Publicity ought to be part of your marketing strategy to boost your mission or profits and keep you in the game over the long term. It's neither free or easy and — sorry, Jack — it's not like planting magic beans.
“PR” is what people used to describe the spin they tried to obtain through “news media.” The primary tool was the “press release” or “press packet.” Results were sort of measurable: You would see how many clippings carried your name and boosted your ego, and see whether it made the phone ring or the door swing open.
All this has not withered, but it’s evolved. And even deeply rooted organizations can evolve with it. Now, a comfortable publicity routine includes more diverse efforts that require a lot more spadework for what may seem to be less immediate impact.
It’s planting hardy seeds online as well as in traditional media, knowing that the field is crowded, and that in many businesses the seeds of competitors have blown in from all over the world via sales over the Internet.
The traditional media is soil depleted of many vital nutrients, but still supporting life. Online, the message doesn’t go into anyone’s compost bin so quickly and you have control over how it looks. It stays indefinitely not only where it’s planted, but on a surprising number of sites that harvest material from your site and others.
Posting your PR online will bring more eyeballs over time, but it won’t be that same “bounce” you could get with a nicely placed piece of publicity in the daily news or even through a Facebook posting that slides farther and farther down the page.
For long-term impact and for your particular species to thrive, it's best to know where to sow, and save seeds for all the fertile spots that best serve your goals.
Showing posts with label public relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public relations. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Life by 1,000 slices: Navigating media convergence
If you were too busy letting newspapers die to pick up the New York Times last Friday, or you didn’t see it online, you aren’t alone. But behind the scenes, it underscores the need for the Davids with a message to work their way through — and around — the Goliaths.
You certainly couldn’t depend on broadcasters to inform you about a federal action that will subvert them, too, as media convergence morphs around the Internet and leaves the makers and users of the old hardware in an “adapt-or-die” frame of mind. Why should TV news cover the Federal Communications Commission’s intention to treat their owners as second-class while expanding the availability of bandwidth to the Internet?
The Times article in question, lays this out for us: The internet is taking over, so why not let it? By 75-year-old law, the FCC stands as guardian of the “airwaves” that are supposedly the property of the public, even though recent administrations have done their best to give our property away to the large corporations who control both the means and the messages.
Of course, it’s not only “airwaves” we talk about today. Communications is on an energy spectrum that may travel by air, but it now arrives by pipe in the form of broadband and cable television, as well as from your dish or – if you are hearty – a rooftop antenna. The spectrum of frequencies is increasingly crowded by all the outlets for television, specialized radio communications and internet bandwidth.
“According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, ,” the Times reports, “the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.”
The article goes on to discuss direct Internet delivery of health records and classroom educational materials that could bypass current handlers, including companies heavily invested in more traditional technology. More and more of the broadcast spectrum would be allocated to other means of communication, including mobile applications.
Couple this with the notion that entire cities are wiring (with help from Google grants, among other sources) to ensure universal coverage for rich and poor, urban and rural, and you have the government accelerating the reality of convergence around the Internet for message delivery for everyone.
Already local-access cable stations are embracing the use of the Web to provide on-demand content for even the likes of “Wayne’s World” and more serious hyperlocal programming.
What do these moves signal for smaller voices trying to communicate?
Quite probably, the death of advertising as we know it. Ditto for public relations, which has already become a guerilla war as outlets publish less and use bland or cost-based formulas to determine what airs or prints. From TV clickers to general media overload, it is more vital than ever to mobilize direct, trustworthy contact via word of mouth and familiar sources.
I refer to it as guerrilla war because it is, as Malcolm X said, “by any means necessary.” It varies from infiltrating the garden club newsletter to a viral campaign on Twitter, depending on the demographic you are seeking – and sometimes it is both.
So as the media “converge” around the internet, your chosen means of getting your messages out may actually have to splinter, taking many smaller paths.
Flexibility is the key, measurability of results remains the challenge. Effectiveness is always the goal, and perseverance the only way to get there.
You certainly couldn’t depend on broadcasters to inform you about a federal action that will subvert them, too, as media convergence morphs around the Internet and leaves the makers and users of the old hardware in an “adapt-or-die” frame of mind. Why should TV news cover the Federal Communications Commission’s intention to treat their owners as second-class while expanding the availability of bandwidth to the Internet?
The Times article in question, lays this out for us: The internet is taking over, so why not let it? By 75-year-old law, the FCC stands as guardian of the “airwaves” that are supposedly the property of the public, even though recent administrations have done their best to give our property away to the large corporations who control both the means and the messages.
Of course, it’s not only “airwaves” we talk about today. Communications is on an energy spectrum that may travel by air, but it now arrives by pipe in the form of broadband and cable television, as well as from your dish or – if you are hearty – a rooftop antenna. The spectrum of frequencies is increasingly crowded by all the outlets for television, specialized radio communications and internet bandwidth.
“According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, ,” the Times reports, “the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.”
The article goes on to discuss direct Internet delivery of health records and classroom educational materials that could bypass current handlers, including companies heavily invested in more traditional technology. More and more of the broadcast spectrum would be allocated to other means of communication, including mobile applications.
Couple this with the notion that entire cities are wiring (with help from Google grants, among other sources) to ensure universal coverage for rich and poor, urban and rural, and you have the government accelerating the reality of convergence around the Internet for message delivery for everyone.
Already local-access cable stations are embracing the use of the Web to provide on-demand content for even the likes of “Wayne’s World” and more serious hyperlocal programming.
What do these moves signal for smaller voices trying to communicate?
Quite probably, the death of advertising as we know it. Ditto for public relations, which has already become a guerilla war as outlets publish less and use bland or cost-based formulas to determine what airs or prints. From TV clickers to general media overload, it is more vital than ever to mobilize direct, trustworthy contact via word of mouth and familiar sources.
I refer to it as guerrilla war because it is, as Malcolm X said, “by any means necessary.” It varies from infiltrating the garden club newsletter to a viral campaign on Twitter, depending on the demographic you are seeking – and sometimes it is both.
So as the media “converge” around the internet, your chosen means of getting your messages out may actually have to splinter, taking many smaller paths.
Flexibility is the key, measurability of results remains the challenge. Effectiveness is always the goal, and perseverance the only way to get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)