Social media, social media, social media…everybody’s talking about it. And what they have to say is very revealing. A meander through recent issues of PR Week leaves one in no doubt that the battle lines are being drawn.
“It’s not often that industries take collective leave of their senses. And there are few things more unnerving for a commentator than all concerned doing very odd things. ..The media are going through such a phase at the moment. As an industry, whether it be print broadcast, telecom or web-based, they have become obsessed with delivery.
All around the world, media companies have decided that the tried and tested ways of reaching their customers are no longer sufficient. That which they understand is automatically diminished in their eyes; that which is different, preferably new and not understood, becomes irresistible…”
So comments Anthony Hilton, City Editor on
Pretty much NOT a bells and whistles supporter, then. One of the problems of SMPR is that, news-wise, everything is available to everyone at the same time. Which makes it hard for a journalist to justify himself via his ability to get to the story first . If he can’t scoop exclusive material, where’s his added value?
“…LOOK has rolling deadlines and can turn stories around very quickly but we want things exclusively…” Ali Hall Editor LOOK magazine (PR Week 9 February 2007).
And then there is the issue of journalists and magazine teams feeling they would like a bit of personal, even bespoke, service – quaint as that might sound to some.
“…I prefer a good old fashioned press release in the post, sent to the right section editor. Emails get lost in the system – post always gets opened…” Sara Cremer, Editor, Eve magazine (PR Week 27 March 2007)
For others, the future probably is SMPR – as with online magazine Monkey, which launched at the end of 2006. The pages are embedded with moving images and tracks, so readers can ‘experience’ the things the editorials mention – like games, music and movie clips.
“…We would appreciate a heads-up on any clips or sound files to which PROs might have access…” Ben Raworth, Editor-in-chief (PR Week 10 November 2006)
For some it sucks. For others it’s sexy. Either way, the SMPR debate has got the business thinking…which can’t be bad.
1 comment:
Heya dolly,
I thought I had already posted this but, upon checking, realized I hadn’t. I think this may have occurred a few weeks ago when I was having MAJOR issues with anything techy-related, as so often happens in my daily life. So it’s (very) belated. Anyway, I really enjoyed your presentation, didn't know anything about SMPR, except that there was a bit of a fuss kicking up, so it taught me quite a bit.
I tend to agree with you on your views. SMPR may simply be an example of the industry moving with the times (Press Release 2.0, you might say) but the excitement does seem a bit OTT. As discussed in class, doesn't SMPR defeat the purpose of a press release, ie. it's meant for the press? Additionally, don't journalists just want the facts, pure and simple? The SMPR template looks useful if you've got the time to peruse but if you're working to a deadline, it's nothing but unecessary 'bumf'.
I'm therefore confused. SMPR's seem to go against the principles of press releases that we have all been drilled with. Perhaps there is a time and a place for them and the trick is to determine where and when that is? Or perhaps I'm being a bit dim and missing the point.
The probability that I am being dim is high. But, like you say, if it's got PR people thinking, it's a good thing. The debate, as I can see from some of your comments, will rage on.
Post a Comment