Actual sub-head from same release: “Return to Start-Up Culture a Focus for Company Moving Forward”

“Return to start-up culture”? What does that mean? Well, beyond the fact that a few hundred people will lose their jobs, it means the folks responsible for this news release are either a bit delusional or not afraid of being laughed at. It couldn’t be easier to see right through this transparent bullshit.

No sane person believes MySpace wanted to can 30 percent of its staff. That MySpace actually thought it was desireable. Sure, you can put a little polish on that turd of a headline, but trying to turn into elective good news screams “BS.” Do you really think someone within the company decided, “Hey, this growth looks nice and all, but we’re a little bloated. What do you say we axe a third of you people to get back to our roots? Who’s with me?”

This writing is what critics of public relations professionals’ work refer to as “spin.” The fact that some PR pros seem to get away with over-the-line stuff like this reflects poorly on all of us. If you ever have a chance, do your best to stop this crap in its tracks.

Anyway, the reason I’m talking about this is because it’s probably going to affect what I do here. Not it a bad way — I’m not being censored for the sake of corporate politics or anything like that. It’s just that:

A) I’ve been busy as I work to get my legs under me at the new gig and

B) I’m excited about doing some writing for the agency’s own blog, which has some serious thematic overlap, if you will, with Unjournalism.

I have no intention of stopping writing here at Unjournalism — or anywhere else I write, for that matter. I do, however, have to put some good brain power into determining how I can best accommodate all of my online homes without too much overlap but still keeping each relevant and interesting.

In the meantime, there’s not a creature or employer alive who can stop me from Twittering, apparently, so you can get all the Mike you can handle over there.

So bear with me. I promise not to suck.

I’ve thought about this from time to time, most recently in the context of the story of Nadya Suleman, the mother of a rather notorious set of octuplets. Simply by nature of the rarity of her, uh, feat — having given birth to only the country’s second set of live octuplets — she was thrust into the public eye, though at first unnamed.

At that point, even before she was identified and before we heard rumors of a book deal or a (god, help us) reality television show, folks coast to coast (and beyond, I’m sure) were discussing the whys and hows of giving birth to eight little critters and, in many cases, passing judgment. How could she? Why would she? Should she? Is she, or will she be receiving some sort of welfare or other public assistance?

At some point along the way, Ms. Suleman picked up the services of a PR firm — pro bono. In a sick turn of events, those PR pros have stepped down after having reportedly received death threats. That’s terrible and unfortunate, and it reminds me of high-profile cases in which certain lawyers receive similar treatment. What did the PR folks do wrong? Isn’t it at least as likely, if not more so, that they’re trying to do some good than they’re simply being opportunistic? And even if you believe they’re a little attention-hungry or whatever, death threats?!

Not that PR people need any more comparisons to lawyers (see the joke Shel shares here), but Ms. Suleman’s story really has me thinking (so I can get on with the point of my post, now that I have the context out of the way): Most folks I know believe in the fundamental importance of adequate legal representation when on trial in a court of law. But what about when someone is thrust into a trial in the court of public opinion? Isn’t a person entitled to the services of someone who can help them in their time of need?

To be clear, when I say “entitled,” I don’t necessarily mean they should get it for free. I don’t foresee, desire or expect a “public reputation defender” who functions as the PR equivalent of the court-appointed public defender. I do, however, believe that having your side of the story heard is something to which you’re entitled, and sometimes that requires professional help.

Photo courtesy of mindgutter on Flickr

TwitterHawk monitors Twitter for messages that match your criteria — say, include the word coffee and come from someone in Minneapolis — and then automatically sends a message from your account to the coffee-mentioner. It’s nice in that it’s smart enough to monitor for more than keywords: TwitterHawk let’s you focus in directing messages at Twitterers from a certain location and even set a rate of messages to send per day (to help alleviate accusations of spamming).

But here’s my problem with it: Even if we grant that the basic, automated monitor-then-respond trick is OK, then what? Let’s look at TwitterHawk’s own example: If someone, within a few miles of your new coffee shop, tweets about coffee, TwitterHawk sees that and responds for you. Great. But in TwitterHawk’s own example, the responder-bot asks a question: “@coffeementioner Have you seen our new Coffee Shop in Queens?”

What if that coffee-tweet writes back to you after seeing the TwitterHawk message? Uh oh! Now you suddenly have to be a human who uses Twitter to actually, you know, talk to people. Why not just do that in the first place, then?! Not only is this likely simply because Twitterers are chatty, but you’re asking a question! That’s great when people are actually communicating with each other, but that’s asking for trouble if you’re relying on an automated system.

Here’s another thing: Unless the person TwitterHawk is talking to for you is already following your account — that is, unless @coffeementioner is already following @newcoffeeshop — it’s pretty unlikely @coffeementioner is going to see the message from @newcoffeeshop. Outside of the realm of Web-minded marketers, bloggers and other digital-egomaniacs, it’s pretty rare for people to be monitoring Twitter for mentions of their name.

And if @coffeementioner does see the message from @newcoffeeshop, it’s likely that she’s going to be curious about this new Twitterer talking to her, and she’s going to go check out @newcoffeeshop’s profile. When she sees the last several tweets from @coffeeshop and notices how many of them are the exact same “Have you seen our new shop?” message to other Twitterers, she’s going to see little value in making a connection with @newcoffeeshop.

So here, conveniently at the bottom of this longer-than-I-intended post, is the bottom line: If the monitoring and messaging done by TwitterHawk is going to have any non-spam value, it’s going to require the user to engage and make connections and be humanly present on Twitter anyway. Why not just start that way?

For the compete context for my writing here, you should check out Bob’s piece first.

1. Bob says public relations is inherently a business function at most organizations, especially when a PR head within an organization has obtained the proverbial “seat at the table” with other executive leaders. At the same time, much of the PR practitioner’s work is about communicating, which is not taught in management class. And doesn’t, um, everyone say the most important skill for budding PR pros is the ability to write well? Guess where you’ll learn that: J-school.
2. Bob’s second point is that “Journalism skills needed by public relations students can be obtained usually with about a year and half’s worth of journalism courses” — thus can be done regardless of whether PR falls under a journo department or a business department. I’d argue the same is true about the business classes. Whether we’re talking journalism education or business education, the classes only get you so far; experience takes you the rest of the way.
3. Bob argues that news reporters are “antagonistic” toward the things most important to a business: sales, marketing, advertising and other business functions. I’d argue that many journalism students and journalists aren’t; that’s why they’ve gone into PR!
4. PR is all about two-way, symmetrical communication, whereas journalists are conditioned for one-way, asymmetrical communication, Bob says. I say, not the journalists blazing a trail for success in the future.
5. Bob’s fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth points all address an hugely important topic, which I’ll address all at once here: the role of new media in journalism and PR. Basically, Bob says PR is (sometimes slowly) adopting new media, but new media is slowly killing the journalism business, and that good PR now focuses less on media mentions and more on direct communication via its own blogs and other new, social-y methods. To me, this alone makes the strongest argument for the importance of a journalistic education. The future of PR is a return to what should have always been our focus: telling stories effectively, communicating, interacting with people. It’s not a business function; it’s a human function.
6. Bob’s final point is a depressing one: Journalism businesses left and right are being gutted, so gutting journalism departments at colleges would be an “important career lesson.” Well, that lesson might be relevant for an unfortunately large number of current and future journalists, but to me, that doesn’t mean teaching that lesson in that way is a good idea. Even as the status of many journalism organizations deteriorates, we’ll see the need for and presence of solid journalism deteriorate only so far. Solid journalism is to a well-functioning society what oxygen is to an athlete: a crucial life-force. Gutting journalism departments because the journalism business is in upheaval makes as much sense as gutting pre-med programs because our health care system is shitty.

To be clear, I don’t necessarily disagree with all of the arguments Bob makes — just the conclusion to which they led him. I also don’t believe simply that PR shouldn’t be taught in business schools. There’s tremendous value for PR practitioners in a business-oriented education, but I also believe there’s at least as much if not more potential value in a journalism-oriented education.

That, and I just enjoy arguing.

What do you think?

Photo courtesy of CUNY J School on Flickr

For those unaware, when you’re buying ads online, especially with professional media outlets, they’ll basically sell you anything you can dream up. In this case, the “clean coal is a joke” camp bought ad space on the “page not found” pages on WashingtonPost.com.

You can click over to see it for yourself, but the text on the “not found” page reads: “This page does not exist. Kind of like clean coal.”

Some mostly uninteresting photos here. The event was held at Best Buy’s corporate headquarters just outside of Minneapolis. Sorry I didn’t have a tripod — or the chance to get better audio.

As a rabid consumer of media, as a young PR professional and as a wide-eyed observer of the amazing changes underway in the world of communication, here are five things I’m thankful for in the broad realm of “social media.” If you’re anything like me, you might find yourself thankful for these, as well.

More voices, more reach

Even as recently as, say, five or ten years ago, we had mass media, e-mail, static Web page, phone and face-to-face communication. I know there was a lot more, but nothing compared to what we have now. I have about 1,700 people in my Twitter crowd. Some are robo-spam-bot-devils, but an overwhelming majority are smart, funny, interesting, helpful, insightful people — people I’d likely never have interacted with if it weren’t for the Web as we now know it.

Look at the PR business specifically. A few years ago, PRSA and its publications, PRWeek, O’Dwyer’s and a couple of others dominated the media landscape. Now I can find more information, research, case studies, advice and examples than I can shake an RSS reader at. People like Todd Defren, Jason Falls, Jeremiah Owyang, Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson and so, so many more help me become smarter and do my job better — and have more fun.

Format silos obliterated

I used to watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, look at Web sites. Now I consume all of that media in all of those ways at the same time. I watch Jason DeRusha’s “Good Question” segments from the local CBS affiliate online, just like I watch Lost, the Daily Show and SNL clips on the Web. Listen to the radio? Yeah, but I read news reports on Minnesota Public Radio’s site at least as often, if not more, and Bob Collins does a great job with the NewsCut blog.

Did I mention the biggest daily newspaper in the state just hired the director of photography from the local NBC TV affiliate? Yeah, that happened. A former Star Tribune editor and publisher decided to start a new kind of media outlet with a non-profit model, and now we have the transmedia creature called MinnPost.com (of which I’m a paying member; yeah, I gave actually U.S. currency). And on the Web, there’s almost no such thing as a silo. Blogs and news sites and YouTube and podcasts and Facebook and Twitter and all that craziness basically mean I can get anything, any way I want it. Opportunities, for creators and consumers, are limitless. Which brings me to…

RSS

As has been documented, I’m a huge fan of RSS. People who produce content and search engines that help me find stuff give me this awesome way to have just about everything I could ever want come right to me. That’s RSS. I get your stuff without needing to visit you to get it. Wild, isn’t it? If you don’t let me read your stuff that way, I’m not going to read your stuff. That’s pretty much how I roll.

But here’s the cool part: Once I am reading your stuff, you’re top of mind, and I’m doing more than just reading passively. I’m commenting on your work. I’m linking to it. I’m talking about how smart you are and how much you contribute to the community. Remember those examples of bloggers and news outlets I mentioned above? I subscribe to their stuff. In my eyes, they all kick ass.

Twitter

I could go on for days about how cool Twitter is. People like Michael Benidt will, with good reason, occasionally throw some water on my fire, which is great. As my seemingly limitless love for Twitter and the people within is challenged or questioned, I occasionally find ways to “do Twitter better,” to get even more out of it. But the point is, Twitter’s awesomeness is so profound I can barely put it in to meaningful words. I’ve tried.

The people

No list of “cool things about social media” would be even good, let alone complete, without mentioning The People. The People create the content I consume, the content that informs me, the content that entertains me. The People consume the content I create (sometimes). The People smile and shake my hand and pat me on the back when we meet in person. The People introduce me to other smart folks.

The People are what It is all about.

I’ll tag Chris Lynn, Ken Kadet, Greg Swan and the team at Idea Peepshow. Topic: Five things about social media you’d be thankful to see change. That is, things you don’t like or could be better. That oughtta make for some good reading.

Photo courtesy of cheeseroc on Flickr

One of Harvey’s great contributions to the business world is the Mackay 66, a tool that helps salespeople, managers and other business types “outsell, outmanage, outmotivate and outnegotiate our competitors.” It’s a form that asks for 66 pieces of information about a person with whom you’re starting to build a relationship — information about their education, family, business background, special interests, lifestyle and relationship with you.

Sound familiar? Well, among other things, these little tidbits are a lot like the information on your Facebook profile. Or that you share in your daily Twittering. Or that you write about on your personal blog.

Sure, some social media efforts are tied directly to sales, but in most cases, “doing social media” means having more chances to interact with people, to build relationships, to make connections in ways that weren’t likely or possible ever before. When you know what makes a person tick, what sports team she roots for or what school his kid goes to, you have the material with which you can begin to build a relationship.

Relationships and personal connections are what make the world go around. The desire to connect is natural and immutable, and it has little to do with technology. Social networking is in our blood; technology just breaks down barriers of space and time.

I must give credit for this concept to my boss (he hates it when I call him that), Albert Maruggi. During a presentation on “thinking different” and using social media earlier this week, he made the connection between the venerable Mackay 66 and a Facebook profile. I’ve merely put more meat on the bone for this post.