Prompt's TechBlog
Are web 2.0 social media press releases the future?
06 July 2006
Posted by Sean McManus
PR agency Shift Communications has got itself some nice coverage in Business Week (PDF) with a press release entitled 'Shift Communications debuts first-ever template for "social media press release"'.
The company argues that now journalists use the web a lot, press releases should 'use the latest tools (social bookmarking, RSS, etc.) to provide background data, context and on-going updates to clients' news'. Shift goes on to say that this new media press release can gather all different types of information (including video) into one place for convenience.
I know what you're thinking: that doesn't sound like a press release, it sounds like a website. But let's take a look at the template (PDF) they've created anyway:
The template's a bit confusing because you're not actually supposed to use those coloured boxes. It's supposed to look like this press release. So all they're doing is telling you what order they think you should put things in and suggesting that you should be using more links to websites. They say the template is free for anyone to use and they're not enforcing copyright. Which is good, because it would be hard to see how they could.
I'm not convinced journalists would find many of these links useful in this context. Just because they use digg, it doesn't mean they want to vote for your press releases. Indeed, the fact that only three people have voted for this release on digg proves this point. The only comment on digg about this template says: 'Cool idea but I think most of the people I send releases to would be like "huh?"'.
Through Technorati and digg you can find out what people in the blogosphere are saying about your story, but that cuts two ways. Companies could benefit from the credibility of having positive commentary around their release, and this might convince journalists that they're worth covering. But is that worth running the risk of introducing journalists to all independent commentary? It could come from competitors, customers, suppliers, anyone with an axe to grind, or complete strangers trolling. By linking to these independent fora, all this comment is effectively attached to the press release. It might be very web 2.0, but it also seems very risky as a PR strategy. Journalists will do their own further research where warranted and there's no reason for a PR agency to put both sides of the story. That's not what they're paid for.
social media press release | social media | foremski | press release
The company argues that now journalists use the web a lot, press releases should 'use the latest tools (social bookmarking, RSS, etc.) to provide background data, context and on-going updates to clients' news'. Shift goes on to say that this new media press release can gather all different types of information (including video) into one place for convenience.
I know what you're thinking: that doesn't sound like a press release, it sounds like a website. But let's take a look at the template (PDF) they've created anyway:
The template's a bit confusing because you're not actually supposed to use those coloured boxes. It's supposed to look like this press release. So all they're doing is telling you what order they think you should put things in and suggesting that you should be using more links to websites. They say the template is free for anyone to use and they're not enforcing copyright. Which is good, because it would be hard to see how they could.
I'm not convinced journalists would find many of these links useful in this context. Just because they use digg, it doesn't mean they want to vote for your press releases. Indeed, the fact that only three people have voted for this release on digg proves this point. The only comment on digg about this template says: 'Cool idea but I think most of the people I send releases to would be like "huh?"'.
Through Technorati and digg you can find out what people in the blogosphere are saying about your story, but that cuts two ways. Companies could benefit from the credibility of having positive commentary around their release, and this might convince journalists that they're worth covering. But is that worth running the risk of introducing journalists to all independent commentary? It could come from competitors, customers, suppliers, anyone with an axe to grind, or complete strangers trolling. By linking to these independent fora, all this comment is effectively attached to the press release. It might be very web 2.0, but it also seems very risky as a PR strategy. Journalists will do their own further research where warranted and there's no reason for a PR agency to put both sides of the story. That's not what they're paid for.
social media press release | social media | foremski | press release
# posted by Sean McManus at 2:45 PM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home