PR secrets are that PR is a whole unknown secret. :)
Laetitia
· 1 year ago
What you say it's true! Your blog entry rock's
drewolanoff
· 1 year ago
Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
Lucretia (GeekMommy) Pruitt
· 1 year ago
I think you are on target - to a point. There does come a point when a "public relations" person is necessary to a start-up... but it's usually past the point you seem to be talking about here. It's the point when there needs to be a point-of-contact person for customer-facing issues and information - usually about the time that the CEO/Founder is really busy doing other things and has already established the community & the start-up presence.
Yes, you will always be the 'face' of your company in that regard - but should you also have to always be the person letting news media & blogs know if there's a new bit of information? Probably not.
Still, I'd bet without having yet read Brian's post (it's on one of these tabs!) that the two of you have similar ideas. :)
tojosan
· 1 year ago
Good stuff Loic. Thanks for sharing.
Hubert Michaux
· 1 year ago
Brillant post Loic ;-)
allen stern
· 1 year ago
Loic - it's important to remember that not everyone has the "instant-on" connections you do today. While I agree with what you are suggesting about a community completely - not everyone has "instant-on" that you do.
drewolanoff
· 1 year ago
That's a good point, but if you're talented, have good ideas, and are well spoken but LISTEN..you can make connections with anyone.
allen stern
· 1 year ago
sure, over time. it's not as easy as loic seems to suggest it is. this is a common issue with a variety of people I see -- they think what works for them in their success will work for anyone just starting out. This is why I suggest you work on building your network while you build your startup. Don't expect to finish your product and have a network ready to launch it for you.
Eric Rice
· 1 year ago
Agreed, Allen, this was one thing that stood out instantly when Seesmic came late to the game.... Technically, there are other services better than Seesmic, but the Loic Effect (that I have mentioned many times before) helps the win.
It's a big part of social media, the charisma and popularity and connectedness of driving a product forward--- it's not an algorithm, it's people. Come on, who can resist that smile of his? ;-)
Incidentally, I find it amusing tho, that Seesmic isn't picked apart the same Scoble's videos are (I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but I'm going on Known Name and Big Product of Which There Is Competition)... not sure how much I subscribe to the 'build a killer product' thing that's being flitted around.
It's who you know. Always has been and always will be, and the world of user-powered Social-ness illustrates and amplifies to the point of wanting to shut down.
mndoci
· 1 year ago
Yes, it makes some sense at a particular point in scale to have a point person, but having dealt with many of these "point" people, it would be better if they weren't there. I actually get more information from the web and from meeting people in hallways at conferences than calling someone with "partyline" responses.
Brilliant, Loic! I think in general, people just want to be communicated with like adults, human beings, not someone to wow with your bravado and buzz words. Or if they do, they're probably not who you want backing your product.
Loic, just wanted to say I appreciate your willingness to actively participate with and listen to those around you. It's a great example for others, one I will share with future clients of mine.
The example of the deaf community embracing Seesmic is a great reminder to not believe you know everything about what you create, or rather, the possibilities it holds.
Loic Lemeur
· 1 year ago
thanks Paul!
sass
· 1 year ago
Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
Ann Bernard
· 1 year ago
I think you make some excellent points Loic! But the unwritten points you are making is that it takes time, effort and hands-on approach. Many Founders and CEOs fail to understand that - you have to setup the ground work as you are building your product. You can just start you startup and that overnight the community is going to exist. That's why some folks turn to PR companies because they want to leverage all the ground work those folks have supposedly already established. However, like you said...YOU are the best spoke person to initiate support and evangelism for your own product - not some other guy.
Workpost
· 1 year ago
Great advice... thanks.
Zee.
· 1 year ago
One thing i disagree with is “you don’t need PR at all if you have a great product. “. The number of products i have come across who don't receive enough traction simply because they haven't or dont know how to get the message out is ridiculous. Good Product does not equal PR success, it requires work, it requires help and it requires a real push to make sure the right people are hearing about your great product.
Otherwise, i'm with you 100%. :]
Cathy Brooks
· 1 year ago
Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
Jeremy Toeman
· 1 year ago
Loic, I think your assessment is fairly biased to your personal experience. The truth is most companies and individuals aren't nearly as well connected as you are, and to just dismiss PR by saying "just go build a community" is frankly, naive. Even your business needs *significantly* more users than you have today, and at some point, if you truly want to accomplish your goals, PR will probably come into play.
Furthermore, many startup CEOs are heavily engaged in building their products/services, and don't have the time to do the outbound marketing work.
There's more to this than you make it seem. A lot more.
centernetworks
· 1 year ago
here's another followup to my earlier comment - look at mahalo - let's be honest, would mahalo be anywhere close to where they were if jason wasn't running it with his fanboys and connections?
even if mahalo is as good as jason believes it is, if anyone else was running it, it wouldn't be as far along as it is currently.
i hope that makes my point crystal clear loic :)
Jim Kukral TheBizWebCoach
· 1 year ago
Great point Allen. The answer is no.
I think a lot of people who have had PR success once or twice think it's that easy for everyone to do it. Even people with great products can still fail getting coverage.
Vinh
· 1 year ago
+1 Where can i get a community? Is it expensive? What happens if I need audience now? Do you mean that instead of paying PR I should pay bloggers?
That makes sense. Otherwise we get your message 'care about your friends and make a good product'. It sure is a wonderful world
Michael K Pate
· 1 year ago
"I took me 8 years since I started blogging in 2003 to have a community and it is no marketing." - I am thinking there might be something wrong with this sentence.
Loic Lemeur
· 1 year ago
Allen, yes, we agree, Jason has a great community!
Jeremy, do you work at a PR firm?
Jeremy Toeman
· 1 year ago
Loic - my firm does marketing strategy, analysis, and outreach. So we do offer "PR" services, but it's generally part of a bigger engagement...
Nathan Lanier
· 1 year ago
When you're just starting out it's all about a great product. If you build a great product it won't take an inordinate amount of energy to spread the word. It's as simple as that.
Great thoughts, Loic.
centernetworks
· 1 year ago
making my point #3 - tonight jason pimped loic :)
Cyrus Afzali
· 1 year ago
I'll be the first to say that there are lots of problems related to the PR profession that the profession itself creates. But as the other poster from the biz says, launching a successful PR program isn't as easy as suggested here. Yes, I do work in the biz, but I'm darn proud of the work I've done and put it out there for the whole world to see that I'm not BS'ing.
The main point I'd make is that a CEO should be focused on the core functions related to their company; recognize what they're good at and outsource what they're not good at. The very fact that they might be connected may or may not make their company a success. I can assure you scads of biz school grads have thought their connections would see them through, only to find out that they faced the same tough roads that come with entrepreneurship as everybody else. The most successful CEOs realize that they're really not that objective when it comes to how they view their own company, so they pull in others to help with that. This is a valuable function a PR firm can provide, as they can help companies better explain what it is they do and just why valuable it is.
Also, as much as we may tout networks in this Web 2.0 era, the jury's still entirely out on how much value they have. Where's a LinkedIn study on how much commerce the site's actually generated? You could ask the same of any other others too. I love LinkedIn and think it's a valuable way to raise visibility, but I dare say most people aren't raking in business from it. Secondly, the notion that a good product/service will always get traction is just not true; and I say this having worked as a tech and financial journalist for a decade at outlets including CNN. I had so many companies telling me they had the next great "solution" for some problem, I honestly thought I would go nuts. For a variety of reasons, 99 percent of these companies are no longer around.
Everybody thinks they have a great product or service, but if that were really true, the failure rate of businesses -- particularly small businesses -- wouldn't be so astronomical. In fact, one of the issues I have with my profession is they don't give prospective clients honest feedback in terms of how they should handle their marketing/PR; they often just tell them how great they are and how successful they'll be. What they really need is counsel and that sometimes involves things that don't sound so rosy; in the end, though, they'll be better off for it.
gregory
· 1 year ago
the "don't call people targets" one, #4, is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE NEW ECONOMY
if you can get that, you can understand what the next generation of advertising will be, what products to make, and why, if your business is sluggish or failing, you are in that condition
the changes in the society and the world will be more than staggering, they will reveal a new world
i'll say it again, in caps, so you don't forget it .... PEOPLE, NOT TARGETS!! .... with a bunch of exclamation points for graphical clarity .. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fred2baro
· 1 year ago
You nailed it !!
Colin
· 1 year ago
nice refreshing post Loic ....
Jean-Christophe
· 1 year ago
2 thumbs up for this great post. Building online communities and/or create passionate users is a CEO's job, not a PR company one.
Miiko Mentz
· 1 year ago
Loic, Your post makes some excellent points that other entrepreneurs can certainly learn from. And I agree with much of what you say when viewed through your lens. I also think that you and Brian are not too far off in your views on this issue, but the reason you are disagreeing on the surface is because you are looking at the issue from a different vantage point.
I think your view of this matter is one dimensional and self-centric. You are charismatic with an outgoing and engaging personality, funded by some very connected players, not to mention well connected yourself, and you're pimping a very sexy product (IMHO). Let's also not forget that you have Cathy Brooks on your team and she knows her game well and is a great asset to Seesmic. With that winning combination, you're right. No PR needed.
But come over to the other side of the fence for just a minute and you will see that there are other startup founders who are incredibly brilliant, but are not engaging, and frankly, are dry as toast when speaking, they get uncomfortable when they have to present, and they hate going to networking events.
But, they have created smart products that are highly useful and needed products that solve real problems. Some are products that are very niche and/or aren't exactly sexy, and in some cases downright boring to a journalist or blogger, but solve real business issues. And let's throw in that they are self-funded and not at all connected to the movers and shakers of Silicon Valley. And they don't understand social media because they've been too busy with their heads down building their product. Sorry, but PR has served these companies well, especially with ROI case studies, product reviews, community building, and other useful PR tactics that help show customers how a product can solve their pains.
PR is so much more than the hype-machine at launch, not that we don't love getting the big splash and the TechCrunch spike at launch, because we do love that, but PR goes way beyond a company launch and offers some real value to companies. If it didn't serve a purpose or offer any value, then Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Richard Branson wouldn't have PR teams handling anything from product reviews to crisis communications.
@centernetworks (Allen Stern) Thank you for pointing this out, too. And you're so right that Mahalo wouldn't garner the attention it does if it wasn't for Jason Calacanis and his fanboys and connections. Great example and well said.
Disclaimer: I work with Brian Solis and my comment here and at his TC post are solely my own opinion.
scottpurdie
· 1 year ago
Awesome, Loic. I think most people want to communicate like they would in a face to face conversation, minus the jargon and bollocks. Its adding fluff to a business or product, probably because its not good enough.
I admire that you get involved and are honest in your post and comment with people, it shows your listening. Its a habit il get addicted to i think.
Cheers
Scott
shareme
· 1 year ago
These are the exact PR points I wanted a Start Up CEO/Original Founder in Chicago to get if that you worry and strive to get the best quality possible of the prototype and product and become spokes person for that process both to inside the company and outside the company you than have your ful pr/marketing strategies already developed into effective actions.
Unfortunately, the Chicago Start UP Founder I was conversing with is somewhat bull-headed in the illogical way and irrational way.
I look forward to using this post to being a new conversation with a new start up as this post ranks up with the Paul Graham Start Up essays in importance and value to every Start Up.
Terry Heaton
· 1 year ago
Great post, Loic. But..."I took me 8 years since I started blogging in 2003..." Is there something wrong with my math, or have I been asleep for 3 years?"
DrSam
· 1 year ago
I love your post... Irreverent, common sense, wise, independent, no bull, on and on... What can I say... I love it!
But "PR Secrets" makes such good linkbait -- PR at it's best, right?
JimBob
· 1 year ago
Spot On Jeremy. I'm one of the guys you're talking about (startup CEO with too much else going on to give PR the sort of attention Loic thinks is needed). He's a brilliant, charismatic guy who's also been very lucky in his career. That's a data point of exactly 1 - not quite a trend or a clear recipe for success or the rest of us.
briansolis
· 1 year ago
Loic, Cathy, thank you for bringing much needed attention to the subject of helping startups succeed in PR.
And, also, here's the unedited version of the original post. I think you'll see that we're practically on the same page (more importantly, it's very helpful for startups who need to learn about all of this in general): http://www.briansolis.com/2008/05/pr-tips-for-s...
Now let's talk about that coffee, perhaps at the seesmic cafe...?
YouAreWhatYouBleat
· 1 year ago
What a wank. There's no earthshaking revelations from Brian Solis or you. Yes we need PR just like we need Advertising. But we need people who are good at it. He's old-school and you just seem to be some goofy ego-tripper - but fair play to you.
Bernard
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I would have to agree with Jeremy and Allen. Not everyone has a foundation of your network or even skillset.
Tom Nocera
· 1 year ago
I'd like to inject another perspective into th3 discussion. Traditional PR which Brian Solis has outlined in gilded and self-serving style - typical of a journeyman in the PR trade. You, suggest a different, more transparent approach perhaps better for seducing a younger segment that is more electronically interconnected networking in social communities. Both the old school and new school will continue to function for a while into the future. Both seek the magic of gaining traction sufficient to generate word of mouth success. No need to slam the old school so harshly. There is room enough for both at the trough of public influence peddlers.
timhood
· 1 year ago
Loic,
Thanks for an important post- the level of comment suggests that you have started a very interesting conversation, which I hope will continue.
I accept your main point- focus on organic growth, use your friends' and users' feedback to get the product right and once it is right, then it will get attention. But to all this, I'd add the proviso, 'all things being equal'.
As a start up CEO, it pains me to admit that there is no disputing what you say- no on else can represent my company like myself and yes, I should be tending to the garden a lot more, instead of writing another PDF for another 'target segment' :)
But sadly, as some commentors here point out, all things are not equal. And it would be great to hear your views on this.
Some CEO's start from different bases: some are better funded than others, allowing them more time- as well as that crucial mental and emotional capacity- to focus on the product and network building, rather than desperately seeking the funds to keep going.
Some are better connected than others- their emails get answered, their name opens doors. Some, names, such as Le Meur and Calcanis, bring more or less instant traction.
So what you say makes perfect sense, all things being equal. But what practical advice do you have for those unkown, under-resourced CEOs who are fighting to overcome overwhelming odds? The odds that say however original their innovation may be, that it will be the person who comes after them (better resourced, better connected) who will make it a financial success.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your core argument. The limitations of outsourced PR have been proven by my own experience, as has the undeniable value of networking. But all things being equal, simply relying on your own PR and user-base does not seem to be enough for most start ups. Where are they going wrong? And is it inevitable that innovators will more often than not see their ideas taken forward by better resourced competitors?
Thanks
Tim
Loic Lemeur
· 1 year ago
Great comment Tim, thank you. I did not say we do not need PR agencies I just think most CEOs rely too much of them. Like before blogs we only had the press to express ourselves, now we can do it direct too. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
JC John Sese Cuneta (謝施洗)
· 1 year ago
I like #4, #6, and #7. Though sadly, it is still a loooooooong battle here in Asia-Pacific. Only bloggers understand social media, long-tail marketing, etc. Companies here are still of the old style.
Many of us are doing our best to change things here ^_^
leigh
· 1 year ago
I totally hear you about PR. Same goes for marketing too. Actually if you think about it, start ups are also easy. I mean all you need is:
1. A good idea 2. Great team 3. Flawless execution 4. Customer uptake
Crap how hard is that?
Someong
· 1 year ago
I tried my luck in PR. I spent several hours on the phone calling journalists, but got no story. The guy next to me got several. He managed to find an angel that made the pitch interesting, and managed to turn the conversation while they talked.
I'm sorry, but I think you are plain wrong. So does business, and so does results. This is post writes what some people would like to think, but what you write is not true.
Interesting post. I sit on the fence between both articles. As a student in a PR graduate program, perhaps I have a slight bias – I see the merit of PR. I do, however, find the term "PR secrets" a great annoyance. There are really no secrets!
It was also suggested to read your response for perspective. It is encouraging to see the evolution in communications where we can quickly access perspective on nearly any matter, and I am happy to be able to learn, both as a new blogger and a PR student in such a diverse environment.
Thank you for your continued contributions to my learning!
Jonathan Trenn
· 1 year ago
Loic
I pretty much disagree with what you say here because I disagree with the context. And you didn't seem to respond to those who challenged your thinking.
I could ask several questions, but I'll ask one...
Re participation is NOT marketing, you seem to hint that marketing is "artificial". That mentality seems to be evident in many of your points. Marketing, PR, etc. HAS to be contrived. Why is that?
dominique
· 11 months ago
Loic,
I like the overall post, but your #4 is (to me) is just plainly wrong.
web2.0 or not, strategy is still key to build a product or a company. what if the people who react never would spend a $ for what you offer? or there are just not enough of them to support your infrastructure investment ?
drug rehab
· 9 months ago
he idea of connected lead, and skip the PR, getting right into community connectedness. He suggests that Brian Solis' recommendations are at least merely tactics, or at the best misleading
All Comments
It's the point when there needs to be a point-of-contact person for customer-facing issues and information - usually about the time that the CEO/Founder is really busy doing other things and has already established the community & the start-up presence.
Yes, you will always be the 'face' of your company in that regard - but should you also have to always be the person letting news media & blogs know if there's a new bit of information? Probably not.
Still, I'd bet without having yet read Brian's post (it's on one of these tabs!) that the two of you have similar ideas. :)
It's a big part of social media, the charisma and popularity and connectedness of driving a product forward--- it's not an algorithm, it's people. Come on, who can resist that smile of his? ;-)
Incidentally, I find it amusing tho, that Seesmic isn't picked apart the same Scoble's videos are (I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but I'm going on Known Name and Big Product of Which There Is Competition)... not sure how much I subscribe to the 'build a killer product' thing that's being flitted around.
It's who you know. Always has been and always will be, and the world of user-powered Social-ness illustrates and amplifies to the point of wanting to shut down.
Loic, just wanted to say I appreciate your willingness to actively participate with and listen to those around you. It's a great example for others, one I will share with future clients of mine.
The example of the deaf community embracing Seesmic is a great reminder to not believe you know everything about what you create, or rather, the possibilities it holds.
Otherwise, i'm with you 100%. :]
Furthermore, many startup CEOs are heavily engaged in building their products/services, and don't have the time to do the outbound marketing work.
There's more to this than you make it seem. A lot more.
even if mahalo is as good as jason believes it is, if anyone else was running it, it wouldn't be as far along as it is currently.
i hope that makes my point crystal clear loic :)
I think a lot of people who have had PR success once or twice think it's that easy for everyone to do it. Even people with great products can still fail getting coverage.
Where can i get a community? Is it expensive? What happens if I need audience now?
Do you mean that instead of paying PR I should pay bloggers?
That makes sense.
Otherwise we get your message 'care about your friends and make a good product'.
It sure is a wonderful world
Jeremy, do you work at a PR firm?
Great thoughts, Loic.
The main point I'd make is that a CEO should be focused on the core functions related to their company; recognize what they're good at and outsource what they're not good at. The very fact that they might be connected may or may not make their company a success. I can assure you scads of biz school grads have thought their connections would see them through, only to find out that they faced the same tough roads that come with entrepreneurship as everybody else. The most successful CEOs realize that they're really not that objective when it comes to how they view their own company, so they pull in others to help with that. This is a valuable function a PR firm can provide, as they can help companies better explain what it is they do and just why valuable it is.
Also, as much as we may tout networks in this Web 2.0 era, the jury's still entirely out on how much value they have. Where's a LinkedIn study on how much commerce the site's actually generated? You could ask the same of any other others too. I love LinkedIn and think it's a valuable way to raise visibility, but I dare say most people aren't raking in business from it. Secondly, the notion that a good product/service will always get traction is just not true; and I say this having worked as a tech and financial journalist for a decade at outlets including CNN. I had so many companies telling me they had the next great "solution" for some problem, I honestly thought I would go nuts. For a variety of reasons, 99 percent of these companies are no longer around.
Everybody thinks they have a great product or service, but if that were really true, the failure rate of businesses -- particularly small businesses -- wouldn't be so astronomical. In fact, one of the issues I have with my profession is they don't give prospective clients honest feedback in terms of how they should handle their marketing/PR; they often just tell them how great they are and how successful they'll be. What they really need is counsel and that sometimes involves things that don't sound so rosy; in the end, though, they'll be better off for it.
if you can get that, you can understand what the next generation of advertising will be, what products to make, and why, if your business is sluggish or failing, you are in that condition
the changes in the society and the world will be more than staggering, they will reveal a new world
i'll say it again, in caps, so you don't forget it .... PEOPLE, NOT TARGETS!! .... with a bunch of exclamation points for graphical clarity .. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think your view of this matter is one dimensional and self-centric. You are charismatic with an outgoing and engaging personality, funded by some very connected players, not to mention well connected yourself, and you're pimping a very sexy product (IMHO). Let's also not forget that you have Cathy Brooks on your team and she knows her game well and is a great asset to Seesmic. With that winning combination, you're right. No PR needed.
But come over to the other side of the fence for just a minute and you will see that there are other startup founders who are incredibly brilliant, but are not engaging, and frankly, are dry as toast when speaking, they get uncomfortable when they have to present, and they hate going to networking events.
But, they have created smart products that are highly useful and needed products that solve real problems. Some are products that are very niche and/or aren't exactly sexy, and in some cases downright boring to a journalist or blogger, but solve real business issues. And let's throw in that they are self-funded and not at all connected to the movers and shakers of Silicon Valley. And they don't understand social media because they've been too busy with their heads down building their product. Sorry, but PR has served these companies well, especially with ROI case studies, product reviews, community building, and other useful PR tactics that help show customers how a product can solve their pains.
PR is so much more than the hype-machine at launch, not that we don't love getting the big splash and the TechCrunch spike at launch, because we do love that, but PR goes way beyond a company launch and offers some real value to companies. If it didn't serve a purpose or offer any value, then Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Richard Branson wouldn't have PR teams handling anything from product reviews to crisis communications.
@centernetworks (Allen Stern) Thank you for pointing this out, too. And you're so right that Mahalo wouldn't garner the attention it does if it wasn't for Jason Calacanis and his fanboys and connections. Great example and well said.
Disclaimer: I work with Brian Solis and my comment here and at his TC post are solely my own opinion.
I admire that you get involved and are honest in your post and comment with people, it shows your listening. Its a habit il get addicted to i think.
Cheers
Scott
Unfortunately, the Chicago Start UP Founder I was conversing with is somewhat bull-headed in the illogical way and irrational way.
I look forward to using this post to being a new conversation with a new start up as this post ranks up with the Paul Graham Start Up essays in importance and value to every Start Up.
Dr. Sam
www.drsam.tv
Here's my response to comments across the web:
http://bub.blicio.us/?p=957
And, also, here's the unedited version of the original post. I think you'll see that we're practically on the same page (more importantly, it's very helpful for startups who need to learn about all of this in general):
http://www.briansolis.com/2008/05/pr-tips-for-s...
Now let's talk about that coffee, perhaps at the seesmic cafe...?
Thanks for an important post- the level of comment suggests that you have started a very interesting conversation, which I hope will continue.
I accept your main point- focus on organic growth, use your friends' and users' feedback to get the product right and once it is right, then it will get attention. But to all this, I'd add the proviso, 'all things being equal'.
As a start up CEO, it pains me to admit that there is no disputing what you say- no on else can represent my company like myself and yes, I should be tending to the garden a lot more, instead of writing another PDF for another 'target segment' :)
But sadly, as some commentors here point out, all things are not equal. And it would be great to hear your views on this.
Some CEO's start from different bases: some are better funded than others, allowing them more time- as well as that crucial mental and emotional capacity- to focus on the product and network building, rather than desperately seeking the funds to keep going.
Some are better connected than others- their emails get answered, their name opens doors.
Some, names, such as Le Meur and Calcanis, bring more or less instant traction.
So what you say makes perfect sense, all things being equal. But what practical advice do you have for those unkown, under-resourced CEOs who are fighting to overcome overwhelming odds? The odds that say however original their innovation may be, that it will be the person who comes after them (better resourced, better connected) who will make it a financial success.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your core argument. The limitations of outsourced PR have been proven by my own experience, as has the undeniable value of networking. But all things being equal, simply relying on your own PR and user-base does not seem to be enough for most start ups. Where are they going wrong? And is it inevitable that innovators will more often than not see their ideas taken forward by better resourced competitors?
Thanks
Tim
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Many of us are doing our best to change things here ^_^
1. A good idea
2. Great team
3. Flawless execution
4. Customer uptake
Crap how hard is that?
I'm sorry, but I think you are plain wrong. So does business, and so does results. This is post writes what some people would like to think, but what you write is not true.
http://distantsignal.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-o...
Daniel
We reviewed the original article in class and were asked to write a response. (http://cn235assignments.wordpress.com/2008/06/0...)
It was also suggested to read your response for perspective. It is encouraging to see the evolution in communications where we can quickly access perspective on nearly any matter, and I am happy to be able to learn, both as a new blogger and a PR student in such a diverse environment.
Thank you for your continued contributions to my learning!
I pretty much disagree with what you say here because I disagree with the context. And you didn't seem to respond to those who challenged your thinking.
I could ask several questions, but I'll ask one...
Re participation is NOT marketing, you seem to hint that marketing is "artificial". That mentality seems to be evident in many of your points. Marketing, PR, etc. HAS to be contrived. Why is that?
I like the overall post, but your #4 is (to me) is just plainly wrong.
web2.0 or not, strategy is still key to build a product or a company. what if the people who react never would spend a $ for what you offer? or there are just not enough of them to support your infrastructure investment ?