This is one of our central points in our spokesperson training and pretty much everything else we do in public relations. With social media, the rules are somewhat different – yes, its immediacy and “rawness” can make it more compelling and “real.” But the fact of the matter is that for us to truly appreciate, interpret and enter a story – whatever the channel – we do better when it tells us a story that is meaningful, engaging and within the narrative form. And we must believe that it is somehow authentic.

Tell me a story. And make it a good one.

Roger

I agree with your points. The first television personalities were radio broadcasters — Bob Hope, Milton Berle, etc. Most people do use the new tools in a way that is not natural to the characteristics of the new medium.

But, on the other hand, I think one of the compelling features of social media is the rawness of it. Not because making mistakes is somehow appealing; rather, it is paradoxically more authentic and believable than the major news services are — or should one say the news organizations run by the entertainment divisions? When credibility is an issue, an amateurish approach might be best. I believe this is especially true in parts of the world where the media is run by state entities.

Of course, if a company is to run a social media campaign, it should be done well. Rawness in that context is no advantage — especially when companies try to hide the truth or worse yet, fib.

I would be interested in your views on the effects of “buzz nets” on the impact of social media. I’m quite concerned. As a society, we expect glossy mistruths from official communication channels, but we’re not expecting our neighbors and friends to be paid sponsors.

Thane