tomtoronto.ca

In a recent discussion about reputation management in new media vs. traditional media, some interesting questions arose that I thought I would discuss here. Some people are skeptical about the importance of blogs, or individual stakeholders voicing their opinions online. They are especially skeptical when comparing the voice of a blog against the voice of the mainstream media. The central question here is always “why should we care what one blogger says?”

This debate stems from a shift in media, and in the way we gather information. The ideas of truth and authority have fundamentally changed from the way we used to treat them.

In the past, the mainstream media was viewed as the primary source of truth. The news, as reported by newspapers or television, was the authority on what was happening. There were a few different sources of information, but most of them stuck to a reasonable journalistic standard.

Fast forward to now; media is abundant and everywhere. Blogs are breaking news faster than traditional media, the 24/7 news cycle still isn’t enough for some, and everyone has access to their own personal soapbox.

It’s not that traditional media isn’t seen as a source of truth, or doesn’t have authority. People still trust the media giants for their news. I personally visit thestar.com and theglobeandmail.com just as frequently as I visit various other blogs and online information sources. And that’s the difference. The ideas of truth and authority have shifted from a few centralized sources of information to an unlimited amount of inputs. Truth is now a collection of information, and authority is now a relative scale.

People now draw their conclusions based upon their own personal collection of information sources. The newspapers, their favourite TV anchor, late night political shows like The Daily Show, Colbert, or The Hour, an industry blogger, a nut job blogger, company websites, facebook rumours, twitter feeds, and many more fragments of information all give their inputs. What the individual believes will be a pastiche of all the pieces they’ve collected.

Authority of one source is now relative to all the others. No one source is absolute. For example, the daily newspaper still holds authority as a trusted and reputable provider of facts. It may have a bigger say in the final belief of the individual, but it won’t have the only say. How much each input is valued is based entirely upon the individual. Some sources are trusted more than others, and this scale can vary completely from person to person.

Truth and authority have shifted from a focused stream coming from monolithic sources to a collection of fragments pieced together differently by each individual.

What does this mean for PR and for companies? I think it’s good news. Everybody can make their voice heard in the new media environment, including companies. Every company can – and should – tell their story directly to their stakeholders. It won’t be the only story the stakeholders hear, but neither will what anyone else is saying. The big mistake here is to stay silent. It’s an even bigger mistake to ignore the other stories being told.

People’s ideas or beliefs cannot be controlled. They can only be influenced, and they will be influenced. The only options for organizations are now to be a voice among the influences, or to stay out of the chorus completely.