Open Collaboration and the Future of Public Relations

Jonny Bentwood, my colleague in the UK, has published a very thorough and provocative white paper on how to potentially define and measure "influence." The white paper was the byproduct of a meeting we held in New York with some of the industry's deepest thinkers. You can download it as a PDF, or simply peruse each section in HTML.

As Jonny says, this is not a fait accompli but a work in progress. You responded in kind. In the week since its release, many of you added valuable thoughts that will shape ours going forward. It's my hope that we can synthesize this discussion into applicable ideas we can incorporate in Edelman programs.

The release of this white paper, in a simplistic sense, illustrates what the web does best. It allows millions of connected citizens to come together as a global brain to solve problems, shape new ideas and above all spur collaborative action. The book Wikinomics, which I highly recommend, offers a lot of great examples and case studies. Doc Searls tackles a similar theme.

New communication technologies and channels grab all the headlines. However, what's far more important and meaningful (and a lot less ballyhooed) is how the web is allowing companies and stakeholders to produce outcomes that are to everyone's benefit. Dell's evolution over the past year is one great example.

That said, public relations is generally perceived as a communications discipline. We still put out lots of press releases and generate media coverage. But that's rapidly changing as the web allows us to increasingly facilitate open collaboration between a company and its customers. Richard Edelman, our CEO, has been at the forefront of this discussion. He advocates that companies take on big issues. And that's exactly what our agency is doing through initiatives like Good Purpose.

So does that mean media relations goes away in favor of new, more open approaches? Hardly. As Jonny and I wrote in the white paper's conclusion, public relations is flexible enough to cover it all. Arguably, PR programs can span two different continua. They can included tactics that are closed or open while being intended to spur communication or collaboration. The result is four quadrants, which mix together the old and the new....

1) Controlled Communication: One-way tactics such as TV advertising, online advertising and media relations that are great for branding and visibility, but are seldom collaborative. What's old still works.

2) Open Communication: Online initiatives, such as viral videos, that are designed to generate discussion, but not necessarily produce a shared outcome. Most corporate blogs are often up in this quadrant. The more collaborative blogs move "right"

3) Controlled Collaboration: Programs that facilitate participation but are more controlled, for example numerous efforts to solicit consumer generated ads

4) Open Collaboration: Win-win initiatives that open a dialogue toward reaching a broader goal. The American Express Member's Project is a great example.

What are your thoughts on this model? I'd be interested in your ideas on how this might be implemented in programs and measured - as well as any case studies on the right side quadrants. It's not perfect and it's theory. Help us move it into action.

Comments

[Valeria Maltoni]

My initial reaction (in addition to my Friday post) -- Commitment to follow-though is key in more open models like what you term controlled collaboration and conversational collaboration. I will have to dig into the American Express Members' Project -- I am a member and did not know about it ;-)

[hd-productions.biz]

I will definitely have a look at the whitepaper and see what interesting information is provided. I wonder how open collaboration works in terms of crisis management and damage limitation for PR companies.

[Amanda Chapel]

How 'bout more accurately, "Edelman Leaks Master Plan for Web Manipulation"? See http://tinyurl.com/2meeq5 .

Question is, are you folks makin' any money slinging that crap or is Richard still subsidizing the "revolution"? I suspect the latter.

- Amanda

[Julius]

I think the open approach should be introduced to any marketing activity. I work with and blog about events. I think that approaches such as Open Space Technology, Barcamps and Unconferences are quickly changing the scenario (for the better). In fact being open means to develop a particular science without leaving it to the hands of the few. In other words a collaborative approach decreases control preferring the power of content. Thanks for the great post Steve.

[Stefan]

Great document, Thank you!

I wrote about here: Social Media and the Future of Public Relations

I think there are many, especially small companies, who would love to see their PR up in the "green box". Maybe because they think "more collaboration" means more authentic-PR, possible with smaller budgets. But is it really cheaper? For sure, it is more challenging!Greetings from Santiago de Chile

[Lance Irby]

its likely the corp would be best served to elect initially controlled communication to frame the options available to the consumer.

[Shannon]

As a college student, I found this article really interesting. The idea of controlled collaboration and open collaboration working side-by-side with controlled and open communication makes sense and is something that college students should be thinking about. It opens up new dimensions of communication with the public that I wouldn't have thought of. I think this article was the best one I have read so far. Thanks Steve.

[E Gordon]

What is the point of the model?

Is it to predict something?

Is it to help us understand something that otherwise is difficult to understand?

Is to guide action?

2 x 2s are so alluring that we can't resist squeezing into them what doesn't really fit. We can't resist concocting two dimensions that yield quadrants we can label and in which we can find examples. But what is the point? Do we know something new? Do we predict something better?

What do we do with it?

[E Gordon]

What is the point of the model?

Is it to predict something?

Is it to help us understand something that otherwise is difficult to understand?

Is to guide action?

2 x 2s are so alluring that we can't resist squeezing into them what doesn't really fit. We can't resist concocting two dimensions that yield quadrants we can label and in which we can find examples. But what is the point? Do we know something new? Do we predict something better?

What do we do with it?

[Arthur Germain]

Steve,

I'm thinking that you're really wanting to model communication on the Y axis (closed vs. open) against medium on the X axis (controlled vs. uncontrolled). This method gives you quadrants that reflect news releases and TV programs (closed & controlled) versus f2f meetings and events (open & uncontrolled). Blogs with comments are controlled by the blogger (they happen in the blog medium) but not necessarily by topic (open & controlled). The last one is tougher, but let's use Karaoke as an example, you can sing it, hum it, scream it however you like (the medium -- singer--is uncontrolled) but you can't change the tune or lyrics (closed communications).

Anyway, thought-provoking post.ahg3

[coyotebear]

Now, I'm no PR professional, just a PR student.

But I'd sincerely wish for some comments on my thoughts on this topic as posted on Doc Searls' thread.

Thanks!