podcasting – another pr tool in the box?

"The PR people are drooling over the potential for going "beyond the press release" and influencing what journalists write - even those who fail to turn up to an event - because they can listen to it at a time of their choosing. Disney, General Motors, Purina, Cisco, Macromedia, Virgin Atlantic, TV Guide, Jupiter Research, are all podcasting."

Before we come to this quote, does anyone remember the quote just recently mentioned to us in one of the PR and Technology seminars? "Don't just use technology for the sake of it." The opening quote of this post is taken from a website called Blog Relations. And what is interesting is the fact that this was written in September 2005!

The point I am trying to make is the one that even though we should greet every new step the online technology brings us as progression of some kind, I totally agree with Tom Kelleher where he writes in his book Public Relations Online (2007): "...we have to be especially careful not to overstate the implications of the new technologies we embrace."

Podcasting, which at the time was touted as a revolution in communication and the way of modern PR, hasn't really caught on as people expected. As has been demonstrated (like in our class today, thank you George) it can be very helpful and it can also be an utter waste of time. All depending on who the producer is and what he wants to achieve.

So another tool in the PR tool box? Yes. But keep the breakthroughs coming by all means. Gradually the way we practise PR will be changed by technology, but it will not be revolutionized overnight by a single invention.

journalists can be lazy and selective

At the end of her presentation in class today Sherry Wang, my classmate, wondered whether the so called "online newsroom" posed a threat to the public relations practitioner. I tend to think not.

Although technology allows today's [lazy] journalists to access information in an easier manner than before there is nothing that indicates their behaviour has suddenly changed - or will, for that matter. Believe me, I know. I have worked as a journalist for almost 15 years.

Journalists are a bit like the resting salmon once having swum upstream during the spring for spawning. There's lot of food around but the fish is overworked, tired and picky. When the right meal comes along (sometimes a man-made fake bait) the the tail muscles work overtime to ensure a "scoop."

To hook a journalist's attention you have to use the right type of bait. When it comes to such specified methods, a simple web-link simply isn't enough unless the story is of such importance or magnitude that every media feels obliged to publish it.

However, most of the time journalist's attention needs to be aroused and their appetite whetted. And when it comes to that, skillful specialized PR practitioners do the job better than anyone else. When it comes to the art of communication an internet site or a news-release - no matter how good they might be - simply can't compete. Not yet.

spotlight on ethics following resignation

Hi, my name is Siggi (Sigurður in full) Sverrisson, and this first blog of mine is a part of a course project at the University of Stirling where I am going for my MSc in Public Relations.

One of many commonly discussed themes in connection with public relations is ethics. With PR striving to rid itself of the notion that the practice is propaganda-oriented, issues on ethics arise on a regular basis.

Mike Granatt, an aide for Michael Martin (see picture to the left), Speaker of the House of Commons, has resigned for "ethical reasons" having unintentionally given wrong information to a journalist after being misled by Commons officials, according to the BBC website.

With an on-going debate on PR and ethics, it would be interesting to see what readers think of Granatt's decision. Should he have stayed on given the fact that he was misled or did he make the right decision by not only shouldering his own responsibility but also of the ones that misled him?