  5. Profit! Okay, we’re kidding. But seriously, small, daily action helps. And being inside the right community is a great way to build business, glean insider knowledge, and get an edge in your niche.”

So why do PR practioners insist to organize and manage their fellows rather than engage with them? I just don’t get it.

PRSA Facts:
Chartered in 1947, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is the world’s largest and foremost organization for public relations professionals. PRSA is responsible for representing, educating, setting standards of excellence, and upholding principles of ethics for its members and, in principle, the $4 billion U.S. public relations profession.

The PRSA International Conferences are one of the largest and most renowned in the U.S PR industry.

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.”

Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will


Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011. The social media’s popularity continues to grow rapidly from an US perspective, connecting people with just about everything they watch and buy. And the Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website! Scary? Take it easy, Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will.

Vinny Lingham, Entrepreneur & Search Engine Marketer, wrote the 13th of Juni 2007 that “Facebook is the new internet”. He said:

“I am constantly astounded by what FaceBook is doing – they just get it! Yahoo should have really paid the $2bn they asked for them last year – they’re probably worth $5bn by now! If FaceBook becomes another Google – I think everyone at Yahoo will probably revolt!
I personally think that MySpace sucks – and they are a bunch of Generation W’s that just don’t understand what the web is about! FaceBook will overtake MySpace globally well within 18 months – that’s my prediction!”

He was probably not the first guy that realized that something big was going on. But he was one of them. And I remember I did laugh at his headline by then. Maybe I shouldn’t. I knew that Vinny didn’t mean exactly that. Nor did Mark Zuckerberg when I once met him during an early FOWA conference in London, even though he already had some delusions of grandeur.

But – seriously – what’s going on – really?

Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011, which shows that “the Social networks and blogs continue to dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the Internet. In the U.S., social networks and blogs reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users and represent the majority of Americans’ time online. Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website.”


Since Vinny’s post, hundreds of engaged people has speculated if Facebook is the new Internet or not.

From my point of view, I still don’t think that Facebook will become the new Internet, if you may call it so, but what I do understand is that people are social, and we love services that treat us like that, with all of our social needs and wants. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Mark Zuckerberg has succeeded in doing just that – to provide social services for social people. And it is becoming increasingly clear that other web services haven’t responded to our requests on that point.

Around that time when Vinny Lingham wrote that “Facebook is the new internet”, Jeff Jarvis wrote the historical quote from Mark, in the Guardian, when the “powerful newspaper publisher beseeched Mark Zuckerberg” in Davos “for advice on how he could build and own his community. The famously laconic Zuckerberg replied “You can’t.” Zuckerberg went on to explain that communities already exist and the question these magnates should ask instead is how they can help them to do what they want to do. Zuckerberg’s prescription was “elegant organisation”.”

So as long as no one else will organize the web to help people “to do what they want to do” on the Internet, maybe Facebook will continue to take lead on that. The question is how far they could go?

From my point of view – not so far. Facebook is and probably will be one of the most important network for socializing, and – yes – we might book our flight tickets there as well. But… The most likely scenario is that the whole world wide web will be “Facebookalized”. Facebook will work in symbiosis with the rest of the web and vice versa. Thousands of small web applications will permeate Facebook. And thousands of Facebook applications will permeate the entire web. “Like buttons”, “Sign up with Facebook”-features, are just a few examples. I think the web – the Internet – will be socialized, and we have to thank Mark for inspired lectured the rest of us to execute on that.

Mark won’t organize the whole web for us; the crowd will. But Mark is one of them. A true thought leader. Thank God (Mark) for that 🙂

And – no – this is video doesn’t show the entire life of Alex Droner, but it might show a tiny part of it.

Journalists loves your homepage – but not your newsroom


Yes – Journalists do love your homepage – but not your newsroom. 9 out of 10 are using the homepage in their research. But they can’t find the newsroom. And when they do, it’s not up to date.

It’s pretty clear that the company homepage no longer is, or at least should be, the hub of their communication. We do know that people hanging around all over the web, the social web in particular, where they connect with and get inspired och informed by others. Therefore it’s extremely important for companies to meet, connect and socialize with their audience wherever they are aswell.
But – so far – the homepage still is one of the most natural and common way to get information from the company. This applies to journalists in particular.
According to PRWeek’s Media Survey 2010, 93% of the respondent journalists were using the company home page during the course of their research for a story. Only Google Search were more common, and a not-too-wild guess is that they used Google to find website, don’t you think?

PRWeeks Media Survey 2010

Bulldog Reporter – TEKGROUP International – 2010 Journalist Survey on Media Relations Practices, confirm these facts:

“The importance of corporate website and online newsroom as a preferred source of information for journalists continues over the past year, with nearly 97% of journalists indicating that they use such sites in their work. Nearly 45% of respondents report visits more frequently than once a week, and more than 84% report a visit at least once a month. Busi- ness journalists make greatest regular use of corporate websites and online newsrooms, with 59.2% report- ing visits more than once a week; and fully 87.4% of business technology journalists report such visits once a month or more. The most avid users of corporate websites are online journalists, almost 75% of whom visit corporate websites or online newsrooms once a week or more frequently.”

TEKGroup International Journalist Survey 2011

In previous studies by TekGroup International, they found out the Top 10 Reasons to have an Online Newsroom:
1. Journalists expect a company to have an online newsroom
2. Journalists believe that all companies will have an online newsroom
3. Journalists visit company online newsrooms often to very often
4. Journalists visit both large and small-to-medium sized company online newsrooms
5. Centralized location and 24-hour access of press materials
6. Control and delivery of corporate message
7. Measurement of communication efforts
8. Media request management
9. Social media interaction

This leads us to understand how important it is that the website has a full-blown press room. And just because we would understand what a full-blown press room is, they also examined that matter and came up with Top 20 Elements to have in an Online Newsroom:
1.    Searchable Archives
2.    PR Contacts
3.    News Releases
4.    Background Information
5.    Product Info/Press Kits
6.    Photographs
7.    Help/FAQ
8.    Crisis Communications
9.    Events Calendar
10.    Executive Biographies
11.    Media Credentials Registration
12.    Financial Information
13.    Info/Interview Request Form
14.    News Coverage
15.    Video
16.    Social Media Page
17.    RSS Feeds
18.    Audio
19.    Blog
20.    Twitter Feed

Unfortunately “more than 57% of journalists generally agree that it’s difficult to find press materials that address their interests. What’s more, almost 42% of respondents generally agree that it’s difficult even to find organizations’ online newsrooms.”, says TEKGroup.

TEKGroup International Journalist Survey 2011

And we do know that small to medium sized companies, in particular, are often lacked of resources to create newsroom of these kind. But…

Not anymore. Mynewsdesk has created – and now launched –  a hosted newsroom solution which let you create one of these “full-blown press rooms” both on Mynewsdesk as your homepage, without any developers. Yes – with no technical skills – you can easily set up them by yourself. And – yes – it does include most of the elements mentioned above.

Our marketing department has written a few words about this on their blog. Check it. And try it.

Please note that the studies above are biased. After all TEKgroup International is an “Internet software and services company, develops Online Newsroom and E-business software solutions for the public relations industry”. But, my experiences make me to believe that these reflects the realitiy.

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.

People 2.0 shot Mubarak down


I had a speech yesterday for Svenska PR-företagen in Stockholm, Sweden. I talked about the ever-changing media landscape and what that means for the PR industry. I told the audience it’s not about web 2.0, it’s all about people 2.0, which is a powerful combination of the the social web and people. Exactly what we now see in #Egypt.

“Yesterday, after 17 days of protests, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak gave a speech to the Egyptian government that made it seem like he would not be stepping down.” says Techcrunch. And like Alexia Tsotsis, I do think the fall of Mubarak was the combination of these to factors; people and the social web.

Alexia Tsotsis, Techcrunch, says:

“Pulling a country of 82 million people, around 17 million Internet users, 60 million cellphone subscribers, 7 million home phones, and 5 million Facebook users offline essentially created the largest flashmob ever, with around 8 million protesters in the streets across Egypt today according to reports. Says Zohairy, “Shutting down the Internet was the most stupid move this regime has taken. It gave the revolution huge media attention that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.””

But, indeed, most of all it’s about people and their call to action. As Devin Coldewey wrote in Techcrunch aswell:

“Twitter and Facebook are indeed useful tools, but they are not tools of revolution — at least, no more than Paul Revere’s horse was. People are the tools of revolution, whether their dissent is spread by whisper, by letter, by Facebook, or by some means we haven’t yet imagined.”

But unlike Devin, I do think that the social web is a tool of revolution, even if tons of revolutions did appear without that, for an example the fall of the Berlin wall in German.

Take a few minutes to take part of that moment of history and compare that to what happened with Mubarak:

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.