Interesting morning session with South Sound PRSA today - for the record, I am not a member of PRSA, because I can't imagine how they could possibly justify the hundred or so dollar membership fee, but I do occasionally show up, because I like to see who's in the business and the morning discussions are a much more affordable eight dollars.
This morning's panel included a young journalist just out of school, emanating blonde and green, a former TNT reporter currently with the county, who I happen to like and respect, and a guy from The Feary Group, who I am willing to like and respect.
What we learned: most PR people are still scared shitless by social media. This despite the fact half the PR world promotes themselves as social media experts (even though few actually are).
The fact is, it's really hard to explain the value and potential of Twitter until you start playing with it, and even then it takes about 6 months of being open-minded to actually get it. Some explained it as a headline service, others as an immediate conversation. I think the best explanation was that it's information that you would like to get immediately that relates to your daily life. But that's only at the most basic level - one of the things that I like about Twitter is that it puts me in the middle of interesting thoughts or conversations that I probably would not have otherwise had. Sure some people are boring, but you don't have to follow them. The people who are interesting add some value to your everyday experience.
We agreed that Facebook is better reserved to actual friends and family, but of course an organization can have it's own Facebook page (as opposed to a personal page from a reporter or executive) to get around all that. Journalists and PR people all seem willing to connect on LinkedIn but I have yet to hear of that particular connection ever turning into a job, story, or even a real conversation - we're all on there, but does it do anything? Blogs are only what you make of them, and they have to be a labor of love (I love you, glossolalia, but you exist as my personal outlet and not as a hit generator).
Examples of good and bad. Good: Rep. Jay Inslee's Flickr stream during the inauguration of behind the scenes shots. Bad: Gov. Gregoire's blog on her official website (not really bloggy, and bo-ring).
There was quite a bit of fear in the room, not only about what to do with this new new social media thing, but also about accuracy, lines between public and private, what it's ok to ignore and what requires a response.
What we have to recognize is that society is already changed. The line between professional and personal is ever more fuzzy, which could lead to fewer stupid personal moments in public or to less professional hypocrisy, both of which are a good thing.
As for accuracy, the web is remarkably self-correcting. If a traffic-generating site or feed throws up something demonstrably wrong, people will point it out. Wikis rely on this crowdsourcing, and it works.
When to ignore and when to respond? Well, people, you do have to use your judgment here and there. There are no hard and fast rules, but if there is a conversation going on then it's going to happen with you or without you, and wouldn't you rather be a part of it? I think yes in most instances, but from a campaign perspective, there were certainly conversations going on where our participation would not have gained us any value. So judgement plays a role.
This morning's panel was only an hour, but we could have talked about this stuff all day. While social media may be a shiny new toy, people instinctively understand that it's also the direction in which most communications are moving and it has the potential to dramatically change the way we interact with information.
What's not scary is that real people still add real value in a social media environment. Your ability to get the most out of social media outlets depends on your willingness to be both interested and interesting.
Comments