Spinning the Web on Spinning the Web
Posted by Robert Wallace on Monday, July 6, 2009
A friend and colleague sent me a 7/5/09 NYT article called "Spinning the Web: P.R. in Silicon Valley," and asked my opinion. I'm sure many reading this have already seen it. When I read the piece I figured this was a good blog post, well beyond an email reply.
I find the article, and the whole situation, ironic.
Let's be honest, this isn't an article about "the new PR," this is a promotional piece for Brooke Hammerling - apparently a huge PR maven in Silicon Valley with a lot of success and a Rolodex to die for. There doesn't seem to be any denying her connections.
Everyone is buzzing about the article (maybe not everyone but I've seen a tons of emails and Tweets in the last 24 hrs). Wow...you mean a publication that "doesn't get it" and isn't as influencial as it used to be like the NYT has caused buzz? Shrewd work by Hammerling. And I wonder how much traffic and business the folks mentioned in the article will garner. And I'm guessing Wordnik get more traffic after the NYT piece than the "influencer" strategy.
The article highlights what I've seen before - some misunderstandings about PR. One, the terms "publicist" and "PR" are often used interchangably (by both clients and firm btw), which isn't correct. Publicists are there simply to get the word out (you know...to publicize...), which is more what Hammerling does in my opinion. PR is about how a company communicates with the outside world. Two, in the article, the CEO of Redfin said there is "...no time to vet every message through three layers of spin..." This is either a misunderstanding by Kelman, or he's been talking to the wrong PR folks. PR's not all about spin. Its about getting the message that you want to get out, out. With social media,you better be honest and "real" and fast for sure. But do we not think that these CEO's being "real" on Twitter aren't spinning? Do we not think that Guy Kawasaki is spinning the story of "Guy" in his tweets? The point is, the point of PR hasn't changed, just the medium, approach and packaging of the message.
As is usually the case, I've found some great analysis on the article from Michael Arrington at TechCrunch (one of the bloggers Wordnik was afraid of, btw). Arrington makes the case that tech blogs drove considerably more traffic to a competitor of the client in the article, Wordnik. He also skewers the approach of Hammerling as being a "yes woman" and not serving her client well by pushing back to achieve their business objectives. This is a critical point. It doesn't matter whether its whispering in influencers' ears or a press release or an article in the NYT. The point is to drive awareness of a company to their target audience - in a way that supports the company's business objectives (i.e. make money). Hammerling mentions that at a previous PR stint, during the late 90's boom days, her firm got lots of work but still went out of business. Why? Because "...at the end of the day, they [clients] couldn’t make any money.” Excellent point, one all PR professionals should read and re-read - social media or not.
I find the article, and the whole situation, ironic.
Let's be honest, this isn't an article about "the new PR," this is a promotional piece for Brooke Hammerling - apparently a huge PR maven in Silicon Valley with a lot of success and a Rolodex to die for. There doesn't seem to be any denying her connections.
Everyone is buzzing about the article (maybe not everyone but I've seen a tons of emails and Tweets in the last 24 hrs). Wow...you mean a publication that "doesn't get it" and isn't as influencial as it used to be like the NYT has caused buzz? Shrewd work by Hammerling. And I wonder how much traffic and business the folks mentioned in the article will garner. And I'm guessing Wordnik get more traffic after the NYT piece than the "influencer" strategy.
The article highlights what I've seen before - some misunderstandings about PR. One, the terms "publicist" and "PR" are often used interchangably (by both clients and firm btw), which isn't correct. Publicists are there simply to get the word out (you know...to publicize...), which is more what Hammerling does in my opinion. PR is about how a company communicates with the outside world. Two, in the article, the CEO of Redfin said there is "...no time to vet every message through three layers of spin..." This is either a misunderstanding by Kelman, or he's been talking to the wrong PR folks. PR's not all about spin. Its about getting the message that you want to get out, out. With social media,you better be honest and "real" and fast for sure. But do we not think that these CEO's being "real" on Twitter aren't spinning? Do we not think that Guy Kawasaki is spinning the story of "Guy" in his tweets? The point is, the point of PR hasn't changed, just the medium, approach and packaging of the message.
As is usually the case, I've found some great analysis on the article from Michael Arrington at TechCrunch (one of the bloggers Wordnik was afraid of, btw). Arrington makes the case that tech blogs drove considerably more traffic to a competitor of the client in the article, Wordnik. He also skewers the approach of Hammerling as being a "yes woman" and not serving her client well by pushing back to achieve their business objectives. This is a critical point. It doesn't matter whether its whispering in influencers' ears or a press release or an article in the NYT. The point is to drive awareness of a company to their target audience - in a way that supports the company's business objectives (i.e. make money). Hammerling mentions that at a previous PR stint, during the late 90's boom days, her firm got lots of work but still went out of business. Why? Because "...at the end of the day, they [clients] couldn’t make any money.” Excellent point, one all PR professionals should read and re-read - social media or not.
Tags: pr socialmedia buzz
