ryan l.

With the rise of Twitter and the like, it seems that bloggers, to a great degree, have forgotten that short blog posts can be just as valuable and effective when literally published to a blog as they can in 140 characters or less. It’s with that thought in mind that I put this simple yet intriguing (imho) question out there:

When does “new media” become un-new?

Ok, so I made up a word here, but new media may never become old since it’s constantly evolving, but as time goes on and more and more people begin picking up on social media concepts and tools, when do these things move from being considered new to not new, or un-new?

The best example I have is found in how long Voce has been in the social media game - we’re going on four years now, or so - and it makes me wonder why we need to continue referring to concepts that are relatively dated, at least to some, as ‘new’.

Maybe we should just settle on “social media” as the blanket descriptor of what we do and start referring to those just getting started as “new to social media”? Ok, maybe that’s a little condescending … you get the idea.

Part of my life reset starts here on this blog, but in order to get started I need to repost some of my old stuff that I actually deleted when I was trying to overhaul everything … yes, I deleted about 90+ blog entries and was only able to save those from the early days, but I do have an archive of a few more recent ones. So, those are going up, especially one about my wife’s friend that died last Summer. The most upsetting part about deleting that entry was losing the comments left by her friends and family that, in effect, turned the post into a memorial of sorts.

I have to find a way to get back to those. Maybe the internet archive has them by now … we’ll see.

UPDATE: Well, what a shame. I thought I still had Ecto installed, which is where these alleged posts were living offline, but turns out I deleted it because I wasn’t using it. Totally forgot. On to Archive.org … nothing. Only stuff from April 2007 … not what I was looking for. Damn it.

Not sure if I’m still getting actual readers here or if it’s just a bunch of splogs, but I never mentioned that I’ve switched blogging platforms and now contribute to a new blog.

If anyone actually reads this still and cares to check out my new blog, visit here.

Voce (my company) was able to secure a Q&A with one of the top executives from the $70 billion Procter & Gamble to discuss how they approach influencer marketing and word of mouth. Definitely worth a read for anyone interested in or working in these areas.

It's a two part discussion/post, so stay tuned for the next half.

Update: Part two just posted. Enjoy!

Lets face it, I'm no Steve Rubel, Mike Manuel, or Andy Lark and probably never will be in the blogging sense. I have an average traffic figure that rivals … well, no one. I'm a nobody in the blogosphere. And, according to Bite PR's Danny Bernstein, if you don't fall into the category of "best-of-the-best" in the industry, you should take your fingers off the keyboard and keep your thoughts out of the blogosphere. Controversial statement? It sure seems like it.

Now, I don't want to misrepresent or forget Danny's main point: that we, as PR folks, traditionally get stereotyped by the media, public, and Hollywood, and we need to make an effort at countering that view. I couldn't agree more. However, does that mean that only those "A-List" types should represent our industry alone? I don't think so. Danny chimes in with this:

In some respects, I share her [Strumpette’s Amanda Chapel] concern. I believe blogging, as the delicate olive branch of PR, must be handled by the absolute best-of-the-best our industry offers. These are the Tim Dysons, the Richard Edelmans and the Andy Larks.

If we allow this wave of wannabe journalists and self-publishing addicts to control (and ultimately mishandle) what could be our White Album, we will fall … and we’ll fall hard.

Despite seeing his point, it's hard to see how only those higher-level individuals are the only ones that have anything to contribute to the discussion. Just because I don't have a higher traffic level and some amazing reputation in the industry doesn't devalue the thoughts I have to contribute. I've posted some that have quadrupled my daily readership. I'd like to think those thoughts furthered the discussion, debate, and thought among those who took the time to read them. That's the beauty of blogging - joining the conversation and making people think.

In addition, I don't think "every starry-eyed PR professional that blogs believes, somewhere inside, that it can make them some kind of champion of business." I blog because I want to. I blog because it keeps me thinking and, more importantly, writing. I don't blog because I think I'm going to become some superstar. The best example of this is Wet Feet PR's Blake Barbara. I don't think, if you asked him, the reason he started blogging was to become a champion of the industry. He carved out a niche for himself, contributed valuable content, and it raised his industry profile.

I guess the main point here is that it doesn't, and shouldn't, matter who you are or aren't. Everyone is a potential source of alternative opinion and valuable thinking in the blogosphere that all help contribute to better conversation and debate. Just because you aren't blog "famous" doesn't mean you should shy away from the medium.

This isn't meant to be an attack on Danny at all, I just ran into him at Third Thursday and he remembered when I interviewed with him for a position at Bite last summer, which was nice. Through his writing, it's clear he's a smart guy, but in this case I think he's just simply wrong. If one takes his point to heart, it makes them wonder what's up with this "guest column" at Silicon Valley Watcher, a blog, and the contributions to Bite Marks. Who do you think you are, Danny? Tim Dyson?
Bottome line: It doesn't matter, you're contributing to the conversation in a valuable way. People will always think what they will about PR and the people who work in the industry, and I don't think it matters who blogs or what about because a handful of people aren't going to change those perceptions.

Well, I had planned to write a short recap on yesterday's innaugural Third Thursday: Social Media in PR Meetup, led by Mike Manuel and Jeremy Pepper, that featured TechCrunch's Michael Arrington, but there really is no need when Jeremy comes through with an audioblog of the event. Check it out!

Technorati Tags: Social Media, Meetup, PR, Blogging

A little promotion for a colleague never hurt anyone, right? As long as it's for the great good.

Well, Mike Manuel (a.k.a Media Guerilla) and a few other PR pros, including Jeremy Pepper, Giovanni Rodriguez, and Phil Gomes have come together to co-organize Third Thursday, "a new meetup for Bay Area PR and marketing folks interested in learning more about social media tools, trends and best practices, and their practical application in marketing and communications programs." 

See this post at Media Guerilla for more background on the meetup and details on the first one, slated for Thursday, April 20 at 6:30 p.m. in Palo Alto.  

To join the meetup group and to receive more information go here and signup.

We heard about BlogBurst a while back when they were trying out their blog syndication to newspapers service with the likes of the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Houton Chronicle, and the San Antonio News-Express. Now it appears the trial is over and they are set to officially launch Tuesday.

Newspapers are looking to BlogBurst to provide expert blog commentary on travel, women's issues, technology, food, entertainment and local stories, areas where publishers may not have dedicated staff, Pluck Chief Executive Dave Panos said.

In return, a select group of popular bloggers are offered wider distribution for their writings, he said. The online syndicate drives traffic to blog sites, allowing featured bloggers to make money from resulting online advertising fees.

This is obviously a huge step forward in the direction of legitimizing blog content, but what does it mean for the little guys who produce great content, worthy of inclusion in some publications, but just don't have the high traffic that helps them get noticed like a Micropersuasion - which is one blog whose content is part of this? And, does this only further emphasize the need for transparency as more and more of the mainstream will be reading blog content?

Not even going to try and link to all that has been said, claimed, yelled, screamed, or prophesized about how to engage bloggers, but will only say that, yes, transparency is an indisputable must, but also that it’s not just about transparency …

I don’t mean to dehumanize members of the MSM, the structure is just too formal, but when engaging with bloggers it’s about reminding yourself that, at the end of the day, you’re simply dealing with a normal person - so make a connection. Stating the obvious but, bloggers are just people. People with no real motives, responisibilities, or cares (generally speaking) - except about the topics they write about. This holds true, of course, for the traditional media, but there’s more hierarchy and that changes the interaction quite significantly.

Transparency + personality + dropping the PR speak = good blogosphere outreach - or so it would seem.

But what do I know.