A few days ago, Claire Cain Miller of The New York Times published a very intriguing article covering topics such as the role of publicists in the changing media landscape, publicist-reporter relationships, PR for tech companies and social media.  TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington wrote a follow-up piece, entitled “The Reality of PR: Smile, Dial, Name Drop, Pray.”  I’d highly recommend reading both Miller and Arrington but, for the purposes of understanding my comments below, here’s what you need to know:

• The organization that Miller profiles is called Wordnik, a startup tech outfit. 
• Since Wordnik’s source of revenue remains to be determined, Wordnik has decided to refer to itself as a “project” rather than a company. 
• Wordnik and its well-connected publicist ultimately pursued a brief media campaign focused exclusively on high-profile social media and primarily on Twitter. 
• The client received excellent exposure in the short term, but its media coverage, according to Arrington, has subsequently fizzled. 

This post is not about Wordnik specifically but about a few of the issues that Miller and Arrington have brought to light. 

The Risks of All Social Media

From the outset, it’s natural to wonder why was such a limited social media campaign was chosen in the first place?  Wordnik’s publicist certainly had great social media contacts, but she has excellent contacts in other media as well.  Perhaps the answer is twofold: (1) social media is trendy, and (2) social media is relatively safe for a “project” such as Wordnik. 

1.  Social = cool.  While average Americans are somewhat less enthusiastic than marketing wonks about Twitter, the popular microblogging service still gains a lot of media attention.  It is undoubtedly among the top media trends for 2009 and many small businesses and major brands that consider themselves marketing-savvy have either begun tweeting themselves or have considered a corporate Twitter platform. 

2.  Social = safe(?)  But the issue of safety might be even more revealing in this case.  Twitter’s brevity lends itself equally to swift praise and to swift condemnation.  What microblogging does not lend itself to is measured evaluation.  In 140 characters or less, it’s hard to say anything other than “This is cool.  Check it out at [web address]” or “This is lame.  For a good laugh, click here.” 

It’s much harder to say, for example: “Here’s a new company that offers x, y and z but has an as-yet-undetermined revenue stream and therefore may or may not be viable in the long-term.”  More importantly, even if you could say something like that in 140 characters, why would you?  Clearly you have more to say so why not express it in a more conducive medium? 

The idea that Wordnik is an ongoing “project” makes it all the more perplexing that social and short-term media was the sole launch conduit.  If a project is developing and ongoing, it’s certainly not imperative for everyone to know about it immediately via Twitter and Facebook. 

Perhaps then there was this perception that microblogging is somehow safer than more traditional—shall we say—“macro” media.  Why should consumers care about revenue streams anyways, right?  Just visit the website. 

The Risks of Short-Term Media

The main problem with short-term media plans is simply that they’re incompatible with the way the human mind works.  Unless something is really memorable—by being personally relevant or particularly shocking, for example—nobody’s going to remember the story if they encounter it only once or twice.  Even if a dozen of the top social media mavens mention your company for a day or two, few among their audiences will remember you for any length of time. 

This is why the best media campaigns require sustained coverage, which, frankly, takes a lot of work.  It usually helps to have a professional team or outside agency devoted to press outreach because they’re on top of the various angles, touchpoints and trends in the ever-changing space we know as the media landscape.  Since reporters and bloggers aren’t going to write the same story over and over again about your brand, a multifaceted approach is imperative for a serious media campaign to work. 

This necessarily high level of PR involvement also speaks to Arrington’s characterization of publicity professionals’ influence on their clients’ business decisions.  To Arrington, public relations is effectively an afterthought, a way of beautifying corporate decisions that have already been made with little or no prior thought to their potential viability in the media. 

Strictly speaking, Arrington’s right.  A lot of companies DO think that way.  Some expect that their publicist simply spin a story to their satisfaction.  Others are willing to pay a well-connected publicist to make a few phone calls, land a few press mentions and be on their way. 

But the shrewdest brands don’t delude themselves into considering such so-called “PR” a compelling or sustainable communications platform.  Those companies that have a strong media partner every step of the way wind up considering the media impact of just about all of their business decisions.  In other words, a company’s story doesn’t seem forced because it’s not forced.  It doesn’t seem like an afterthought because it’s been a part of the decision-making process all along. 

With media as ubiquitous as it is today—and ever increasingly so—it’s more and more important to exert this kind of proactive control over your small business’ story.  You’ve worked hard to get where you are, and your story should do justice to your efforts.