Public Relations 2.0
How it differs from
Public Relations 1.0

Public relations (PR) used to be
fairly straightforward.

You hired a PR firm that had
good relationships with
journalists ....

...they listened to your story,
drafted a pitch and “sold in”
your story to a journalist.

Then the story of your
company appeared in the
media (also known as a “hit”)

.... which raised your profile.
And everyone was very happy.

There was a choice between
two types of PR firm:

The ones which practised PR 1.0

and the ones which practised PR
2.0

PR 1.0 firms were huge, well-
established, multi-national PR
firms...

... who didn’t really “get” blogging
and Twitter.

Whereas PR 2.0 firms were much
newer and determined to be
“different” ...

...but sometimes
they were so
focused on blogs
and Twitter...

...that the
quantity of
press cuttings
became more
important than
the quality.

With the rise of blogs, PR
firms are able to generate
many more “hits” with far
less effort

Most PR firms put interns or
their most junior members of
staff on “web raiding” duty....

...to post marketing messages
online for the firm’s low-priority
clients...

....while only their high-priority
clients benefit from time-
consuming media relations.

Public Relations has always been
extremely labour intensive .

In order to increase the
effectiveness of public relations,
you just need to...

...increase the number of
experienced PR professionals
working on a specific activity.

This makes Public Relations a bit
more complicated.

So which type of PR should you
choose ?

Here are some differences and
similarities between traditional and
social media.

1. Traditional media coverage is
much rarer than social media
coverage ...

Coverage, in print magazines
especially, is finite.

You can get anything from two to
52 issues per year.

So if your company gets a
mention in one of these, it’s
pretty impressive.

Whereas, the blogosphere is
infinite ... and still growing.

So if your company gets a mention
in the online social media ...

It can very easily get lost ...

There are also the “grey” areas
where traditional and social
media meet

Blogs on news sites, live polls
and user comments on websites

Which one would you prefer?

A very small mention in The
Financial Times or the Wall
Street Journal .....

... or a very big mention in
somebody’s blog ?

After all, there are only so many
newspapers and magazines

while there are endless numbers
of blogs.

2. Social media tools are
relatively cheap and available to
everyone

which makes it easier for anyone
to publish information about
themselves ...

... Whereas traditional media
requires a significant financial
outlay to publish and distribute
information.

3. Both social media and traditional
media can reach a wide range of
audiences

For example, a blog or a TV
programme can reach millions or
just a few people.

4. Traditional media can have a
lead in time of weeks or even
months...

... whereas social media can be
virtually instantaneous

5. Unlike Public Relations
1.0, Public Relations 2.0 has no
go-between to re-write your
story for you

6. Traditional media is publically
accountable for what it
publishes...

...there are laws
and codes of
practice
regarding
publishing what
is in the public
interest and
editorial
independence

Social media is not accountable
for what it publishes

And some bloggers have been
found guilty of libel or slander
resulting in fines or even prison

So which is better – PR 1.0 or
PR 2.0?

It doesn’t really matter if you’re
blogging, meeting someone in
Second Life ...

... or briefing
journalists in your
local cafe ...

... if you’re reaching out to people
and getting your story
across, then it’s all good.

Sara Paine
Verona PR and Marketing
T: + 44 (0)1474 361008
E: sara@verona-pr.com
www.verona-pr.com