The biter gets bit

You can guarantee that just when you start feeling particularly clever about something it'll turn round and bite you where you sit down. It just happened to me.

I've written a couple of posts recently about the need to change and adapt to the new conditions in PR and journalism. Of course, I was talking about everyone else's need to change. Me? I was fine with all the paradigm shifting going on.

Then a potential client with a brilliant product tripped me up. He asked me if I was willing to be paid by results. Well, I didn't quite fall off my chair. I had just started the "oh no, this is PR we can't guarantee anything, it is very hard to measure you know..." speech, when I began to feel a set of teeth in my back end. The biter was getting bit.

I've talked about payments by results and had just a touch of schadenfreude when ad agencies have been 'persuaded' by procurement departments of large companies. I've never really thought about how it might work in practice, though.

But I'm going to now. Not because I'm desperate for the work, but because the thought of payment by results appeals to me in this case. It fits the client and the industry and it fits the times.

I've already started scribbling and come up with a few models, but if you've got any more ideas I'd love to hear them...

Who's afraid of the big, bad PR wolf?

The double-page spread in today's media supplement in the Danish business daily Børsen about the defection of journalists to PR in the country will nourish a feeding frenzy of media academics from years to come. What messages, what metaphors - what a load of rubbish.

Slap bang in the middle of the page is an illustration showing big business (yes he's smoking a cigar, yawn) ringed by faceless PR people in suits to keep away the poor, bemused journalist (yes, he's got a press pass in his hat bad).

And the headlines: "Media loses ground to PR", "Press departments threaten balance of power", "Course leader: We will not teach PR".

And all this comes on top of an excellent post by former FT journalist turned blogger Tom Foremski, MediaWatch: Why Some Journalists Won't Transition To The New Journalism  who references an excellent article by Amy Graham at www.poynter.org called Journalism: A Toxic Culture? (Or: Why Aren't We Having More Fun?)

Both the posts are about the inability of journalists to adapt to the new culture of internet-based media because of their unwillingness to accept change. One of the six reasons given by Graham and commented on by Foremski is:

• Priesthood syndrome: Traditional journalists are the sole source of news that can and should be trusted -- which gives them a privileged and sacred role that society is ethically obligated to support.

Now let's look at that Børsen story again in the light of the fading light of the priesthood of journalism and the growing legions of faceless PR people.

Well, as Gruppenführer in a PR company (actually,that's not my real title, but if we succeed in crushing journalism forever, who knows?) I think that the Børsen article is one-sided and under-researched.

That the demand for communications people is growing in Denmark is not in doubt, but the article fails to look at some key facts such as:

• Compared with other western, liberal economies, Denmark has a conservative business culture and has been way behind in their use of PR and communications people. The explosion of media outlets and the growing aggressiveness of primarily news journalists has meant they are playing catch-up.
• The article doesn't say how many of the newly appointed communication people are internal or external. Denmark excels in internal communication that is inclusive and comprehensive; the faceless PR people are in fact concerned and committed colleagues who have been known to walk rather than communicate badly.
• PR people on a global scale are also being challenged by the reduction in the number of journalists. We actually like journalists because they are the people we send our stories to.
• The whole traditional media model is breaking down and that will effect all aspects of the business. PR people are also struggling to embrace new PR or PR 2.0 or web PR, call it what you will.

I started in this business as a journalist on a local paper more than 20 years ago and that has always informed my work in internal communications and PR. The "us and them" model doesn't work anymore. In the networking society where PR people and journalists live side by side on a LinkedIn profile, we are just kidding ourselves if we think it does.

Make Marketing History: The Top 5 Made-Up Words Of Web 2.0.

I've just come across John Dodd's fine blog Make Marketing History, which has some extremely straightforward and sensible comments on social media and the like. Starting with:

Conversation
It's a metaphor folks. It doesn't mean that your customers want a conversation with you. They generally want a quiet life without unwanted noise from you. They want the ability to interact with you on their terms, they want you to listen and, most crucially, they now have the ability to have a conversation about you when you screw up. Your focus should be on listening and not screwing up rather than having a conversation.

Make Marketing History: The Top 5 Made-Up Words Of Web 2.0.

Danish PR bureaus lack own blogging experience

Danish PR bureau Rescu Kommunikation has just published a survey that shows bureaus here aren't not very active, to say the least. According to Rescu, only seven out of 58 bureaus have a blog or one underway.

As Rescu points out, you don't have to have a blog as an agency, but if you are advising companies on whether to blog or not, then a bit of personal insight might be a good idea.

The reasons given in a follow-up newspaper article were:

• Lack of subjects
• Lack of time
• Not wanting to appear as an opinion former

All fairly reasonable, but to my mind a bit thin.

If you are used to wandering round in the blogosphere (and you should be if you are advising companies) and can't find subjects I'd be worried.

As far as time is concerned, you can use as much or little as you need - just because you can update every 30 secs, doesn't mean you have to.

And finally, if you have a PR bureau that doesn't have an opinion on its profession that can be made public, then I'd go looking for another bureau...