It is so fun to be snarky, and it is good for traffic... but unfortunately for all sides of a discussion the snarkiness can get in the way of listening to each other (and thus understanding each other).
I have run PR for companies, and I have been a journalist. And now-a-days I am a snarky blogger :-) So to some degree anyway I can see both sides of this debate.
The part of Stowe and company's complaint the rings true for me is that the press release is a shallow substitute for engaging in a conversation.
The part that makes sense about Phil's observations is that, with or without a conversation, there needs to be a mechanism for communicating information about anything being announced.
Here is my favorite latest example of solving the latter point:
http://www.apple.com/iphone
Did Apple need a press release to tell us all about the iphone? Would it have been effective? Did they need to blog about it? Would that have been effective? No to both.
What they needed was an in-depth multi-media website that talked about every aspect of their new product. That way customers, bloggers, and the press would all have a reliable resource to go to in trying to get answers about the new device.
So to restate the problem, why have a PRESS release? As a company, why not talk to EVERYONE -- customers, bloggers, press -- with the same voice? Why not make this voice a website that has as much depth as the announcement justifies? Then have a number of different channels for talking to customers, bloggers, and press about the announcement so that there can be clarifications, corrections, answers to unforseen questions, etc.
Why a press release? Among other reasons...
1. Satisfy regulatory requirements (I've posted detailed information on this: http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/the_sec_doesnt_think_the_press_release_is_dead/
2. Some announcements are hyper-local. A release to the local media gets the information out to the local populace in a way a multimedia website cannot.
3. To serve as the company's authoritative and official statement of record that can be submitted as evidence in a legal dispute.
Ultimately, the press release is a tool. Like any tool, it should be used only for the jobs for which it is best suited. But those jobs do exist and tossing it altogether removes a tool that can, in some cases, be the best one for that particular job.
Posted by: Shel Holtz | January 24, 2007 at 06:34 PM
"Did Apple need a press release to tell us all about the iphone? Would it have been effective? Did they need to blog about it? Would that have been effective? No to both."
Yes, to all *four* questions. Re: Apple and the iPhone, please dig a little deeper.
Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09iphone.html
Released the day of the announcement, this proves Shel's points.
It is a tool that serves a purpose. It has a place and a purpose in their total mix, along with their in-depth multi-media Web site.
Certainly, Apple also relishes the blog buzz, too. Apple recognizes that all of these strategies and tactics serve their integrated marketing communication plans.
Why else would Apple, the company you tout as so wise, have this site?
http://www.apple.com/pr/
Today it serves a purpose. It will tomorrow, too.
Posted by: Robert French | January 25, 2007 at 10:31 AM