« Clinton Global Initiative—Where Interests Align | Main | 57 Years Young »
October 1, 2009
Comments: Appropriate Forum for PR?
One of the joys of web-based media is the continuing conversation in the wake of posting of an article. The ability of readers to add to story, to bring colorful anecdotes or personal experiences to bear, shows the wisdom of BBC’s Richard Sambrook, who said that, “The crowd is on the field and playing in the game.” The launch of Google’s Sidewiki earlier this week, prompted me to think about -- how should PR folks participate in robust discussions?
I posed the question to Raju Narisetti of the Washington Post, Larry Ingrassia of the New York Times, Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal, Eric Hippeau of the Huffington Post and David Weinberger, senior research at Harvard's Berkman Center.
1) Tone: Statements that are considered offensive are taken down or never posted. Readers can also object to comments that have been posted and persuade editors to take them down. Ingrassia of the NY Times said “We winnow out comments that are nasty or personal or off-point.” Different sites will have different rules for what's offensive.
2) Who Can Post Comments: The Wall Street Journal limits comments to subscribers or those registered to leave a comment. The WSJ also enforces a real-name policy, which Murray contends “has a wonderfully beneficial effect on the quality of our comments.” There is a screen that allows users to limit comments to only those from subscribers.
3) Who Decides Which Comments Are Posted: At the NY Times, an editor or web producer “looks for a variety of viewpoints on a topic.” At the Washington Post, the “call is made by editors in the Interactivity group, “said Narisetti.
4) Eliminating Trolls: To prevent “astro-turfing by trolls who generate massive numbers of form letters,” the Huffington Post actively moderates its comments (note that it has two million comments per month and considers this citizen journalism as important to its community as original articles on the site).
5) Third Party Comment: Weinberger believes it's perfectly acceptable for PR people to prompt a third party expert to jump into the commentary. “These comments must add to the discussion,” he noted. It is not necessary for the expert professor to disclose that he had been contacted by a PR firm asking him/her to make a comment. If the professor is under contract to a client, such disclosure is mandatory, he added.
6) Sidewiki: Weinberger told me about the new Google tool that allows readers to post comments on Google spaces that are appended to relevant articles. This is a way to guarantee that your point of view is posted, even if not on the media’s own server. In fact there will be parallel conversations ultimately on media sites and on Google Sidewiki.
The best practice for a PR professional is to be an active participant in conversations--as long as we are transparent about our clients and motives—by providing substantive material that contributes to peoples’ knowledge, in addition to working with the client to contribute to media’s discussions on their own sites, blogs etc. Sidewiki is a helpful new tool but does not replace the need to rapidly submit comments to media that help correct the record.
Speaking of comments, as always, I appreciate hearing your views.
Posted by Edelman at October 1, 2009 3:36 PM |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/949
Comments
I agree 100% that PR professionals should be able to participate in online conversation. Commenting creates dialogue that can point out issues or problems and jump-start the solutions. Both of these can be invaluable to a company and its products or services. As long as you're forthcoming and transparent about who you are, I see no problem with engaging in conversation.
Tessa Carroll
VBP OutSourcing
www.vbpoutsourcing.com
Posted by: Tessa Carroll at October 2, 2009 11:10 AM
Ironically (sort of), I should point out that I am currently engaged in a for-pay consulting project for the Edelman company, not directly related to Richard's post. Also, I count Richard as a friend.
While I'm here, I might as well reinforce one of this posting's views. I think one of the ways a PR group can help a company engage in the new conversational world is to help that company think through the "rules of the road" for comments, i.e., a list of what's permitted and what isn't, easily findable by those who are thinking of responding. In particular, the PR folks can help the company commit to maintaining the maximum degree of openness it can.
Posted by: David Weinberger at October 2, 2009 2:59 PM
One other important consideration is, "Who reads the comments?" In the UK, for example, some journalists who blog regularly read the comments they get, whilst others pretty much totally ignore them (not ideal, though perhaps understandable if they get very large numbers).
If a journalist reads the comments on their own piece, then that opens up a different route to engage with them, especially if they are someone you wouldn't otherwise get a conversation with.
Posted by: Mark Pack at October 3, 2009 8:53 AM
As a student of PR and currently working as an intern for Brigham Young University's PR department I find this information incredibly helpful. It's hard to know if we or one of our professors should try to be part of the conversation and what exactly is being transparent to a reporter and to their readers.
I really like that Weinberger stated he is accepting of PR professionals prompting a professional to add to the conversation, I feel that many of our professors at BYU can add greatly to a discussion about current research in the area. I have two question I would like to pose to you, that maybe you were able to learn from your conversations. Is it okay for a media manager or PR professional to add to the conversation for their expert, being completely transparent of course, if they are adding to the conversation and stating the research? And how can PR professionals can become part of the conversation on new media such as in Facebook groups or on Twitter?
Posted by: Ashley Fickenwirth at October 6, 2009 12:16 AM
Really like the idea expressed in the statement about the Huffington Post about how they get "two million comments per month and considers this citizen journalism as important to its community as original articles on the site". This seems to capture perfectly the current malleability of ideas on the net.
Google Wiki takes this to its next logical level where the line between original post and comments suddenly blurs even more. Take that even further by applying the ideas that lie behind Google Wave and suddenly a blog post becomes more like a construction site with multiple authors building a single article at once, discussing and amending the text in real time. In such a dynamic environment, there is certainly an opportunity for a PR professional to co-exist but only as a fellow collaborator.
Posted by: Kevin Broome at October 13, 2009 12:14 PM
The idea of having an open channel of communication between the PR professional has not only become a useful tool but also a necessary device to acquire feedback and criticism of whatever is being discussed.
There is nothing more valuable in marketing and public relations than knowing what people are thinking and feeling. Before the use of social media, this kind of information was available, but not at the level it is today.
Although there has to be a certain level of control in regards to the feedback that is posted, readers should be privy to the comments others have made, rather than creating a conversation with just the writer. Furthermore, the PR professional should be the most active in the conversation in order to gather as much information as possible as well as provide as much information as possible.
If in fact there is too much censorship and control over the conversation, in regards to what is being posted or commented on, doesn't it defeat the purpose of creating this social media outlet altogether?
Posted by: Jeff Wood at November 2, 2009 8:03 AM