Big blog kerfuffle over the social media press release.
Short story: Panel to discuss in San Francisco last week, including Shel Holtz and Chris Heuer. Stowe Boyd attends, writes critical post. Robert Scoble chimes in against press release. Lots of people comment.
As readers here know, I don’t have any problem with press releases, old or new format, as long as the PR people do the real job of crafting well written and newsworthy announcements without BS. The press release and other materials created for announcements are just the documentation of the story. They aren’t the story.
However, I do want to comment on one aspect of the linguistic nit-picking that has crept into this disagreement, and that is the word "audience." Just exactly what is so wrong about talking about the audience?
When we tell a story, whether to a friend, a colleague, a journalist or a neighbor, in person or on a blog, to one person or many, we should always think about them. What are they interested in, how will this story be more compelling to them, how can I make this a better story for the person/people who are listening, what parts of the story will make them want to participate, pass it on, and so on.
And guess what! Not all people are interested in all stories. Everyone doesn’t participate in every conversation, online or off. It helps us tell a better story when we think about the people who are most interested in it, and tell it for them. Telling it for them is what makes them want to chime in.
So, I suppose we could advise people to frame their stories, their blogs, their outreach to best reach "the people who are most interested in it." Or we could just get over ourselves and understand that "the people who are most interested in a story" are the audience for the story. Doesn’t mean they are passive. Doesn’t mean they don’t participate. Doesn’t mean we are simply talking to or at them, not with them. Doesn’t mean we aren’t part of our own audience — we are.
Just means they are the ones who care.