Public relations 3.0? What the…
Sometimes editors fall so in love with their ideas, they neglect to properly explain them. Judging by some of the blog posts about our “Public Relations 3.0″ agency business report cover line, that seems to be the case here.
In spite of what our critics may think, we do not believe that PR has surpassed digital progress, only that it is an older industry, one that is now in its third true period of evolution. Of course, that evolution is largely informed by the digital era, and that is why it is so closely connected.
Honestly, I thought it was obvious. When I started covering the industry in 2000, it was already in the midst of a long-running transition from providing focusing on communicating to the media and to the public through the media, to its place in the C-suite where managing corporate reputation, CSR, employee engagement, and boosting sales would be part of the job description.
Now public relations is at the beginning of its third age, when it is demonstrating its unique facility for navigating environments where the companies and brands have less and less control. Rather than lamenting the decline of traditional media’s influence, the PR industry is embracing the new platforms and communities that test their creativity and the authenticity of the messages.
This change is happening much more rapidly than with PR’s previous transition, when even two years ago we were still getting letters to the editor about how little respect the profession is afforded. But even if the changes are occurring quickly, they are no less significant.
So that’s the rationale. Public Relations 2.0 was simply not far enough - the industry has quite suddenly found itself facing a refreshingly high set of expectations from clients and the public alike.
Opinions re: 3.0 can be found here.
Comments are welcome below.
Julia, kudos for responding to the blogosphere.
I originally reacted to your assessment that we were entering the 3.0 era because the industry truly isn’t ready for it, nor are we even close (so says the people are blazing the trail for the betterment of the rest of the industry, as well as those still trying to figure out how to engage in social media.)
Your point, “Rather than lamenting the decline of traditional media’s influence, the PR industry is embracing the new platforms and communities that test their creativity and the authenticity of the messages,” captures where we need to be, not where we are. I spend a lot of my time these days helping others “get it.” The truth is that many PR people, in fact, most PR people are attacking new media in the same fashion as traditional media – if at all. Remember this is an industry that is guilty of not even reading the publications they pitch, let along blogs, podcasts, etc.
Honestly everything that’s documented by PRWeek only validates the whole basis of PR 2.0, it doesn’t leapfrog it. In my post, I highlight the principles behind how I define the 2.0 era.
It all started with the technology that enabled the socialization of media, progressed with the people who embraced it to create new content, and it will end when PR can legitimately engage. Then, and only then, will PR 2.0 fold back into PR (without the need for a rev number behind it.)
We have a tough road ahead of us, as I’ve said before, and as many have already written, PR isn’t invited to the table here. The masses think we don’t get it, so we have a lot of PR for the PR to undertake.
In the meantime, the economic rationale highlighted in PRWeek only demonstrates the demand for these “new” services and expertise by companies looking to jump in. However, this new breed of “smarter” PR pros are a rare commodity.
The higher set of expectations by clients (or executives for those in house) isn’t realistic either for defining 3.0 as most are still unsure how to measure it, or are still either intimidated by the thought of losing control of their messages or still think that social media is not a legitimate use of marketing resources.
The only true expectations that exist are those of the public, and more accurately, the people that make up the public (producers, participants, and readers alike). It is their expectations that place the greatest emphasis on the evolution and necessity of PR 2.0 – or as better described, more effective, sincere, and smarter PR.
For now, it is the difference between spin and evangelism. It’s also the difference between storytelling and influence.
This is an incredible opportunity for the PR industry to escalate its perception by integrating value, direct engagement, and an entirely new set of metrics that prove ROI. It’s up to us to put the “pro” back in the PR Professional title.
PR 3.0 is only confusing the market more. This existing confusion is where we need to focus. Perhaps we can talk 1:1 so that we can collaborate on a concerted way to help the rest of the industry catch up, while also helping businesses understand how to embrace this new world of social media and PR.
Thanks for your time Julia.
I second the kudos Julia, great to read the post and the rationale for the 3.0 moniker.
I still have trouble believing we are in the ‘third age’ of PR, particularly if 2.0 was the second stage. From my day-to-day work I would say the majority of folks are still not using social media, digital tools, and ‘transparent communications’ techniques. It is getting better every day, however we are only in the midst of the second age of PR where we are finally catching up with how to best use technology, many of which have just been finalized during the past 24 months.
When will we move past this moment? I don’t know…wish I did. All I can contribute is my opinion from the work I and the people I work with do everyday.
I still think we are better off discussing the best ways to employ PR 2.0 techniques rather than push into another stage that is a ways off. That way we can meet those high expectations that are now being demand of us all.
All of that being said, this is a great debate to be having. I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation.
/kff
Unfortunately, our profession is one of spin. Worse, as practitioners we tend to buy our own BS, a clear error.
This error has been best typified by myth that new media does not matter. I think 3.0 as term is a disservice to an industry that can’t get its act together to pay attention to a content revolution of this nature. We need to worry about 2.0, before we can get cute with funny monikers. My $.02.
Weighing in from the public sector, I’m glad to see PRWeek exploring the future and I better understand your rationale for PR 3.0. However, I tend to see the same things Kyle and Brian see; not enough PR people are folding social media into their communication strategies and pushing to engage their publics with the various social media tools.
I still spend a large amount of time explaining how social media works. And it becomes frustrating to explain how a blog or podcast works when you never get past the basics and move on to exploring how these tools can be used to build two-way communication and lead to an engagement loop. So, until everyone “gets” it, I fear we’re still a long way from PR 3.0.
Now, I will say that I have earned a place next to the CEO — that truly took a leap of faith in 2001 — and it has allowed me to show the value of PR to the organization. So from that perspective, I agree that PR is starting to take its place among the leadership and perhaps that was the start of PR 2.0. Although, I still think we’re a long way from a third age.
Engagement and building connections among our various publics is my next goal, and if that means we’re moving towards 3.0, I will accept it. However, I believe we need to work more diligently toward engagement before we can truly say we’re moving towards a third era. Besides, I still don’t think we need a dot-number to define the profession.
[...] Apparently a few of us poked a tender spot regarding PRWeek’s determination that public relations had reached a PR 3.0 stage. It led to a response, and a few other comments including mine. I still spend a large amount of time explaining how social media works. And it becomes frustrating to explain how a blog or podcast works when you never get past the basics and move on to exploring how these tools can be used to build two-way communication and lead to an engagement loop. So, until everyone “gets” it, I fear we’re still a long way from PR 3.0. [...]
Thanks for all the comments. I’m curious - let’s assume that PR is NOT in the 3.0 era, but has a long way to go, which is a fair point, for sure. Even in my post I tried to make the point (maybe not clearly enough) that this is the beginning of the next iteration.
But I’m wondering, where do you think the deficit in knowledge or experience is greatest - on the marketer side or the agency side?
Julia, let’s get together and talk sometime soon. I’ve been in front of this since the mid 90s and I think a conversation between us would be very beneficial to all following the discussion.
The iteration we are entering is truly the era of social media (it’s the best way to describe it without 2.0, 3.0, etc.)
In this regard, the greatest deficit exists across the spectrum of agencies, marketers, and in house communications professionals. If anyone says otherwise, they’re wrong. Why? Because PR specifically has never had to engage at this level and it’s forcing a renaissance.
The infrastructure of traditional marketing isn’t ready to adapt on a large scale and this is why we’re living in the new Wild West of PR. This is all brand new! Big agencies are desperate to find this new breed of social media-aware professionals because the capabilities do not exist in house. These rare talents fuse web marketing, PR, evangelism and knowledge of tech trends and light HTML. I get calls everyday from recruiters desperate to find these people – and the same names keep coming up (that’s how limited the resource pool is right now).
I’m looking forward to speaking with you. You can reach me at brian [at] future-works [dot] com
Thanks for keeping the dialog open!
[...] The PR 3.0 gaff is quite amazing to me. PRWeek emailed me today telling me I was wrong, that all PR firms are blog believers. That’s kind of like George Bush trying to justify the war… again. Anyway, here’s their official response to 3.0 fury. What to like about PRWeek’s approach to this. The newspaper is dialoging and having a conversation with its constituency. This is progress. No matter what the end result on the moniker “3.0,” this demonstrates the true power of new media. [...]
I don’t see the value in dickering over labels. And I don’t see a schizm in the ability of PR practitioners to employ social media strategies. Many are technophobes who are slow to adopt new methods of outreach, but the skills needed aren’t particularly unique.
When Netscape opened the age of the browser 13 years ago, it took time for PR practitioners to understand the role the Web could play in reaching, engaging, influencing and mobilizing target publics. NGOs tended to do a better job of it than corporations did. Sound similar?
The same thing has been happening with social media. Some practitioners more quickly adapt to the new landscape than others. But in the end, what we do hasn’t fundamentally changed.
Social media is a method of connecting. It is a means. It is not an end.
So I appreciate the concept that we are in the midst — or at the beginning — of a shift in the role PR plays in organizational communications. As documented by TIME, and in the book, The World is Flat, this is the age of the empowered individual. Any given technology isn’t the story. The individual is.
[...] The Cycle » Blog Archive » Public relations 3.0? What the… PRWeek responds to my rant about PR 3.0. (tags: PR PR+commentary) [...]
So what’s the big deal about 3.0. It amazes me that our industry and culture is always looking for the latest and greatest way to be an effective PR professional. I have been in this business for over 30 years, and there is one rule that hasn’t changed — It’s all about the relationship to the end user. It doesn’t matter what the delivery system is. Trust, dependiblity, lacking a hidden agenda, and being a bona fide source of usable information still matters.
The only thing that has changed is the internet and its array of delivery systems has as Tom Friedman says created a flat world for anyone to be an “expert”.
I thought this might put it all in perspective…a very funny review of media agencies on You Tube…
the link is..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OCtBQBOk1Zw