If he bases himself on things like this, he's wrong.
PR, flackery, public information, press agentry, whatever you call it, its mission has always been spin: telling their side of a story. But in a world of links, in our new architecture of information and news, PR and original sources of information have a new role and responsibility. They can’t just spin anymore. They have to inform. In some cases, they even have to perform a journalistic function.So I commented his post:
Hi Jeff,We'll see, once the column is published if he listened to my suggestions. I doubt it but one can always dream.
Just wanted to make sure you made a very important distinction when writing your column. The problem here Jeff is that PR is much (much) more than "flackery, public information, press agentry." Those things ARE included in PR but PR isn't limited to those things. Know what I mean?
What I mean is you're confusing public relations with media relations. There are a whole bunch of strategies and tactics that are included in the public relations function that have nothing to with media relations.
For example, I counseled one of my client to adopt an ethics code (based on employee recommendations), make sure that all department heads sign on and ensure that all employees are briefed about it.
For example, I recommended to a client to give in to a number of request from its union. The logic was that the cost of accepting the demands is less than the cost (in employee morale) of refusing them.
For example, I suggested to a client that he adopt a blogging policy for his employees (and that he consult them in its writing).
See Jeff, all of these things are public relations. None of them are flackery, public information, or press agentry (to use your terms).
I too took issue with Mr. Jarvis's jaundiced assessment of the PR practioner's stock in trade:
Don't hold your breath in expecting to hear from him...
Publier un commentaire