Respond or Die

This was bouncing around in the blogs last week, but now it's in the New York Times. Google PR is not talking to CNET until July 2006 because News.com published a story with personal details on CEO Eric Schmidt gleaned from, where else, Google.

This is so old school. I'd like to take this as an opportunity to talk about the increasing need for the PR community to swiftly react to all media inquires - both professional and civilian - in the era where the definition of “journalist” is anything but defined.

Let's start with what CNET Editor Jai Singh told the Times . He said he couldn't recall a similar situation...

“Sometimes a company is ticked off and won't talk to a reporter for a bit,” he said, “but I've never seen a company not talk to a whole news organization.”

Don't believe this for a second. Maybe it's true for Jay personally, but not the rest of us. For years companies, particularly in the Valley and even elsewhere, have had “do not call” lists of reporters and even news outlets they won't talk to. I even learned long ago to let calls from certain reporters go to voicemail if necessary. This forces journalists to write such-and-such “didn't return calls” as opposed to “didn't comment.” (It's subtle, but it sounds better.)

In the blog age, it's really not feasible to blacklist media or operate the way I once did earlier in my career. The world is more transparent. It operates 24/7. And, yes, it's flat. Instead, as hard as it is, the PR community needs to facilitate rapid dialogue by all means necessary. This includes blogs, but the usual tools as well. Don't believe me? Read what David Berlind at ZDNet wrote on Friday about the new pressures bloggers have put on him and his difficulties in getting PR people to respond - and he's ZDNet. If I represented Continental Airlines, I wouldn't wait around to contact him. But I would have applied this equally to any blogger.

Now imagine you have a blogger at your doorstep with a similar request. All of us in PR need take this person seriously and respond. Yes, it means our jobs will get harder, but there's no escape in this new age. What's worse, it may strain the talent shortage that the PR community is already suffering.

Comments

[Jim]

The whole relationship came ungoogled. Watch what you link to. It's becoming a web of terror. These companies want to be global and there are serious security issues with being global. Google might find that CNet isn't the enemy. This sounds really bad.

With laptops and DVDs, in secret hideouts and at neighborhood Internet cafes, young code-writing jihadists have sought to replicate the training, communication, planning and preaching facilities they lost in Afghanistan with countless new locations on the Internet.

I wonder how they are using Google. Google is very powerful, so it is another tool in their communications system. I think I'll avoid Google, if that is possible at this point.

[Usher Lieberman]

Exactly right Steve. PR is going to get harder, and that is a good thing, because when we do our jobs right we will be more trusted.

All this means for c|net is that they have to work a little harder to cover Google and that Google won't get its side heard (though they could use a company PR blog I suppose to respond to c|net stories indirectly.)

For Google I think they're missing an opportunity. Rather than whine that this story was evil or that they won't tolerate this type of reporting, they should request an interview with c|net so they can answer hard questions directly.

Google is in a position where they we (information consumers) need to trust them, and other companies like them. They should take this as an opportunity to remind us why they deserve our trust.

Their PR people should go about the task of explaining in very clear language what sort of information they collect, how they collect it, how they protect it, how they use it, how it is personally identifiable, how personal identifiers are masked to 3rd parties, what consumers can do to opt out, AND what's in it for us if we opt in...

Beats not taking calls from c|net (and an opportunity to clarify your side of all the stories to come) and the requisite beating in the blogosphere you're now getting.

[Jeremy Pepper]

This isn't a new thing, but just the return of a dotcom mentality, that we are big and powerful and can blackball reporters.

And, it shows that there is always a need for an outside agency, or at least an outsider, that can temper the knee-jerk reaction of a company that has drunk its own Kool Aid.

[Jim]

I guess money makes you do things that you don't want to do. They have the right to remain silent. Maybe they will ban all CNET links from Google while they are at it. This could start a whole new thing called Google Banning. You will be Googled out of digital reality and go into the abyss. Current TV will ignore you. Pass the Ritalin.

[PXLated]

I like Scoble's post...maybe it only matters to PR people.
Now, if c|net had a monopoly, it would be different. Since they don't, it probably doesn't matter.

[Jim]

Return of the dotcom mentality, hits it square on the head.
It's the new new this changes everything con, with more shady IPO wheeling and dealing. Google is really just a global porn distribution channel. It's more than that, but it isn't a news organization. It is news vs. nude. I'm not promoting hardcore porn or for censorship, but lets call a spade a spade. Now the Google brass wants the news censored, at least that's how it appears. It won't work. If they pulled the same crap with their porn vendor partners, it would be another story.

[Dennis Howlett]

This is a horribly tough conundrum. There are no easy answers. PR will get tougher, but so will journalism

[Randy Charles Morin]

I vote "Good move Google". You have to draw a line somewhere. Bloggers and journalists think they have a right to invade my privacy. They don't!

[steven cody]

This goes beyond having a mere dotcom mentality. Experienced public relations professionals should know better than to acquiesce to management's desire to "cut off" a publication. Pushing back on this type of "cut off our nose to spite our face" thinking is what gains (or deprives) public relations executives from gaining a seat at the table.