Fascinating debate kicked off at Social Media Conferencec. #cdninst It was kicked off by Ira Bassen and supplemented by another journalist at the back of the room. While many other good points were made throughout about PR and MSM, the big debate was when journalists essentially stated social media is fake, and the underlying premise of “friending” me is to sell more things.
A theme throughout the conference is the very role and definition of social media. Traditionally PR and marketing were disconnected from product and service quality and were instead focussed on messaging and brand awareness. If the quality of the product and service kept up with the marketing effort that was coincidence.
What has been lost in this debate is that social media is not a replacement for traditional media. Social media is not even media – it is supposed to be empowered employees who believe in their product and service quality discussing it with their customers and prospects.
The Molson folks were here talking about their social media discussion. During the presentation of their social media strategy, it was clear they believe in the quality of the product (beer).
Relevance to Bankwatch:
Social media is not PR. Social media is about improving the conversation with customers.
Bankwatch 
Colin – the part of this post that jumps off the page to me is:
“…the big debate was when journalists essentially stated social media is fake, and the underlying premise of “friending” me is to sell more things.”
This is reflective of the journalist’s bias against both selling things and profiting from it. It completely ignores the Cluetrain’s credo that “Markets are conversations.” Social media is a powerful phenomenon that is profoudly disruptive to journalism, which depends on the idea of experts presented through the frame of journalism. The journalist chooses the expert and presents. The reader isn’t called upon to participate, approve or otherwise interact with the expert. Social Media is a revolution because it is disruptive to the social order, of which journalism is a key part.
@Sean … indeed, while the journalists there displayed broad intelligence and perspective, their filter for information is very narrow – ie through “me the journalist”.
Actually, I would say social media is more “real” than any other form of media, journalism included.
Social media is not PR, but the actions and goals of PR definitely play a role in social media.
I’d argue customers don’t really want to have a conversation with companies (just as people don’t really want adverts), they really just want better products, delivered better, cheaper and faster.
(The oddity of the journalists’ reactions is that journlaists are well-placed to become the valuable filters, curators and synthesizers of the deluge of information being created. And it’s bad strategy to simply call social media “fake”: even if journalists see social media as the competition (which they shouldn’t), the right strategy for journalists would be to “bring their enemies closer”.)
I would disagree–Social media from a company’s perspective IS PR and that’s because REAL PR is about two-way, personal conversations between companies and their audiences.
Unfortunately, the definition of PR been so convoluted by people who don’t know what they’re doing or don’t understand what it’s really about and that’s why the profession has such a bad reputation.
I studied public relations in school and now I work as a community manager–which is considered a social media role–however, I use many of the skills I learned every day and consider it a new PR role.
My take on it!
@everyone – thanks for the comments. It appears we are all agreed that aside from titles, whatever it is must be authentic.