PR 101

I am refurbishing a typewriter that will be used during my daughter’s upcoming wedding. The typewriter will be used instead of a standard guest book. Rather than sign something, guests will type their best wishes for the bride and groom – if they remember how to use a typewriter.

As I was cleaning and oiling the machine, I realized there was a metaphorical relationship between social media and that typewriter.

The typewriter was my wife’s college machine. It is really nice Smith-Corona manual. For those of you who never used a typewriter, manual means that it’s not electric. The insides are quite elaborate and sophisticated. It takes a series of levers to move each key so the letter strikes the paper. This thing was state-of-the-art 40 years ago.

Today that state-of-the-art machine is viewed as a quant reminder of a bygone era. Sure some people still use typewriters, but some people still use candles. But just as almost no one relies on candles for their primary light source, almost no one uses a typewriter as their primary source of document production.

Computers have taken over almost completely from typewriters. It has changed the way things are done. I tried to type something on the typewriter yesterday. I found the way I think and formulate ideas has changed. My MacBook is much more efficient and a lot faster. No more using White out correction fluid to paint over mistakes.

Yet when the first word processors came along, there was a lot of a resistance. I worked in newsrooms then, a typewriter dense environment if there ever was one. The old reporters argued those word processors were just not as good or efficient as a typewriter. They were too complex, to prone to error and what would happen if the power went out? Better to stick with the Royal upright typewriters. Again an explanation – an upright typewriter looked like an upright piano.

A lot of people look at social media the same way as those old newsroom bulls looked at word processors. It is too complex, it will never work, why don’t we just stick with what has worked for the last 100 years.

The reasons why not are obvious. Social media works better.

The people who ran newsrooms had the foresight to realize that those word processors were the best choice. They saw they were more cost efficient. Sections of the old production processes could be eliminated, keeping costs down and the product competitive.

You know how most newsrooms got the old ones to accept the word processors? One day it was announced that new equipment was being brought into the newsroom. Anyone who wanted to could take their typewriter home at no charge. It was theirs to keep.

When everyone got in the next day, there were shiny new word processors sitting at each desk. A course in how to use them was given. It was a swim or sink move. It worked. It was a pretty painless change. The veterans realized the change was for the better and it was inevitable.

I think a lot of companies need to do the same thing. Instead of dithering about social media, they need to make the change. It will be for the better. And it is inevitable.

Yes, I know I am far from the first person to make the observation that social media is the best way for small business to market. But, Green Bay Packer President Mark Murphy drove the point Friday morning at a “Power Breakfast” sponsored by the Milwaukee Business Journal.

In giving a report on the state of one of the oldest franchises in the National Football League, Murphy stated the team was actively exploring using social media to stay in closer touch with its fan base.

At first, I was surprised. You have to understand there is no more fanatic fan base in all of sports than the Packer Nation. As a note, I am a proud member of that green and gold clad horde.

Before you start bringing up other teams and their fans, let me give you a few facts:

• According to the Packers’ website, the team has sold out 285 straight games at Lambeau Field – 269 regular season, 16 playoff – since 1959. Packer fans go to away games just to get a chance to see the team play in person.
• Heck, 20,000 or so people will show up to watch an outdoors practice.
• The Packers do not sell single game tickets. There is no need.
• Murphy said there are approximately 80,000 people on the season ticket waiting list. According to former Sports Illustrated writer Rick Reilly, an average of 70 people a year give up their tickets. Tickets are usually handed down through the generations. You do the math on how long it will take to cut that season ticket list down.

So, why would a team who is not just in touch with its fans, but seemingly joined at the hip with them, consider jumping into the social media pool? Because like any other small business, the team knows that it cannot rely on what has worked to keep working.

Yes, the Packers are small business in the NFL sense. Their home base is the 257^th largest city in the United States. Yes, they are the state of Wisconsin’s team. Even adding the people who live in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, those people in Northern Illinois who decide to root for the Pack and those from Iowa who aren’t Viking’s fans – the Packers have a potential fan base of around six or seven million people. I think there are that many people trying to get through New York City’s Lincoln tunnel on a Friday night.

Plus those fans are changing.

“My kids don’t read a newspaper,” Murphy noted. Most under 30s do not. So while the older of those in Packer nation still read print media, the younger do not Murphy clearly knows he needs to go where the fans are. For in this time of decreasing brand loyalty and fickle fans, no smart company is going to take anything for granted.

So rather than rely on Wisconsin’s newspapers and television stations, the team is turning to channels such as Facebook and Twitter.

There are several lessons to be learned, but I think the major one is that the Packers are being pre-emptive. They are morphing their marketing efforts before there’s a problem. It is a lesson all businesses should learn.

I was at lunch meeting the other day, listening to four representatives of the Milwaukee media discuss how they are now using social media a great deal. They all said Twitter is a good way to reach out to them, they all have presences on Facebook and how their blogs give them chances to do more in-depth writing.

As a note, the Southeastern Wisconsin Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America put on the panel discussion. I am a member of the Milwaukee-based chapter. I am also a member of the chapter’s Social Media Committee. Many of the chapter’s of the members are beginning to explore social media. A few, like me, have jumped in headfirst.

The presentations were well done. As I worked in the Milwaukee media market for two decades, I know those people. The panelists were from the local NBC affiliate, two local business publications and a completely on-line entertainment and music site.

However, as I sat and listened to my former colleagues, I was struck by something. Do we really need those outlets anymore? Do we need any media outlets anymore? Or has Social Media taken over completely?

For me, this was a very radical thought. I spent 26-years as a print reporter. I decided to be reporter when I was 12-years-old. That’s true. One night in the pre-cable television days, I saw a movie about newspapering called  “The Front Page.” It was original 1931 version starring Adolphe Menjou. I was hooked. I followed that path until seven years ago when I saw how the business I loved was sinking. That’s when I made the jump to marketing and public relations.

Now, I wonder more and more if we need the my old avocation. The television reporter made the argument that we do because we need someone to filter and interpret the news.

I know that a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum think there is come of big conspiracy to make the news favor a particular point of view. That’s what they hear when someone says “filter and interpret.” It’s not true.

All good reporters have a b.s monitor. When someone tells them something, they filter the information through that monitor. Many times, the needle points to the b.s side. Plus, any good reporter tries to put information into context. What does it mean when a government body announces cuts of $10 million to its budget. The reporter’s job is to provide a context, an interpretation, for that budget cut. How many jobs will be lost? What programs will get cut?

However, I am not sure that people want that service anymore. If someone who uses the Web, as the primary source of information is a fairly smart, they are going to check more than one source for their news. If you read two or three online reports, check the blogs and follow the Twitter feed, you can develop a pretty accurate picture of what is the real story.

I have often written about how social media is cutting out the need to advertise in the traditional ways. If the marketing program is implemented correctly, traditional media only has to be a small part of the effort.

Now, I wonder if the same thing is happening to news reporting. Twitter seems to be taking over the  “breaking news” reports that radio and television do. Bloggers are filling the gaps left by publications that have cut their staffs and space they devote to news. Sites such as the Huffington Post – which is both blog and news site – are now viewed as players in the media world. I don’t know about other such sites, but the Huffington Post staffs White House press conferences.  That’s acceptance.

There is nothing to indicate this trend is going to slow down. If anything, is it going accelerate. Maybe there will be a time in the near future when traditional media is no longer relevant.

This is one topic I really curious about what you all think. Please comment and let me know.