Authenticity of Public Relations

There's a great discussion going on over at Beth Harte's blog.  (Beth is the new gal over at MarketingProfs, although she's hardly a new voice to those of us in the marketing corner of the blogosphere.)

The issue Beth raised, which has brought tons of great comments: Has public relations ever been truly authentic?  Beth asks the question from a base of knowledge -- she's worked in marketing communications and she teaches and lectures about p.r.

With the development of social media, "authenticity" in communications has become somewhat of a buzzword.  When I first began blogging 2-1/2 years ago, there seemed to be many discussions about the idea of authenticity in conversation (another popular buzzword).  Conversation in marketing was between the marketer and its publics and, with the new tools of Web 2.0, there was no longer any excuse for that conversation to be simply a one-way street going from marketer to customers.  Web 2.0 made it possible to be truly a two-way dialogue.

My essay in the groundbreaking collaborative book "Age of Conversation" discussed how Web 2.0 simply brings us back to the way business used to be conducted ages ago before the advent of mass media.  Sellers did business directly with their customers, one on one, so there was that two-way dialogue.  And there was no question of authenticity, because you saw and spoke directly with and shook hands with your vendor or your buyer.

Then, not quite 100 years ago, someone (supposedly Ivy Lee for Ma Bell) had the idea to feed controlled information to the press.  He became the first p.r. man.  He spoke on behalf of his clients, often putting words in clients' mouths through reporters.  That's what he was paid to do.

Was that authentic?  Should the CEO of AT&T and Standard Oil and the tobacco companies and countless smaller manufacturers and marketers speak for themselves or, instead, have hired guns to do the talking for them?

Those same questions are now popping up in the dialogue Beth started.  Some are saying that today's tools for communication demand that communications be "authentic" and that public relations people shouldn't be speaking for the CEO, but instead should be identified for who they are.  Others, including some who obviously work in corporate p.r. departments, are saying most top execs are too busy doing their own work to spend time actually writing their own blogs or Twitter updates. And as one commenter points out, p.r. people get to know, over time, the thinking, positions and even manner of speaking (or writing) of their clients or top executives.  The words those p.r. people write or speak can often be considered those of the exec they represent.

Traditional media have been working with p.r. people for decades.  Reporters (and their readers) know the quotes in the news releases they get are not necessarily the exact words of the person who is being quoted.  Some reporters will clarify that by writing "according to a company news release... or a company spokesperson."  The key here is that the words and thoughts, whether directly from the executive being quoted, do represent the company position.  They've been cleared, vetted, approved, etc.

Social media and the frequency and immediacy of updates might call for a different set of rules.  Actually, the new set of rules might be expected by others using social media.  Blogs, Facebook, Twitter are seen by many as more personal -- extensions of the author, a sharing of thoughts and ideas and, unfortunately in the case of Twitter, details of every little thing we are doing or thinking.

The early users of social media have been, for the most part, authentic and have built an atmopshere -- whether real and justified or not -- of authenticity.  It is expected that you are who you say you are -- not a ghostwriter or a shill for someone or something else.  Some who have been too blatantly commercial have been criticized or even demonized by some of the purists.

My take on all of this in these still early days of this new and developing form of communication?

Public relations has a role to play in social media.  If it's done well, it doesn't have to be less than authentic.  PR people have been speaking on behalf of their employers for a long long time.  Many do it well; some do it terribly.

Just as reporters have come to know which p.r. people they can trust, participants in the social media world will learn which bloggers, Twitterers and whatever else comes along can be trusted to be honest and accurate representers of the companies or organizations they are writing for.

There will be some cheaters and some bad apples along the way, just as in any crowd.  Over time, most will be discovered and either outed or ignored.

That's the cool thing about social media.  Each of us controls what we see or read.  It's not the old days when we were essentally held hostage by the programmers at three networks.  We now have immense power in our TV/cable remotes and infintely more in our keyboards or touchpads.

Comments

[Lewis Green]

Right on David.And as you say, "There will be some cheaters and some bad apples along the way..." I might add that some of those laying down the rules re: social media often discuss marketing and PR as if they understand it better than others and to do either correctly is to do it their way. But when you look at their backgrounds, they don't have a single day's experience in either field. To them, I suggest they maintain their authenticity by sticking to social media and leave PR and Marketing to those who get it. (I urge them to keep their suggestions coming re: marketing and PR because even the most enlightened can always use new ideas. Just don't pretend that they are marketers.)

[David Reich]

Thanks for the comment. Lewis.

Authenticity a social media concept/buzzword that's creeping into other areas of communications, which is good in theory, but not always practical in practice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for authenticity as much as possible.

[Steve Seager]

I agree pretty much with everything here. My first visit your blog David. I'm a definite follower now :)

Beth's post is deliberately provocative to help drive discussion. In her terms it's authentic because she wrote it. But does that mean we trust her?

In online public relations as I see it, trust is the key, not authenticity. It doesn't matter who writes the words, it's the trust it engenders that creates real authenticity.

Steve Seager
http://steveseager.typepad.com

[Beth Harte]

David, thanks for continuing this conversation, I truly appreciate your thoughts and insights.

As someone commented on my blog, PR has always been about propaganda... We have Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee to thank for that. ;-) (I jest.)

Shel Holtz said something on the FIR: Hobson & Holtz Report (I was honored that they discussed my post!) that never crossed my mind to include: PR was never declared as being authentic anyway (paraphrased). That is really true! Something to consider and it makes me wonder if it's even worth beating this particular horse (poor thing!). ;-)

Perhaps being involved in social media for the past five years (and marketing/PR for 15) has jaded me... when I am talking to someone online, I know who it is (and sometimes all about them). So, when I read an article (or blog post or tweet) I want to know that the person writing it really wrote it, that it's their thoughts, tone, style...not some PR person's.

David, if you told me that this blog had been ghostwritten for over two years, I would question everything you had to say here and elsewhere. And your Age of Conversation essay too... I think that's fair, no? AND, I'd want to know who the really smart person was if it wasn't you.

I keep going back to the same example... If a CEO has their blog ghostwritten because they are swamped and, being so swamped, he/she glosses over the post to approve it...what happens when they are at a customer site or an event and a customer says "I really liked your post on X, Y, Z. Can you please elaborate on Y?" What happens? The CEO is put in the hot seat because he/she, most likely, can't remember what he/she approved. (This same scenario goes for a byline too.) I don't think that's a good position for a CEO to be in.

I think what bothers me is that most people (non-PR, marketing people...the average citizen or business person) don't know that bylines aren't written by the person they typically say they are written by... it seems, well, inauthentic to me.

As well, I've had editors/journalists hang up on my company while interviewing someone because they realized that the company spokesperson wasn't the thought leader portrayed in the article or pitch. Yep, that's bad PR...but sometimes we are put in those positions (I've blogged about that too).

A lot of my opinions are based on my experience in the tech industry...does that make them gospel? No, of course not. That's why I think these conversations are so important to have.

@SteveSeager, you really need to be more careful with the words you put in people's mouths. I never defined what authentic was...it was a dictionary definition. As for trust, I believe people trust me because I am authentic. I am the same on- as off-line (anyone will tell you that). Authenticity begets trust...not the other way around.

Beth Harte
Community Manager, MarketingProfs
@bethharte

[David Reich]

Beth, I understand your desire for authenticity. Social media seems to have grown up (so far) on authenticity. It seems to be more of a personal outreach than traditional mass media.

Other mass media have not developed the same way, and authenticity has not been ingrained into their very fabric.

When a CEO uses a speechwriter to craft his speeches or a p.r. person to help with his responses to press questions or wording of a byliner, it's not necessarily inauthentic. The CEO still must actually speak the wpords of a speech, or sign off on the words of a byliner. They should be his thoughts or his position on an issue, even if the actual words are not all his own.

Will this work for social media? I'm not sure I'd realistically expect the CEO of IBM is writing every Twitter update under his name, nor necessarily are Ashton Kutcher or Oprah writing all of theirs. I would hope, though, that they have some significant input into them. If not, then that's not authentic.