Defining 'Online PR'

[Jamie Burke]

A lot of people are wrestling with the definition of online PR none more so than ‘online pr agencies’ themselves. The language used and services listed seem confused and differ from organization to organization.

I guess this is a sign of a new and exciting industry struggling with its identity. Perhaps because the people now saying they do ‘online pr’ come from different backgrounds and sectors themselves bringing with them a legacy of terminology.

Either way it’s confusing to all involved and none more so than potential client who may still be getting to grips with 2.0 speak.

I think the first noble ambition of this community should be the language we use when talking about what we do and I would love to hear everyone’s opinion.

In my personal view people are using the term ‘online pr’ as a catch-all and there needs further refinement:

Online PR:

Is the continuum of pr practices within the online environment. This is still broadcast and not conversational in tone and method.

Some examples of services:

-Online Press Release
-SEO (Search Engine Optimization)
-Campaign Micro-sites
-Top down online competitions
-Facebook fliers
-Online Journalist Engagement
-Online Competitions
-Infographics

P2PR

Peer-to-Peer-Relations is;

a) the use of social media to communicate with your consumer on an individual, group or mass level.

b) It can include the assessment and management of relations within peer-to-peer environments

-Viral Marketing (not just video)
-Community Outreach / Influencer Outreach (bloggers / group admins)
-Branded Channels / Groups (Facebook, Myspace, Bebo etc.)
-Community Toolkits (so communities can make themselves)
-Online Brand Audit
-Social Media Reputation Management
-Social Media Optimization (Making things sharable)
-SMO Press Release
-SMO Media Press Centre

PR 2.0

The Technology of Web 2.0 used for either broadcast (Online PR) or peer-2-peer (P2PR) activity.

-Widgets / Applications
-Mashups
-Interactive games / sites

[Roger, C&M - Online PR Agency]

Hi Jamie.

Good call. I agree - it's all a bit of a mix up. But I think it'd also be a mistake to introduce new definitions right now.

From a business / service development perspective I want to encourage as much buzz around Online PR as possible right now... If this means that some random things get thrown in the pot then fine. (As a consultant it's down to me to filter it and give the right advice).... But adding more labels to the mix is going to cloud the issue and confuse clients.... They're only just getting there - the last thing I want to do is tell them they're spelling it wrong ...that'd really piss them off.

At the same time, your services break down is spot on... We're certainly thinking of things in the same way.... i) campaigns, ii) p2p enablement and iii) apps. (Here's how we slice it up.... Our Online PR Agency map)

So I guess I'm saying keep the definitions in-house for a while... at least until everyone's on board. Absolutely key to this is to recognise that the debate thats happening right now is happening between Online PR people ... and not with clients.

Cheers

Roger

[Jamie Burke]

Generally I agree with you Roger, for now 'online pr' works as a catch-all, certainly for the less savvy.

Clients know they need to be doing it and are actively looking for people specific to that purpose.

The danger with this as a catch-all is that people don't understand the fundamental shift in how they need to change to meet their PR objectives within social media and that it is in fact a totally different discipline with a different skill-set (P2PR).

Just because you can do online pr doesn't mean you can fulfill any of the P2PR or PR 2.0 services.

This means whilst there is this gold-rush any agency can land-grab but few can deliver on their promises. In turn damaging the reputation of the industry as a whole and hitting us all in the long run.

[katie moffat]

Hi
I'd agree with all of this. At the moment online PR is falling between the gap of digital marketing agencies, who understand the online arena but don't perhaps understand PR and traditional PR agencies, who understand PR but not the online environment.
A clearer definition can only help clients appreciate what they're paying for!
Only point of debate for me would be why call social media - peer 2 peer?
katie

[Roger, C&M - Online PR Agency]

Hi Jamie... Yup, with you on that. But your gripe is with the Cowboys not the Good Guys, nor the clients. The fact that some agencies don't get it, or may not be as good at it as you will mean that confusion will work in your favour... I'd just be wary about turning clients off with extra verbal baggage. The great thing about (online) PR is that they understand it (broadly)... and they love it because its not technical, and not a closed shop (ie - the antidote to SEO). Keeping it that way and making it as accessible as possible under a big old banner is a great thing... And I agree with all your categorisations - just don't tell the client that their world-view is wrong! : )

Jamie Burke said:

Generally I agree with you Roger, for now 'online pr' works as a catch-all, certainly for the less savvy.

Clients know they need to be doing it and are actively looking for people specific to that purpose.

The danger with this as a catch-all is that people don't understand the fundamental shift in how they need to change to meet their PR objectives within social media and that it is in fact a totally different discipline with a different skill-set (P2PR).

Just because you can do online pr doesn't mean you can fulfill any of the P2PR or PR 2.0 services.

This means whilst there is this gold-rush any agency can land-grab but few can deliver on their promises. In turn damaging the reputation of the industry as a whole and hitting us all in the long run.

[theredrocket]

For me, it's four things:
1. Listen - through buzz monitoring, web analytics etc
2. Enhance - boosting a web profile using SEO techniques
3. Engage - talk to bloggers, blog yourself, work with social networks
4. Create - new content, such as YouTube virals and Facebook apps.

Nice and simple (to me, anyway).

[Jezmondo]

I do think that at some stage in the near future we're going to need to set our clear boundaries and definitions because it's a bit of a scrap at the moment.

I remember Porter Novelli busting my balls for doing / advocating online pr/seeding when I was at digital agency Agency.com They were BA's retained PR agency, but, guess what, didn't have a clue about online. OK they had a bloke who could talk the talk, but they didn't practise it.And then Agency.com didn't really get their head around it since so much revenue came from online advertising and buying.

What's the point of all of this?

There's a need for a new agency. One that understands all the inputs and outputs, and gets on with it. I do feel that the DNA to successful social media marketing must come from individuals with PR at their core, not from a paid for background. But for the moment, other than being called a 'social media agency', online PR says what it is on the tin, though I think it does unfortunately devalue the worth.

When was the last time a PR agency got the same round table recognition at inter-agency meetings, like ATL?

Maybe we should think up the next crazy web wordy and wiki it, and then as a group start using it when we speak. (and the group takes the accolade for it's creation) Sounds like a poll to me.

[Dan Thornton]

I notice the omission of the word 'marketing' anywhere in here? ;)

[Jim Dowling]

I'm with the general tone of catch all online PR.

It seems to me that there are plenty who enjoy confusing clients and/or their bosses by using as many terms and phrases as possible. It's even more helpful if new apps launch regularly with stupid names. Knowledge/confusion = power and paranoia.

I've been in PR since '95 and my job's not changed. I persuade people to buy products by getting someone they respect to tell them they should. For those of us who have always been in PR we're not doing anything new - it's just the skills and techniques that are new. If I want to do my job properly in 2009, I have to master the fact that the customer now starts at Google, or heads into their community.

The techniques underneath, kind of take care of themselves. What clients should be looking at more closely is not what buttons we're pressing on our keypads (that's our job to navigate), but what are the quality of our ideas? Ideas move people and the magic. The mechanics of an old skool press release, a re-tweet, a blog posts or whatever is merely the efficient machine that makes it happen.