By Dorothy Crenshaw

When choosing a PR firm, does size matter?

Sure, it does, for PR and other creative services. From the agency perspective, size can be a powerful differentiator. But just how it stacks up depends on your point of view.

Smaller firms are a better value, right? Not necessarily.

I’ve held senior positions at firms that range from mega-agency to mid-size. When I was with the big guys, a pitch involving a small firm always rankled, partly because we immediately felt pressure to be price-flexible. And, make no mistake, even mega-firms can be very flexible. During tough times, large agencies bring out the big guns, drop their prices, and punch below their weight.

Small agencies also have wiles. It’s energizing to be the David in an agency shoot-out. My favorite is closing with lines like, “We service clients, not shareholders.” And it’s true that owner-operated firms can more credibly promise senior-level involvement, especially for clients who aren’t billing seven figures.

So which is better? Though as a boutique agency owner I have a clear bias, I also know that a smaller firm doesn’t suit every client. Here’s my checklist on how to assess the size factor.

What’s the program’s scope? If your needs are regional or national, you may get great service and value from a small or mid-size firm. But a global campaign often requires a mega-agency with offices worldwide. You can also consider a network of independent firms, depending on your needs and market demands.

Is a range of services needed? If you don’t require much beyond core PR services, you’re better off going smaller. After all, you’ll be paying for that public affairs specialist and the graphics group in the form of overhead.

Are multiple offices required? If not, why pay for them? If your needs fluctuate, you might be better off with a smaller firm in a regional or national network, or with one that has alliances in key markets.

Where do you stand? You never want to be the smallest client in the house, and in general, it’s best to be in the upper third by budget size. The exceptions to this occur with fast-growth companies, or those that require specialized sector experience, such as the big-agency contacts that can help accelerate fundraising or partnerships.

Who’s accountable? The staff bait-and-switch in order to win business is so notorious that even inexperienced clients are wary. Pushing the work down to junior staffers can happen anywhere, but it’s far more likely at a large firm, particularly when economic pressure leads them to drop their prices to win business in the first place.

What about cultural fit? Large, brand-name firms are often hired for “ego” reasons, especially by companies who manage by committee, or by second-tier players striving to break through to the next level. Though in my experience this is a recipe for dysfunction, it’s important to recognize that checklists go only so far.

Unilever CMO Keith Weed has the right idea. When asked about the importance of agency size at Cannes last year, he summed it up by quoting Mark Twain. “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the dog.”

Source: http://www.prdaily.com

See also:

By Debra Caruso

In my experience, I've found that the most successful PR people are those who think and act like reporters.

Anyone in sales will tell you that you have to know your customer base. For those of us who toil pitching stories to reporters, it certainly helps—and may be imperative—to have the journalistic background that tells how to define a story, write it and present it. PR is sales, and reporters are the customers.

When I was a journalism student at Fordham University, one of my instructors was a news director at a New York City radio station. He told us repeatedly to use the "who cares?" rule to decide which stories to choose for that night's newscast. Who cares if a guy drove off the George Washington Bridge? Who cares if the price of oil went through the roof today?

The answer to "who cares?" would determine the order of the stories. If more people care about the price of oil than the poor guy who drove off the bridge, then oil is the top story. Journalists know this viscerally. PR people who have never worked in a newsroom may not have that kind of news judgment.

Here's a quick recap of four key reasons why journalists make the best PR pros. If your department or hiring manager is debating whom to hire—a former journalist versus someone who has never worked the newsroom—offer this list.

Source: http://www.prdaily.com

See also:

By Jody Koehler

Councilors from Iceland have turned in the first draft of their new and crowd-sourced constitution. 

They used hundreds of contributions from the Web—which they solicited on the government’s website and on social media sites—to construct the country's new governing document. 

Sociable.co reports: 

The new constitution went through 16 revisions, all of which were posted online for Icelanders to read and comment on. These drafts cover topics from Human Rights, Parliamentary Elections, Foreign Policy, and the role of the President. 

…

Describing the process of interacting with Iceland’s population of 320,000 people, as well as the wider internet audience council member and professor of political science at Bifroest Unioversity, Eirikur Bergmann said to the AFT news agency: “It is messy. It is completely messy. But take your average legislation in your average parliament in your average country. That’s messy as well.” 

Makes sense that Iceland would go this route, considering it is the European leader in Internet penetration; 97.6 percent of its adult population is online. (In the U.S., the number is approximately 77 percent.)

Source: http://www.prdaily.com

See also:

By Clair Cesly

Despite my great admiration for Google products, I was trepidatious about throwing myself (and my time) into creating a new social network on Google+. 

I already maintain three social networks—Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn—and spend time on several others just to maintain a sense of what's new and evolving in the social media space. That's what my clients expect, so I make the effort.

However, it is my life and my time. I drew the line at creating a whole new network. Because I was already using Gmail, Google Reader, and Calendar and had dabbled in Google Docs, I decided to click the “Claire +” button on my Gmail dashboard. 

See? They sucked me in right away by personalizing that little button. 

Here are my favorite features on Google+, as well as why they might work for you: 

The feed. The feed or stream looks just like the Facebook feed we're all used to. One really cool difference I noticed right away: You can edit your feed update after you post it, unlike Facebook, where you have to delete your post and re-post if you make an error. (If you have clumsy fingers like mine, that happens often.) As a PR professional who is judged by typos, I appreciate the ability to correct my mistakes. 

Easier photo uploads. My biggest frustration with Facebook has been the difficulty in uploading photographs. Maybe it's just me, but unless you're using iPhoto or Flickr to upload, Facebook has never made it easy. In Google+, you can upload from your computer in the regular way, but you can also drag and drop, which is very slick. It only took me a few seconds to upload 20 of my favorite photos to an album. Adding labels is easier, too. Don't get me started on sharing photos via Twitter. It's an arduous process unless you're using a mobile app.

Circles. Google+ makes it easy to create different circles of people within your network. This feature enables you to easily drag and drop people into circles and to control which circle your latest post goes to. Facebook’s groups feature is so clunky and unintuitive that I don't know many people who use it. Plus, it was an add-on. Google+ was smart to make it part of its set of introductory features.

Google's transparency. Here is a great Google+ site that discusses the features in detail and includes video of how they work. I trust Google a bit more than Facebook. (Maybe because I think Mark Zuckerberg has shifty eyes.)

Sparks. Dumb name, great concept. If you're wondering how you'll ever find people to follow, Sparks provides a window into Google+ that is a lot easier to use than searching Facebook for thought leaders on certain subjects. Plus, you can follow someone without his or her permission, unless they decide to block you (kind of like Twitter). Facebook's search does not seem very intuitive to me, and you can't just follow someone; you have to be “friends” to see that person’s feed.

Hangouts. Here's an easy way to introduce newbies to the nuances of video chat. There are still a lot of people who don't know how to conduct a video chat on their own. Being on Google+ gives you a simple way to chat with friends. The first time you use it, give yourself a little time to download the plug-ins you'll need. Here's a picture of what your screen will look like when you're chatting. My good buddy Josh, one of the founders of VineMe, and I had a chatted the other morning. (Don't laugh at my hair; it was humid.) 

The Achilles heel of Google+. So far, Google+ is off to a great start, with 20 million users. But early reports suggest that even though many early adopters and Internet glitterati are using it, people are not coming back to log on every as they do with Facebook. Therein lies the problem. You can share on Google+ all day, but is anyone paying attention? I think this question will remain unanswered until the network gains critical mass, as Facebook and Twitter have. 

Source: http://www.prdaily.com

See also: