http://socialrealist.com

Normally the “stupid PR quote of the week” will focus on rumblings in the overall PR blog party. But I’m going to kick it off again with something a little different… a quote from a book I (finally) started working through this weekend.

The Offender: David Meerman Scott

The Source: The New Rules of Marketing & PR

The Quote: “Public Relations used to be exclusively about the media.”

The Stupidity: I have to admit up front that when I opened this book I was going in expecting to be disappointed (on the PR front). But not ten pages past the introduction and I saw the above quote as a section header, and didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

While this warrants it’s very own post, I’m going to say it here: Public Relations was NOT exclusively about the media before the Web came in and supposedly changed our industry (presumably for the better). Let’s repeat that. Public Relations was not…. Not. Not! NOT!!! only about the media!

What is wrong with people (and this isn’t a lone example by a long shot)? Why can’t they grasp the difference between Public Relations and simply media relations? WHY??? I worry that my eyes are going to bleed every time I read crap like this.

Public relations (even before the super duper Internet and all our fancy social this and new media that tools came around) has been about more for a long time. Media relations is just one component. The fact that it’s probably the most “publicly” witnessed aspect of our work to outside audiences and the fact that it might be one of the most talked about aspects of PR does not mean that PR is exclusively about media relations (nor was it!). Let’s look at just a handful of areas that PR can cover in different types of organizations (all of which can be specialties… including media relations):

• Media Relations
• Corporate Communications
• Employee Relations
• Investor Relations
• Community Relations
• Customer Service
• Fundraising
• Event Management
• Lobbying
• Crisis Management

… and I’m probably missing a few in there.

Does Public Relations have to incorporate all of those things? No. Your job title may not have “public relations” anywhere in it, and you can still be working in the broader spectrum of PR. But people really need to stop assuming that the media are the only “public” PR efforts are (or ever were) targeting.

OK. So poor word choice in a simple heading, but it did get my attention, so I’ll give him that. What I think disappointed me more is the fact that he didn’t even attempt to justify the statement. It was just like you’re supposed to assume it’s fact because he says it, and then the section instead goes on about a personal example of how he’s never used a press release to write a story for EContent Magazine. Who cares? The day they prove to be completely worthless at placing a story somewhere that matters is the day we’ll all quit using them, gather together, hold hands, and say a little group prayer, because the PR apocalypse might finally be upon us.

Something else said got under my skin a bit too: “In five years, I can count on one hand the number of PR people who have commented on my blog of reached out to me as a result of a blog post or story I’ve written in a magazine. How difficult can it be to read the blogs of the reporters you’re trying to pitch? It teaches you precisely what interests them. And then you can email them with something interesting that they are likely [sic] write about rather than spamming them with unsolicited press releases.”

Where should I start with that one?

• He wants to know why PR folks aren’t commenting on his blogs before pitching releases to him. For starters (assuming he was talking about Web Ink Now), it would be nice if both of the links on his site that point to his blog actually worked (the footer link doesn’t – the first I noticed by the way, since the homepage copy is formatted to look almost like a blog post – made me scroll down to see whether anything came after, if there was a link to more posts, etc.). Might want to start by fixing that.
• For what looks like a reasonably well-ranking blog, there aren’t that many comments overall (that I’m seeing at least scrolling through the first page of posts). Maybe that should say something… it’s not necessarily the PRs that have a problem. Perhaps he’s not doing an effective job at drawing comments, period. I’d suggest starting by reassessing some issues with the blog (like the slight mish-mosh of topics instead of a really consistent focus – a review of a book on Chinese food??). I’d like to see someone writing a book of this nature having enormously more comments on their own blog (unless he has another blog that I simply missed somewhere, or if older posts were much better received – frankly, I only have so much patience for scrolling through to check). Why would we want to join the conversation if there’s not a whole lot of “conversation” going on there? Forget about PR for a minute. That’s a basic marketing issue… market your blog effectively to the PR crowd in a way that entices them to interact, and they’re going to be more likely to do it.
• As for why we don’t often reach out after someone posts a story for a pitch… well, if you’ve already covered it, it’s kind of old news, wouldn’t ya say? Sure, we might have something related to one of your posts… eventually. But chances are that what we want is an overall feel for your interests and what new stories might interest you right now. On this particular blog, I wouldn’t even begin to guess a focus of interest other than marketing and PR… a bit broad (but conversely the posts are sometimes too specific to really warrant pitching follow-ups). – And I’m not saying these things just to criticize the blog. It looks like a fine blog overall… it just doesn’t support the comment in the book.
• Do bloggers really think that PRs should regularly read their blogs? As in all the time? As in for every blogger / reporter / journalist that might possibly be interested in any story we might be trying to get “out there” for absolutely every client we might work with? And does that include only “reporters” who happen to have blogs, or all bloggers in the niche that might be of interest (is there a difference?)? And following things put out by their non-blogging reporter colleagues too? Yeah… sounds like a piece of cake. I’ll get right on that.
• Hey… I’m a relationship kinda gal. I get it. I do. It would be great it we could all be warm and cozy before pitching a story. But if something’s happening now, I’m not going to wait until the virtual hack-flack love fest is well under way. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big believer in getting to know a bit about who you’re pitching (and building those relationships if you can over time). I have little respect for PR people or businesses who can’t be bothered to do that (one of the reasons I’ve criticized the enabling distribution sites in the past). So pitches that have nothing at all to do with what you cover – sure, that’s spam in my eyes. But when you’re a reporter of any kind, at least personally I don’t think you can say something is “unsolicited” just because you don’t want to use what you’re getting (the impression I get from a lot of folks taking that argument). It’s a part of the job. Deal with it. And if you really want pitches to be more highly-tailored, then put a pitch policy in place on your site to make it clear without expecting the world of everyone. Then just ignore anything that violates that policy. In Meerman Scott’s own words… “how difficult can it be?”

Just to be fair, I haven’t finished the book yet, so this is by no means an all-out review or anything. I’m actually quite looking forward to hearing some of his thoughts on more of the marketing front. That may be the book’s saving grace. (If so, again just to be fair, I’ll try to point out some of the less ridiculous things from the book in a later post.)