Last month brought another twist in the debate about which is more important – social media or traditional PR – as news broke that Twitter is seeking its first ever PR agency.
Does this point to PR’s value in an increasingly social media world? Or is it more a function of a company’s growth and marketing maturity?
Truth is that Twitter probably didn’t need a PR agency until now. The service gained credibility with rabid early adopters at the SXSW music and technology show in 2007 and was able to leverage its dynamic founders and growing usage by journalists and bloggers to garner TV appearances on Oprah and coverage by all kinds of news publications. Add to that, historic events that were first reported by eyewitnesses using Twitter (maybe the first was Sully Sullenberger’s heroic landing of a disabled jet in the Hudson River), and you have a recipe for great news coverage without much effort.
Now, the situation is different: the founders have (by and large) moved on, governments are starting to question whether it’s time to put some restrictions on social media and competition is emerging. These are the foundations for changing how the company does its PR. Enter Sean Garrett as VP of communications, a team of Beltway insiders and soon a new PR agency and voila, the Twitter PR machine looks like that of a more traditional company.
Twitter is a great service and a valuable tool (and sometimes a great distraction), but every time I read about a “tweet that lead to revolution” or “embarrassed a company,” I remember that I’m reading that on a conventional news site (and sometimes – shockingly – even in a newspaper or magazine!). Having a steady stream of eyewitness accounts and real time commentary, doesn’t replace conventional reporting.
Similarly, social media doesn’t replace PR and the need for a PR agency.