Diss the Press

Tweet

No. I'm not obsessed with President Obama's fledgling press office or the musings of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. But maybe I should be.

Yesterday, author and former New York Times investigative reporter David Cay Johnston shared his experience dealing with the Obama PR operation in a CJR piece headlined:

"Who’s Undercutting Obama?
For the moment, at least, it’s his press office"

Frankly, the piece is rather shocking given the unabashed adulation garnered by Mr. Obama's PR handlers during the campaign. Here's the lead:

"It’s 3 p.m. and the phone in the White House press secretary’s office is ringing. It rings and rings and rings. Eventually, a recorded voice asks callers to leave a message—followed by a second voice saying the voicemail box is full.

After a full week of such calls, a human being answers. But Ben Labolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going “off the record” until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around—a basic journalistic standard that Labolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about."

No matter what new tools of transparency and direct-to-constituency dialogue this new Administration touts, the PR practice of responding reasonably to a still-breathing and potentially consequential media filter endures today. As Johnston observes:

"Talking to working reporters is not the only way to communicate with the people. The Obama administration seems to be embracing direct delivery of its messages via the whitehouse.gov website and YouTube. They seem to be saying “We don’t need the press to communicate our messages to the people. We can talk to the people ourselves."

I have a feeling this tension between the new and the old will have legs. Let's hope the new media idealists don't burn too many mainstream media bridges in the interim.

Update (Feb 2): The New York Times weighs in.

A hat tip to Howard Bailen for pointing me to the CJR piece.

Call Any Vegetable

Tweet

So now that we've gotten Blago out of our hair (or vice-versa), let's turn our attention to the Super Bowl or "big game" for non-advertisers who want to leverage the event for marketing purposes. The news arrived today that NBC has rejected PETA's Super Bowl TV spot.

Apparently, the anti-fur people had an epiphany that sex (and vegetables) sell, and to prove it, they set out to make Go Daddy blush. As one who has worked his share of Super Bowl ad campaigns -- including three successive years publicizing HotJobs spots -- I would say that the rejection bodes well PR-wise for PETA.

You may remember that HotJobs's first TV spot also was rejected. That rejection single-handedly elevated the dot-com's brand to cult status in an age when building new brands was a sport in and of itself. The online job board eventually pushed its Super Bowl fame into Yahoo's arms for a gazillion dollars.

But that was then. YouTube and video sharing were just a glimmer in Chad's and Steve's eyes.

We can now expect that rejected PETA spot, featuring scantilly clad women with veggies, from pumpkins to broccoli, to enjoy an even greater life than it would have alone on the Super Bowl. (It also makes better viewing than seeing some fur-wearing fashion figure getting splattered with blood.)

Blago's Blatant Bloviation

Tweet

How lame is Blago's PR agency? What PR person isn't asking today whether the soon-to-be-former Governor of Illinois's whorish visit to the Big Apple this week, during his impeachment no less, will actually have the opposite effect for which it was intended?

His Tampa-based PR firm, which touts Drew Peterson (pictured at left) as its other pre-eminent client, has a Twitter feed that reads as follows:

"Join for news updates on Gov. Blagojevich, Drew Peterson and other clients. The Publicity Agency is the only PR firm created and staffed by former journalists."

Its Twitter feed has 156 followers, and is following no one. Great way to listen to the conversation...not. As far as its boast that the agency was created and is staffed by former journalists -- tell it to Dan Abrams. I for one am not convinced that this is a major selling point, especially when one considers the thinking behind Blago's recent over-the-top NYC media tour.

What happened to strategic PR? The jury is literally out on that one. But maybe these former journos will prove everyone wrong, and Blago's tete-a-tete with Barbara Walters, Larry King and too many others to remember, will sew enough doubt in potential jurors' minds to let the slimebag avert jail time? I hope not...especially after catching him on TV this week.

Update (1/28) - Newly minted PR man Dan Abrams weighs in and concurs in a post today on The Daily Beast.

On Background

Tweet

How many media training sessions does one have to endure before taking to heart the trainer's counsel that nothing is "off the record?" We've certainly witnessed a fair share of PR gaffes by newsmakers who thought it was cool to kibbutz with a reporter.

Segueing from "off-the-record" to its semantic sibling "on background," we read with interest today Slate's media maven Jack Shafer's recount of those backgrounding sessions that the Bush, and now Obama administration regularly serves up to the White House press corps.

The media ground rules for such sessions shield the name of the person doing the backgrounding, i.e, "an administration official," but allow the content to be reported.

Today's Slate column focused on the confusion caused by Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs when he repeatedly mentioned on-the-record the first name of the person conducting the off-the-record backgrounder, White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig:

Shortly after the backgrounder, press secretary Gibbs convened an on-the-record session with the White House press corps and television cameras, and taking questions about the executive orders, he referred to "Greg" three times. "Intriguing," wrote Gillman in italic. "Who is this mysterious 'Greg,' folks watching on TV might wonder."

The bigger question revolves around whether these backgrounding sessions jibe with the Obama administration's pledges of transparency. In response to one of this blogger's recent posts about the PR changes afoot, Brian Burch posted these comments:

Change in the press office? Nope. Obama's press office is already proving itself as no better than the Bush administration. Limiting the number of journalists to the "second swearing," denying access, refusing to answer questions.

Openness and transparency are nothing more [sic] more talking points for the strict White House PR machine, which would rather focus on dogs and decorations than answer real questions.

Boy, do I hope he is wrong. As for the White House backgrounding sessions, Mr. Shafer concludes:

The only people left in the dark are citizens and readers. Why can't we trust them with the identities of background briefing? As long as it's a new administration, why not turn on a few lights?

Politico's Michael Calderone poses the same question in his post today:

"Will Obama WH keep background briefings?"

Blago and Thain's TV Defense

Tweet

If the PR handlers for Rod Blagojevich and John Thain had some social media mojo, what could/should they be doing to resuscitate their bosses' tarnished reputations?

As it presently stands, TV is serving as the primary vehicle for correcting what these beleaguered bosses believe - rightly or wrongly - has led to their demise in the court of pubic opinion.

Over the weekend, Blago did a turn on NBC-TV's "Weekend Today," (Is this the only morning show his PR consiglieres could muster?), while this afternoon, John Thain will tap CNBC's Maria Bartiromo to clear the air on "Closing Bell."

Contrary to another era in which print almost always begat broadcast, excerpts from Blago's TV spot traveled far and wide through the media sphere timed to the start of today's impeachment proceedings. Maybe Blago's blather in which he compared himself to Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. made good viral. Even The AP fed some video on Facebook under the header "Blagojevich Prepares for PR Blitz."

As for Mr. Thain's PR defense, the ousted head of Merrill will say he intends to pay back the $1.2 million spent to renovate his office (think $1400 trash can), put in perspective the size of the bonuses paid to M-L employees just prior to the firm's sale, and defend the strategy behind BofA's acquisition.

CNBC posted this news on its website from an internal memo (for external consumption?) that Mr. Thain issued following his ouster last week. Again, a TV network broke the news, which Reuters also is now reporting.

But back to the question about how social media can weigh in here. Here's the tale of the tape:

• Twitter: Blago, yes, but dated with few followers; Thain, no
• Facebook: Blago, yes, but not active; Thain, no, but Merrill Lynch has a "global" page (in French) with one member.
• LinkedIn: Blago, no, but his press asst. has a private listing with two followers: Thain, no.
  
• RSS-enabled news feed: Blago, yes; Thain: no, Merrill Lynch, no
  
• Podcast: Blago, yes; Thain, no
• Weblog: Blago: no, but plenty dedicated to him; Thain: no, but plenty of posts about him

I suppose we can conclude that Gov. (for now) Blagojevich and Mr. Thain will not diverge from the traditional top-down, command-and-control approach to reputation management. Perhaps they should conduct a Google blog or Twitter search to ascertain the true picture of their PR predicament?

Separately, the bookers at NBC "Weekend Today" should see if Madoff will agree to an interview from his Park Ave. apartment. They can promote is as "Weekend at Bernie's."

Flamed on Facebook

Tweet

I am one who subscribes to Mike Moran's sage advice to "Do It Wrong Quickly" in which the best-selling author, distinguished engineer, and digital marketing strategist encourages web marketers to experiment until they get it right.

After all, the cost to re-jigger an ineffective web or social media campaign is minuscule compared to re-imagining, re-shooting and re-purchasing a broadcast TV or print spot.

Who among us doesn't admire those companies that break new ground for engaging audiences on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or even Second Life -- even if the magic potion separating the successful from the myriad failed social media programs remains elusive. They should just keep trying and measuring outcomes.

What hasn't changed, at least as I see it, is how much the so-called success of a social media campaign is measured by its ability to generate buzz in the edit-sphere. In fact, media buzz frequently is the sole determinant of ROI.

Burger King's recent Facebook flamed friend fiasco was a total home run on several fronts. You didn't hear about it? Well, it went like this: some ad/PR creative types thought it would be fun to offer up a Whopper in exchange for Facebookers dropping ten of their friends. What's more, those "friends" that were swapped out for a piece of meat on a bun were informed of the ignominious trade.

Maybe I'm old fashioned. I'm bummed when I lose a single Twitter follower. Who knows how those dropped friends reacted, but BK didn't seem to care. It created buzz (and biz) and those were the goals. Right? Facebook, to its credit, asked BK to modify the application since its policy smartly prohibits alerting friends when they've been dumped.

BK balked and pulled the whole shebang...but not until 200,000+ FB'ers each shed ten friends, flaming up a double cheeseburger's worth of press and restaurant visits. Most marketing pundits (i.e., the ones wearing burger-scented cologne) proclaimed the promotion "brilliant." I admit that this was clever and even successful, albeit in a squirrelly kind of way.

Or perhaps nastiness is the recipe for buzz generation?

PR Change Has Come

Tweet

On this gloriously historic day, it seems only appropriate to round-up some of the pundits' prognostications on how President Obama's press office may diverge from that of his predecessor, let alone all previous inhabitants of the Oval Office.

The big question thus far percolating in the media pundit-sphere has revolved around the prospective use of direct-to-and-between-constituency communications channels and tools to advance the administration's impossible agenda.

We remember the profile of Robert Gibbs in the New York Times magazine in which the new White House spokesman boasted of by-passing the heretofore must-visit Washington Post edit board during the campaign. Since that story was published, Mr. Obama and his PR consiglieres have stepped up efforts to build bridges with the old guard -- liberal and conservative alike - reports Slate's Jack Shafer.

One enterprising PR firm glommed on to the interest in Mr. Obama's break with tradition to produce a white paper titled "Inside Obama's Social Media Toolkit." Barry Libert, another astute observer of the changed marketing landscape (and an old friend), just published a book titled Barack, Inc: Winning Business Lessons of the Obama Campaign, whose title speaks for itself.

Press Think's Jay Rosen has some thoughtful words of wisdom for Mr. Obama as he takes the reigns over his public persona and the way in which he engages the citizenry. Ad Age's Ira Teinowitz reports on Mr. Obama's PR machine as it shifted into high gear for today's inauguration in his piece "Obama’s PR Machine Fuels ‘People’s Inauguration’." Over the weekend, Robert Gibbs shedded some added light on what lies ahead via Fox News, of all places.

John Murrell reminisces on Web 1.0's WhiteHouse.gov for Silicon Valley News, while The Times's Saul Hansell, in the "Bits" blog, astutely reports on the latest renovation that has taken place with the WhiteHouse.gov website. It went live at 12:01pm ET with the following post:

"Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov.
Welcome to the new WhiteHouse.gov. I'm Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House and one of the people who will be contributing to the blog..."

Welcome change, indeed!

Formula One

Tweet

In early 2005, we were charged with building excitement for a new concept car from one of the big Japanese automakers. The car was to bow at the New York Auto Show, mostly to build the brand, not consumer demand.

We were still in the relatively nascent days of the blogosphere. Only a handful of blogging categories had succeeded in building decent spheres of influence, the auto sites among them.

So we asked (pleaded with) our client to capture some dramatic digital images of the car and allow us to plant them exclusively with a couple of blogs to kindle WOM. It was unclear whether the term blogseeding had yet entered our vernacular, but blogseeding we did with Jalopnik and I believe Autoblog, if not one other.

The bloggers were thrilled (even gracious) to accept our gift of giving their readers a first look at the car. To show their appreciation, they enhanced the JPEGs with glowing prose. It was a eureka moment for some of us, i.e., "we could pitch bloggers!" (even though their degree of influence paled in comparison to what it is today.)

Flash forward to early 2009. In reading CNET's breathless account of Formula PR's "glimpse into social media marketing" to introduce the new Scion, it was clear we've made considerable progress courting the socialsphere, but it still seemed, well, formulaic. Scion's PR firm posted fresh images on Flickr along with a link to a microsite, and souped it up from there:

"Of course, Yahoo's photo-sharing site wasn't the only part of the process. 'We uploaded the first photos of the new car on Flickr and linked those to our micro site. We also Twittered about the car and photos and reached out to some of the key online Scion influencers. From there it expanded to the Scion Facebook fan page and Scion message boards like ScionLife as people started to spread the news.'"

Back in '05, Twitter, Facebook and micro-focused online communities were just glimmers in someone's eye, and probably not even that. Perhaps our role is to simply feed these catalytic social media engines, YouTube among them, so they start firing on all cylinders. We can then recline and listen to them humm, or sputter as the case may be, which may require a periodic tune-up.

The CNET piece may not have sold more Scions, but it certainly stoked Formula PR's marketing engines. If you want to see other social media case studies, here's a comprehensive list of lists definitely worth checking out.

Where the PR Jobs Are

Tweet

One of the topics that surfaced during the roundtable I moderated yesterday on "social media and communications" at the Real-Time Communications Conference in New York revolved around blogger engagement - to do or not to do.

Now the digital pundits will invariably advise anyone who'll listen, to always engage a disgruntled blogger no matter how far down the long tail he or she may reside.

But some in the group -- from relatively PR-savvy enterprises, I might add - were surprisingly resistant to engaging bloggers at all. (Did I need to remind them of the Comcast repairman, Jeff Jarvis's problematic PC or the mortified Motrin mommies?)

Several of the PR reps for consumer-facing enterprises even said that taking time to engage bloggers was often a waste of time. For others, it wasn't a matter of recognizing the value of using dialogue to neutralize a potential issue percolating in the blogosphere, but rather one of having sufficient internal resources to do so. It's simply not scalable for most in-house PR departments.

To make matters worse, the current economic climate is not exactly propitious for adding staff to one's communications department no matter how potentially deleterious these online forces can prove. I mean even Google is trimming staff, for God's sake!

But wait a second. If I were to guess the area that holds the most promise for gainful employment in the PR-sphere, it would likely fall under online community management. Companies like Dell, Comcast, Pepsico, Ford and many other forward-thinking enterprises have added and empowered staffers to listen, analyze and engage, on their behalf, in the online conversation. It's a relatively new, but increasingly vital job function.

Business Week this week profiles Comcast's Frank Eliason, the person behind the @comcastcares moniker on Twitter. And who isn't following (or being followed by) Ford's Scott Monty or Dell's Richard Binhammer?

As for the issue of scalability, IBM's manager of social media communications Adam Christensen explained during our recent PRSA panel that his employer encourages and nurtures all employees, not just PR, to engage in the social graph. And thousands do.

Wild Pitch

Tweet

In a recent conversation with a prospective client, I probed her interest in using social media to advance her company's business goals. She immediately answered that it's already being done. Her proof: the success they've had pitching bloggers for product mentions.

I paused, and gently suggested that pitching bloggers actually resides in the realm of traditional PR. I mean it's no different than crafting a viable story angle and trying to hook a mainstream journalist to cover it, right? It's top-down, command-and-control client message delivery.

Now if she said she had created a company blog or Twitter account, or even commented on other blogs (or Twitter feeds), then we're talking. These tactics may be the easiest points-of-entry in the social media ecosystem. We can then graduate to conversation mining, analysis and engagement, better organic and paid results on Google, digital video on YouTube, and community-building on Facebook, etc.

Still, pitching stories remains a core competency at every level of PR. There's value in one's ability to effectively articulate a client's news or POV so that it elicits editorial interest -- both online and off. This is why so much attention is given to the art and science of media engagement, a subject that also has produced its share of media angst.

Last night, I had the opportunity to spend time with PR pros and bloggers Kevin Dugan and Richard Laermer at a well-attended reception in NYC celebrating the third anniversary of their blog -- the aptly titled, always entertaining, and occasionally depressing Bad Pitch Blog. Amidst the din of the evening's revelry, Kevin and Richard shared their thoughts about PR pitching, Michael Arrington, and Christopher Anderson in this audio clip (RT: 3:18). Take a listen.

Bush's Legacy Project

Tweet

As I pen this, President Bush (yes, he's still President) will take the podium at a surprise news conference in which he'll presumably field questions (not shoes) hurled from journalists. He'll certainly have a rich choice of timely news topics on which to opine given the unmitigated mess with which he's leaving our next President.

But what is the real purpose of this sudden desire talk to the American people - his first presser since that fateful Baghdadian brouhaha on December 14? Surely, any new policy initiatives will have little weight eight days before the Bushies bid us all adieu. Sadly, I suspect that this high profile appearance is just another cog in this administration's recent full court press ("legacy tour") to re-shape how it will be remembered.

So the question I have is whether eight years of malfeasance can be swept under the carpet with a slurry of mainstream media interviews? Has today's media environment, which produces a relentless stream of news from countless sources (and shortened public attention spans), enable this administration to alter Mr. Bush's presumed legacy of the worst President in American history?

In an opinion piece titled "Eight Years of Madoffs," New York Times columnist Frank Rich recounts the myriad transgressions and scandals this administration foisted on the American people during its reign. One example he cites is the recent government study on the "nation-building" fiasco in Iraq, which cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in fraudulent waste.

It wasn't the amount or the ineptitude of the crime on which Rich focused, but rather the scant attention it earned in the national news media:

"What’s most remarkable about the Times article, however, is how little stir it caused. When, in 1971, The Times got its hands on the Pentagon Papers, the internal federal history of the Vietnam disaster, the revelations caused a national uproar. But after eight years of battering by Bush, the nation has been rendered half-catatonic. The Iraq Pentagon Papers sank with barely a trace."

So I wonder whether Mr. Bush's recent PR strategy to align and deploy in the MSM his most trusted aides -- Condi, Cheney, Laura and Dana -- can achieve the same goals they might when he first took office given the vastly changed media landscape?

To its credit, one MSM outlet, the Washington Post, today announced its own "The Bush-Cheney Legacy Project" in an effort to more accurately capture and preserve the last eight years. Let's hope it gains a digital foothold.

One Tie, Two Tie, Red Tie, Blue Tie

Tweet

Years ago, choosing which tie to wear on the public stage was a much easier proposition. I remember repping T. Boone Pickens during his fame-making run at Gulf Oil. It pre-dated the age of CEO-as-media-celebrity, and in fact, may have ushered it in.

In addition to working on media messaging and delivery, I remember being called to his Waldorf Towers (or was it Helmsley?) suite at the crack of dawn on the day of his tête à tête with Diane Sawyer of CBS "Morning News." (The caricature of a big Texas oilman standing up for shareholder rights apparently struck a resonant chord with the show's bookers.)

The big decision in his suite that morning revolved around what tie Boone should wear. I made my suggestion based on nothing but my own personal taste. His wife concurred, and we were off to West 57th Street for a veritable love fest. Boone's a natural, if you didn't know.

Today, the choice of which tie a newsmaker chooses to wear seems to come with much more symbolic baggage. Am I the only one who found the choice of cravates from yesterday's boffo Presidential photo-op more than a little curious?

Let's see. Two Bushes in Blue. Carter and Clinton in Red. Obama in Blue.

• Have the Bushes signaled their willingness to jump on the bi-partisan bandwagon?
  
• Have Clinton and Carter succumbed to the idea that red can be a fashion statement again?
  

I'll tell you one thing: I did derive some satisfaction to see Obama creped in true blue. But then again, maybe I'm reading too much into this??? Or maybe not.

San Miguel on Jobs

Tweet

Those I follow on Twitter are consumed today with the maneuverings from Macworld 2009 (absent a hormone-imbalanced Mr. Jobs).

As Mack Collier wrote: "Twitter is constipated, can I assume that MacWorld is underway?"

Dave Winer lamented: "Oh great. Garageband. I don't use that either."

Ryan Block hit a tech bump trying to live blog the event from the Moscone Center: "Bummed we couldn't be up for 100% this keynote! System seemed like it was ok, but I think we maxed out Mosso's pipes! 2GB, up to 3GBps peak!"

I suppose there's no one to blame but myself for having to deal with this relentless feed of Apple i-nnuendo. I've made my Twitter bed, now I have to sleep in it.

I did stumble upon a longer-form and more worthwhile opinion piece from grizzled tech reporter Renay San Miguel who cut his tech teeth in analog cable TV before turning to 1's and 0's.

In "Diagnosing Apple's PR Afflictions," San Miguel turns the spotlight away from the company's marketing machinations and toward the latest round of questions catalyzed by Steve Jobs' memo explaining his weight loss:

"When it comes to Steve Jobs' health, who's telling the truth? Apple, famous for managing the message, has been forthcoming to a point. So journalists do what they're trained to do, and seek out the story -- but where do you draw the line between rumors and legitimate news?"

San Miguel observes the seeming disparity in the way in which old and new media reported the story: "Silicon Alley Insider fed the new-vs.-old-media meme with its headline, "Gizmodo Gets Steve Jobs Macworld Story Right, CNBC Gets It Wrong."

His overriding gripe had to do with Apple's apparent lack of adherence to one of the primary tenets of Web 2.0 -- transparency -- in spite of acknowledging the challenges Apple PR faces with an enigmatic CEO:

"I'm hoping that Dowling [the PR person] isn't contributing to Apple's wobbly strategy regarding Jobs' health issues. To be fair, everybody needs to understand that he's working for one of the most mercurial CEOs ever. What Jobs says goes, and if he doesn't want to say everything there is to say about his health -- even if I and others think that's the wrong approach -- then that's that. And Apple's PR department was famous before Dowling got there for its absolute control of the message."

Furthermore:

Jobs is at the vortex of this tornado of attention; the company must be upfront about everything, and not just when the rumors reach critical mass. He's the CEO of the most blogged-about tech company on the planet, with responsibility to shareholders. His image is Apple's image. If the rumors are at a fever pitch and impacting stock price, then, sadly, the issue of privacy becomes moot.

San Miguel concludes by questioning whether Mr. Jobs's latest confession reached the level of full disclosure:

Stonewalling is simply not the Apple way. At least, it's not the Apple that charmed me when I bought my first iPod and took it out of its box, only to find a little message on the clear plastic that encased the media player. "Don't steal music," it said, addressing head-on the controversy over illegal downloads.

Nicely done. But a letter from Steve Jobs that appears to answer questions only to raise more, and simply roils the blogosphere, is no way to think different.

So how would you handle crafting a statement designed to put to bed questions about your CEO's health, knowing that certain omissions may in fact produce the opposite effect?

Provocateur

Tweet

High profile talking head biz/financial reporter Charlie Gasparino goes out on the limb this first full day back of the new year.

The headline and lead of his post today on The Daily Beast:

"Is Jamie Dimon the Next to Fall?

JP Morgan’s CEO successfully ruled his company to become the new king of Wall Street. But Charlie Gasparino says his reign may soon be over. Jamie Dimon is in the hot seat."

One small problem: the thrust of his bold assertion seems to contradict the facts, as Gasparino later acknowledges:

If you’re wondering why you haven’t read about Jamie Dimon in this way it’s because the media picks winners and losers. At least for now, Dimon has been certified a winner—and for good reason. He’s been the best CEO on Wall Street at a time when the street needed a great CEO. As the entire financial services business began to crumble, JP Morgan was a source of stability.

Now I don't claim to know anywhere near as much as Mr. Gasparino in terms of the machinations of Wall Street's executive ranks. But I can tell you that the media capital Mr. Dimon* has amassed over the years, in my estimation, will continue to serve as an impenetrable buffer when the ax man comes a calling.

In a nutshell: Jamie's done too many things right, and more significantly, has gotten more than his share of media (and public) recognition for it.

Now I understand that The Daily Beast has secured Charlie's prosaic talents (and his Wall Street smarts) to create buzz for the fledgling site. (Just consider The Beast's founder and her pedigree.) And for all I know, Mr. Gasparino may have a reasonable basis that led to his conclusion.

However, it's this kind of conjecture that, in a less fragmented media environment, can turn a notion like this into a self-fulfilling prophesy. Let's hope for Jamie's sake that this one blog post, no matter how influential the author, disproves that once expected sequence of events.

* This blogger was a friend of Mr. Dimon's while in college.

Looking Ahead

Tweet

Before I left for (a wonderful) family holiday, I compiled a list of some of the more notable social media and marketing predictions for 2009. It's worth checking out here.

Separately, my friends over at PR Newser crowd-sourced their readers (à la Peter Kim) for some 2009 "PR Predictions."

Here's what I had submitted:

• Twitter, and the countless applications and tools that sustain it, will gain even greater traction among agency and corporate communications professionals in the coming year.

• The line separating bloggers from mainstream journalists will continue to blur, leading to one amorphous media ecosystem. The most authoritative bloggers will be compelled to adopt accepted journalistic standards and practices, i.e., checking sources, while the vast majority will not.
  

• PR pros will continue to explore ways to build their clients' branded presence on YouTube, Facebook, and elsewhere. However, achieving editorial coverage -- both online and off -- will remain, at least for 2009, the primary means by which the industry is measured.
  

• The era of the "personal brand" will take hold. More and more companies like Ford, Dell, Pepsico, and Comcast will recognize the value of appointing and empowering individuals (versus faceless corporate entities) to engage on their behalf in the online conversation.
  

• In spite of many media pundits' dire predictions, the mainstream media, and specifically news organizations that create quality (eg, highly credible) journalism, will gain new currency and esteem in a post-Bush media environment. The PR strategists for the Obama administration will learn that direct communications to a base of supporters, while helpful, will prove insufficient for advancing policy.
  

Rachel Sklar, guesting at The Daily Beast, has more on what lies ahead for the media.

Happy New Year.