My preference is to ignore these things. But, every once in awhile I feel compelled to respond.

This one, I actually couldn’t help following while on a business call. I know. I should just ignore it, right? But, if we always ignore these silly claims the myths can become accepted truths. That bothers me. So, I respond.

HubSpot, pulled out the something is dead meme, in a sad effort to drum up interest in a book, Web site and Web TV program.

I left a comment on their post. Michelle Honald (@my_chelle), of The University of Ohio, followed up with an excellent comment, too. You should read Michelle’s comment. It’s great.

I also commented on Twitter.

• I had such high hopes for @hubspot … but this post is, IMO, the “Single most clueless post I’ve read in awhile. ” http://bit.ly/cumSe
• @hubspot thinks of PR as primarily media relations … nope, and it hasn’t been for years! Also, they fail to realize that most PR is local.

After all that, there is an attempt by others at HubSpot to clarify their stance. You’ll find it at about 22:45 of their HubSpot.tv podcast for October 9th. No, their clarification does not do the trick. They are still too quick with broad generalizations. They are still in their own walled garden of SEO, etc. beliefs. They seem solely focused on broad national and global brands, yet suggest (as best practices) ideas that do not serve the best interests of many PR practitioners – even today.

Tiffany Sellers, from Clemson (Web and Twitter), posted a request that I write about my feelings on the topic. She writes, “@rdfrench Would you consider a follow-up post to explain your position? As a PR student, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.”

So, in the spirit of PROpenMic and PR higher education, I’m sharing some new and old thoughts. This meme has reared its ugly head before, so I have posts about it already here on infOpinions.

My problems with Brian Halligan’s post on HubSpot are as follows.

• Link bait memes are not good content. That phrase, good content, is the clarion call of HubSpot. They repeat it over and over. What a shame, they don’t follow their own advice.
• The lead in of Halligan’s post belies either a lazy author (unwilling to spend the time to be specific) or someone with merely a pedestrian knowledge of the breadth and depth of PR practice.
• The practice of PR is so broad that most people, in my experience, do not grasp just how broadly it is practiced.
• Most PR is relatively invisible. It is mostly local. It is that local reality that makes so much of what HubSpot and other self-proclaimed gurus dole out as sound advice actually serve no good purpose for client or practitioner.

Certainly, you will want some attempt at evidence to make the above claims worthy of debate. So, here is a bit from some previous posts.

First, I offer this rewrite of a comment I made responding to a reader on previous post.

Too often, people tend to use the universal “PR” tag to describe a practice they clearly do not understand. (Remember the CBS lawyer on the CBS Sunday Morning program?) Why don’t they take the time to do some research and speak with at least a tiny bit of knowledge.
 

Using O’Dwyer’s list of the top 192 PR firms, we learn that a reported total of $129,9885,316 in revenues is generated by only 8,361 PR practitioners. (That’s, of course, provided these self-reported numbers are correct.)

 
It is most often these 192 firms (actually, the top 20 or 30) that people associate with PR. Why? Because popular media has rather firmly implanted that belief via news and even entertainment programming. Think about national news coverage and how often they use PR to describe everything from lobbying to marketing. I’m beginning to think they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

 
The 192 agencies referred to above are the ones that get mentioned and covered in such dust ups as Rachel Madow’s slam against Burson-Marstellar and other controversies. Repeatedly, these people tend to show their cluelessness with regard to the scope of PR practice and the number of different types of PR practice going on in the US, let alone the world.

 
Guess what? Those 8,361 large/medium/boutique agency practitioners represent a mere sliver of the overall PR practitioners in the US, alone. Oh, they rake in some pretty major dollars, but they are not – repeat NOT – the best representation of who and what PR people and PR practice are today. Anyone that would just take 20 or 30 minutes to do research would understand this. But, it rarely happens.

 
A previous post of mine points out how there are easily 100,000 PA (public affairs) officers in the US, as they are required to comply with the 30,000+ public disclosure laws, among other things.

 
Now, that pretty much assures that the large agency PR practitioner population is dwarfed by (many/most) all? the other types of PR practitioners in the US, alone. People just don’t take the time to research and think before they speak, sometimes. Madow’s rant is a perfect example.

 
Some feel they must use that broad brush. It is sad to watch.

Another bit of rant on the topic comes from this post back in 2007. The numbers are still probably close, IMO.

I took some students to a geek dinner with Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson, a few years ago. The following re-write of what we discussed further defines PR’s broad practice by a myriad of people in local, county, state and national/global markets.

As we discussed at the dinner, there are some tasks that cannot, as of yet, be replaced solely with a blog or any form of social media/network.

 
A lot of them, actually.

 
One area is the many public notice laws that business and government must comply with in daily practice. This is beyond the usual SEC Reg FD example often referenced.

 
At the dinner, I shared that “there are more than 30,000 public notice laws in the U.S. that require the distribution of a news release” or some form of public notification. Some of them are represented at the Public Notice Resource Center, “founded in 2003 by American Court and Commercial Newspapers, Inc.(ACCN). ACCN is the professional organization of court, legal and commercial newspapers.” (Source) I do not know anything about the organization, but I can easily imagine all sorts of public notice laws – particularly stating that the notice is required to be in a newspaper, on TV or radio, and be shared in a specific format.

 
Other examples? There are “18,000 state and local police agencies” that have specific reporting standards. Do we expect them to use a blog to issue crime reports and statistics updates? How about BOLO warnings and Amber alerts? No, I mean do we realistically expect them to use a blog – all of them? OK, perhaps you get my point.

 
Yes, I know that some are using content management systems, Twitter and more to share information. But, the number is so low – so inconsequential in this debate about social media efficacy – that I believe rational minds will see how it doesn’t work for all.

 
How about the approximately 20,000 “incorporated places” in the United States? See, I used a politically correct blog-speak term. Those places (not mediums) are places where people still rely upon print and broadcast. Those are cities, towns … and that doesn’t even count the counties and parrishes. Just imagine the health departments, school districts, planning commissions, and all the other entities that must make public notice of various types. Now are you getting an idea for the vast amount of information that must be shared with newspapers and other media outlets – often in specific manner prescribed by law?

 
Yes, I know internet use and availability has grown in the past few years. See Pew and Pew and Pew for details.

 
It still doesn’t fulfill requirements to inform the public when we realize that “56% of adult Americans have accessed the internet by wireless means” and “in the interior of the country, especially in the Midwest and the South, Internet use lags greatly behind the national average.” Online is not the answer for all communities. Period. Even today. This Pew report highlights some instances where government use of online communication fails.

 
Remember. Most PR is local. Most PR is informational in nature, not necessarily persuasive in intent. Look at the whole world, please. Anecdotal references may cause you to be myopic in your beliefs about the power and reach of social media.

 
So, I’m all for social media. I’m all for the discussion and debate. But, until you get those laws changed to address the use of social media for public notice purposes, I’m not going suggest that they be used. Remember, many of those laws state – specifically – the manner and target audiences for these notices, or releases. They don’t mention blogs. They mention newspapers, television and radio. And, those “audiences” aren’t always people. They can be software and computers. Think search engines, link rank, page rank and more. Now those might find blogs useful.

 
This isn’t to say I don’t read and embrace all the conversations about social media I can find. An interesting post, from way back in 2005, can be found at Creating Passionate Users, regarding the Koolaid point. Kathy Sierra wrote, “You don’t really have passionate users until someone starts accusing them of ‘drinking the koolaid.’”

 
OK. I can see some clarity in her views. But, I’m one of the passionate ones speaking up for social media. Too often, I see detractors of the total buy-in to social media explained away as antagonists that – “just don’t get it.” Oh, how that phrase has become such a lame cop-out for those that seem unable to provide clarity, and practical explanations, for their dogma.

 
OK. Rant off. I feel better. Do you?

So, that’s my ongoing mission to (one day) get people to stop and think. I want them to understand the breadth and depth of PR practice. I want them to stop and think before they use the lazy broad brush illustrations about what is, and is not, PR practice.

Yep, I keep writing it … and it keeps coming up. Go figure. You surprised? I’m not.

Related posts: A Clarion Call or Chicken Little’s Sky Is Falling and Blogs are Soma to So Many.