« Introducing 5 new members | Main | 2 + 2 = 8 (or 1)?... : The challenging world of "blog-iquity" »


I think you've made a good case for blogging, in the general case. I don't believe it's a substitute for effective media relations, though. Pathological journalists are more rare, in my opinion, than most people think. More often than not, a negative story in the press is due to inept media relations, in my opinion. Most companies need to pay more attention to the media element of their communications strategy, before blaming the reporter.

Alec, I think blogging can be complimentary to traditional media activities - by no means was this a suggestion of only blogging. And actually, this type of blogging is especially relevant and valuable for businesses that are under attack constantly (companies like Wal-Mart, biotech companies, fast food companies, etc).

For instance, I saw that McDonalds put loads of ads in London papers to defend itself when Super Size Me was coming out here - which of course the film distributors answered with ads of their own, saying how flattered they were to get the publicity. It was a limp, baldly
frantic attempt at damage control that may have actually done them more harm than good. But if they had someone (or multiple someones) from inside the company, blogging on a McDonalds blog, they could much more effectively communicate their business and why they do
the things they do - with the big boon being the way that information (in the form of permalinks to blog posts) are passed around the vast network (4 million and growing) of blogs. For the money they spent on
one full-page ad in the London Evening Standard, they could have paid to learn how to blog and address their customers and detractors, and done so happily from here to eternity.

Bravo jackie :)) very interesting.

I think there will be, in the near futur, companies with or without "blog attitude" (like old/new economy).

But I don't belive that Microsoft, Nike, Marlboro or McDonalds will experience real blogs.

That kind of "old fashion" companies have build an image putting a lot of money into adds.
The problem is : Their image doesn't reflect the reality.

The blog is too dangerous, too subversive.

I'm interested in getting some media coverage. It's tough if you don't know someone from the inside. Of course, the major media companies always follow the heard. They only knock on your doors after you are successful.

Jeff, blogging really does make a huge difference. Yesterday, our company was heavily featured in an article in The Times (London) and I got a call last night from a Wall Street Journal reporter. We've also been in other Big Media publications. Why? Because we have used our blog to establish our credibility, to show that we know our stuff and to make a name for ourselves. It works!

Yes, it does. It is a concerted and consistent effort, does not happen overnight but blogging gives you the chance to be your own media. You can always put your story better than anyone else. And if you can't, well, how will you promote your business anyway? Do you think PR and media relations understands your business better? I am always amazed at the willingness of companies to have someone else to represent them to the external world. It's like sending a proxy to a party, they may be polished, well-dressed and well-spoken but they ain't you.

> You can always put your story better than anyone else.
> And if you can't, well, how will you promote
> your business anyway?

100 % d'accord.

I remember my father speaking :
"You are the best salesman of your company".
"Go ahead, don't be shy".

4 me, Blogging is a natural evolution of the permission marketing. A way to be in direct contact with your customers.
I have nothing to hide. ;)

I think that the situation is different in every country. I don't know in US or in rest of Europe but in France, a journalist doesn't earn a lot of money. Then he has to "work" very quickly to egt enough money (one page = 300-400 euros). The first source is .. other newspapers and becomes now Internet and Internet IS Google. Then journalist will takes more info from Google. If there is a blog in the first results of the search, he will take infos from this blogs .. A blog is not very different from a site; A blog IS a site (cheaper, more interactive and more powerfull on Google then a usual site) A blog is only the second generation of "site".. nothing more , no ? Remember attitude of journalists at the beginning of Web.internet revolution.. It's the same now with the blogs.

The comments to this entry are closed.


CEObloggers Wiki