Don’t count the mainstream media out yet
Posted by PRGirlz Alumni on July 4th, 2006
I’ve been having an interesting ongoing debate with Shel Holtz, sprouting from a post from last week. You can check out the original volley of comments here but I thought I’d respond via post instead of another comment in hopes someone else will have their say on the topic. (FYI, many thanks to Shel for a kind mention on the For Immediate Release podcast last week, episode 151.)
Basically, we’ve been debating about… well, quite a few things actually. But I think the main point of contention is the relative weight and merit of mainstream media (or MSM) vs. blogs in terms of influence. Shel’s last comment related to my assertion that, generally, what happens in the blogosphere isn’t news until a mainstream media outlet reports on it. Shel sez:
I would suggest that tens of thousands of people, if not more, were influenced to NOT buy Dell Computers by the spread of the Jarvis posts and would have been so influenced whether or not the mainstream media turned it into “news.” And that’s the point. It doesn’t have to be “news” as defined by MSM in order to be influential. And that’s why PR needs to get over the notion that its first avenue of communciation is always with the media.
Now, Dell might be an exception here – if your customers are obviously computer-users, then you can probably assume they’re online and can be reached and influenced that way. But, in general, the media is still the first avenue of communication for many, if not most, PR goals - I don’t think social media is threatening the influence of mainstream media yet. Now, it’s a poor PR person for whom media relations is the only tool in their toolbox. Media is obviously not the appropriate avenue to reach many kinds of stakeholders. But if an organization needs to reach a broad base of consumers, then MSM is still king. Rightly or wrongly, this will probably continue to be the case as long as PR folks – and their clients, even - are still measured by the heft of the clippings book.
What say you?
July 4th, 2006 » 8:32 pm
I say it depends on the desired outcomes, the characteristics of the audience, and a host of other factors that need to be considered in developing a strategy. But in this era of social computing, the kneejerk reaction to seek media attention first and foremost is not a wise approach. Strategic planning is more important these days than ever.
July 5th, 2006 » 1:42 am
My sense of things is that we are between two worlds; the broadcast world and the narrowcast world. If we stand with one foot in both of those worlds then it takes a well considered strategy that makes all the right “reads” given the client you are serving and the communities you need to have a conversation with (opps, did I give away my preferred future?).
Good question, thanks for keeping the conversation alive and well!
July 7th, 2006 » 3:07 pm
Hi, Shel & Michael:
Totally agree that strategy is important and, obviously, there are times when the “conversation” that social media tools facilitate might serve a client’s specific needs – we use social media tools for some clients here. I come from a niche B2B publishing background, so I understand the power of reaching a small but targeted audience. But I think the demise of MSM is exaggerated – to toss out the media relations plan and take the whole kit and caboodle to the ’sphere would be folly. (Not that I think either of you are recommending that.)
Fundamentally, I think the language used around social media is overheated and that’s what gets my back up. I mean, Me2Revolution? Revolution? Really?