My preference is to ignore these things. But, every once in awhile I feel compelled to respond.

This one, I actually couldn’t help following while on a business call. I know. I should just ignore it, right? But, if we always ignore these silly claims the myths can become accepted truths. That bothers me. So, I respond.

HubSpot, pulled out the something is dead meme, in a sad effort to drum up interest in a book, Web site and Web TV program.

I left a comment on their post. Michelle Honald (@my_chelle), of The University of Ohio, followed up with an excellent comment, too. You should read Michelle’s comment. It’s great.

I also commented on Twitter.

• I had such high hopes for @hubspot … but this post is, IMO, the “Single most clueless post I’ve read in awhile. ” http://bit.ly/cumSe
• @hubspot thinks of PR as primarily media relations … nope, and it hasn’t been for years! Also, they fail to realize that most PR is local.

After all that, there is an attempt by others at HubSpot to clarify their stance. You’ll find it at about 22:45 of their HubSpot.tv podcast for October 9th. No, their clarification does not do the trick. They are still too quick with broad generalizations. They are still in their own walled garden of SEO, etc. beliefs. They seem solely focused on broad national and global brands, yet suggest (as best practices) ideas that do not serve the best interests of many PR practitioners – even today.

Tiffany Sellers, from Clemson (Web and Twitter), posted a request that I write about my feelings on the topic. She writes, “@rdfrench Would you consider a follow-up post to explain your position? As a PR student, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.”

So, in the spirit of PROpenMic and PR higher education, I’m sharing some new and old thoughts. This meme has reared its ugly head before, so I have posts about it already here on infOpinions.

My problems with Brian Halligan’s post on HubSpot are as follows.

• Link bait memes are not good content. That phrase, good content, is the clarion call of HubSpot. They repeat it over and over. What a shame, they don’t follow their own advice.
• The lead in of Halligan’s post belies either a lazy author (unwilling to spend the time to be specific) or someone with merely a pedestrian knowledge of the breadth and depth of PR practice.
• The practice of PR is so broad that most people, in my experience, do not grasp just how broadly it is practiced.
• Most PR is relatively invisible. It is mostly local. It is that local reality that makes so much of what HubSpot and other self-proclaimed gurus dole out as sound advice actually serve no good purpose for client or practitioner.

Certainly, you will want some attempt at evidence to make the above claims worthy of debate. So, here is a bit from some previous posts.

First, I offer this rewrite of a comment I made responding to a reader on previous post.

Too often, people tend to use the universal “PR” tag to describe a practice they clearly do not understand. (Remember the CBS lawyer on the CBS Sunday Morning program?) Why don’t they take the time to do some research and speak with at least a tiny bit of knowledge.
 

Using O’Dwyer’s list of the top 192 PR firms, we learn that a reported total of $129,9885,316 in revenues is generated by only 8,361 PR practitioners. (That’s, of course, provided these self-reported numbers are correct.)

 
It is most often these 192 firms (actually, the top 20 or 30) that people associate with PR. Why? Because popular media has rather firmly implanted that belief via news and even entertainment programming. Think about national news coverage and how often they use PR to describe everything from lobbying to marketing. I’m beginning to think they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

 
The 192 agencies referred to above are the ones that get mentioned and covered in such dust ups as Rachel Madow’s slam against Burson-Marstellar and other controversies. Repeatedly, these people tend to show their cluelessness with regard to the scope of PR practice and the number of different types of PR practice going on in the US, let alone the world.

 
Guess what? Those 8,361 large/medium/boutique agency practitioners represent a mere sliver of the overall PR practitioners in the US, alone. Oh, they rake in some pretty major dollars, but they are not – repeat NOT – the best representation of who and what PR people and PR practice are today. Anyone that would just take 20 or 30 minutes to do research would understand this. But, it rarely happens.

 
A previous post of mine points out how there are easily 100,000 PA (public affairs) officers in the US, as they are required to comply with the 30,000+ public disclosure laws, among other things.

 
Now, that pretty much assures that the large agency PR practitioner population is dwarfed by (many/most) all? the other types of PR practitioners in the US, alone. People just don’t take the time to research and think before they speak, sometimes. Madow’s rant is a perfect example.

 
Some feel they must use that broad brush. It is sad to watch.

Another bit of rant on the topic comes from this post back in 2007. The numbers are still probably close, IMO.

I took some students to a geek dinner with Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson, a few years ago. The following re-write of what we discussed further defines PR’s broad practice by a myriad of people in local, county, state and national/global markets.

As we discussed at the dinner, there are some tasks that cannot, as of yet, be replaced solely with a blog or any form of social media/network.

 
A lot of them, actually.

 
One area is the many public notice laws that business and government must comply with in daily practice. This is beyond the usual SEC Reg FD example often referenced.

 
At the dinner, I shared that “there are more than 30,000 public notice laws in the U.S. that require the distribution of a news release” or some form of public notification. Some of them are represented at the Public Notice Resource Center, “founded in 2003 by American Court and Commercial Newspapers, Inc.(ACCN). ACCN is the professional organization of court, legal and commercial newspapers.” (Source) I do not know anything about the organization, but I can easily imagine all sorts of public notice laws – particularly stating that the notice is required to be in a newspaper, on TV or radio, and be shared in a specific format.

 
Other examples? There are “18,000 state and local police agencies” that have specific reporting standards. Do we expect them to use a blog to issue crime reports and statistics updates? How about BOLO warnings and Amber alerts? No, I mean do we realistically expect them to use a blog – all of them? OK, perhaps you get my point.

 
Yes, I know that some are using content management systems, Twitter and more to share information. But, the number is so low – so inconsequential in this debate about social media efficacy – that I believe rational minds will see how it doesn’t work for all.

 
How about the approximately 20,000 “incorporated places” in the United States? See, I used a politically correct blog-speak term. Those places (not mediums) are places where people still rely upon print and broadcast. Those are cities, towns … and that doesn’t even count the counties and parrishes. Just imagine the health departments, school districts, planning commissions, and all the other entities that must make public notice of various types. Now are you getting an idea for the vast amount of information that must be shared with newspapers and other media outlets – often in specific manner prescribed by law?

 
Yes, I know internet use and availability has grown in the past few years. See Pew and Pew and Pew for details.

 
It still doesn’t fulfill requirements to inform the public when we realize that “56% of adult Americans have accessed the internet by wireless means” and “in the interior of the country, especially in the Midwest and the South, Internet use lags greatly behind the national average.” Online is not the answer for all communities. Period. Even today. This Pew report highlights some instances where government use of online communication fails.

 
Remember. Most PR is local. Most PR is informational in nature, not necessarily persuasive in intent. Look at the whole world, please. Anecdotal references may cause you to be myopic in your beliefs about the power and reach of social media.

 
So, I’m all for social media. I’m all for the discussion and debate. But, until you get those laws changed to address the use of social media for public notice purposes, I’m not going suggest that they be used. Remember, many of those laws state – specifically – the manner and target audiences for these notices, or releases. They don’t mention blogs. They mention newspapers, television and radio. And, those “audiences” aren’t always people. They can be software and computers. Think search engines, link rank, page rank and more. Now those might find blogs useful.

 
This isn’t to say I don’t read and embrace all the conversations about social media I can find. An interesting post, from way back in 2005, can be found at Creating Passionate Users, regarding the Koolaid point. Kathy Sierra wrote, “You don’t really have passionate users until someone starts accusing them of ‘drinking the koolaid.’”

 
OK. I can see some clarity in her views. But, I’m one of the passionate ones speaking up for social media. Too often, I see detractors of the total buy-in to social media explained away as antagonists that – “just don’t get it.” Oh, how that phrase has become such a lame cop-out for those that seem unable to provide clarity, and practical explanations, for their dogma.

 
OK. Rant off. I feel better. Do you?

So, that’s my ongoing mission to (one day) get people to stop and think. I want them to understand the breadth and depth of PR practice. I want them to stop and think before they use the lazy broad brush illustrations about what is, and is not, PR practice.

Yep, I keep writing it … and it keeps coming up. Go figure. You surprised? I’m not.

Related posts: A Clarion Call or Chicken Little’s Sky Is Falling and Blogs are Soma to So Many.

The site, hosted on the Ning platform, has been up for three weeks. You’ll note that the site is residing on the university’s domain. We have only found a few other college/university social networks. Auburn’s is the only one we can find that is totally open to the public.

Coverage has been pretty good. The Associated Press and several state newspapers and TV stations have covered the site’s launch.

Students in PRCM 4020, PR Messages in Style & Design, are managing the site. Each student has complete administrator status. Every week, one group of students write features and create videos for the site.

As of this writing, Auburn Family has 1,324 members. Here’s a breakdown so far: 680 students (Auburn & high school), 78 parents, 453 alumni, 20 faculty, 58 staff, and 110 Friends of Auburn. Please note: the numbers overlap because now you may pick more than one designation. Also, answering this question was not required for half of the signups. So, we know – for example – that we have more than 78 parents. Many of the alumni, for instance, are also parents of students.

Here are three of the stories in state newspapers so far:

Opelika-Auburn News, Huntsville Times and the Columbus (GA) Ledger Enquirer.

Why did I want to do this? It is the ultimate experiential learning experience. Well, one of them, at least. Considering that the university bought into all of our work over the past several years, I feel it serves to give a bit of validity to our classroom activities. The students are now getting to run a site for the university.

It isn’t hard to get the students excited about the exercise. They love their school and want to put their own best foot forward. It is content ripe for a student’s digital portfolio. Showing future employers that they have experience running a social network for such a large institution has its benefits, too.

I’m happy with the site’s progress. Looking forward to how it advances in the weeks to come.

Kelly Adams

Ansley Black

Jill Bledsoe

Emily Canan

Kelly Cargill

Alison Christenberry

Kelly Coffed

Carey Beth Elder

Ragan Gibson

Emily Horne

Caroline Inman

Karen Jones

Lianne Lopez-Ceparo

Evie Maddox

Mikey Mahone

Kimberly Meyers

Mallory Middleton

Emily Petree

Whitney Prothro

Maria Prysock

Elizabeth Reynolds

Merry Whidby

Jacob Wilder

Jordan Woo

So, what have we accomplished? Your thoughts? Here are some observations.

Out of 4,135 members (as of this writing), we have:

• 1,843 students
• 343 faculty
• 2,103 practitioners

Yes, I know that adds up to 4,289. Well, that’s because we have some people selecting two options (practitioners that teach, for instance).

Numbers are ok, but I’m happier about the diversity of those numbers. We’re about 50/50 academic and practicing pros.

Add to that, the realization that the latest scouring of our member date reveals that PROpenMic has members from over 50 countries and over 300 colleges and universities around the world. Imagine the possibilities with that kind of membership! We even have two members that have actually done PR work on, or for, Antarctica. No kidding. So, we have PR people representing all 7 continents. I find that to be both funny and cool.

I fear thanking individuals, because I know I’ll leave someone out. That said, I do want to at least acknowledge and thank a group of people that have helped me both behind the scenes and actively on the site.

We have a volunteer group of site administrators that both watch the site and allow me to bounce ideas off of them throughout the year. I am very grateful for their kindness, patience and wisdom. I owe them a great deal. The site does, too. (God help me if I leave anyone off. It’s 3 a.m. and I’m sort of spinning now.)

They are, in no particular order: Phil Gomes, SVP Edelman Digital; Dr. Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Clemson University; Dr. Karen Russell and Dr. Kaye Sweetser, University of Georgia; Dr. Barbara Nixon, Georgia Southern University; Professor Kelli Matthews and Dr. Tiffany Derville Gallicano, University of Oregon; Dr. Ginger Carter Miller, Georgia College and State University; and Dr. Corinne Weisgerber, St. Edwards University.

Dr.s Miller and Weisgerber are our most recent volunteer administrator/advisors. I’ve been bad about getting back to them, by the way. My apologies for that. I do appreciate what all of you have done for me and PROpenMic. I already respected each of these educators a great deal. Having now been able to interact with them more, that respect and appreciation has only grown. They are remarkable people. Thank you!

Also, I want to thank just a sampling of people that have taken it upon themselves to help the site by contributing via blog posts, forum topics, videos and more.

Phil Gomes’ “A Minute with Phil” is the largest group devoted to such content. Peter Shankman hosts his video series, “What’s Hot on HARO” and “Buy Peter a Sandwich”, on PROpenMic. They have brought great attention to the network. In fact, Peter has likely brought in more new members (maybe 500!) than any other supporter of the site, too.

There are many others that have contributed over time. Leo Bottary has shared 31 blog posts. Anna Osgoodby has posted the most photos, 39. Students from Leeds Metropolitan University and Bournemouth University have likely been our most active and prolific contributors from Europe. The list goes on … I will try to add to it later today. Please comment below with the glaring omissions I’m sure I’ve made.

We have a Facebook and LinkedIn group, too. We’re on Twitter. PROpenMic has a presence.

Have we realized our full potential? No, of course not. As a volunteer social network with an organic focus (let the network be what it wants to be), we’ve really just watched the site grow and adapt. I actually like the aspect of creating the site, then letting it go where it wants to go. Yes, I’ve tried to provide some guidance, but really … as a volunteer endeavour, not that much.

Aside from a brief experiment, for class purposes, using ads in Facebook, we really have not done any organized promotion or advertising. This semester, for example, is the first time all year that I’ll really let the students take it over for about three weeks and do that “social network management” function. I want that to be an ongoing aspect of the site, and even want to involve students from other students around the world.

The organic (put the site up, watch it and see what happens) kind of philosophy has worked for PROpenMic. This one year activity report shows that PROpenMic either comes close to, equaled or surpassed (in traffic and ranking) sites like MyRagan.com, Communitelligence.com, PRSSA.org, and HolmesReport.com. We even come very close to O’Dwyer’s PR/Marcom news site.

By the way, I don’t mean to pick on those sites. I merely tried to find similar sites (at least dealing with public relations) that had similar traffic numbers and search ranking. Trust me, no one was as surprised as I was to realize that we were so comparable to those sites. It stunned me, really. They are, in some instances, part of million dollar businesses. Hello? And we’re matching their traffic/activity/rank numbers?

Admittedly, some months those sites beat us. I’ve noted that our activity seems to follow college terms. When students are in school, we’re quite busy. When they’re out of school, not so much. However, over the breadth of a year, we’re equal to or better than the other sites’ traffic/rank performance.

What does this all mean?

I take it to be an indicator that niche social networks can work, even without a budget. Imagine what we could do if we had the budgets of those for-profit commercial sites.

I’ve seen more and more schools begin to embrace the idea of a private internal social network for their own students and alumni. We started one at Auburn University this summer. Georgia Southern is launching one now, too. Others have privately mentioned it to me, as well.

I believe that, with effort, PROpenMic and other niche social networks can become positive additions to classes in college PR programs around the world. In fact, an international PR class could be taught using the resources to be found in PROpenMic.

Here is just a small recap of activity on the site. Hope it helps you get a feel for how active we’ve been.

• There are 4154 members on PROpenMic
• 164 new members joined during the past week
• euzinha_lindinha … is the most popular photo to date
• There are 629 photos on PROpenMic
• Minneapolis Mayor… is the most popular video to date
• There are 262 videos on PROpenMic
• The Hobson and Holtz Report, For Immediate Release, is the most popular audio/podcast to date (see the frong page audio player)
• There are 323 audio files on PROpenMic
• Digital Dirt is the most popular forum post to date
• There are 438 forum topics on PROpenMic
• There are 56 events on PROpenMic
• Want People to Find Your Blog .. is the most popular blog post to date. And, since I’ve been so bad about keeping up that list, I’m grateful to Adam Lewis for his new Wiki of Student Bloggers.
• There are 872 blog posts on PROpenMic
• There are 60 groups on PROpenMic

Well, that’s the best I can do, so far. I hope this helps you get a feel for what’s happened throughout the year.

Thank you all for your interest, patience and contributions. Here’s looking at a second year!

So, what are your thoughts about the network and where would you like for it to go in the future?

http://www.newcommforum.com/2009/

REGISTER NOW WITH DISCOUNT CODE SNCRFRIEND & SAVE $100. PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE THREE-DAY CONFERENCE FOR JUST $695 OR JUST ONE DAY FOR JUST $395

Now celebrating its fifth year, NewComm Forum is the premier conference that brings together thought leaders and decision makers to discuss the impact of social media and emerging communication tools, technologies, and models on PR and corporate communications, marketing and advertising, media and journalism, business, culture and society The Forum provides an in-depth exploration of the future of communications. In its five year history, it has come to be known as one of the world’s leading conferences focusing on the latest trends in new emerging media and communications platforms.

NewComm Forum is a focused conference specifically designed to teach communications professionals the strategy and tactics to effectively utilize the power of social media and new communications tools and trends. NewComm Forum will feature real-world, award-winning case studies from leading companies, best practices and lessons learned for:

• Social media & innovation
• How to build brand ambassadors
• Blogger & influencer relations
• Online community management & development
• Collaboration & co-creation strategies
• Organizational transformation
• Social media program management
• Online reputation management
• Social media metrics & measurement
• Social interaction design
• Crowdsourcing
• Micro-communications tools like Twitter
• Global trends in mobile media
• New media and journalism models
• Emerging business and organizational models
• Social media and the gift economy
• Social media and philanthropy
• ‘New economy’ issues and developments
• … and more!

Register at www.newcommforum.com/2009/ with discount code SNCRFRIEND and save $100.

Here’s an update on PROpenMic’s traffic over the first year. Only April ‘08 through February ‘09 (11 months) are available.

I’ve used publicly available information from Compete.com and Alexa.com.  They are services used by media buyers to determine rates for ad buys, for instance.

I’ve chosen a selection of sites for comparison that are considered by many to be staples (of sorts) in the online communication, marketing and public relations professions.  All are niche.  All, but PROpenMic, are actually organizations or businesses with budgets.  We don’t have one of those ‘budget’ things at PROpenMic.  ;o)  More on that, later.

The reality is that we are the only social network site soley focused on bringing together students, faculty and professionals.  So, it is kind of hard to make strong comparisons.

We do (IMO) seem to be performing pretty well when stacked up against these larger organizations.  Does this mean that for social networks, it is what the members make of it?

Read my thoughts, or go straight to the stats.

For example, you’ll see that if PROpenMic accepted ads (we don’t, and never will) our network would likely be more appealing to advertisers than all but O’DwyerPR.com (and we’re pretty close to them, too).  Does this mean that low budget / no budget social networks can be monetized?

I believe it is important to note that all of the other sites in this comparison have staff and budgets. PROpenMic is a voluntary and organic social network. By organic, I mean that the site perpetuates itself. The growth of the site, and the content posted in the site, is all determined by the membership. We are all volunteers. Even me.

Our audiences are somewhat similar.  All five of the other sites either charge subscription, membership fees – or, they are using their sites to drive interest in their enrollment, seminars and conferences.  PROpenMic isn’t doing any of that (for profit).  Sure, some people promote their events in our Events group, but it is hardly the same.

All of the other sites have staff devoted to their sites (and budgets) in order to populate, promote and maintain their sites (and/or organizations).  In some instances, they have paid authors/writers creating the content for their sites.  Each of the others sites (aside from PRSSA, I imagine) produces, on average, more promotional emails to their members than PROpenMic.

Overall, I’d say PROpenMic.org is a success.  Depending upon the metric you look at, we seem to be performing close to, equal to, or better than all the other sites – except O’Dwyer’s … again, we’re awfully close to them, too.

Look, none of us are buring up the internet in Top 1,000 site traffic, but that’s not the goal.  We’re all niche.  We want to reach those relatively small audiences (that’s small in a world view of Internet traffic).  So, how do we perform in comparison to one another?

Here is the breakdown…

For the graphs below, click on them and they will enlarge.

Compete.com stats…

Unique Visitors: (average per month)

propenmic.org 7,312
odwyerpr.com 8,668
myragan.com 6,225
prssa.org 5,258
communitelligence.com 3,068
holmesreport.com 2,078

Rank: (the lower the number, the better your rank)

propenmic.org 199,336
odwyerpr.com 172,873
myragan.com 227,762
communitelligence.com 410,099
prssa.org 262,202
holmesreport.com 566,512

Total Visits: (monthly average)

propenmic.org 22,918
odwyerpr.com 11,530
prssa.org 9,221
myragan.com 6,704
communitelligence.com 4,030
holmesreport.com 2,563

Page visits/views: (monthly average of per visit pageviews)

myragan.com 12.1
propenmic.org 7.5
odwyerpr.com 6.3
communitelligence.com 5.8
prssa.org 3.2
holmesreport.com 2.6

Alexa.com stats…

Note: In Alexa.com stats the lower the number, the better your site ranks.

odwyerpr.com has a traffic rank of: 232,877
propenmic.org has a traffic rank of: 291,090
myragan.com has a traffic rank of: 508,609
communitelligence.com has a traffic rank of: 550,729
prssa.org has a traffic rank of: 644,172
holmesreport.com has a traffic rank of: 670,656

Averaging the rank of both Compete & Alexa stats:

Note, again … the lower the number, the better your site ranks.

PROpenMic: 245,213 compared to…

ODwyerPR: 202,875
MyRagan: 368,185
PRSSA: 453,187
Communitelligence: 480,414
HolmesReport: 618,584

Please let us hear from you.  I’d love to know what you think, one way or the other.

Thank you to all that have made PROpenMic what it is!  I’ll do another post on the anniversary day (April 1st) thanking some very kind people that have helped along the way.

Robert Scoble: A Citizen Journalist Contradiction

Wine Me & Dine Me (or, I’ll whine about bad PR)

Alice Marshall has a post about Robert Scoble’s recent audio blip heard round the block.

“Last Thursday’s edition of For Immediate Release contained a very troubling rant by Robert Scoble about the clueless PR pitches he has received. Scoble prefers to be pitched over dinner…” (Source) Listen for yourself. (The complete podcast is on ForImmediateRelease.biz.)

I think Alice is on to something here.

Update: George Snell notes, in comments on Alice’s blog, “Scoble should not be preaching to PR people about best practices considering that he just received thousands of dollars from Cisco to cover their news – giving Cisco full editorial control over his content. (Source) More info here.”

Robert, we PR people actually do have codes for best practice. I know you’ll be suprised to learn that most people actually pay attention to them. Remember now, Robert, your tech PR experiences aren’t necessarily representative of all PR practice.

Preserve the free flow of unprejudiced information when giving or receiving gifts by ensuring that gifts are nominal, legal, and infrequent.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under this Provision:

A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist, to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product.

A member entertains a government official beyond legal limits and/or in violation of government reporting requirements. (Source)

To recap, Robert Scoble wants PR to return to the wining & dining days that brought such an unsavory reputation to the practice, years ago. Well, not exactly. But, if you want Robert Scoble’s attention … oh yeah, baby!

Oh, Scoble tried to wiggle out in a comment, but Alice was having none of that. Hey, they were your words, Robert.

Is Robert Scoble becoming J.J. Hunsecker? May I paraphrase the the tagline, please…

They know him – and they shiver – the big names of technology, venture capital and (shudder) … blogs. They know Scobleizer – the world-famed columnist whose tech gossip is gospel to seventy-four thousand Twits, thirteen thousand FriendFeeders and who knows how many Facebookers! They know the venom that Flickrs in those eyes behind the glasses – and they fawn – like (insert a sheep’s name here), the kid who wanted “in” so much, he’d make a nice dinner to stand up there with Scobleizer, sucking in the sweet smell of success! This is Scobleizer’s story – but not the way he would have liked it told!

Strange thing is, Robert Scoble told the story himself. Hey, he made the audio recording and shared it.

Surely, every practitioner should know his/her audience. Scoble’s right about that. Build a relationship.

Christopher Locke, of Cluetrain Manifesto fame wrote a similar refrain (absent the “serve me dinner” option):

So instead of pitching the product, I started talking to journalists about stuff like that. I figured I’d just pretend to be working until I got fired for goofing off. But something amazing happened. As soon as I stopped strategizing how to “get ink” for the company that was paying my salary, as soon as I stopped seeing journalists as a source of free advertising for my employer, I started having genuine conversations with genuinely interesting people.

I’d call up editors and reporters without a thought in my head — no agenda, no objective — and we’d talk. We talked about manufacturing and how it evolved, about shop rats and managers, command and control. We talked about language and literature, about literacy. We talked about software too of course — what it could and couldn’t do. We talked about the foibles of the industry itself, laughed about empty buzzwords and pompous posturing, swapped war stories about trade shows and writing on deadline. We talked about our own work. But these conversations weren’t work. They were interesting and engaging. They were exciting. They were fun. I couldn’t wait to get back to work on Monday morning.

I imagine Scoble likes that point of view.

If you know that the only way to reach Robert Scoble is to invite him to dinner and court his friendship, then you have a chance to gain his attention. OK, but this dredges up some rather ugly images of media placement from years ago.

Let’s face it, Robert Scoble has expressed his disdain for PR many times. What’s so funny to me is that his area of interest, the technology scene – primarily in California, is such a small bubble in the broader world of PR practice. Don’t expect Scoble to acknowledge that, however. He’s perfectly happy to say “how PR is being practiced” rather than accepting that it is the smaller tech PR sector that is letting him down.

Yes, Scoble was an early adopter. Yes, he has had some great ideas and done some remarkable things. But, it is beginning to seem like he was really just getting a head start on building his fame. I can’t help but wonder if he’s becoming to technology what J.J. Hunsecker was to gossip. Wait, is what Scoble does simply tech product gossip? Oh, my god! Well, if he can get all chummy with you and get invited to your parties, maybe so.

Scoble has also expressed disdain for his own journalism degree. Not surprising, since those journalism classes likely emphasized not taking dinners for your attention (especially for coverage). Back in 2005, Scoble left a comment for one of my students, “I have a journalism degree. It isn’t worth that much, believe me. If you want to get paid there are a lot better things to do with your time in school.”

Robert Scoble, I think you’re on some rather shaky ground here.

I know I’ll be pounded by your loyal followers. I don’t mean it to sound bad, but this idea you have of schmoozing for your attention … well, it’s a bad practice. I hope you wake up before the credits roll.

All I would like to see is for Robert Scoble to, with regard to his PR rants, just once, stop staring at his own tree and look at the forest. Your walled garden has a gate, Robert. Walk out of it and see the entire PR world, please.

Miiko “is the senior director of New Media & PR at FutureWorks, a social media strategy and PR firm. She also contributes, as a video producer, to Bubblicious, a blog that covers the Social Economy.”

One would think that a director of social media would be unafraid of a discussion, particularly one she started. Well, I posted on her blog in response to Miiko Mentz’s views about good practice and how to behave in social media.

My comment, I believe, was reasonable (even polite) while also being contrary to Miiko’s views. The comment has been deleted. Hmm? A post about how others should behave online denies contrary opinions?

So, I thought I’d share that comment here. I don’t know that I have the ‘exact’ wording of my comment, but I do tend to write things out before I share them.  Then, I’ll paste the text into the comment area on the blog I’m addressing. The following is a draft I saved before posting in Miiko’s blog.

By the way, I wrote to Miiko (yesterday) asking why the comment was deleted. She has since approved other comments on that post since I shared mine.  She has also not yet replied to my email (her choice, of course).   Others saw the comment before it was deleted.

Look, I don’t really care if my comment gets posted in her blog.   The real point here is simply Miiko’s choice to call someone out and now it seems Miiko is averse to, afraid of, contrary views.

My point, simply put:  if you have a blog and receive a comment that does not offend any stated comment policy, why would you delete it?  If you are the “senior director of New Media & PR,” is this path a good practice of social media?  I have tracked back to her post.  Let’s see how it goes.

Here’s the comment, you may decide for yourself.  Remember to read Miiko’s post and all the comments first, as that’s the only way to take this in the proper context.

Comment:

Well, goodness. This has certainly spawned many tangents. I’ll avoid those distractions and address the initial issue.

What was the original reason/rationale for Jeremy’s post? Sure, he accepts all pitches … but, do you (your colleague) know enough about him (and his usual blog topics & tone) to understand why he accepts them? I’m guessing the answer is no. Sorry.

I’ve read his blog for a long time. I can’t imagine Jeremy Pepper writing about this pitch’s topic in a positive manner. Seriously. Never.

That’s what I’m betting first got his attention. But, to really get Jeremy to write, you have to give him more. Your colleague did not disappoint.

There were three pretty crucial errors that followed the primary 101 best practice failures and, I believe, they likely set off Jeremy’s ‘post’ trigger.

The pitch preceded the development of a relationship and understanding with Jeremy. Next. the pitch shared pretty much the whole story prior without gaining that embargo agreement. Finally, your colleague didn’t know and understand her target audience – Jeremy Pepper. It’s really pretty simple.

The worst, most egregious error, may well have been calling Jeremy a “guru” in the pitch. Yikes! Shudder! He doesn’t like that term.

Next, Jeremy uses the Web 2.0 phrase, but he uses it mostly as a term of derision.

Finally, Jeremy rarely (if ever) writes about apps. He’s about as big a fan of SMRs as you are of the the “good ole boys” network.

Again, if you and your colleague knew Jeremy, you’d realize that he is *not* a member of that club. He’s the chief thorn in their side. ;o)

A mentor, Jeremy is. I can attest to that, as can my students and many others. Now, his tone may have an effect upon people. But, again, you’d know that if you knew Jeremy and/or his blog.

Funny thing is, Jeremy was actually mentoring with his Tumblr post. Seriously. Be happy he posted in the Tumblr blog, not Pop PR Jots at blogspot.  (The reason?  It would have received a great deal more attention.)

I imagine you won’t see it this way, but Jeremy actually did you, your colleague, and your firm … a favor.

In her 3:44 minute rant, Maddow calls Burson-Marsteller the PR agency “from Hell.”

This is a slice & dice unlike any I’ve seen before. Yes, TV talking heads have ranted against PR and firms for eons.

I’m not here to defend or destroy either Burson-Marsteller or Maddow. I do think this particular rant is a good example of creating a selective argument.

Maddow, in her rant, notes that Burson-Marsteller was involved in representing corporations in some of the most high profile crisis events in recent history. From Bhopal to Three Mile Island … date rape drug on toys and faulty breast, and more, Maddow notes that B-M was one of the firms involved in post-event PR. She neglects to note that there were likely many PR agencies involved in those cases. She implies that B-M was the only firm.

Further, Maddow states, “When Evil needs public relations. Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed dial.” She then points out that Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster and chief strategist, is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller.

Almost all of the B-M clients/cases Madow refers to are those that we teach as case studies to learn the pros and cons of both corporation practice and PR practice. To me, this was interesting to watch.

My questions? Was Maddow fair or has she begun to embrace, on occasion, the MSNBC/CNBC “Howard Beale” mentality of commentary? Your thoughts in comments, please.

Here’s the video and an update. Maddow replies to a leaked internal memo by Mark Penn offering a rebuttal to Maddow’s first commentary.

I love Auburn. I think you know that, if you’ve read this site even a few times. The background is at the top of this post, so if you don’t want that (although I think it is important) go to the event.

Some background. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of The Auburn Plainsman staff. I am also not (thank goodness) involved in this controversy in any way. I’m a spectator.

Full disclosure: I have had many dealings with the Plainsman over the years, ranging from stories to purchasing advertising. The vast majority of those dealings were very positive and productive, but sure … there were a few bad ones. I can only think of two or three bad experiences, out of hundreds. Still, that being said, I care about, and respect, the Plainsman and wish for it and the journalism program to prosper.

In the past, I have advised the Auburn Glomerata, the campus yearbook. I was also the station manager for WEGL, Auburn’s student radio station and I founded Eagle Eye TV, the Auburn student television program. I offer those bits to illustrate that I do have some familiarity with student media on Auburn’s campus. Finally, the journalism program resides within the department where I teach, Auburn University’s Department of Communication and Journalism.

That introduction offered, I tend to look at controversies from a public relations perspective, so this recent kerfluffle has caught my attention.

I’m writing about this, at the risk of being beaten senseless by my colleagues, because it serves as a good case study for crisis management. I know my students will be talking about this, as it has happened in our own front yard. What follows are only representations of my observations. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of anyone at Auburn University.

Auburn people love their institutions. I’m one of them. The Auburn Plainsman is a time honored institution, too. For the record, “The Plainsman (is) the second most honored collegiate newspaper in the nation” and has 23 college Pacemaker Awards to prove it. You’ll note that their last award was in 2005. That may well play into the frustration exhibited by the current Plainsman staff.

This latest controversy shows that The Plainsman deserves better than they are getting, in many ways.

The Event: On Thursday, a very unhappy experience transpired. The Auburn Plainsman student editorial board chose to post an editorial on the front page. It is unhappy for the Plainsman staff and for the targets of their editorial. It is unhappy for everyone.

To say that they ran it on the front page, however, does not do this incident justice. A front page editorial is intended to draw attention to something the editorial board deems important to the community. To place it above the fold, gives the editorial greater significance. But, to run it above the flag/nameplate is really the same as a declaration of war, or peace (see images). Well, that’s what they’ve done … but on a local (mostly internal) battlefield.  Hey, even headlines of some of the biggest events in history didn’t make it above the flag.  Two below did, two didn’t.

Now, to place this in current day perspective, more and more newspapers are playing with their front page layout and design. Many will now run news boxes above the flag, even wrapped around the flag/nameplate. Here’s a perfect example from The Birmingham News.

In defense of the students, information above the flag is no longer so rare or to be unexpected in other papers. It may be that the tone of this editorial – combined with its banner screaming placement – is what helped set people off.  But, since it was such an unexpected event and really deals with internal fights, was this strategy wise?  Yes, there are implications for the community, but perhaps the students over-estimated their worth in the eyes of many readers.  Hey, it’s possible.

Looking at many front page examples you’ll see that generally most news goes below the flag/nameplate and rarely (I’m still looking for examples) does an editorial go there. If you can think of an editorial above the flag on a newspaper throughout history, please share it with me.

This is pretty much unprecedented for the Plainsman. Most all of their issues (that I can remember) have flags at the top of the page. I’m sure they have run front page editorials before, but none like this (that I can remember). For context, front page editorials are not unprecedented for newspapers. (See here and here.) In fact, they seem to happen quite often lately, especially with the wars and economic turmoil we’re experiencing.

Why so much attention to the flag/nameplate and the editorial’s placement? Well, in journalism circles that placement is considered pretty important. Some might even call it sacred space. “Sometimes editors have really rigid ideas about what can go on the front page,” said Eric Deggans, TV and media critic at the St. Petersburg Times, in an American Journalism Review story (unrelated to this story).

I’m a film buff, so the Plainsman’s editorial initially struck me like something out of Citizen Kane. If you’ve seen the movie, Kane publishes a statement of principles on the front page of his newspaper. The Auburn Plainsman’s motto is “A spirit that is not afraid.” Well, they certainly weren’t afraid to publish this editorial. Now, in the movie, Kane goes on to violate his stated principles repeatedly throughout his newspaper empire’s life. This action by the Auburn Plainsman’s Editorial Board certainly doesn’t equal the fictional Kane’s transgressions, of course, but it does raise questions about fairness and the judgment of youth.

Many Plainsman alumni have voiced their concerns in comments on the Web and the majority are not happy with the current editorial board’s decision, or tactics.

The setup. The Auburn Plainsman published a front page editorial, above the fold … in fact, above the flag/nameplate, in the Thursday, February 12 edition. Download the front page PDF.

The main focus of their attack is on the paper’s general manager, a university employee. Now, I’m referring to this as an “attack” because the story came out of nowhere. There had been no coverage in the paper that I know of, and there had been no previous editorials inside the paper. I hadn’t even heard of all this internal fighting – and I teach here. Of course, that’s not too uncommon. ;o) I’m usually the last to know anything.

Here is part of what the nine member editorial board had to say:

We have lost confidence in the current management of the business side to reverse this dangerous trend (declining pages & ad revenue). While these are hard economic times, we believe new management of our business operations is needed now. It is because of this belief, we feel our general manager should be replaced by those who hired her.

2.12.2009-A1

In campus backstory talk (combined with listserv posts by Auburn Plainsman alumni, staff and advisors – present and past), we learn that this is a problem that has been brewing (if not boiling over) for years. It is not a new controversy and reports from those involved say that negotiations through traditional administration channels have been repeatedly pursued by both students and faculty. Advisors and students have had discussions with the Auburn Dean of Students and the Auburn President. The feeling is that their concerns have not been acted upon. Frustration has set in. Big time.

Again, to remind you of the passion people feel for this student newspaper, let’s remember that The Auburn Plainsman is not just any student newspaper. Aside from the paper’s many awards, alumni of the newspaper have gone on to illustrious careers in local community newspapers, as well as state, regional and national newspapers and magazines. Of late, Cynthia Tucker (a 1976 grad) has received a Pulitzer Prize for her work as editor of the Atlanta Journal’s editorial page. Serena Roberts recently broke the story about the use of steroids by the New York Yankee’s Alex (A-Rod) Rodriguez. Roberts writes for Sports Illustrated magazine. Those two are just a sampling, I assure you.

The list goes on. So many local newspapers in the south (and around the nation) have Auburn alumni on their staff and, in some instances, leading their paper as editor or publisher. Again, this is not a story about just any college newspaper. In some, perhaps many instances, the Plainsman’s alumni have a stronger connection to the paper than they have to the university. This is one tight, protective family. They love the institution they work(ed) for and want it to uphold/retain the proud reputation and traditions they experienced.

Critique

Although I’ve shared some opinions above, I’ve tried to remain fair in my observations.   I’ll continue to do so and share my main critique and observations of the editorial here.

The editorial begins with the statement, “This is not about us, the current Plainsman staff.”  (Emphasis mine.)   The editorial then goes on to contain 25 instances of the word “we” throughout the copy. One instance is in the headline and another is repeated in a pullquote.

Um, you don’t claim this is about the institution and then talk about yourselves repeatedly throughout your editorial. I believe this is a big reason why so many have had such a negative reaction to the editorial. Many of the comments in response to the editorial have stated, essentially, that the editorial board should wake up and grow up … as in, welcome to the real world of newspapers in the 21st century.  Also, seasoned journalists say, hey – you’re not going to like the decisions or work quality of your bosses all the time.  It goes on…

Next, no one is really speaking publicly about this. That silence raises natural questions. Had the following questions, for example, been addressed in the editorial – this negative backlash may well not have happened.

Some questions:

• Did the current or former advisers know about the impending publication of this editorial?
• Did the advisers (both formal and informal) offer counsel to the students? Did the students seek their counsel?
• Do you know that in this particular dynamic relationship, the Plainsman’s advisor may really only advise. They cannot tell the students what to do. Such is the way the relationships are setup.
  This is important. The ultimate decision, as I understand it, is in the hands of the student editor’s hands with regard to what get’s published. I believe that the editorial board would vote as to their support for adding their name to any editorial. I do not know what their process is, however. It appears that all of the student editorial management names are on this editorial.
• Did the students consult a lawyer before proceeding with this editorial? Some have suggested that their editorial is an unfair attack on one person, the general manager. They did not name her, but they did identify the job title and there is only one person in that job. She may buy ink by the barrel, but she has no control over how the ink is used – the students do. And, they’ve just spilled a whole barrel on her. So, was this editorial fair to her?
• Did the students do any pre-screening of influential Plainsman alumni to gauge support for such an act?
• Did the students consult with the Journalism Advisory Board, a group of journalists (mostly, if not all, alumni) that serve to advise the academic program?
• Why didn’t the students do a better job writing the editorial? Why didn’t they first identify questions that would likely arise and then answer them as best they could. Associated stories, sidebars and more could have filled the voids.  They certainly had room in print and online to do all of that.  It just doesn’t make much sense.

I really don’t know the answers to those questions. It just seems that had those issues been addressed, those things been done, this may not have played out the way it has.

Also, you should know, The Plainsman has (and has had) an online presence for some time. However, they have never really embraced it. Look at many of the comments and you’ll see that is a repeated theme. Now, had the students stated that they actually have a new online (much more involved) newspaper coming within the year (which they do indeed have coming) … this may have helped to deter some of those comments.  Had they illustrated their own attempts at innovation and attempts to rectify the differences, that too would have helped.  But, look at the editorial.  Not much there.

Back channel talk says the Plainsman’s new online strategy is something they have been working on and it will be launched soon. Again, there is too little background information shared by the editorial board and too little context provided to bolster their claims. The absence of this rather compelling information only served to hurt the editorial board’s reception by their readers. It is almost as if the editorial board is their own worst enemy. Perhaps they could not sufficiently step back and fully analyze their strategy and tactics before moving forward. It wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened.

In the comments section on the editorial’s Web page, the sentiment currently runs strongly against the editorial board’s decision to run the front page editorial. On the alumni listserv, the sentiment also seems to be mostly against the decision. However, the tone on the listserv has several instances of much wiser counsel and somewhat calmer evaluation of all that has transpired over the last few days.

The comments on the editorial’s Web page have even turned ugly. The discussion has spilled over to blogs (here, too), and Twitter. Again, the response there is largely negative toward the editorial board. There are some (as WordPress calls them) “anonymous cowards” taking sides with the editorial board, and some are quite nasty. I don’t know that I’ve seen an attributable positive comment outside of the listserv conversations.  This kind of snarky nastiness cannot serve a positive purpose.  Did the editorial board even think about the online spread of this story?  They have not been responding, at least not in their own names.  Are some of the anonymous comments from the editorial board?

Update: The Birmingham News posted an article (that link is was a MSN cache of the page, it too has been removed) but the article was inexplicably pulled down. A Bama student has published this LiveJournal post. A re-blog of the last post by Charlie with notes. This week, with the Plainsman’s own follow-up editorial sharing greater detail, we also see two Letters to the Editor in the Plainsman, one of which also appears in the O-A News, and this blog post by Charles Apple. Finally, and perhaps the most devastating bit of information to come out, Niki Doyle (a past Plainsman editor) confirms, from the Dean of Students, that the GM had “turned in her retirement paperwork on Dec. 11, 2008. In other words, she had been planning to retire long before this low blow dealt by the editorial board.” That makes the initial editorial seem quite uncalled for and petty.

The comments are all over the place. There are suggestions that these students have damaged some future job options, as the people doing the hiring have seen this and are not pleased. There are anonymous former Plainsman staffers lashing out with their own personal vendettas over perceived unfairness and firings. It is quite ugly.

My point here is that the actions by the editorial board are perceived, so far, by the majority of people interested in the story as a bad decision. Further, the controversy has led to some rather heated and unsavory comments to be exchanged. Even worse, many of these comments have been anonymous, making the environment even more questionable. Had the editorial board done some advance work, speaking with alumni and influentials, before publishing their editorial … some of this could have been avoided. Further, had they not gone from in-house bickering and background discussions with administrators to a front page above the flag editorial, they might have been better received, too.

Look, the editorial may have been justified.  It may bring about positive change.  But, there isn’t sufficient information out there to justify it in the eyes of the majority of alumni and readers who have taken the time to respond, so far.

There is a phrase. “You can’t unring the bell.” The Plainsman has now rung the biggest bell they have. Had they taken their first shot across the bow with a more reasoned, focused editorial inside the paper, then – later on – they might have been able to go to the front page if things didn’t work out as they wished. As it stands now, they have launched all battleships. The first skimish is a failure, IMO, so far. Who knows what this week will bring as people begin to learn about it. With the overwhelming external public feedback being so negative, so far, the Plainsman editorial board is quite sunk without a big turn around in the week to come.

To have run this not only on the font page, but above the fold … even above the flag, well … the Plainsman now has no other recourse. To hit the front page with another editorial on the same topic will seem kinda sad. Again, they cannot un-ring this bell.

I feel like they launched a massive (unexpected, at least publicly) attack on one person when an inside the paper, better written and reasoned, editorial might have been a wiser path. The lack of background information, for those just now learning of the internal squabbles, has also fed the backlash, in my opinion. That, too, could have been avoided with a wiser strategy and tactics.

Some feel that, despite the backlash, these students may have awakened many people to the problems. Well, sure. You drop a very public big ‘ol unexpected bomb in the front yard, people will notice. The general manager has apparently announced that she will retire in about a month. So, the students get their way on that one count, but what about the backlash? We’ll see this week. I really doubt this one is over. The Thursday edition of The Plainsman will likely be quite interesting.

Finally, some wonder how the Student Communication Board will react.

The official student newspaper, the Auburn Plainsman, is under the direct supervision of the Assistant Vice President for Student Life and has a faculty adviser from the Department of Communication and Journalism. Other major student publications (Auburn Circle, Tiger Cub) are under the supervision of the Director of the Foy Student Union. The SGA Code of Laws established a Communication Board, with representatives from Student Affairs, the Department of Communication and Journalism, and the student body.

Something tells me that there will be a meeting about this soon. Ya’ think?

This post certainly doesn’t address all of the issues at hand here, but I do hope it at least helps to put the controversy in a bit more perspective than has existed over the weekend. I hope the discussion proceeds in a much more calm and constructive manner in public, too.  The Plainsman is too important to lose.

The story is now only four days old. Who knows what will happen this week.