Colin, of CanuckFlack fame, brings up an interesting point (disclosure to follow).
He’s obviously talking about a recent situation regarding an agency reaching out to talk to PRWeek, and I won’t comment on that (at all - as it would end up with me rationalizing what agencies should talk to us - I will be talking about audience importance, so this note is important - I’m not saying that PRWeek’s audience was more important than the PR blogosphere in this situation. I hope that’s clear). But I can push the dialogue further by talking about the value of audiences.
One interesting contradiction about blogs (and a point of confusion): blogs are both ideal for narrow and wide dissemination. Note my language. Two opposite things can not be ideal. Blogs, as dissemination force, are both trumped for their narrow ability (i.e., reaching only air mechanics that love the White Socks) and their wide appeal (one air mechanic submits blog post to Digg, Wonkette picks it up, etc. etc.) [Ed. note: Just what piece of news is this, Keith?]
But to submit to the small audience to large audience is leave your message dissemination to chance, something any media messenger should rightly be loathed to do. The age-old rejoinder, “Well, if it’s relevant news, it will get out there” is as foolish as it is boring. Non news can travel fast; important news can get lost in the shuffle.
My favorite recent example is the 3-1-1 campaign (link, PRWeek subscribers). Even though I edited this story, I still had liquids on me while waiting to fly to London. And that news only had to travel from one part of my brain to another.
So… the only audience that matters, honestly, is the only audience that matters. If they’re on blogs, great. If they’re in the WSJ, good. If it’s in a trade (overly cautious note: remember the note above), super. Strategic message dissemination needs to be more about reaching the right audience immediately than going for the maybe-the-right-blogs-will-pick-this-up Hail Mary. Unless your name is Andy Reid, sometimes the safe call is the right one.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Colin McKay // Jan 14, 2007 at
Yes, narrow matters. In most cases, the narrow channel is the most important.
In some cases, though, your issue or crisis slips among channels and audiences.
When that happens, you can’t stuff the springy snake back into the fake peanuts can.
When the issue has widened, narrow won’t address all your problems - or audiences.
I think we agree on this - don’t we?
2 Keith O'Brien // Jan 15, 2007 at
I agree we agree. Good post.
3 meridia // May 12, 2007 at
meridia pharmacy…
raalo qfiucaso…
4 tramadol // May 16, 2007 at
tramadol…
ohijupem oemolesq…
5 alprazolam // May 20, 2007 at
alprazolam…
ek oek…
Leave a Comment