Dot Comms

June 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm Posted by Stephen Pritchard

I think some client PRs are missing the trend to online from print. I had someone pull an interview with a CEO (on the day it was due to take place) because there wasn’t going to be a print piece, but online coverage. That was a ‘tier 1′ title.

It is even harder to persuade some people to do audio or video coverage, but for some titles that’s now what the editors want first (ie, get us a video interview and we might also commission you to write a web or print piece too).

June 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm Posted by @emily_hatchPR

Totally agree that the digital version has way more wham. It’s interesting that so many people prefer the print version! I’m the opposite - I prefer digital coverage. Not to mention its longevity, shelf-life, wider audience, more global nature, but it’s actually a lot easier for me to count in terms of measurement of PR impact.

One thing that print does still have over digital is impact of photographs. For some reason a photo/graphic/chart on a page is much more impactful than on a screen, imho.

June 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm Posted by Rob Fenwick

“But for me the most interesting was the fact that nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of PROs said that given the choice between getting their story placed in a national newspaper or the online version of the same publication” for most people that is bonkers, though I guess it does depend to some extent on the target audience.

Though it’s a bit of a false choice, if you compare the ABC with the ABCE of many titles on ‘circulation’ alone any sensible PRO would choose… both. And failing both, online!

June 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm Posted by Paul Allen

Stephen / Emily - agree with you both. The only thing I can think of is that print coverage still has that physical quality that digital (whether online or audio/visual) lacks.

And with print you get your ego flattered a little, with friends and family more likely to see it than the more targeted audience you get with online. But in terms of what is going to impact your business more, its no choice really.

June 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm Posted by Becky McMichael

I think it is simply to do with touch. Same question to people who still buy CDs or Vinyl, want books on their shelf instead of their ereader….the power of seeing something, holding it in your hands seems to still win over in the case of many forms of media.

June 1st, 2009 at 9:00 pm Posted by Craig McGill

I know that for many of the CEOs I’ve worked with, it’s a case of being where all their peers will read/see cuttings - and that’s print. Print for many still has a strength they do not see in online (yet) and if you are the inhouse PRO there’s only so many times you’ll have that argument with your superiors - remember, not every boss wants to see comments sections - particularly if they are going to be negative. And why be the PRO who puts your boss on somewhere that gets him shown in a negative light.

Good Morning Scotland on BBC Radio Scotland is very similar -very few listeners, but all the CEO types listen in so they all want to be on it.

June 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 am Posted by Jason Nibbs

It’s an interesting debate that will continue to rumble on for a generation of PRs, and for a lot of people it’s head vs heart. Online coverage provides so many benefits in terms of SEO and more targeted reach, but there is something about the look and feel of print articles that has a perceived higher value. When CEOs have digital displays above their desk that accurately capture and reflect the quality of online articles, then perhaps we will have reached the end of the debate.

June 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am Posted by tim hoang

I recently heard a brilliant quote from a presentation by digital PR hero, Stephen Davies which sums up the debate perfectly. Steve Fowler, Group Editor, What Car said: “I get 900,000+ visitors a week to whatcar.com and 127,000 readers a month to the magazine. But people still think that the magazine is much more valuable to be in.”

As you’ve quite rightly pointed out online press coverage has the advantage of permanence, searchability and still reaches a large audience. In fact, a third of The Guardian Unlimited’s traffic comes from stories over a month old. Circulation figures are available, but I get the feeling they don’t hold as much weight because the news sites are generally (though not always) free to visit. As such there’s less of an investment from readers in the stories (I’ve just made that last bit up by the way - feel free to rip it apart)

Then there are blogs.

If you ask digital people about digital media they will tell you about how Blog A will only reach 50 or so people but they are all be relevant. This would be great if they could prove it and that’s the problem that digital has right now. Until we can measure and evaluate who Blog A reaches (right now its a mish mash of various tools which work to some extent but still come up a bit short).

Social Network Analysis comes close to addressing some of these shortcomings and I envision the solution to be a combination of Web tools, social network analysis and a PR exec’s intuition. Hopefully this will make CEOs more aware of the strengths of engaging with in the digital space.

June 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 am Posted by Chris Lee

Speaking ‘generally’ - In-house people I guess tend to be older, more traditional PR exponents and agency people - especially in the creative hubs (ie. big cities) are often younger and far more on-trend re: technology and the ‘bigger picture’

Print still has value, but a search engine ranking has far more impact. The challenge is convincing them of this and I think in-house need to team up with IT or the web team more before they ‘get it’.

I might be stereotyping a little but I think you know where I’m coming from…