Social Media & PR; you could say It's like Elizabeth Taylor & Richard Burton

Guest lecturer Daryl Willcox delivered a highly engaging and thought-provoking lecture on the implications of social media as a strategic communication channel and in shaping the existing media landscape. Encouraging us to use our smart phones to ‘tweet’ our thoughts using the hash tag; #smthefuture not only made the lecture more interactive but strengthened lines of reasoning as to why PROs should be utilising social media. Engaging us through collaboration (tweeting) generated the ‘big conversation’ on #smthefuture with Twitter as a platform to uninhibitedly offer our thoughts (Scott, 2010). It provided an excellent opportunity to monitor dialogue on the topic and it was rational to see how the same principals could be applied to organisations and brands in the online realm.

With stakeholders becoming increasingly active online and engaging in such conversations this highlights the importance of listening since it enables PROs to learn from key publics and shape their communicative messages more effectively. Weber (2007) maintains that listening and engaging with customers requires organisational transparency that builds credibility. As PR professionals are well versed in communication, engagement and conversation, PR is ideally suited as these are the very attributes required for a successful social media strategy (Bussey, 2011). 

However none of this matters if professionals do not implement measurable objectives which set out what they want to achieve. It is increasingly important for clients to understand why they are using social media as opposed to aimlessly jumping on the bandwagon just because their competitors are. Co-operation is essential; social networks offer business a versatile way to interact with both internal and external strategic publics (Safko and Brake). Offering a variety of content and ‘sharing by default’ is one way to do this. Publics want consistency and direct gratification; updating information/statuses once every month simply isn’t enough. As Croft (2007) identifies, the public have developed a crushing need to access news and information practically before it exists and this occurs through social network sites which mushroom exponentially on a daily basis. Response mechanisms are therefore critical and this simultaneously ties in to effective monitoring which facilitates this.

One of the smartest big brands in social media has to be Ford who averted a potential PR disaster in which an internal error led to forum owners receiving cease and desist letters with Ford trademarks, causing outrage. They strategically utilised the transparent and instantaneous nature of social media through Ford’s community manager; Scott Monty. Not only did this offer a more humanistic approach but it ensured customers were able to determine the truth from a reputable source and were continually informed as the situation was being resolved. This reinforces Safko and Brakes (2009) concept of Twitter being a ‘hyper-grapevine news resource’ credited for breaking news on significant, real-time events. It prevented a negative story from materialising virally.

With traditional mainstream media in decline, evident through falling print readerships; the media is experiencing fragmentation as publics are overwhelmed by the diversity of channels. Journalist’s behaviour is changing as 92% now research online (Pavlik, 2008) accentuating the implications for PROs in publishing press releases and valuable content online. With social media revolutionising the communication equation; does this mean we need a rational re-evaluation of what constitutes PR? Are traditional media relations becoming an increasingly marginalised channel of communication?

With any organisation/brand branching out online and into social media arises the issue of regulation and ethics. As boundaries between audience and producer are vanishing; user-generated content (UGC) is replacing professional labour and re-orientating the economy. This ‘participatory media’ decentralises the technology used as users increasingly regulate their own behaviour (Foucault, 1975). But, is this supposed sense of control simply deceptive as ‘data mining’ technologies are rapidly advancing? It is critiqued that creativity is defined as a mechanised (generated) and commodifiable property, ascribed market-determined value and that UGC’s dynamic innovations often fall under the proprietary jurisdiction of transnational capitalism (Shepherd, 2009) which would insinuate it is simply immaterial labour; further reinforced by the dubious privacy policies of social media sites. 

However, social media can be an effective channel to promote ethical activities; dataveillance can be seen as a tactic to pinpoint influentials who could significantly enhance a campaigns reach. Equally it enables PROs to monitor information more effectively and how to target users who could benefit from being involved in positive social movements. Listening also enables PROs to determine which social issues to address whilst humanising the organisation/brand and can encourage spontaneous and innovative ways to help others produce tangible benefits (Charles, 2010). Yahoo generated a successful global campaign; Random Acts of Kindness. Over 300,000 updates were posted by Yahoo users and employees with their stories of helping others.

So the question is; can privacy issues surrounding ‘dataveillance’ be counterbalanced for the will of the good?