Point #2
Brian: Pick the Right Person or Team to Lead PR
Loic: Do not pick a PR person, be the spokesperson of the company

These two points aren’t diametrically opposed, but Brian’s point is more universal -pick the right person - and therefore more applicable than Loic’s. While a lot of CEOs understand marketing or PR, many don’t. That’s especially true of startups. See point #1. Some CEOs haven’t developed the ability to have coherent marketing themed conversations, be they to the media or on blogs. That’s because many can be overtly promotional as opposed to evangelical when they’re put on the spot. Or they may be technology focused and struggle to explain things in layman’s terms.

General comments such as “The best person to represent the company is not a PR person and even less an external one. It is YOU. You, the founder, you the CEO” are way off because it’s a blanket theory that doesn’t apply to everyone. Not everyone is a longtime blogger who’s developed his (or her) own community and is starting a Web 2.0 company that produces a service that applies to social media. Some CEOs don’t want the responsibility. Some don’t have the time. Some don’t have the patience. Or the desire. Or the capability to do it effectively. It’s a simplistic statement and concept. It’s not directly wrong. But it just isn’t applicable the majority of the time. Perhaps its more common in Web 2.0 companies that produce a service that applies to social media, but for most starups - most tech startups - the label doesn’t apply.

But Loic does have a point. It should be a responsibility of a PR firm to prepare a CEO for the PR challenges they will face. That’s because while a PR rep can act as a spokesperson for a company, the CEO will become the face of the company. And faces have mouths and mouths speak. If the CEO is not willing to become a chief evangelist of the company, then that company may have a problem.

CEOs need to understand the marketplace, the types of media that covers their industry, the types of communities that can develop. Then they have to have almost an innate understanding of how to talk to them. They often have to receive some sort of PR training. And then they have to learn how to evangelize, not promote. How to balance the concepts of features and benefits. How to put the listener first. Hiring a PR firm can make that happen more easily. Not always, but more often than not.

Let’s take a look at the debate between Brian and Loic, point by point.

Point #1

Brian Solis: Understand You’re Not the Only Story in Town
Loic: Who cares about stories, you can get traction and users if you have a good product

Where do I start? First of all, Brian’s spot on in that many top executives in startups overvalue what the product or the service or whatever it is that they’re introducing. They don’t understand that the battleground for attention from key influencers and potential customers is filled with other players battling for attention as well. Sometimes it’s necessary to get someone to help craft a pathway through that battlefield, from someone one that understands which weapons and shields are needed. How to break through that clutter. Because on that very same battlefield are others looking for sweet victory as well. And that’s just the battle to get noticed.

Sometimes that’s having someone who can help craft and deliver a great story.

And, yes, sometimes, one of the best weapons is having established a blog and with that, a burgeoning community. Loic has done that and kudos to him for that. He is a great example of what he’s writing about.

Some of those competitors on the battlefield may not be direct competitors in business. No matter. They are still competing for mindshare of the audience a startup wants to reach.

CEOs need to understand this. They’ve worked their tails off for a significant period of time to produce something. That’s quite an accomplishment in itself. But many automatically think that whatever they’ve produce “sells itself” that it’s a “no-brainer” causing people to automatically understand why they should buy it. This is called hubris.

Hubris kills. For example, a trivia question. Guess who said this last fall:

“I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It will be over by February 5.”*

History is filled with failed startups let by overconfident individuals that failed to realize they need some sort of marketing plan to get the word out, to position the product, to clarify key features and benefits. They decided to start companies and then implemented marketing as an afterthought. In other words, their companies have no stories.

While the atmosphere is much better today, I’ve seen decision makers that refuse to get this. It’s as if they seemingly believe that press rooms of major business publications had fax rooms where eager young interns hang out excitedly to retrieve their press releases and run to the editors with all of your important info. If you lack a story - and a decent product - it’s much more difficult to gain traction.

No, Loic, good stories are often needed. Stories can explain complex products. Stories can differentiate between competitors. Stories can offer insight that go beyond a series of sentences on a press release. Just as blog posts can. Blogging and trying to develop a community can work - but not really in time to help that start up. Unless they’re already a know quality like you. It also helps when you have a Web 2.0 type service that connects people such as Seesmic.

A second major point regarding Loic’s comments is that not all good products can get traction. Just as not every great guitarist gets that major record deal, just as not every great aspiring actress gets the big break, not every great product gets noticed. There are a bunch of factors that influence success. As Jim Kurkral commented on Loic’s post, “Even people with great products can still fail getting coverage.” Coverage in industry press, coverage in mainstream press, coverage in blogs. Nor will all creators of great bloggers be able to form online communities.

For that matter, not every product that meet with success is of top quality. Sometimes it’s luck. Previous reputation. Timing. Or a great story.

*Trivia answer: Hillary Clinton, (self)presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in the U.S. Presidential race, describing how quickly she’ll win the nomination.

For the past two months I’ve been in a mental funk when it comes to blogging. Maybe it’s because I got caught up a bit too much following the political primary season and felt that I’d end up focusing too much on politics.

But now I have Brian Solis, Loic Le Meur, and Robert Scoble to thank for getting me back into the game.

Perhaps the one I should thank the most is Loic because I found much of what he wrote in response to Brian’s TechCrunch article to be misdirected toward his own experiences.

It started with Brian’s May 25 article in TechCrunch “PR Secrets for Startups”. Now that headline itself is a bit silly as it sounds as if it’s a headline used in an overhyped industry rag, but the meat of the artilce is pretty much straightforward. He doesn’t lay out secrets at all, just sound advice. And while I don’t agree with the fine line depicted between PR 1.0 and PR 2.0, but there is no question that all of strategic marketing communications is undergoing a transformation and that the internet - and social media in particular - are playing key roles in that.

In the article, Brian outlines a series of points that serve a great guideline for most younger startups. Loic tells us that Brian has many valid point in his post and that Brian knows what he’s talking about and that he really likes Brian and then he proceeds to write that what Brian is saying is bullshit.

Well, I like Loic and think he has many valid points and he knows what he’s talking about, but what Loic is saying is bullshit. Loic’s advice is correct for a finite amount of CEOs and a finite amount of startups from a finite amount of industries. It’s solid advice in certain circumstances.

I’ll start out with Loic’s major point:

Get a community and focus on your friends is the way to go.

Good grief.

It’s not that this is directly wrong, it’s that it’s ridiculous in that it’s a practically impossible to accomplish task to achieve in the amount of time needed to boost a start up. In fact, formulating one’s own community can be as difficult as successfully launching a start up in the first place. Establishing a community can take years - Loic himself talks of how it took him eight years - and there’s no guarantee that the community will stick.

Most prominent blogger don’t have communities. They may think they do, but they don’t. They have readers instead. Most companies don’t have communities. They have customers. Most products and services don’t have communities. They have users. Cultivating a community is similar to cultivating a loyal customer base…only more difficult. It takes time, it takes energy, it takes a special touch. More often than not, it’s an elusive accomplishment.

It’s not as if one can go down to the local K-Mart and buy a community - as if it comes in a box - one that’s on sale this week only for the low price of $79.95 - twenty dollars of the regular price of $99.95.
Where can I get one?
No, there’s no Easy Button to press in getting a community. As commenter Jeremy Toeman points out “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.” Which is soon followed by Vinh, “Where can i get a community? Is it expensive? What happens if I need audience now?” Bingo.

Loic himself proves the difficulty in establishing a community by writing “I took me 8 years since I started blogging in 2003 to have a community and it is no marketing.” First of all, he’s so exhausted from establishing that community that he’s added wrong. It’s either 5 years since 2003 or 8 years since 2000. Whether it’s 5 or 8 (and I believe it’s 8), that’s way to long of a time period for a CEO to wait to effectively kick in as he or she is launching a startup.

Allen Stern has two great comments regarding Loic’s claim…

First, he points out that it takes more than a desire to have a community to actually accomplish the huge task of establishing a community. “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.” He follow this with a clear statement of total sense. “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.” Words of wisdom.

The reality is that the essence of community building is something that’s often elusive. One needs talent, time, luck, and a topic or series or topics that engender an interaction amongst readers. That’s rare indeed. Loic has been able to establish this over several years through hard work, a warm and colorul personality, and an effective writing style. He also benefits from the fact that he’s launched a company that, at its core, is at the heart of social media.

Community is one of the most dangerously overused terms in social media. It’s often bandied about by people who treat the subject matter as if communities already exist or are readily available. And this then underplays the importance - and the essence of community.

Next, I’ll look to take on the Brian vs. Loic debate point by point.

Apparently 48% of bloggers think that’s a good idea. That’s according to the bloggers who agreed with the statement directed to PR execs “It is okay to compensate bloggers for writing about my clients, but it is not of to me to tell them to disclose the payment” as interviewed by APCO Worldwide and the Council of PR Firms. The forty-wight percent may ot be a majority, but it is a plurality. Sixteen percent had either a neutral or no opinion on the matter. That means 36% percent had problems with the idea of bloggers getting pay for play.

PR people were against he idea of paying bloggers by a whopping 96% - 4%. That’s the camp I fall into.

The Pay Per Post model is controversial, but it’s transparent. I’m not much for paying bloggers period, but transparency is of full importance. What we have here is potentially a serious stumbling block. We view bloggers to be, in part, journalists who cover certain issue areas and are therefore the ones we’re going to target. Yet they see their blogs as their personal domain, one that they had never expected to get pitched about - but perhaps secretly wanted to earn money from.

Many bloggers have little idea of what constitutes journalistic integrity, but nevertheless maintain a sense of pride in what they produce. This can translate into them not wanting to be a shrill or a marketing piece for a product or service without some form of payment. To PR people, that seems wholly counterintuitive.

The problem is that there are no established groundrules between the PR industry and bloggers. The PR industry as a whole has its own standard while each blogger has his or her own standards. And generally we have to follow the bloggers lead - or move onto the next blogger.

I don’t understand how certain story submissions pass the smell test.

In a release yesterday, Reuters reports, in an article written by Ellen Wulfhorst, that “Most Americans Don’t Read Political Blogs”. No shit. There is so much wrong with this article that I barely know where to start.

The story was based on a poll by Harris Interactive that found “Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.”

First of all, it attempts to frame the story right in headline. I think most people, or perhaps more importantly, most online political types would not be surprised of the fact that most adults don’t read political blogs. I don’t know of one legitimate consultant who has said otherwise.

It then says “only” 22 percent of American adults regularly political blogs - meaning several times per month. I don’t know why the word “only” is used. It creates bias, making the number appear to be paltry.

You then have to go the second page of the article to find that this was strictly an online poll. That means the whole spin of the poll is skewed. It’s not about “most adult Americans”, it’s “most online adult Americans”…making that 22% actually SMALLER. And an online poll is self-selected, which skews it even further. In what direction is anybody’s guess.

But if we stick with what we’ve got - that 22% of online adults who responded to this poll regularly read political blogs, we’re looking at an impressive figure. More than 1 in 5 of these Americans get at least part of their political information from blogs. Blogs that are conversational. Blogs that are opinionated. Nothing to sneeze at.