There are some common themes that keep popping up if one reads about PR and new technology, for example the idea that diverse audiences are organizing themselves into more powerful, collective entities, that ‘pull’ is increasingly important and that theory really ought to be revised for new communication channels (for example the ‘Grunigian view of modern PR’) .And of course it’s hard not to like the colorful Conversation Prism in spite of such insightful interpretations like ‘The art of conversation is mastered through both the practice of hearing and listening’.
Nevertheless, being more ‘bottom-up’ or cognizant of where relationships are actually happening online makes a great deal of sense (and is sincerity the same thing as earning credibility?) and if the Prism’s 'halos' contextualize the landscape and guide relevant dialogue, it’s a valuable aid to cut through the volume of noise being made by all those diverse publics.
“Are you talking to me?”
Interesting stuff. Brian Solis is clearly going for guru status. And the comments of his followers suggest his work is viewed uncritically. The maps are clearly useful in surveying the complete landscape of social media but seem somehow one dimensional. The missing element is how to test the degree of influence cast by a particular conversation. Brian writes that "the process of listening and observving will reveal the cultures of the very communities you may wish to engage." Sounds easy but try applying that test to the volume of anonymous comment left on web stories from political journalists. What do these often offensive comments tell us about public opinion? And how can the reader gain any real insight into the breadth and shape of the on-line audience?
ReplyDeleteGlobal Villager