do we really think jason has studied adam smith?
;-)

while i appreciate your defense, i think there are two things at play here. one is that every industry and every profession has it's fair share of poor performers. and bad apples often spoil the bunch. but most of us are aware of that fact and have learned ways to deal with that.

the second is some old advice from my mother.
she always told me, "consider the source."
in this case, a large readership doesn't necessarily equal respect amongst a majority.

all the best!
deb

This new digital media has produced a new business type ! At 72 years old I know from experience that firms like Shell Oil were built
on a well managed profit center, and a lot of money spent with Professional Public Relations Firms ! The old cowboy has to explain to the kids, when you dig a hole stop when you reach the bottom !
Ego is a very interesting we all have it, now judgment that is something even money can't buy !

Marshal,

Thanks for reading my blog.

I do not appreciate any kind of stereotypes.
Of course there are good and bad PR people as in any profession, but this kind of rant needed to be answered.

All the best,
Richard

In time,Time in Grade may educate a few geeks ! your welcome !

MARSHAL SANDLER
marshal.m1@gmail.com
http://marshalsandler.com/

Calacanis gives advice that anyone can easily follow, provided they have already developed the same degree of internet notoriety and following.

In other words, if Mark Cuban wasn't listening then Jason's words don't matter.

I'm a PR man in Silicon Valley that works with high-tech startups. I agree with many of the points that Mr. Calacanis raises. Many startups should do their own PR instead of relying on an outside firm to try to define their messages and positioning and then relay this to the media.

Startups embody a vision that the founders see clearer than anyone else. The CEO of the company is in the best position to understand and articulate this message.

Mr. Calacanis is in a special position with unique skills that allow him to succeed in many different roles. Perhaps he is actually being humble by thinking that other executives have his same set of special skills with the media?

Mr. Calacanis sees that PR is important to the success of a business and he has a good understanding PR. I would probably offer Mr. Calacanis a job if his business failed. However, with his expertise with both business management and public relations, his startup will probably succeed. I don't expect to see his resume in my inbox any time soon.

Amen and I concur - although you said it much more succinctly than I did in my post about this whole Calacanis rant.

Really, the whole "publicly denouncing PR as a collective waste" mantra is getting quite tiresome. Clearly PR continues to add value for numerous organizations. Ironically, I think the smartest PR executives have actually improved and are pushing positive change in the industry. How can we not when our work is publicly called out on a near-daily basis?

After reading his post in full, it is dead on in many respects. But again take into context his position. Are you as a business owner able to do this?
"When we launched Weblogs, Inc. I told my partner Brian Alvey--who did have a family and was a homebody--that his job was to hold the fort and my job was to go out and spread the gospel. During the Weblogs Inc. years I attended every possible event I could. At these events I acted as a speaker AND as a blogger covering the event. This meant we were getting and giving press--which is a virtuous thing to do."

If you don't have the day-to-day guy in place you can't be the rah-rah guy too. However this rings true no matter what:

"Your job is to transfer the enthusiasm you feel for your brand to everyone you meet."

Bravo! Thank you for planting the flag and taking a stand.

The reality is that the business is evolving. But it's not just PR agencies that need to evolve, it's the clients. Speaking as someone who used to work as the "emerging media guy" at a PR agency, my experience taught me that many clients are nowhere near ready for the transition to more conversational PR. Most still want a simple black and white spreadsheet at the end of the month along with the billings report. They want a simple explanation along the lines of "I paid for X and got Y." Conversational media and word of mouth doesn't really work that way, and it's going to take a lot of education to explain that 10 positive comments in a blog post equals as much if not more than an obscure placement in a New York Times piece.

Until the education happens, the "PR sucks" meme is going to continue rearing its ugly little head every so often.

cheers,
Michael

----
312-932-9000 / michael@blogcouncil.org / twitter: merubin
I am a Blog Council employee and this is my personal opinion.

Richard - I agree with much of what you said to defend our profession, but we must also listen to the anger from others and learn from it. Why does Jason think many in PR are worthless. I think I know the answer. Many PR professionals are larger firms are young and inexperienced. Many are burning bridges with the media and other key audiences in our business. Their bosses are too busy to properly supervise them and, more importantly, too busy to TRAIN them. And many are just horrible on the phone or via email in reaching out to the media. That, my friend, is just a fact and why my firm specializing in senior counseling with only experienced PR counselors with an average of 10 to 15 years experience. NO junior staffers work here. Why? Because clients asked for this model/paradigm when we first started our firm over 15 years ago and we listened. There are many excellent junior staffers in our business, but we also have many that are working without proper training.

Thanks for weighing in on this, Richard.

There were two other things that frustrated me about Jason's e-newsletter/blog post. Well, there were more than two, but I'll share two with you.

First, he assumes wrongly that the only thing PR people do is media/blogger relations. While that usually makes up an important part of what we do, it's certainly not the only thing. What about crisis communications, internal communications, strategic planning, messaging development, speech writing, and on and on.

To reduce PR to ONLY media relations is like saying "fire your doctor because I can show you how to put on Neosporin and a Band-Aid." While that's useful information, especially if you have an accident-prone toddler like myself, it does a disservice to the full breadth of skills a doctor has to offer.

Second, at one point, Jason mentions some internal person (don't remember the name) who helps him do background research on reporters, pulls relevant information for him on the reporters' interests, etc. Um...I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot like what a PR person would do to help an executive prepare for a media interview.

Interesting. The older (wiser?) we get, the less relevant absolute answers seem to be.

Yesterday, I spent some time doing something I love to do, but have not pursued as much in recent history -- visiting reporters and editors in the newsroom. Walking into the bureau at the appointed time, I found myself wondering what I would offer of value to the bureau chief with whom I was about to meet. Were we being received strictly out of courtesy? Was there some aspect of history in the relationship with our client or team that I had overlooked?

I quickly (re-)learned what any savvy Web 2.0 player in the new millennium knows well… it’s about starting or expanding the conversation. We had a great visit – the editor was glad to put a face with a voice and email messages, the bureau chief was interested in a discussion of our client’s space and some ideas that we had for future stories. In turn, we learned more of what their team was emphasizing in their coverage of this particular client’s industry. Knowing more about one another helped on both sides of the table.

Ours is a profession based on the creation of trusted relationships. Can any element of our universe survive -- and event thrive – in a vacuum? Certainly. Is it the most efficient or effective way to exist. Generally, not.

As adequately noted in other posts herein, there are good and bad members of any profession. Fortunately in our world, the good tend to gather around an agenda that has some common values to better serve both suppliers and consumers.

Jason is also describing his experiences in what is still basically a cottage industry where everybody knows everybody - it's not a particularly scalable insight.



However having recently switched from hack to flack, the reference to "system efficiency" struck a chord.



As a City hack in London, a PR who arranged coffee with an analyst I'd never met, or responded to our editorial synopsis with a relevant contact, was increasing efficiency. A PR who insisted I get approval for all interview requests with a guy I used to be able to just pick up the phone and call was decreasing efficiency - the guy went straight down my list of go-to contacts.



I sincerely hope nobody ever writes "the Tao of Public Relations" but it's good to stay mindful of whether your actions are helping along the natural flow or just throwing a spanner in the works - sometimes non-action is the best course.

Thank you for saying this and with so much tact!

Mike,

I agree with your point on training;
I just take exception to Jason’s summary dismissal of PR firms as useless baggage.

Thanks for reading my blog,
Richard

Jason Calacanis is a twitter bud of mine and with that in mind, I have to say, this is a case of Jason not knowing what he doesn't know. Jason, it's time for a PR 101 refresher;) PR isn't just about looking pretty. PR isn't even just about talking to msm or cgm media. It's about a brand/product/service making meaningful connections with a person(s), where that person lives and breathes, in a way that reaches that brand/product/services' objective(s). For a guy who lives in the 2.0 world, Jason's thinking like a luddite.

I was hoping one of PR's heavy hitters would weigh in on this. Well said, Señor Edelman.

As I wrote in my blog regarding Jason's missive, he overlooks one CRUCIAL fact, and that is before he sold a company to AOL, he probably wouldn't have had the visibility to get his own attention.

I noticed that he also gets irked when reporters ask him about how Silicon Alley Reporter failed. If doing PR were so easy, it seems he would have been able to make that a hit that went on to be bought by a major publishing company.

One of the main reasons PR is continually slammed is because we don't have an organization that effectively educates people about what we do. The Society for Human Resources Management runs ads all the time and many other organizations do a variety of things to educate the general public; yet our main organization is generally nowhere to be seen outside the industry.

I work for the second largest school system in the nation, the Los Angeles Unified School District. We are the endless butt of jokes, political floggings and depressing so-called news. Many have made their careers by trashing the LAUSD, including union leaders, mayors and yes, even some of our own school board members.

Despite the toxic environment, this district is acheiving remarkable results for its children, given the givens, yet we cannot communicate this to the public because we get hammered for hiring "PR hacks."

Our inability to communicate hampers us daily and affects the education of our students. It hurts us in our hiring efforts, our ability gain community support and ultimately to the loss of taxpayer and parental confidence.

Though the initial discussion focused on start-up companies I assume its author would be among those with a pitchfork and torch at our doors were we to ever again attempt to engage a firm such as Edelman. A good PR firm (pro bono of course) could do wonders around here.

Sarah Bradshaw
the view expressed are not those of LAUSD

Richard

First, congrats for have a blog and to give answers directly.

Second, Why don't some PR firms take care of the bloggers, until you realize that you need them?

I try to approach to a few PR firms to get info on some of their clients and never get an email reply, but when those PR wants to spread a statement, damn all was very fast, and consistent.

Sorry if my english is not the best, i write and manage a total spanish blog.

Our company once hired Edelman PR to do our PR and they truly sucked a**!!! The experience was definitely closer to Calacanis' perspective than that of ol' Mr. Edelman's defensive stance on this matter.

In fact, my personal distaste and mistrust for PR peepz comes directly from my experience with Edelman PR.

Of course there are exceptions and there are some unique PR individuals out there but those are few and far between.

For the money PR firms charge they damn well better get results... With that same amount of coin or even just a fraction, you are much better off to do it yourself!!! Instead spend the money you would have wasted on a PR firm and hire an in house go-getter who prioritizes YOUR business not their firm.

Perception is reality!

=rf!

Richard,

Shouldn't you be writing fake blogs for Walmart and your other big money clients instead of defending the failures of the PR industry?

Seriously Richard, I know there are some PR folks who do a good job. I've met all both of them in fact, and I really like them. (zing! pow!)

No, seriously... PR folks are really loved by journalists.... love sending them to VOICEMAIL! (zing! pow!).

Seriously, nothing is better when you're on deadline than having to go through a PR person who tries to spin the story and protect their client. It's just sooooo much fun.... we love it!

You can defend PR folks all you want, but you should know that when you're not at the table journalists and bloggers are making fun of you and shaking their heads in disgust at the horrible inefficiency you bring to the world. 99 times out of 100 PR people slow bloggers and journalists down.

I know you've PR 2.0-ed Edelman and you've got a blog (yes!) and some of your folks are using Twitter (wow!), but the fact is the days of PR are numbered. Folks are realizing that spending $15-20k a month on a PR firm is a total waste of money. Better to hire a $40k blogger for your company, and spend the rest on going to a couple of events and being a real human--as opposed to some PR creation.

The best PR is no PR.

Be yourself, be authentic and do great things. If you do that you don't need a PR firm.

If you're lame and inauthentic? Well, then hire Edelman to make you a fake blog like they did for Walmart.

The PR industry has the reputation it has because they've spent decades trying to manipulate the press and public... as the playing field is leveled your access and process becomes worth less and less. A new process is brewing... it's call authenticity and it's everything PR is not.

all the best,

Jason

I agree with Dave T. on this one, I find Mr. Calacanis' remarks spot on.

I have been following this matter since the day it started. Comments came flying out from Calacanis, Scoble, Arrington and even Steve Rubel.

Unpleasantly surprised I found that the opinions in every single blog post addressed the PR needs of few and did not give an insight in all the hard work PR people do when trying to pitch a company. I work in the Buenos Aires office of Edelman and am proud to say that all the hard work and long hours provides results.

Branding yourself is logical evolution in an increasingly socialized web, but doing your own PR is not always the answer or the solution to your communication issues.

As Mr. Edelman well said, it is time that the detractors of PR start to recognize that companies are not build solely on the stardom of its employees or even its owners. A company is about what it makes (or provides) and what it conveys through with it.

Santiago Pochat
Account Assistant
Edelman Buenos Aires

This message does not reflect the opinion of anyone else but ME.

Sarah,

The bias against PR people is extreme. Note that Joel Klein has used pr very effectively in NYC schools turnaround.

Thanks for reading,
Richard

Let's take a step back.

I don't know where you live but I live in the United States and if you ask anyone in the world how to define America's brand, people will probably say some variant of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Recollecting to college when I tutored an elderly Cambodian man on the U.S. citizenship test, he told me of his years of being beaten and jailed by the Khmer Rouge. He told me how he came to America to learn about its history and customs, and to be like me. Free.

That's something that PR did not accomplish. Or did it?

Yes, one bad apple can spoil the bunch. Its true in PR just like everywhere else.

As a small business owner, I find that there are normally mismatched expectations. I can't afford to spend a bunch of money AND PR doesn't lend itself to quantifiable metrics.

We have a tendency to hope for home runs on a T-Ball budget. Time teaches us to minimize cost and lower expectations. That approach however, seldom attracts top PR professionals.

A brief history of the "PR Is Dead" meme, just for context:

http://www.philgomes.com/blog/2005/02/no-im-not-going-to-defend-my.htm

http://www.philgomes.com/blog/2005/08/duck-pr-flaggelation-meme-returns.htm

http://www.philgomes.com/blog/2006/01/pr-is-dead-again.htm

http://www.philgomes.com/blog/2005/10/striking-blow-for-press-news-release.htm

Congratulations, Jason. You managed to whip people into a conversation that was a dead horse three years ago.

I am late in replying to Marshal Sandler's comment posted August 26, to Richard's blog post of that day. Marshal, you really hit me in the gut with your line, "Ego is a very interesting thing we all have it, now judgment that is something even money can't buy!" My agency's theme has always been judgment, not just as a theme but tag line, because whatever we, PR people, plan, however we say it -- it is a matter of judgment and it can make or break successes for clients. And yes, Marshal, you cannot buy it, but clients should look for it as a critical element in hiring PR representation, whether in house or at an agency, right up there with skills, capabilities and track records.

Noemi Pollack
npollack@ppmgcorp.com
http://www.ppmgcorp.com

Hi Richard,
It's nice to hear you visited our city. Your timing seems to have coincided with the good weather after a wet July. Your observations are most accurate and I would add the incredible diversity as another distinct feature of Toronto and Canada. Roughly half of the Toronto population is foreign born and 20% of the total population of Canada report a mother-tongue that is neither English or French. The diversity of languages, culture and people makes Toronto one of the most interesting cities in the world. It's also an exciting aspect for marketing and recruiting in the agency business.
Come back soon!
Bruce MacLellan

There are essentially two worlds... one that relies on TV and print media for news and information and another that relies on online sources. The former is shrinking and the latter is growing.

Thanks for reporting signs that some of the big guys are at least conscious of this!

I had not read this entry until today, but to me, more important than the US media going global is the fact that it is the major English-language media that are the global media. It is not just Business Week and The New York Times, it is also BBC (The sun never sets on the BBC empire ...), FT, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal and a handful of others. (There are also the major global trade media and these too are English-language, e.g. ICIS Chemical Business.) The thread through all of these is that they are as above, in English. And they are incredibly and widely followed in emerging and developed markets around the world, regardless of the language spoken there. That is a much bigger trend than merely the US media going global. It is a much bigger opportunity for PR people to serve their clients or companies.

Or you can bypass the editorial/journalist channel altogether to place your announcements and points of view. We've negotiated paid placement at some of the top national newspaper websites in the US, and we're expanding rapidly to cover regionals as well.

Our intent is to give PR pros more options in the whole media relations game. For some stories, yes it makes sense to do traditional pitches and editorial support. For many others, though, it's more expeditious to extend your options to include a PR network like Newsforce. As long as it's fully transparent, and the network meets all FTC guidelines and publishers' editorial specs, everyone's happy. Right?

With the shrinking staffs on the editorial side, it only makes sense to pursue other methods of reaching the same (growing) audience via more direct methods.

What we found, surprisingly enough, is that news readers are interested in reading well-written PR, almost as much as regular editorial coverage. Emphasis: "well written" and interesting stories. PR's not just for journalists anymore. And that's a good thing.

Yes it's limited to online and text headlines only right now, but that's the biggest growing part of news - yes? I think that was your point.

Keep up the insights, and keep pushing the PR world outside its comfort zone, Richard.

Sincerely,
Dana Todd
CMO
Newsforce