Connors in the New Year
Friday, December 21, 2007
It’s hard to believe that Christmas is just days away and that 2008 is looming around the corner. The decade, which we have yet to name, is almost over!
It’s early still to reflect on the first ten years of the 21st century, but I think it is safe to say that we have come a very long way since the days of Y2K. In fact, in that short time, we have overcome the first web revolution and found ourselves basking in the glory of the second.
Some people laugh at the phrase Web 2.0, but it’s not just a gimmick. For example, yesterday there was news from the San Francisco Chronicle about a study recently conducted by Pew Internet & American Life Project on the propensity of teens to engage in online content creation and sharing.
The study found that “almost two-thirds of online teens have created something online.” The article then goes into the specifics of the data, the most impressive of which is the rise in the percentage of blogging teens. In 2004, the number was just 19%, where as now, almost 30% of teenagers blog in some shape or form.
And it’s not just a phenomenon reserved for the younger generation. We are all coming to rely on the Internet at an exceedingly growing rate. If you’re skeptical, just look at what’s happening to print publications. We’re clearly no longer getting information in the ways that we grew accustomed.
It is for all these reasons that in the new year, Connors will no longer be doing PR in the same old way. We have been split between traditional PR and SEO for years, but taking society’s changing ways into consideration, it is becoming more and more clear that the traditional PR road is no longer paved in gold. The road online, however, is looking very bright.
Our president, Connie Connors, recently spoke to Enid Burns of ClickZ about our changing direction. In the resulting article, Connie points out that the communication channels no longer equate to “one-to-many.” Rather, “many-to-many” is the formula that dominates, creating a “sphere of influence.” Meaning that, with the help of the Internet, we are all now playing a more active role in each other’s lives.Labels: Connie Connors, Connors Communications, Internet, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0
Social Networking & Decision ’08 Take 2
Friday, November 30, 2007
This week, the Republican version of the YouTube debate aired on CNN. Compared to the Democratic debate, which aired several months ago, the conservative bunch did seem a bit more uncomfortable, which made it all the more interesting to watch.
If you recall, when the Democratic debate aired, there were rumors that the Republicans would not participate. I believe Mitt Romney said explicitly that he did not want to disgrace the sacredness that is political debate by allowing YouTube to lead it. Looks like technology won this round, and it is in the running for the next.
On Monday, news of Facebook and ABC’s partnership emerged, signaling another revolutionary step in our approach to elections and garnering news. ABC developed an application for Facebook called “US Politics,” which users can add to their profile. The application presents news on the election, and allows Facebookers to voice their opinions on certain topics, participate in polls and, most importantly, communicate directly with reporters!
How? The ABC reporters, whose articles are fed through the application, have Facebook profiles. As a Facebook user, you are invited to send them private questions and comments on their articles. Within this exchange, you can feel free to pose questions and issues that they can then raise with the candidates or investigate on their own.
Sure. This may not seem so profound to us, as in our profession, we engage the media on a regular basis. But the rest of the public does not. Actually, it is not far fetched to say that the majority of people are not even aware of how news comes about. Think about it…. How often have you been asked something as nonsensical as, “Can’t you just write a story and get it published?”
And while the ABC/Facebook partnership will be focusing on the presidential race, its success will determine how reporters interact with the general public in the future. Pretty soon, we might all find ourselves in the driver’s seat.Labels: media, new media, politics, Public Relations, Web 2.0, Youtube
A Brief History of the Huffington Post
Friday, November 02, 2007
This past Monday, an interesting article by Fortune's Richard Siklos was published on CNNMoney about The Huffington Post. It caught my eye because we usually don't think of these Web 2.0 media outlets as businesses, but The Huffington Post turns out to be a high prized commodity for its founder Arriana Huffington.
Siklos' lengthy piece takes us to the very beginnings, when the Post was simply an idea, and a rocky one at best. "When the site first went live, the heavy betting was that it would quickly become a footnote in the sad annals of online ventures by celebrities -- anyone remember RodmanTV.com?"
I don't, but I guess that's the point.
The Huffington Post not only survived, but thrived in an environment that was not yet inundated with news social networks. In those days, Arriana started things off by hiring editors who would sift through the day's news and link to articles that they deemed interesting or worthy of a read. Original content was also provided by self-recruited team of volunteer bloggers.
These bloggers are perhaps the thing that sets the Huffington Post apart from most other sites of its kind. Arriana ran and still runs in celebrity circles. When she began her venture, she wanted to make sure to take advantage of her connections by asking some of these folks to write for her site. After all, whether we like to admit it or not, we all take interest in what celebrities think. She got a bunch of eager names in the beginning and now, most of her friends and acquaintances who are asked to contribute to The Huffington Post are honored.
The site now attracts over 90 million readers a month, which is approximately the amount of traffic the Philadelphia Inquirer site gets. Granted, the Huffington Post aims to reach a national audience, so the numbers are not staggering, but still significant enough.
The lesson learned here is that while there are no shortage of bloggers out there who serve a niche interest, even the ones that are trying to please the masses are having notable success. Labels: blog, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0
More than just PR
Friday, October 26, 2007
It seems that the marketing giants like Interpublic and WPP Group are coming to terms with our Web 2.0 world. Just this week, Interpublic announced a partnership with word-of-mouth marketing company, BzzAgent. WPP Group has also partnered with them in the past. BzzAgent is a social networking medium comprised of marketers and an assembly of volunteers who try out products and/or programs in turn for their honest feedback. After feedback is given, BzzAgent marketers interact with their volunteers, poking and prodding at their experiences. Common sense suggests that if an experience was negative, BzzAgents would attempt to rectify the problems and have the volunteers change their minds. It's not so much an innovative idea as it is a natural progression of marketing research possible on the Web. Just ten years ago, this type of company simply wouldn't make it. It wouldn't be practical to get people's feedback via phone or snail mail and then redistribute it to the masses. But in this day and age, it makes perfect sense. After all, BzzAgent deems that 80% of people believe word-of-mouth over advertising. Of course, now-a-days, word of mouth doesn't just happen face to face. Most of it takes place online, and it is essential for all companies to be involved in those conversations. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Web 2.0
Google's Advertising Paradox
Friday, October 19, 2007
So here's an interesting notion: Google has built its empire on its Google ads yet Google itself, probably the most famous brand of our time, does not and has not ever invested significantly into its own advertising.
So in the olden days, before we "googled" everything, how did we find out about Google? Why did we use it instead of Yahoo or Alta Vista (remember them?!)? From what I can recall, it mostly started by word of mouth. I heard about Google from the mother of the children I used to baby sit. She told me that a silly little thing called "google.com" is the best search engine! "Google?" I asked. "Really? What a stupid name."
But the name stuck in my mind and when I came home that night, I gave Google a go. To my surprise, Google was fantastic. I told all my friends about it and we, along with the rest of the world, have been googling ever since.
I imagine that this was the experience most had and what lead to Google's sprint to the top of the search engine food chain. The AP's Michael Liedtke pointed out in an article on this topic that rather than throwing money into frivolous advertising, Google put its dollars directly to its actual business, which involved perfecting the art of search.
"This advertising aversion has freed up money for engineers, computing hardware and other resources that fuel Google's search engine while leaving plenty of profit to keep shareholders happy and lift the company's stock ever higher."
Google serves as an example for many aspects of business. Its unique approach to marketing, however, is worthy of exploration for any professional in this industry. The key lesson from this particular advertising model, or lack there of, is that quality will always overcome being bombarded with a company's message.
Back when I was baby sitting, literal word of mouth had much more longevity. Before I heard about Google, I would have to actually ask my friends' opinions of things in order to gain perspective on them. Now, all you have to do is go online and you can get the opinions of millions.
The bottom line is a company's main concern, in its beginning stages especially, needs to be the quality of its product or service. Once that is perfected, they can think about giving us a call. Labels: advertising, Adwords, Google, Internet, Marketing, Public Relations, search
The Growing Internet
Friday, October 12, 2007
Yesterday, a bylined article on the topic of our soon-to-be antiquated Internet infrastructure was published on CNET by Michael Keenan from UC San Diego. In it, Keenan stressed the significance of the fact that in the near future, the Web will no longer hold the demand that we are putting on it.
Michael explained that when the Internet was created, its size and use was undermined, but the limitations of the structure were not truly felt until recently. After all, it was not that long ago that we used the World Wide Web for just email. Now-a-days, we use it for pretty much everything. In Keenan's words, "[t]he Internet has gone from a complement to everyday living to a principal platform for business and personal activities."
While his article went down the path of discussing the sad state of broadband in the U.S., which, by the way, is in 15th place worldwide, behind countries like South Korea, I would like to go back to this notion of the Internet's importance in our role as influencers. I think this idea is hard for some to grasp because those Internet-free days or days of it being "a complement" are not too far gone. Yet, it is undeniable, we don't just use it to stay in touch with family and friends, but for essentially any information that we need. At which restaurant to eat; how to get there; and what to do afterwards. We decide all these things and more from the information we get online.
This is why it is crucial to have an optimized website. Meaning, your site needs to come up in search results that are initiated by words that are associated with your business. What am I talking about? For kicks, try typing "pr firm" into Google. In the first 2 pages of Google results, you will find 3 or 4 actual PR firms, one of them is Connors Communications. Is it such a leap to say that many businesses begin their search for a PR firm just this way?
In another article in MediaPost, Anand Subramanian writes about the concept of "The Long Tail" and its importance to advertising. He references eMarketer's 2006 report that found that "Internet users spent 61% of their time online outside of the top 20 domains, which includes most major social networking sites and web portals."
For advertising, it means that media buyers need to spend money outside of the top 20, and for public relations professionals, it means that we have to channel these niche markets with as much vigor, if not more, than those top 20.
But don't panic! This should come as a relief. Of those top 20, perhaps half are actual news sites like The New York Times and Google News. We all know the challenge in getting placements in this type of media. What these results indicate is that by compiling a list of relevant and attainable blogs and niche news sites, our PR campaigns can be even more effective than hitting the New York Times once or twice. Labels: Internet, new media, optimization, Public Relations, search, The Long Tail, Web 2.0
Blogging, Inc?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Douglas A. McIntyre from Wall St. 24/7 suggested in an article earlier this week that big media companies might start buying popular blogs. The reason for it being that the blogs of some newspapers and other news sites have not captured the same volume of attention as blogs like the Huffington Post and TechCrunch.
Rather than trying to compete, it would make sense for big media companies to just eat these blogs up. After all, relatively speaking, they wouldn't cost very much and would be fairly easy to maintain. AOL is already ahead of the game on this one with its purchase of Weblogsinc, which includes Engadget.
I suppose it's not really a novel concept for a big company to swallow up a small, popular fish, but will writers of these blogs be interested to sell? For many, I assume, it will be a personal decision. Do I want to maintain my own business and my complete creative freedom or do I want to hand the reigns over and feel secure in the financial footing of a media giant?
Regardless of what the likes of Michael Arrington might decide, if these purchases were to become rampant, our role in attracting the attention of the influencers would once again begin to narrow.
Another thought worth contemplating is how the public would react. Is it the independent nature of these blogs that we value or do we just like the writing style and quick turnaround these have over the traditional media channels?
This concept certainly raises a lot of questions and it will be interesting to see how this aspect of Web 2.0 unfolds. Labels: blog, media, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0
More on this Web 2.0 Thing…
Friday, September 28, 2007
Staying on the topic of the significance the Internet plays in our role as marketers, I came across this article the other day from Mediapost. In it, Karl Greenberg sums up some of the opinions industry veterans expressed during the National Advertising Review Council's NAD Annual Conference on this issue. The title, "Web 2.0: A Minefield Marketers Must Cross," is telling, to say the least. One of the panelists, Mark Serrianne, CEO of brand consultancy Northlich, is quoted throughout the piece, explaining that the challenge now for companies is control. Meaning, there is so much information available through the Web that it is impossible to have a hand in every blog, site, or what have you to create your ideal message. So instead of trying to beat an infinite race, why not join in the running? By participating in the wealth of information through a blog or some other such voice, a company and/or brand has at least a chance of being heard and understood just in the way that it intends. But to say that is, of course, an understatement. Because if the voice you create is interesting enough or even mildly entertaining, your company or brand has the power to become an influencer. The beauty of the Internet is that it is a truly global platform. Its audience is in the billions, so even if you tap just a tiny fraction of it, you have already won. And accomplishing this is much easier than infiltrating the iron clad gates of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, in which an article might still be prized, but its fame (especially these days) is short lived. So let us reiterate again that a solid footing online should be part of any company's foundation. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Web 2.0
It's Free!
Friday, September 21, 2007
To no one’s surprise, the New York Times announced Monday that its TimesSelect service will now be available to all readers for free. It took them two years to realize that even though they were generating money with people signing up for the service, they were losing tons of advertising money by not having the content available for free. So how is it that now, thanks to the Internet, companies are able to make more money by offering things for free than by having people pay for them? The answer is simple: search. People visiting the NY Times website would be frustrated that they couldn’t access the TimesSelect material. But these folks only made up a small percentage of the advertising money that was being lost. The overwhelming amount was coming from those who were searching for specific topics and were being routed to material from this paid section. So, let’s say I wanted to learn more about France (which happens to be where I just went for my Honeymoon). I would Google “France” and towards the top of the 1st results page, I would find a great article from the New York Times. Because I know the Times to be a reputable source, I would be eager to see what it had to say about France. However, when I would try to open the article, I would find that I didn’t have access because I was not a paid subscriber. You can only imagine the millions of people who had the same dilemma. Simple as it may seem, there is a very important PR lesson to be learned here. People are no longer putting their faith into their trusted news services. Now-a-days, the collective majority Googles whatever it is they want to know about. Sure we might still be more likely to go to the Times than to some random blog, but (as we PR people well know), the Times does not and will not write about most things. What it means for us is that the days of traditional media being the gatekeepers to influencing the public are slowly fading. That role is now shifting to the Internet. With this change, we must pay more attention to not only the press we get online, but the kind of persona our clients have online. What is their voice? Do they even have a voice? Because as I was Googling France, I didn’t find very many helpful websites ending in .fr that were in English, which I am sure isn’t terribly helpful to the French tourist industry. Yet, literally and metaphorically, France is on the map. But for those companies that aren’t, having a solid presence on the Web is starting to make all the difference. Labels: Google, media, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0
Wikipedia's Ironic Taboo
Friday, August 17, 2007
The anonymity of Wikipedia is being put in question this week with CalTech grad student, Virgil Griffith, unveiling a tool called WikiScanner, which automatically identifies contributors to the user-generated site. Traditionally, the online encyclopedia grows with people just like me and you supplying information. Wikipedia also has a staff of "editors", who police the site and make sure the information added is not purely promotional or inappropriate. The ease with which people's identities could be revealed is spurring a dialogue to which PR professionals should be paying attention. The AP's Brian Bergstein quoted Griffith in an article published yesterday as saying that with his new tool "he hopes 'to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations [he] dislike[s].'" What does he mean? Well, even though it is quite obvious that companies are most likely responsible for their own Wikipedia entries, the notion of public relations teams being behind them is still taboo. So, if there was a tool that would call us out, so to speak, it might make the entries created seem less credible. I have to wonder, though, why is this the case? Who, for example, has time or the urge to write a Wikipedia entry for a random company or individual, even if it might be of relevance to Wikipedia? I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who would perhaps want to contribute to a World War II entry or some other such topic, but for the types of entries we are talking about, there really is no realistic third party contributor available. Yet, the information in those seemingly unimportant entries is valuable. If Wikipedia's aim is to truly be an encyclopedia, then it must have information relating to companies and people affecting our society. Thinking about this more, I realize that it may just be the old problem of PR ignorance. The majority of people simply don't realize that PR, and marketing in general, shape the way we see the world. This is a reality and surely it would manifest itself in the world of Wikipedia But it doesn't mean that we're trying to trick you and present a false image. On the contrary, PR professionals spend much of their time correcting journalists (see my entry from last week) and making sure that accurate information reaches the masses. In an ideal world, truth is objective. But in our complex world, truth is often multifaceted. Should the FBI, CIA and companies like Diebold be allowed to edit their own Wikipedia entries to serve their messages? Of course! But so can you! The very nature of Wikipedia depends on its readers paying attention, and the transparency added by the Wikipedia Scanner might push those PR folks with not the most honest intentions in the right direction. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Wikipedia
A Voice through Google News
Friday, August 10, 2007
Just when we thought we could foresee where the world of PR was headed, Google throws us a curve ball with its revamped Google News. Yesterday, word came out about Google featuring a truly unique option on their news site that would allow people and companies to respond to articles in which they are mentioned. The feature is currently in an experimental stage, but if it is to succeed, which with Google's track record is highly likely, it holds incredible implications and possibilities for the PR profession. You're probably wondering how Google will be able to determine whether the comments submitted are truly from the company or person mentioned in an article. According to Google, a new division will act as the gate keepers to qualify sources submitting comments by validating email addresses and/or calling the sources directly to confirm identities. While their methods do not sound exactly scientific or efficient in terms of time, I have faith that Google is not approaching this endeavor blindly. An example of what we might expect is up on the news site. The scenario involves an article on a study that found children prefer to eat food from McDonalds that comes in visually appealing packaging to food that does not look kid-friendly. Following is a lengthy response from the Corporate Communications office of McDonalds and a much shorter response from a professor of pediatrics in the University of New Mexico. Even from this 1st example, PR professionals should be taking notes. Who seems to be the party with something to hide? Might it be the one with the convoluted 550+ word statement? I vote yes! McDonalds clearly doesn't appreciate the fine art of brevity. Also, it doesn't help that their "statement" is simply regurgitated marketing material. A simple, "Of course children like food that has cartoon characters on it! But we also have cartoon characters on our apple slice containers, so the choice in our establishments is based on food, not on packaging." would have been sufficient and effective. We in the PR world know that few issues are black and white, and so it often becomes our job to simplify matters in favor of the companies we represent. Yet sometimes the problem with an article isn't that it was swayed in favor of the opposing viewpoint, but that a company was simply misquoted. As Calcanis, co-founder of Weblogs, Inc, pointed out in an Information Week article on this topic, "Journalists have misquoted people for so long," and it is high time technology offered a way for meaningful corrections to be made. Labels: Google, new media, pr, Public Relations
Is Any Press, Good Press?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Probably the most anticipated book in history is being released tonight and fans are actually avoiding the Internet and newspapers at all costs so as not to get wind of what happens to Harry, Ron and Hermione. J.K. Rowling’s books have achieved a level of fame so immense that it can be argued that the promotion is now counteracting sales efforts. How is this possible? An online retailer, DeepDiscount.com, sent copies of the preordered 7th and last installment of the Harry Potter series on Tuesday to buyers. Once Scholastic, the book’s publisher, got word, calls were made to the book buyers, requesting that they remain mum on the ending. Gift cards and Harry Potter t-shirts were offered as incentive. One of the early receivers was Baltimore Sun reporter, Mary Carole McCauley’s brother-in-law, who gave the book to Mary, who wrote a review, which was published on Thursday. The New York Times was also able to receive a copy pre-launch and published an early review. To add to the mayhem, several versions of an ending have been leaked on the Web causing an uproar among fans. I will admit that even I was cautious in reviewing articles on the topic as I plan on reading the book and don’t want the ending spoiled. It is without a doubt that Harry-obsessed devotees will be buying the book anyway, but what about those who have yet to be sucked in? If they know the ending to the entire series, why would they read it? These circumstances raise the question of whether it is really true: Is any press, bad or good, beneficial? From one perspective, it is; especially, if your company or product is not very well known. In our diverse world, there are bound to be people who will disagree with the negative coverage, gaining your company positive impressions. From another, however, bad press can cause serious damage. In the case of Harry Potter, there is probably no amount of bad press that can drive people away. The 5th movie, for instance, got mixed reviews, but it is still topping the box office. It has become almost cliché, but I have to say that Harry has cast a spell over us all. Labels: Marketing, media, Public Relations
The Popularity of a Website
Friday, July 13, 2007
This week, Neilson/NetRatings announced that website hits will no longer count towards the popularity of a website. Instead, the amount of time spent on a site, termed “Total Minutes” and “Total Sessions”, will be analyzed to determine rank. Why the switch? Many sites now use technologies like online video and programming languages like Ajax, which require a visitor to spend more time on a site in order for their visit to count. Neilson is of course not the first to recognize time as a factor. Hitwise and comScore have long been measuring it along with page views and others. comScore spokesperson, Andrew Lipsman, explained, We have a host of metrics, and you can theoretically rank on any one of them. It’s just important to examine the space that you’re looking at and maybe determine what the most appropriate metric to use would be. That makes sense, and I am not the only one who seems to agree. Online advertising experts quoted in Louis Hau’s Forbes article voiced their concern about Neilson’s bold move citing that while more than just page views are relevant for Web 2.0, it is not to say that the measurement is all together irrelevant. Hau goes on to address the growth of the online advertising space (up 28% from last year), but reminds us that it is still just 6% of the entire industry. Not surprisingly, our eyes on the Internet are more easily monitored than for any other medium and it might take years to sort through all the available data and figure out what metrics are truly valid. In the midst of all this talk about advertising, PR is inadvertently part of the dialogue. We also need to know the popularity of a site, just as we need to know the circulation of a print publication. A distinct science for this is still clearly in the making. In the meantime, we are advancing in our knowledge of reaching an audience online. In our world, we would argue that page views, for example, still hold a lot of merit as reading a blog or a 500 word article can take no time at all. Labels: advertising, Internet, Marketing, pr, Public Relations, Web 2.0
An Explosion of Faces
Friday, July 06, 2007
After allowing any type of email to be used for an account last Fall, Facebook was able to truly capitalize on the success of its industry. This week, news from comScore indicated an 89% growth in unique visits to the site from May 2006 to May 2007. The numbers get more interesting when examining the age range of the visitors, the majority of which falls outside of the 18-24 range. Underage teenage traffic rose by 149% and the 25-34 range by 181%. The most surprising is the jump for those older, which was tallied at 98%. So what does this mean? For starters, it’s fair to say that this phenomenon is no longer a trend. With the late adopters getting on board, social networks are being sown into the fabric of communications. Love it or hate it, if you’re not on the boat, you run the risk of losing touch. On the marketing side, it is still fuzzy how we can use Facebook. For example, promoting on MySpace is a no brainer with tons of its pages devoted to movies, characters and celebrities. Facebook, though, does not allow you to view a profile in the same way and all the poking and messaging makes it more difficult to draw people into a profile that is not for an actual long lost friend. The opportunity, I am sure, will present itself eventually and when it does, it can hold more potential due to the vast age range of people signing up for Facebook. Labels: Marketing, Myspace, Public Relations, Web 2.0
i want an iPhone
Friday, June 29, 2007
But not as bad as some, apparently. In NYC, people were lining up as early as Monday morning for the Friday debut of the iPhone in stores. I understand the anticipation, the excitement, and the sheer want of having a new gadget, but it makes me wonder: How can someone sit outside on a New York City street for 5 whole days? Never mind that this week, there were thunderstorms coupled with hot and unbearably humid weather. I hope the iPhone meets these people’s expectations. The propensity of it not meeting expectations, of course, is unlikely. Read any review on the phone, and you will find yourself in the mind of a child in a candy story. CNET reviewers, New York Times’ David Pogue, and Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg all hail the phone to be the greatest thing since sliced bread – or maybe the iPod – while glossing over some of the limitations AT&T, its sole service provider, creates. The utter mania the iPhone has generated reminds me of a time before anything “i”. It all began with iMacs, which came onto the scene when computers were purely functional and void of any artistic characteristics. Its cuteness led us to look at our desktops as decoration or “computer couture”, as my fiancé, the IT guy, calls it. Then came the iPod, which completely revolutionized the way we experience music and so reason would suggest that the iPhone possesses huge potential. The success of Apple’s technologies is of course two fold. It was not only due to great design, but also to fantastic marketing. The build-up for the products is managed just right, the news touches upon all the desired messages and the advertising is right on point. I couldn’t have imagined the iPod experience better than it is portrayed in its ads and the Mac vs. PC commercials created the personalities we will forever attribute to the brands. But while Apple is the frontrunner, articles on the wireless industry reveal a grim reality. Take Marty Graham’s article in Wired. In it, Marty talks to seemingly clueless wireless service providers about their thoughts on the needs and wants of their customers. Brian Finnerty, Director of Device Development for Sprint Nextel, said: "What do customers want? We have no idea. As an industry, we're like robots -- we go toward the light and we pile up on it." What a sad state of affairs. Thank iGod for Apple. Labels: advertising, Apple, buzz, Marketing, Public Relations
The New Rules of Marketing & PR
Monday, May 14, 2007
David Meerman Scott just finished his new book, The New Rules of Marketing & PR. Connors (and HitTail) is one of the organizations he interviewed in the course of his research. We haven't read the book yet, but we have one on order. Can't wait. Yes, Connors Communications is partcipating in re-writing the rules of marketing and public relations.Labels: Marketing, PR firm, PR firms, Public Relations
 |
