Comments on: The great game

By: We Are Social joins CIPR advisory panel / we are social

We Are Social joins CIPR advisory panel / we are social — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:12:22 +0000

[...] PR industry’s tardyness in waking up to social media is somthing Robin talked about last year and I addressed again my inaugural blog post when I joined We Are [...]

By: The best of the We Are Social blog, 2009 / we are social

The best of the We Are Social blog, 2009 / we are social — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:05:46 +0000

[...] The great game This post examines the convergence of above the line, digital, PR, direct marketing and media agencies and predicts who will win in the age of social media. [...]

By: andismit

andismit — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:28:58 +0000

15pc for PR? More like 5pc – certainly if you are looking at technology firms – IDC has been tracking marketing spend in the tech biz for years, and PR never seems to break out of its 5pc share of marketing budget. Digital on the other hand has gone from zero to 12pc and continues to grow.

The thing that struck me most about the NMK debate was the almost total absence of client side representatives. Debate is a good thing – however, at the moment, it is a debate that doesn't seem to include probably the most important segment – the clients.

By: andismit

andismit — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:28:58 +0000

By: michelle goodall

michelle goodall — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:55:11 +0000

Here here Ged!

OK, so we are broadly in agreement?

…some are bored with the debate..others are using it to demonstrate that they get it and should be invited to the clients' table (PRs, SEMs, specialists, 'conversation agencies' etc) ….slow lingering deaths to those who fail to adapt….marketing Darwinism in action….survival of the smartest/best at demonstrating what good looks like….. shut up and get on and do it….

Right ho… I'm going to sign off from this and other debates like this and focus my time and energy on helping others to plan it, do it, measure it, refine it…..

By: Ged Carroll

Ged Carroll — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:39:40 +0000

This is all a bit tedious, I remember a similar debate when PA Consulting used to do PR for Compaq. PR always has had to duke things out with other disciplines and agencies. Often it hasn't done it particularly well and as Robin alludes to there is a marketing singularity coming.

Ultimately the people who will win will be the people most trusted by the client. Will PR die, I doubt it, will PR agencies die – some undoubtedly will (most likely a slow lingering death due to the low barriers to entry), the smartest have already started evolving.

By: Jonathan Hopkins

Jonathan Hopkins — Sat, 09 May 2009 09:24:13 +0000

@ Danny Agreed. Grrrrrrrr!

By: dannywhatmough

dannywhatmough — Thu, 07 May 2009 09:31:02 +0000

@ Jonathan – furious agreement it is then

By: Jonathan Hopkins

Jonathan Hopkins — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:15:13 +0000

@ Danny – I guess my point (done in a slightly tongue-in-not-so-serious-cheek way, granted) was that we should stop debating it, talking about it and agreeing on different bits in unison. . . and just focus on DOING it.

By: dannywhatmough

dannywhatmough — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:28:32 +0000

I'm afraid I disagree with Stephen and Jonathan, I think this debate is great, relevant and has really been missing at an 'industry' level (whatever that means) for some time, even if it has been very active internally. Broader perspectives are always useful.

I do agree with Katie and Michelle though, the definitions we use are irrelevant (indeed that is the main thrust of my post on the subject - http://www.dannywhatmough.com/2009/04/22/its-pr... ).

I also think Ian makes a valid point. Trad PR is in many ways ideally placed to handle the new wave of marketing/PR/conversation/social media (whatever you want to call it).

The gauntlet has been thrown - many of us (call us whatever you want) are eager and willing to rise to the challenge.