What will media relations look like over the next 10-20 years and how will it impact public relations practice? Will it remain as it has always been? Or will it change so much that we will barely recognize it for what it once was?
Based on the research survey I conducted at the end of 2008 with the pro bono help of George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management and Cision, and with more than 12,000 US media (yes, that’s 12,000), the answer, as with most questions in life, lies somewhere in between.
The free 34-page report of the study’s findings suggests that there’s a lot of “old hat,” albeit more nuanced. But there are a lot of surprises, too, several of which contradict the prevailing notion among practitioners and even the media themselves that the use of social media is more important than more traditional media resources.
Broadly considered, the study suggests that media relations will remain the same with respect to editorial behavior. Years out, mainstream editors and reporters will still follow the same standards of journalistic conduct as they do now, although they may do so with more pressure from top management to write nice.
They’ll still have an overwhelming need for PR help and probably more so because of staff cutbacks, newspaper bankruptcies and the speed of media transactions. They’ll still require credible news and information, too, even as blogs, wikis and other forms on Internet dialogue continue to distort the reality of what’s true and what’s false.
And they’ll still hate spam, exaggerated claims and misdirected story ideas just as they do today. It goes with the territory and will remain so until PR practitioners stop resisting the rules (don’t hold your breath).
Some statistics that support the “remain the same” thesis:
- Although 100 percent of the respondents said they regularly use websites for editing and reporting, 94 percent said they use information from PR professionals, and 87 percent said they regularly refer to press kits (yes, press kits).
- For identifying or developing story ideas, websites are most important to editors/journalists, followed by submissions from PR professionals. Social networking sites and podcasts are rated as unimportant.
This said, the survey findings suggest that there will also be a lot of serious change in editorial behavior, if for no other reason than the continued influence and development of new communications technology, as well as in organized PR’s response. Social media will become ever more important (duh), but as a constellation of enterprises, the phenomenon may not be as revolutionary in the end as some pundits suggest or more self-aggrandizingly hope.
This study, for example, contradicts the perception that younger members are far and away the dominant users of online tools. Yes, editors and reporters in all age brackets are now heavily dependent on the web, with more than 90 percent using it as their primary tool in editing and reporting, but the number who reported using the web “all the time” was highest among those 30–49, with those 50 and above the second-heaviest users, followed by those 29 or younger.
Here are findings that support the “big change” perspective:
- Social networking sites and podcasts are used least often for editing and reporting compared to other sources, and most often by editors/ journalists younger in age and experience. Blogs are used almost as often as trade journals.
- For monitoring responses to stories, only websites and blogs are considered important; conferences, trade journals, industry newswires, social networking sites, and podcasts are rated as unimportant.
While acknowledging, as noted, the heavy use of PR submissions, the respondents also strongly endorsed a list of proposed improvements for PR “pitches,” including clearer writing, less promotional material, and more newsworthy content. Being more relevant to their beat or area of interest and being less promotional struck the strongest chords.
One finding that I deeply appreciate as a writing consultant and writing teacher:
- “Over half of the editors/journalists responding wanted to receive unsolicited e-mail pitches from communications professionals as simple text only. “
As I ask my clients and students of their news releases and pitch letters, why the marketing graphics, why the “brochurish” look, why all the bells and whistles? You’re writing to editors and reporters. They want credible news and information. The rest is fluff to them. You’re writing to the media for news and other kinds of coverage, not to make your clients look pretty or like what you’ve written. It’s exhausting to have to hammer the same points again and again, but I rest easier knowing I’m not alone.
Don Bates, APR, PRSA Fellow
Instructor and Founding Director,
Master’s Degree Program in Strategic Public Relations
George Washington University
Graduate School of Political Management
I don’t know about anyone else but I’m impressed with the depth of concern and intelligence expressed in these comments and observations. People in and around professional public relations have to be some of the smartest, au courant folks in the world. I love to “listen” to the fervent whirr of their generous brains. I hope we’ll continue this discussion both online and off. How we support and strategically relate to the media, old line and new, is important to our success as professional communicators. How we support and strategically relate to each other as people who practice PR is even more important.
I think it’s interesting to base predictions of the future of public relations on a study conducted which questions the current situation. Issues such as creating effective strategies, building relationships, and maintaining credibility I agree, will always be important in public relations as well as journalism, but one must take into consideration how the growth of social Medias will in the future represent all of these things.
For example, it is easy to build a relationship with someone through the use of an application such as facebook. Once accepted as a “friend” (assuming you have met the person at least once), you have the ability to familiarise yourself with the likes / dislikes / interests / hobbies of that person, which then gives you talking points and an idea of how credible their opinion may or may not be.
These applications are not for everyone, but I think the newspaper situation in Seattle is a good example of how the prevalence of technology is increasing in all areas of life – including PR – and we need to be aware of its potential, and the benefits we can achieve, rather than focusing on the negatives and the current usage levels.
The fact is, we simply don’t know what the future holds. The present, however, includes a wholesale rearrangement of the media landscape. I live in Seattle, where one of our two daily papers became “digital only” (with a far smaller staff) just yesterday. The biggest mistake we can make is to underestimate the scale and speed of the changes ahead.
The death of the media is surely exaggerated, indeed. But let’s also remember that the current generation who is between 18-24 has never known a time when blogs, wikis, Twitter and the like haven’t been at the center of their communication infrastructure. They are mistrustful of “official” sources and rely on “friends” for much of their information. They believe in the wisdom of crowds and live in a world of continuous partial attention.
At the same time, the news media has become too often filled with unsupported allegation and poorly researched gossip.
I do agree that PR will be an important part of the information architecture, and not just as facilitators of some kind of online dialogue. The media will still be important, at least for as long as there are journalists who care enough about the story to get it right and PR people who have the relationships with them there to help.
I believe that no matter the medium in which the information is distributed, there will always be a need for journalists who are trained in the techniques of information gathering, researching, questioning and interviewing to vet information.
My concern is that we’re moving away from trained people who know how to question the accuracy, validity or credibility of information or sources.
My hope is that the journalism does not die because our methods of relaying information changes, but rather adapts and flourishes with emerging technology.
It seems to me the key is what Don Bates designates “credible.” People go to news sources for “credible” information. News sources, in turn, need “credible” sources of information on which to base their reports. No matter what happens in the next ten to twenty years, this will not change. News consumers and news reporters will want something that authenticates what they read. Reporters look at press kits and web sites, because they are authenticated information. They may not be true, but at least they are what the organization has approved.
Blogs and social media appear to be growing in importance in terms of being the smoke that indicates a fire—interesting stories that require authentication. I think that’s what Don Bates is talking about when he says “social media generally have done a lot to push issues and ideas around that resulted in pretty significant impacts for stakeholders.”
I’m with the rest of you. Credibility is what news sources deal in. Most social media does not have that at face value, but press kits and web sites do. The media that provide that credibility will continue in one form or another.
What a refreshing study. I think what will always matter most is the relationships we have and the fact that we need to give the media news or features. It is up to us to do so creatively, crisply and succintly. You’re right their time (and ours) is primo. I still love creating press kits and work hard to make news releases short most of the time.
So thank you for the affirmation and for such wonderful research.
As media relations is what I do for a living, I read this report with rather a lot of interest because there has been so much said about the death of the media. All of which of course is nonsense. When people say that, they mean the death of the newspaper. But only as we know it – in print. Newspapers will not disappear. Nor will other media. They will look different. And that includes social media, discussed here in this report. Broad social networks like Twitter or YouTube are interesting and even useful to anyone who frequents those spaces – but less so to most businesses and to media relations professionals who support those businesses. Of more use will be the social networks we create ourselves to reach certain audiences, e.g. Chinese consumers, Russian bankers, American soccer moms, etc. In the end, the two factors that will be most important in media relations in 10 or 20 years are the same as now and these have nothing to do with technology. They are the strategy that dictates what media are of the most importance in reaching your audiences, and relationships with those media. Those just are not going to diminish in importance in 10, 20 or 100 years.
Thanks Don Radoli. I can’t point to specifics right at this moment but there is considerable evidence (statistics I’m not sure) to indicate that blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc., and social media generally have done a lot to push issues and ideas around that resulted in pretty significant impacts for stakeholders (perhaps some readers of our posts can enlighten us accordingly) but I generally agree with your comment about a billion bloggers and citizen journalists. “Saints preserve us,” as me wee mom would often say when she imagined the consequences of mass movements of any kind.
And Thanks Gary Wells. Your “two factors” are, indeed, the keys to good media relations—strategy and relationships. And you’re right about printed newspapers; there are simply two many challenges undermining their continued existence: cell phones (tomorrow’s hand-held computers), cable TV, You Tube, Twitter, and on and on. As I wrote on another blog, whatever happens with newspapers as we have known them, and I’m sure you would agree with me, we have to do everything we can to preserve and protect the standards of journalism that are embodied in the thinking and writing of the general lot of today’s daily newspapers. If we were to lose all newspapers, that would be a tragedy. If we were to lose the standards of journalism that have guided coverage of the saints and sinners among us for the past couple of centuries, that would be a crime against humanity.
Don,
Thank you for empirically putting the anticipated impact of social media into perspective. The idea of “a billion bloggers” and citizen journalists turning the tables on the way we communicate with our stakeholders, has always been far fetched.
I have to date not seen any quantitative research on who reads the output of bloggers and what effect it has beyond mere chatter. After all if you can’t count it doesn’t count.
Don Radoli