Comments on: A Personal Note on the Year Ahead… [Second of three posts] http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/ Mapping the PR 2.0 Universe Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:08:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Meet Yongfook, Joel Postman, and Melvin Yuan @ BlogOut 2009 at theory.isthereason http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-62816 Meet Yongfook, Joel Postman, and Melvin Yuan @ BlogOut 2009 at theory.isthereason Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:24:48 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-62816 [...] Edstrom Worldwide. If you ever see him, he enjoys talking about this word he coined up called Omnifluence. Also, I apologize on his behalf: It’s been exactly one year since he updated his blog! Oh, a [...] […] Edstrom Worldwide. If you ever see him, he enjoys talking about this word he coined up called Omnifluence. Also, I apologize on his behalf: It’s been exactly one year since he updated his blog! Oh, a […]

]]> By: melvinyuan http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-59107 melvinyuan Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:45:03 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-59107 Thanks Scott, It's been a long time (since this post; and since we caught up in real life!) No plans for Beijing this quarter... but perhaps the next. But we need to catch up soon! Thanks Scott,

It’s been a long time (since this post; and since we caught up in real life!)

No plans for Beijing this quarter… but perhaps the next. But we need to catch up soon!

]]> By: Scott Sykes http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-59055 Scott Sykes Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:03:14 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-59055 Nice post Melvin. Happy new year. Any plans to be in Beijing soon? Nice post Melvin. Happy new year. Any plans to be in Beijing soon?

]]> By: Michelle http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-57396 Michelle Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:43:43 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-57396 Melvin, I can't agree with your post more. I'm interning at a PR company for the Christmas break and quite honestly, I'll be surprised if they're around in another 10 years. In my personal opinion, PR companies are going to have to do something drastic to stay viable...like get on the web, be open to blogging and using social media to their advantage. I can easily see the day where each company will appoint a PR person or Chief Influence Officers of their own who will maintain their website/blog and will be transparent with their audience. It's different these days, people don't want to have to go through 5 people to get your message and they shouldn't have to. They should be able to go straight to the source: you, and hear straight from the horse's mouth what you have to say. PR companies, take heed. Melvin, I can’t agree with your post more.
I’m interning at a PR company for the Christmas break and quite honestly, I’ll be surprised if they’re around in another 10 years. In my personal opinion, PR companies are going to have to do something drastic to stay viable…like get on the web, be open to blogging and using social media to their advantage. I can easily see the day where each company will appoint a PR person or Chief Influence Officers of their own who will maintain their website/blog and will be transparent with their audience. It’s different these days, people don’t want to have to go through 5 people to get your message and they shouldn’t have to. They should be able to go straight to the source: you, and hear straight from the horse’s mouth what you have to say.
PR companies, take heed.

]]> By: inggita http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-57144 inggita Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:00:40 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-57144 Melvin, you have articulated perfectly what's been bothering me for years - i feel a bit concerned of my profession each time they pat each others' backs for coverages - and not responding to online buzz. you zeroed in on it: influence and results (i would like to say [business] impact for corporations) Melvin, you have articulated perfectly what’s been bothering me for years - i feel a bit concerned of my profession each time they pat each others’ backs for coverages - and not responding to online buzz. you zeroed in on it: influence and results (i would like to say [business] impact for corporations)

]]> By: Melvin Yuan http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-49712 Melvin Yuan Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:47:15 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-49712 What? And disturb the peace and quiet around here? ;) What? And disturb the peace and quiet around here? ;)

]]> By: Vanessa Tan http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-48079 Vanessa Tan Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:47:08 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-48079 Hey Mel. Update this blog, lah! :) Hey Mel. Update this blog, lah! :)

]]> By: Kenneth Phua http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-28238 Kenneth Phua Mon, 26 May 2008 21:22:58 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-28238 Came across your post. On PR 2.0 while doing some research on PR. I have a few responses, quite lengthy to be honest to your blog post. Hopefully, it might serve to be more constructive than others who just concur. Idea of Influence The model presented by the change influence model has principally assumes that the customer or consumer is coagulated as a whole. However, this might not necessarily be true. Opinion leaders must be considered as a principal nodes within the consumer set in the equation/model. As all marketing and PR practitioners would know, this has its major challenges. To identify principal nodes (opinion leaders), one must first be able to plot the entire network and not rely on guess work, which is impractical to some sense, even though arguably these principal nodes can be estimated, attributing hits to influence of industry leaders, experts… basically people whose popularity we can measure. However, measuring is of the biggest issue to date. For example, we assume that bloggers with the highest hits are opinion leaders because they have extremely high hits. Thus, we see countless PR firms flocking unwittingly at these bloggers, getting them to test drive a new software, a new product, etc. (bloggers include opinion leaders in the field, such as Tech experts, fashion gurus, or just ‘star bloggers’). So the question lies…. Are we really ready to challenge this new frontier? Do we really have the tools to measure? Is it even possible to plot this web? Or are we just hastily estimating? Coverage and issues The biggest challenge to revamping the mindset towards that of a direct correlation of PR and business results has long been a challenge to Practitioners. Why? 2 reasons, measurability (again) and misunderstanding. Measurability Unless run through a detailed regression, which I believe no one has actually done, it is not possible to show direct correlation between PR and profits, or rather divorcing PR efforts from Marketing efforts to show how much each has contributed to profits/business results. Therefore, PR firms start adopting the simplest method they know how, assuming that positive news coverage (arguably more credible than ads) can be quantified and therefore counted as a “more credible ad” accounting it to the increase in business results. Mis-understanding One of the fundamental problems of the relations between in house Corp Comms and PR agencies is the issue of not understanding the true function of PR. While PR is fundamentally a function on its own used to manage opinions and to ultimately influence purchase. In house Corp Comms often lack in the expertise to do as such, using PR as more a marketing function than anything else most of the time, distinguishing themselves with ‘coverage’ as its main difference. This leads to the misconception of CEOs and Senior management of their Corp Comms function, which in turns brings about a constant need to self-justification by the Corp Comms, using the only tool they have to show for – coverage. Came across your post. On PR 2.0 while doing some research on PR.

I have a few responses, quite lengthy to be honest to your blog post. Hopefully, it might serve to be more constructive than others who just concur.

Idea of Influence

The model presented by the change influence model has principally assumes that the customer or consumer is coagulated as a whole. However, this might not necessarily be true. Opinion leaders must be considered as a principal nodes within the consumer set in the equation/model.

As all marketing and PR practitioners would know, this has its major challenges.
To identify principal nodes (opinion leaders), one must first be able to plot the entire network and not rely on guess work, which is impractical to some sense, even though arguably these principal nodes can be estimated, attributing hits to influence of industry leaders, experts… basically people whose popularity we can measure.

However, measuring is of the biggest issue to date. For example, we assume that bloggers with the highest hits are opinion leaders because they have extremely high hits. Thus, we see countless PR firms flocking unwittingly at these bloggers, getting them to test drive a new software, a new product, etc. (bloggers include opinion leaders in the field, such as Tech experts, fashion gurus, or just ‘star bloggers’).

So the question lies…. Are we really ready to challenge this new frontier? Do we really have the tools to measure? Is it even possible to plot this web? Or are we just hastily estimating?

Coverage and issues

The biggest challenge to revamping the mindset towards that of a direct correlation of PR and business results has long been a challenge to Practitioners. Why? 2 reasons, measurability (again) and misunderstanding.

Measurability

Unless run through a detailed regression, which I believe no one has actually done, it is not possible to show direct correlation between PR and profits, or rather divorcing PR efforts from Marketing efforts to show how much each has contributed to profits/business results. Therefore, PR firms start adopting the simplest method they know how, assuming that positive news coverage (arguably more credible than ads) can be quantified and therefore counted as a “more credible ad” accounting it to the increase in business results.

Mis-understanding

One of the fundamental problems of the relations between in house Corp Comms and PR agencies is the issue of not understanding the true function of PR. While PR is fundamentally a function on its own used to manage opinions and to ultimately influence purchase. In house Corp Comms often lack in the expertise to do as such, using PR as more a marketing function than anything else most of the time, distinguishing themselves with ‘coverage’ as its main difference. This leads to the misconception of CEOs and Senior management of their Corp Comms function, which in turns brings about a constant need to self-justification by the Corp Comms, using the only tool they have to show for – coverage.

]]> By: Hun Boon http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-28168 Hun Boon Mon, 26 May 2008 09:09:07 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-28168 Hey Melvin, I found your web site. Remember our quick chat on what PR is? If I substitute the word "marketing" for "PR" in your article above, it'll still ring just as true. So what is your take on the difference between Marketing and PR? Cheers Hun Boon Hey Melvin,

I found your web site.

Remember our quick chat on what PR is? If I substitute the word “marketing” for “PR” in your article above, it’ll still ring just as true.

So what is your take on the difference between Marketing and PR?

Cheers
Hun Boon

]]> By: Steve Jensen http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-19131 Steve Jensen Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:16:56 +0000 http://thepr2.0universe.com/2008/02/24/a-personal-note-on-the-year-ahead%e2%80%a6-second-of-three-posts/#comment-19131 It's great to hear Wagged thinking outside the box! It’s great to hear Wagged thinking outside the box!

]]>