Babel blog

Views from the Hood

The views expressed in this blog are those of Babel co-founder Ian Hood and don't necessarily reflect the views of the rest of the Babel team. In fact, sometimes the rest of team disagree violently, but that's a healthy thing - we like a bit of debate. If you want any further information on the topics discussed here please let us know.

Recent posts

The press release is dead, long live the press release

Written by Ian Hood

Tuesday, 17 August 2010 16:37

There's been some discussion in the PR industry recently about the value of press releases. Are they completely outdated? Do they deliver any real benefit? Is Twitter / Facebook / YouTube the place to go to place your news now? There's nothing new in this discussion, it's been going on almost as long as I've been involved in the PR industry, but it's essentially hollow.

A press release is simply a communication with an audience that facilitates some kind of interaction (ultimately there's no point unless some kind of interaction results). Funnily enough, that's exactly what the grandly titled 'social media release' does and it's what a YouTube movie does and a blog, Facebook or Twitter post. They may be a less formal means of interacton but they are performing the same basic function.

The question that in-house and agency PR people should be asking is "how would my audience like to be communicated with." Again, nothing new in that discussion - not long ago we had arguments about HTML vs text email. Prior to that it was email vs print and I can even remember (yes, I'm THAT old) when it was fax vs post. The complex thing is the answer, not because it's fundamentally difficult to work out, but because it takes time and expertise. You see the thing that has changed is that there are so many options and because of that, a massive menu of possibilities for each member of your audience.

Amongst the audiences that we deal with in the world of technology PR there are confirmed Tweeters, Facebook junkies and (presumably squared eyed) YouTube fans. We make sure we design camapaigns that address those groups on their turf. It's just common sense after all. But if that was all we did we'd miss a great swathe of people that our clients want to engage with. Some of them do actually want a traditional press release whilst others prefer a short emailed summary. Horses for courses you see.

The press release isn't dead, it's just evolving and like most evolutionary processes it takes time. Looking back doesn't help but neither does looking too far forward, you might miss what's standing in front of you.

The agony in Google

Written by Ian Hood

Wednesday, 11 August 2010 17:07

There's an interesting report in the Wall Street Journal today on the internal agony Google faces when considering issues of privacy. The report suggests that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin strongly resisted the temptation to exploit what the company knows about its users (and that's a LOT), but they have been gradually talked around to the idea. The evidence is clear enough - as the WSJ rightly point outs, Google acquired DoubleClick Inc., the display ads company, in 2007 and as result, started to exploit at least some of the knowledge it gains. There are other examples and the recent 'WIFI sniffing scandal' adds fuel to the fire.

Personally I'm uncomfortable with companies the size of Google knowing so much about so many. The potential for inappropriate exploitation is considerable and big business isn't well known for its ability to self regulate (recent financial events attest to that). We will have to see how far Google goes but once the bitter pill has been swallowed the effect it has (cash in this case) can be irresistible.

That things are changing at Google is unquestionable, but the reasons for that change aren't so obvious. It would be easy to think that Page and Sergey, in the passage of time, have lost their youthful ideals and now only see the potential profits. I suspect that probably isn't true and that the informal company motto, Don't Be Evil, still means a lot to them both. So what has changed? Well, Google went public in 2004 and all of a sudden it had a bunch of shareholders to keep happy. Shareholders (I'm generalising) are motivated by profit, pure and simple and as a public company Google is now under pressure to maximise the revenue generating potential of the business. Unfortunately that often means shareholders will push very hard to exploit every avenue - 'if it's legal, or we can lobby to make it legal, we should do it.'

I've seen it happen in a lot of companies that decide to go public and I'd be surprised if that's not what is behind the change in Google. I doubt, for instance that we would have seen Google capitulate to the Chinese Government on censorship if it was still a private company. The question for us all is how far do we now let Google, and others like them, use the information we so freely provide. I have no faith in self regulation and so the only option left might be legislation. That should be fun...

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 6