I’m All Ears…. But What Was That Last Part?
The Internet is evolving! It is no longer a source of solely information gathering or communicating via email. Web 1.0 that’s the past, the future is all in Web 2.0 now. Brain Solis acknowledges that ‘social media has democratized influence, forever changing the way businesses communicate with customers and the way customers affect the decisions of their peers’.
So obviously I whole-heartedly agree with both Ashleigh Smith and Ashleigh McLennan, that public relations has become PR 2.0 and the communication approaches have developed from a one-way approach to audiences transforming into two-way symmetrical models. No longer do we depend upon direct means of communication mediums rather it is a social interactive and integration system.
It is quiet evident that in modern society public relations practitioners are utilising platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Blogger and many more different types of social networking sites, as a tool to more efficiently interact with their publics. Facebook, blogs, Twitter and customer reviews are considered the most effective tactics for mobilizing consumers to talk up products online (Etailing survey of 117 companies, September 2009) used by 78% of company respondents.
However, with advances and convergence in technologies and widespread integration of communication, are we really listening to what consumers want or are we just flooding the ‘market’ or ‘community’ with public relation practices and content?
Social media has enabled companies to directly market to their publics, as they never have been able to before, bypassing all traditional filters previously put in place to regulate quantity and quality of material pushed into society, for instance editors for newspapers. Talk about power!
This break down in filters has ‘open the flood gates’ as they say for everything and anything to infiltrate the digital public arena. If I may, I would like to use RealWire’s metaphor of environmental pollution. They associate ‘online pollution’ as irrelevance, aka CLUTTER! This clutter wastes time and money and causes MAJOR frustration for audiences.
In all the clutter it is nearly near impossible to disseminate the information in a timely and effectively manager to find the ‘good stories’ tailored to our needs, hence our message is lost in the clutter, with three out of four people receiving press releases that they are irrelevant to and half of these have taken action in blocking these unwanted emails.
Public Relations industries are one of many who are the causing of this pollution. This ‘pollution’ is damaging public relations influence on their audience through social media because people are now, just like paid TV, blocking them out.
They think we are junk? Are we just too intrusive? Old public relations communication was about networking within the industry through journalists or editors. However, online public relations have taken a 360 turn approaching publics with a ‘hands on’ mentality. Public relations is all about establishing and sustaining influence. Online this is achieved through;
- Listening
- Being accepted on the audience’s terms
- Having relevant and quality content
- Engaging people and building relationships
So if we are indeed listening and not just ‘polluting’ our virtual environment, should we be giving the public what they want? Are people just ‘bitching and moaning’ about anything and everything for no purpose at all? Or if we assume they know what they want, there is a big difference between what customer says they want and what they really need/want. Also, if we give them what they want, then will it end up backfiring? As the wise proverb goes be careful what you wish for, or in this case ask for.
In saying that, it must be noted that it is not wise to solely listen to what the customer wants, but to integrate the needs of the organization and research conducted and gathered to develop a successful public relations campaign.
Hi Jessica these are very interesting thoughts,
ReplyDeletethough I have to admit the videos disturbed me a little bit. It seemed a bit anti-individualist and anti-free-market to tell people how to post responsibly on the web (perhaps the cold, authoritarian accent of the video narrator didn't help, it reminded me of '1984' and 'V for Vendetta' a little bit). :)
The only kinds of codes of conduct I can accept is the censuring of harassment, threats or slurs against people who disagree with you on social media discussions. Those videos discussed the issue of noise and clutter created by every individual wanting to post their thoughts and every company wanting to sent out messages using these new mediums; which is an issue of discarding content and posts that are not offensive, but of low quality.
Because of the noise, artists who wish to start a career using social media (posting songs on Youtube to attract publishers) will have a hard time standing out unless their work is exceptional or well-marketed. I discusses on my blog called 'Noise' in Team Benetton's blog. But I do not think we should pressure people to not post their songs or work, I think some people post these things for satisfaction, and the situation will adapt itself. Agents or publishers looking for talent using new mediums will seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Another topic which you discussed specifically is that of companies using social media to advertise. Privacy and security is a real issue, and people's private data should be held sacred, with people having to sign into a company's network voluntarily to take part in its network. It is only a matter of time before we become oversaturated with commercial messages on Facebook and other mediums, and it will be dealt with the same way traditional mediums dealt with it.
Posting relevant messages to relevant people, posting creative or distinctive messages, will become necessary to generate any attention. Just like what happened with print.
Another issue was that of people damaging the social experience by posting irrelevant thoughts in the wrong context. I tend to think it is wrong to judge what is irrelevant as people have different personalities, opinions and tastes. But self-selection plays an important part, you choose who is in your community on social sites, and the tone of discussions is set by those engaging in it.
I am probably stubborn when it comes to this, and many probably disagree with me, but I do have issues with the movement, evidenced in the videos, to try and pressure people to self-regulate their content beyond basic rights and privacy.
Grish