Global PR Blog Week 1.0

I've often heard brands defined as the way you feel about a company when you hear its name or see its logo. If this is the case, we've never been able to control a brand. What happened to Union Carbide's brand in the wake of Bhopal? Coca-Cola's after "New Coke?" Would Enron's brand have been better off had there been no Internet?

I would argue that public relations is the practice of managing the relationships between an institution and its constituencies; a positive brand image is an outcome of that effort. If managing relationships is the goal, we should become fairly adept at capitalizing on blogs. (Not that we will -- just that we should.)

I've been writing about blogs and their impact on PR for a couple years now, but I still wonder about their influence thus far. How many people actually read blogs? Of the 3 million out there, how many are like my 15-year-old daughter's blog with no impact on business or audience perceptions? To be sure, blogs can influence reporters -- but only those who read them. Are there any statistics suggesting how much the media are influenced by blogs, or are we all just speculating?

I have no doubt blogs and participatory journalism will evolve into a hugely influential part of the media mix. I'm just not convinced we're there yet. And I would argue with one media expert I heard who said she was giving up on traditional media relations channels altogther and working strictly through blogs. The traditional media still has plenty of influence. (I read recently that the offline population of the U.S. is not expected to get online, but we still need to reach them.)

Posted by: Shel Holtz at July 12, 2004 12:07 PM

I think blogs re-create communities but on a new platform and as you say without all those boundaries that inhibited people from linking up in the past. That means the 'mass' part of the market that has allowed marketers and advertisers and PR people I'd have to say to think of audiences as largely message recipients is breaking apart.
We've all sat through those presentations where advertisers explain that on seeing the ad (and therefore the offer and the call to action) our 'targets' then trot down to McDonalds or wherever and buy that product or service. Now, people are far more likely (at least those of us inhabiting the blogosphere) to check the ad-hype with out blogger mates - this is so easy to do and such an interesting way to find out stuff that it must affect how we 'manage' those relationships.
I think the use of the word 'manage' by Shel is a key turning point here. We always tell clients that we are going to 'manage' those relationships. Its always been a bit of a stretch to suggest that we can really do this in the way someone manages an internal corporate project but now its even more dubious. The general public, not just bloggers, does not want its relationships managed anymore. They are cynical about that, they resist anything that looks like management.
Blogging has come along at the right time and is meeting an emerging demand. In that context, I think we need to re-think what we mean by 'managing relationships'.

Posted by: Trevor Cook at July 12, 2004 12:54 PM

Trevor, I agree with you completely about publics not wanting relationships managed. However, my use of the term is based on a structured, rather than a haphazard, approach to constituent relationships. Companies without PR departments, for instance, don't manage constituent relationships -- they just happen! Imagine a crisis without management. You can't manage the message or the perception -- only influence it -- but "management" refers to an effort to understand and meet the needs of different audiences...at least in this context.

Posted by: Shel Holtz at July 12, 2004 02:57 PM

I agree with a structured approach as opposed to haphazard. I also think that those PR departments too often use structured and managed as a way avoiding doing much at all. I'd like to see us use blogs as a way of moving to a structure that involves more rather than less communication even if that is at the expense of a little less control and maybe even a bit of messiness from time to time. Interestingly, I think that some messiness (well short of chaos and confusion) can be very appealing to stakeholders as it shows a willingness to participate in conversations in an open way and it looks a lot more authentic. In particular, I think sacrificing immediacy, responsiveness and authenticity in favour of getting everything word perfect and on-message all the time can lead to stakeholder disaffection.

Posted by: Trevor Cook at July 12, 2004 05:21 PM