When I signed up for Content Marketing World this past September, I didn’t know what to expect. But the conference was up the road in Cleveland, so I took a shot. Still, I was leery of this “content marketing” thing. I don’t live in that world.
Or do I? After one day at CMW, I posted this Facebook update:
OK, it took me more than a few days to write the post. But I stand by the conclusion: Content Marketing and Public Relations are pretty much the same thing. Nearly everything the content marketers presented at CMW2011 involved PR tasks or related functions. Granted, the primary focus of CMW is sales and marketing. But the content marketers who presented clearly understand that winning customer loyalty means build lasting relationships.
They begin the process by telling compelling stories — through their content.
Can you say, “That’s PR”?
We all get it now. We’ve been talking the authenticity game for 6-7 years in social media — 12 years if go back to Cluetrain. These themes are part of every conference across our disciplines: connect, listen, engage, adapt. Earn trust and loyalty and selling takes care of itself.
Content marketing is about building these philosophies into the messages. But unlike PR, it relies little, if at all, on third-party media. No one at CMW was interested in “pitching stories” to mainstream gatekeepers.
So what exactly IS content marketing? Joe Pulizzi, founder of the Content Marketing Institute and conference sponsor, defines it this way:
Joe Pulizzi
Content marketing is a marketing technique of creating and distributing relevant and valuable content to attract, acquire, and engage a clearly defined and understood target audience – with the objective of driving profitable customer action.
Do you see PR in that definition? I sure do. Joe gives it a different label. But so what?
A PR purist probably wouldn’t mention the “P” word (profit) in the definition. After all, PR rises above marketing, right? It strives to “build relationships” with the idea that profits and cost savings will follow.
Good thing we’re not that naive, huh? Because if those relationships we build don’t drive bottom line results — our clients don’t fund them. So the idea that PR should somehow remain apart from the “sell” side of marketing isn’t practical anymore. I say this having been one of those PR purists for 25 years. Content marketing is integrated communication, and PR must be part of that integration.
Regular readers — if I have any left — likely fainted after that last paragraph. Yes, I am undergoing a metamorphosis. I’m moving into the “integrated communication” camp, and I’m ready to bulldoze the silos that separate us from marketing communication. It’s no big deal, honest. As our communication moves increasingly toward interactive networks, transparency and authenticity become imperative. There’s no more smoke and mirrors. Those “Naked Conversations” that Scoble & Israel wrote about in 2006 dominate our world.
Call it PR. Call it marketing. It doesn’t matter.
We’re all storytellers with a purpose. More on that in my next post.
Bonus coverage: A bit more on CMW2011
I loved this conference, and plan to attend in 2012 in Columbus. I’m glad Joe is keeping it close to home. Ohio can use the revenue!
A couple more observations are in order for those thinking of attending.
- Content marketing is everyone’s business. I met one guy whose company sells corrugated packaging. Cardboard boxes with fancy printing! He wanted to learn about social media in B2B environments. I also met business development specialists for law and accounting firms, both seeking new ways to build reputation and attract business using social media and digital content. Then there was the guy trying to reposition a trucking company. It was a weird mix, but a good kind of weird.
- Stellar Keynoters. CMW served up two of the best keynoters I’ve ever heard at any conference. David Meerman Scott has been a leader in the space for long time. And how can you now love Sally Hogshead, who insists on knowing my “F Score.” I love it when keynoters talk dirty to me
David presented the concepts from his latest book, “Real-Time Marketing & PR,” while Sally focused on her outstanding book “Fascinate” (thus the “F”). Two substantive speakers with two substantive books, both required reading in my graduate-level PR classes. - Where’s the ethics component? I’ll offer one criticism of the CMW2011 program, and that’s the absence discussions about ethics. Every speakers I heard presented innovative and usable ideas. But I didn’t hear one address the ethical dilemmas that emerge when launching any social media program. How do you maintain transparency? How do you face down a client who insists on stretching the story or quashing critical viewpoints?
Well, yeah. The only distinction I see is that a lot of PR does pitch, Press releases, collateral materials, even events are designed to get across our message. Content marketing (or brand journalism) doesn’t pitch anything. It’s just interesting, useful, informative and/or entertaining content that people will want to share and talk about. Good examples are over at The Network, the social newsroom/content marketing portal for Cisco, which has contracted with third-party journalists to write stories like “Crowdfunding: Finance in the Facebook Era,” by Amy Cortese, The article doesn’t mention Cisco once, but the concept is one that is possible only with sophisticated networks that Cisco’s products make possible. It reinforces the company’s business and gets people talking about another use of the network. And, of course, Cisco provided it, which adds brand recognition to really interesting content.
Is that PR? That, I suppose, depends on your definition. If it’s managing relationships with key audiences, telling your organization’s story and building understanding for your organization’s place in the marketplace, it sure is.
Honored you dropped by, Shel. And great to hear from you.
You’re right. It does depend on how one chooses to define PR — and I think you and I both have chosen to do this rather broadly. It’s communication, it serves the stakeholder, it builds relationships, it drives organizational success. And it doesn’t have to be “marketing,” but I’m done fighting over what to call it.
Brand journalism doesn’t replace the “watchdog media.” But it does bring great value to consumers and clients alike. We simply have to be vigilant about transparency. A greater concern for me is how established journalism schools, like the one issuing my paycheck, will adapt to this “brand journalism” idea. And adapt they must. Or die.
I hope to lay out my vision for “the new journalism school” in my next post.
Bill, I agree wholeheartedly on all points! And, you’re better than me because I never did end up blogging about the conference despite its great thought-provoking content.
I’m speaking to Michele’s class tonight, so maybe I’ll see you in Franklin?
I thought of you when I wrote this post, Christina. You were one person a spoke to at CMW2011 who might differentiate between PR and Marketing. You were in my classes back when I was a purist
Content marketing IS PR! I just finished chapter seven of David Meerman Scott’s The New Rules of Marketing & PR. The entire chapter defines content as PR. Instead of crafting releases and messages for journalists, we write for consumer audiences directly. We use keywords to make them searchable online, and we link back to our website or social media forums to drive traffic. Content driven releases/messages reach consumers directly because they aren’t searching through the newspaper. They’re already looking for the content we have. Why wouldn’t we want our consumers or people who are interested in our products/services to find us?
I’m not saying the traditional release is dead. It’s a tool to spread the message, and it’s still needed to gain coverage and inform those that aren’t aware or interested in what we’re doing, but it’s not needed for those already searching for us. Granted, credibility is lost when we’re writing our own content, but it’s likely that readers already know our brand. (We know our audience if we’re writing for them, right?) Like you said, Bill, transparency is becoming more important as mediums become more interactive and social.
As technology advances, so should the methods and tools PR folk use to get the message out. Whether we write for audiences directly or indirectly through a gatekeeper, the goal is still the same—increase sales. This is just an example of changing with the times.
Thanks, Sid. And yet another plug for David Meerman Scott’s fine work! I may have to hit him up for a share of the royalties!
Back when David first published “New Rules,” I wrote to him with a question about social-media news releases. I was concerned with his recommendation that we issue SMRs with frequency — even daily. Sure, it’s good for SEO, and it serves the passionate users who are seeking the content. But we then have to separate our SMR efforts from our pitches to journalists. Otherwise we overwhelm journalists and they become alienated.
But to your point: Does it matter? As time goes by, the influence of news media is continuing to slip. So, how much of our organization’s resources we want to expend on publicity that no one is reading? We now have entire generation of American who don’t read newspapers — online or offline. Are we wasting our time with yesterday’s communication channels?
In one of his books, I recall Mr. Scott saying that landing one’s story on Page One of a Google search is way more valuable than landing on Page One of the New York Times. I don’t know of a single PR professional anywhere who would argue that point today. Content that directly reaches and serves our stakeholders my be one of the purest forms of public relations and, er, marketing, too.