The 'Edelman Trust barameter' is an interesting one. When people purchase something online (e.g. from Amazon) many take notice of the comments left and the rating each book/product has been given. They even have an opportunity to see what other products people where interested in when looking for reviews of product they were initially looking for…

Comments/ratings/other products viewed etc are all valid even though people don't know the Commentors from Adam or Eve.

Subjective opinion? Definately! And these types of 'opinions' apply also to celebrities or even Marmite!

Your last paragraph stood out. But I don't believe that the only thing PR can hope to capitalise on is excellent customer service. I think it starts with excellent customer service, as you say, however, I think 'we' need to rethink our perceptions of Social Media – or what they're evolving into – as just another channel and see it more as an obligation to the people that want to have their views heard and acted upon accordingly.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think if 'we' didn't apply the traditional viewpoint to Social Media as just another way of reaching an audience but instead say that actually social media engagement is in fact an opportunity for the audience to have a direct line of communication with organisations and the people that work within them…

To answer your last question first, people have always been more influenced by their peers than any other source. The issue or PR is that the amount of peers people now have access to is increasing dramatically. The Edelman Trust barameter tells us every year that we most trust people like us. The question for PR is how do we define what people mean like people like us? It's not just a case of those people we know in real life, we make judgements on people in the media and about how like us they are, think of all those people who claim passionate hate or love for celebrities who they have never met. They form an image and make decision from what they see of them in the media.

Back to your first question, people are looking for answers. Think how many of your little trips on the internet start with a search page, I have heard a figure that 80% of all internet journeys (horrid phrase) start with search but I don't have the reference so lets take it with a pinch of salt. And I think they are looking to obtain information from a site that they think is trustworthy. For some they are outsourcing that trust check to google, a recent study showed that most British teenagers think that Google ranks on truthfulness.

Personally how I react to branded content depends greatly on my experience with the brand. I use a certain internet bank, which I have the warm fuzzies for due to the way they have treated me, so would trust its content. Another rather large sporting brand gave me a bad personal experience and so I'd distrust its content.

For other people it will be different. I think the harsh reality that we have to face as PRs is that the best PR a company can have is excellent customer service, if you have that at your core then it is easy to amplify and capatilise on both through traditional channels and newer ones.

Often people feel they are not being heard and hence a forum is a good place to sound off at anyone who will listen. In the past they were known as 'flame wars'.
There is a popular property forum which I write on and the owners said from the off it was about support and collaboration and slanging matches would not be tolerated, nor is any form of blatant advertising without any contribution to the knowledge bank, on the whole it has worked and people tend to apologise if they upset someone by tone or comment.
The lack of advertising banners winking away makes for a friendlier atmosphere too. But, long term, forums tend to be like new nightclubs-one opens up and everyone rushes to check it out, then it gradually dies down over time when the hyped up crowd go elsewhere.
Forums require more effort to keep going than most owners realise IMHO, and can die pretty quickly if not regularly used by posters and users.

“or possibly more accurately where the audience is looking for information.”

but what information do you think they are looking for and from whom are they looking to obtain information from?

In esscence, do you think that in a social media environment/platform/space the content that you consider putting there would influence people more than the content published by their peers?

If not, then let me put the question I posted at the end of my previous comment in a different way, how do you think the role of PR will evolve when 'people' are influenced more by what their peers think than by that of any other source?

Would be interested to hear what people think…

As always, happy to be challenged and educated…

Thank you. I think what's happening here is also being echoed in many, many conversations.

The paradigm shift in the way that organisations are having to change the way their promotional activities are huge. This is a subjective opinion, but I think that what we're experiencing is similar to when the 'printing press' was invented in the early – as up until that time control on what was written/distributed was 'controlled' only by monks or the monarchy!

Thanks for posting Rob

Again, thanks for taking the time to post I really empathise with you as this episode must have been a very trying and disappointing one. I certainly would've felt 'let down' by a colleague – if that had happened to me…

I think one of the points you've raised is a fundamental question that's on many business and organisations lips:

How can organisations using social media be seen to be doing so for 'the right reasons' – as defined by their customers/clients – current and prospective?

But also, people might ask 'why would people be immediately be suspicious if a person (not just one from a PR agency) connected/reached out to them on social media platforms? – Do you think it's what people are expecting based on passed experiences or is it more how it was done and what was written?

I found your following twitter post interesting:

“Everybody is talking about Porter Novelli but no-one is talking to us, pls send any questions – @us/DM/email & we'll answer 11:36 AM Dec 1st from TweetDeck”

Again, this I've found to be one of two re-occurring questions that many people ask, “How do I get involved in the conversation?” and “What should I do if people are talking about me but not to me?”

But I believe you've already answered the latter as we're having and have been 'talking' for a couple of days now – and there are many people interested in the conversation that is unfolding here…

In my humble opinion, the number of organisations 'doing it right' online are shadowed by the ones 'doing it errr … not so right'. Many organisations that either have internal or use external promotional functions are looking to see if there is a way of 'controlling the conversation' when in fact it's not possible – as this implies that the conversation can't possibly take place without 'us' being involved. However, the truth is – as you know – that the conversation will take place whether 'we're' involved in it or not!

I wrote the other day that 'Social Media is evolving… and the rest is up to us' which could have read 'Social Media is evolving… BUT the rest is up to us' – however before posting I changed it as the 'but' implied an element of control & I felt the 'and' was more appropriate as it represented an 'opportunity/obligation' (delete as appropriate) for us to 'add' to the conversation…

I think all outsourced resources, marketing, advertising and PR are having to re-address what they/we do and the way that they/we do it. It's a huge learning curve and the how-to 'book(s)' is/are being written as we go – as they are for organisations who don't outsource these functions…

But I'd be interested to hear how you think PR is evolving from using a traditional 'push' methodology to a more engaging 'pull'?

Why is that do you think? It sometimes seems that people who use 'forums' like to try and 'get one over' or 'out do' people on there, rather than collaborate?

Do you think it's how the forum has been set up i.e. 'it's how it's always been so people see it as acceptable behaviour' or is it a moderator issue?

Be interested to see what you think…

Thanks again for posting