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.

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.

APCO Worldwide and the Council of Public Relations Firms just released a study on the similarities and differences on how public relations executives and bloggers view blogger relations. It confirms common sense, but it also shows me that common sense is not always applied.

The first thing that jumps out to me is that 52% of PR execs think that they and/or their firms do a good job reaching out to bloggers, while 65% of blogger felt otherwise. That means that, essentially, two-thirds of bloggers believe that PR efforts are poor.

This is important for what it says and for what it doesn’t say.

First of all, it means to me that we, as an industry are at least partially failing to effectively create best practices. There are probably too many haphazard efforts that are designed for mass exposure - meaning no effective targeting. And pitches may often empty of any relevance or filled with a false sense of camaraderie. And this probably occurs because a firm gets a client and off they go promoting.

In defense of agencies, however, it’s hard to see how it often could be that much different at times. While I agree PR practitioners should familiarize themselves with a blogger’s subject matter and style, it is impossible to do it on such a large scale. There are no Bacon’s or Cision’s media guide to work off. And clients often want results fast.

This is not to excuse the practice. It means that we in the profession must constantly seek to create methodologies that work for both the client and the blogger. I also see a potential business opportunity here for online directories to enhance their listings and perhaps charge a fee for a higher level of service.

Nevertheless, that gap is too large and the 65% of dissatisfied bloggers is abhorrently high. This brings me to a second point because the study points out that 63% of the bloggers surveyed that they get pitched at least once per week, 42% get pitched once per day, and 27% get pitched more than once per day. I talked to Matt Shaw, the Vice President of the Council of Public Relations Firms to clarify who these bloggers are. Essentially, they were approximately 400 “top” bloggers who responded to their survey.

Now we’re talking. Because it’s those A-List bloggers who are key here. Because they have the ability to make or break this whole blogger relations phenomenon. They’re the ones that are going to be getting pitched to more often - often as we see as being more than once a day.

Part of the problem is seen in the further findings by the study. Only 36% of PR execs agreed with the statement that “Bloggers are journalists and should be treated as such”, yet 62% of these execs nevertheless agreed with the statement “PR firms should reach out to bloggers essentially the same way we do to traditional media.”

This shows me two things. One is that the ways we reach out to traditional media are entirely adequate as methods that can be transferred to reaching out to bloggers. And/or it could mean that PR execs have yet to come to terms as to what the hell bloggers really are in the first place.

I suspect it’s both. Often, an honest respectful engagement can win over a reporter as it can a blogger. But sometimes it can’t . Bloggers themselves often don’t have any standards. They got into blogging and had no idea that they would soon get pitched on an almost daily basis. And what at first may have been flattering has now become annoying.

More on this study to follow…

On Monday, CBS Television Stations announced the launch of what I think will be a great step in the direction of web based mainstream and citizen generated news. They are launching the CBS Local Ad Network in which local stations will syndicate new content to local bloggers and social media sites. This news will be delivered via news widgets that will link to video and text news of the local stations.

IN exchange for hosting the widgets, the bloggers will receive a share of the local ad dollars that are sold by the station.

How is it a win-win-win-win situation?

The will extend the CBS news media brand both on a national and local level by integrating news content with local blogger with a following. While it takes some of the focus off the broadcast model, it could potentially easily be made up via web usage. The network will seem innovative while the local affiliate could develop deeper ties to the local community. Bloggers and social networkds could increase their visibility and bring in more traffic. Advertisers will get greater exposure.

I like the idea.

I think Southwest is missing an opportunity to effectively come clean on this recent story that they let 46 of the planes fly beyond the FAA mandated amount of per plane flights to have an inspection. They’re using “spinspeak” when they don’t have to.

The issue is muddled. The level of responsiblity is unclear. The nexus of blame looks to be dispersed. Southwest needs to open up a bit more. Instead, they obfuscate.

“The FAA has issued what is called a “letter of penalty” to Southwest Airlines regarding one of many routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections of our fleet. The specific inspection in question involves an extremely small area in one of many overlapping inspections designed to detect early signs of skin cracking on our aircraft.”

“Many, routine, redundant, and overlapping inspections”…”extremely small area in one of manyh ovrlapping inspections”. Please.

Meanitme, one can simply read any news coverge of this and find out that the airline went well past the alloted amount of flights. By trying to sound “reasonable”, they cause people to look elsewhere. And the term “overlapping inspections”…what they hell does that mean?

Most of the rest of what they say if fine. But in the interest of transparency, simply explain the concept of inspections based upon amount of flights. THEN you add how you found the problem and quickly notified the authorities. Keep the bulk of the story on the blog itself. Off an apology for the confusion. Thank people for their loyalty. Let them know that you’ll keep them informed via the blog. Have CEO Gary Kelly post an entry a week until the situation resolves itself.

Right now there’s a bunch of responsed showing doubt towards Southwest. And there’s a significant amount of supportive responses. Some very elaborate. Allmost seems organized, but they’re not cookie cutter. And y0u’ve got some who are defending the company by attacking the media. Saying that the media doesn’t know what they’re talking about…that the media is blowing things out of proportion. On what they’re basing this I don’t know.

Southwest has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s letter of inquiry. Let’s see how it turns out.