Jonny Bentwood, my colleague in the UK, has published a very thorough and provocative white paper on how to potentially define and measure "influence." The white paper was the byproduct of a meeting we held in New York with some of the industry's deepest thinkers. You can download it as a PDF, or simply peruse each section in HTML.
As Jonny says, this is not a fait accompli but a work in progress. You responded in kind. In the week since its release, many of you added valuable thoughts that will shape ours going forward. It's my hope that we can synthesize this discussion into applicable ideas we can incorporate in Edelman programs.
The release of this white paper, in a simplistic sense, illustrates what the web does best. It allows millions of connected citizens to come together as a global brain to solve problems, shape new ideas and above all spur collaborative action. The book Wikinomics, which I highly recommend, offers a lot of great examples and case studies. Doc Searls tackles a similar theme.
New communication technologies and channels grab all the headlines. However, what's far more important and meaningful (and a lot less ballyhooed) is how the web is allowing companies and stakeholders to produce outcomes that are to everyone's benefit. Dell's evolution over the past year is one great example.
That said, public relations is generally perceived as a communications discipline. We still put out lots of press releases and generate media coverage. But that's rapidly changing as the web allows us to increasingly facilitate open collaboration between a company and its customers. Richard Edelman, our CEO, has been at the forefront of this discussion. He advocates that companies take on big issues. And that's exactly what our agency is doing through initiatives like Good Purpose.
So does that mean media relations goes away in favor of new, more open approaches? Hardly. As Jonny and I wrote in the white paper's conclusion, public relations is flexible enough to cover it all. Arguably, PR programs can span two different continua. They can included tactics that are closed or open while being intended to spur communication or collaboration. The result is four quadrants, which mix together the old and the new....
1) Controlled Communication: One-way tactics such as TV advertising, online advertising and media relations that are great for branding and visibility, but are seldom collaborative. What's old still works.
2) Open Communication: Online initiatives, such as viral videos, that are designed to generate discussion, but not necessarily produce a shared outcome. Most corporate blogs are often up in this quadrant. The more collaborative blogs move "right"
3) Controlled Collaboration: Programs that facilitate participation but are more controlled, for example numerous efforts to solicit consumer generated ads
4) Open Collaboration: Win-win initiatives that open a dialogue toward reaching a broader goal. The American Express Member's Project is a great example.
What are your thoughts on this model? I'd be interested in your ideas on how this might be implemented in programs and measured - as well as any case studies on the right side quadrants. It's not perfect and it's theory. Help us move it into action.
