From PR to Social Media

Is Social Media destined to take over from traditional PR, as a primary means of raising awareness and engaging audiences?

It depends how you see PR’s role in the arts. To me, it’s not a major source of ticket sales. Of course, there are chains of influence in the marketing mix (we see maybe half a dozen influencers en route to buying a ticket) but I see PR generally as a small link compared to others.

There are examples – I’ve experienced them myself – of press having a significant effect on sales but they are rare and generally the coverage has to be massive, the sort that money can’t buy.

It’s especially the case when you’re a touring theatre promoter. Local and regional press has a minimal impact on ticket sales, and this is more and more the case as circulations and listening figures decline. Theatres are even relying on print and radio advertising a lot less now than they did a few years ago.

I have done many radio interviews over the years, and I always agree to do them although I know, from long experience, when a press officer says to me “it should really boost sales” I know it’s just not going to happen. When I hear the words “we’re running some competitions in the local press – that should really help”, I doubt the sanity (or at least experience) of the speaker. Local press just doesn’t work like that.

So, what value does this sort of PR have? If any, I’d say it’s in the areas of awareness-raising (that refuge of the charlatan marketing person) and audience engagement. Reviews, for instance, do sometimes influence people to attend an event, although it’s very seldom that they can open or close a show, even in the precarious West End. Their main value lies in helping keep audiences engaged with the art form.

I see things from both sides of the press desk, as both a marketing person who often does PR and as a reviewer/editor. Recently, I was hosted by the National Theatre on one night and was handing out the interval drinks myself the next. It can get a bit schizophrenic but I do get insights into both sides of the coin.

Without wanting to put PRs, journalists and myself out of work, I would suggest that social media has the potential to do what most press coverage does but better. Not yet but in time. If social media is about engagement, as we keep hearing, it has the added ingredient of interaction. That can make it much more powerful than traditional media, which hand down information and opinion (except perhaps for talk radio, which has never really been exploited for the arts the way it has for politics or gossip).

Online reviews can be something of a halfway house. The reviewer gets the ball rolling by expressing an opinion (which is all a review is) and readers have the chance to respond. Lively debates can result and the original review can help keep the discussion focused and more substantial than just the partial, un-thought-through public opinion which much forum debate is. People seem pretty fed-up with having opinion foisted on them without the opportunity to respond, so it’s a useful and interesting development.

Press coverage isn’t just reviews of course. What about interviews and features with practitioners and stars? These form a part of press coverage and there is some interest in them (I can tell you, because I know the stats well, people are a lot less interested in reading interviews than they are in reviews).

Stars could go online and enter into discussion with their fans directly but that might be dangerous and most prefer the buffer of a PR agent, so I can’t see it becoming widespread. Journalists are much more able to represent the artist’s background in a structured and thorough way than they can themselves, so it’s more difficult to argue against the intervention of a writer in this case.

And then there’s basic information-giving – listings and previews – which plays a small role. This sort of coverage is infinitely less important than other means of marketing and with companies able to disseminate information direct to customers through their own websites or other electronic means, the role of the press is diminished (although every little helps).

Do I really think that traditional PR will die away, as social media takes centrestage more and more? I don’t know. Certainly, arts criticism seems to be moving more towards a dilettante state as newspaper editors feel they can’t justify spending money on journalism which can be done in other ways. If PRs find it tough to justify their existence, then the media themselves struggle to see a return on investment in their arts coverage.

Personally, I’d hate to see an end to professional arts journalism. But it could happen. There will always be the need to put information out to the public but, with new technology, organisations can cut out the middle man. It just needs some adjustments in the way copy is presented.

What used to be promoter – journalist – public could become promoter – public / public – promoter, an ongoing and immediate dialogue that doesn’t need any intervention (or perhaps I should say person – person and back again, as people prefer not to deal with faceless organisations). The technology’s there and expertise is easily and quickly acquired.

Read my other thoughts on Digital Criticism here