Social Honeycomb

Five Plugged-in Dudes Get Fired Up About New Media at Pub Club

Before I headed over to the Publicity Club of New England’s “Buzz Word: New Media” panel tonight, I thought to myself, “When are we going to be able to stop calling this stuff ‘new’ and what kind of marketing/communications world would we live in that could allow that to happen?” Since you’re reading my blog right now, you’re probably at least somewhat technologically inclined, making you about 17 gazillion light years ahead of the average anyone. We tech/media geeks forget that too easily. I’m sure all the panelists would agree that we have considerable work to do before all this “new” stuff becomes widely adopted and understood. That said, I think moderator Brian Reich (EchoDitto and author of Media Rules) and panelists Adam Ritchie (Adam Ritchie Brand Direction), Mike Volpe (HubSpot), Patrick Richardson (Schneider Associates) and Mark McLennan (Schwartz Communications) gave their audience a push in the right direction.

One of the gems that stood out to me (besides the chocolate-covered raisins in my dinner package, mmm) was the discussion around being “on message.” Mike really hit the nail on the head as he explained that there’s simply no such thing as the crafted, corporate message working anymore and that “the message” is what people are saying, regardless of what you put in a PR plan or what your client’s legal team approves. I really liked that Mike took this idea one step further to say, “If you don’t like what people are saying, YOU have to change something. You have to change what YOU’RE doing if you don’t like what people have decided the message is.” I’m a firm believer in this concept, and it pains me when I hear stories about clients pulling their hair out over “this” vs. “that” word choices and ignoring what’s really being said about them on the Web. You don’t own your message, so listen to the people who are creating it and respond and collaborate accordingly.

Another key takeaway from the night was the discussion that social media tools and tactics aren’t always right for every client or in every situation. As much as we get excited about this stuff and see the value in bringing it to light for our clients, there’s no merit in rolling out a Facebook campaign or a YouTube contest if it doesn’t make sense for the goals you’re trying to achieve. The panelists mentioned that while Facebook might work for getting in front of college students, some almost-100 percentage of students also look to and trust their university papers for news. And let’s be real–no one is hosting an event with panelists getting fired up about how awesome newspapers are and fresh ways to use this sweet PR tool, but it’s good to remember that a little traditional/new mix-n-match can be the magic potion for meeting client objectives and achieving success.

Each of the panelists also stressed the importance of practicing what you preach by being engaged yourself. I really liked what Mark said about “social media finally enabling PR people to do what we’ve been WANTING to do for 100 years.” We have countless tools and opportunities to connect with people, learn new things and share interesting content, so why are so few people taking advantage?

In the car ride home after the event, Pamela Seiple, Mary Sullivan and I got to talking about the connection between online and offline interaction. In my opinion, the Web has given us a digital reflection of how social relationships exist in real life already, which makes the transitions from online to offline remarkably fluid. Brian alluded to a PR team in crisis mode taking angry bloggers offline to talk about issues as possibly revealing a flaw or failure of new media. I have to respectfully disagree. (Or honestly, maybe I just missed the point? Brian’s a soft-spoken guy.) I think taking plugged-in people offline is just an extension of the way they’re able to socialize online, and vice versa. And when bloggers and tweeple congregate offline, they’re most likely still texting, updating Twitter, sending emails–still connected to their online interactions. The fluidity of online-offline social interaction is pretty sexy if you ask me. Engage me online, engage me offline and let’s talk about online when we’re IRL and real life when we’re online.

And let’s remember: most people who are participating in this social media and social networking stuff are into the idea of engagement. These people generally want to connect, so if PR people are passing up opportunities to form relationships with the people who are driving “the conversation” on the Web (and offline!) about brands, products, public figures, whatever–they’re pretty insane.

All in all, I feel like a lot of my values and ideas about social media and its marcom uses were brought to the surface and that the overall excitement in the room tonight was promising. Every day we’re takin’ this thing closer to the future.

What do you think, boys and girls?