The Post Institute

I was told at a meeting a few weeks back that I should teach a Learning Annex class on blog etiquette. I tell you this not to announce that I'm an expert on the subject, although not being an expert on the subject isn't going to stop me from writing this post; the problem within the problem, perhaps? No, I bring this up because while blogs have been in existence for over a decade, from PR standpoint we still don't know how to interact with them. At least I don't, and I have a blog of my own.

The Learning Annex class comment was made after the group told me about a situation that had come up in response to a press release they had sent out the week before. There was an explosion of posts and comments about the press release on a handful of music blogs, including one New York Times' writer's blog, and the organization had no idea how to respond, if at all. So many options!  Should they post a comment? Personally contact commenters involved in the discussion who had been affiliated with the organization? Initiate a private exchange with the bloggers "offline"? Send a formal statement? Find an editor figure to call? Write a blog post on their own site? Each response option had both potential positive and potential negative ramifications; worst, if the organization didn't respond at all, the bloggers would conclude they were oblivious or apathetic.  Or perhaps even more disastrous, the organization would respond and only prolong a debate that would have otherwise died of natural causes.

I wrote here about how Cleveland Orchestra Executive Director Gary Hanson (and/or his team) posted the same statement in the comment field of any blog that mentioned the Don Rosenberg firing. I won't get riled up about it again, but that is a classic example of realizing blogs are important but not knowing how to interact with the culture. In my experience, statements like his should be e mailed to bloggers in official press release or media alert form, just as Letters to the Editor or correction statements would be e mailed, mailed or faxed to the print media. Comments are a different beast entirely, as they are intended to be tailored responses to specifically address topics in an original post or a previous comment. On this blog, the best example of commenting I've received on a post was from the Detroit Symphony, whose website I was highly critical of. Rather than e mail me and ask what business I had critiquing the website they had just spent a good chunk of change on ("who asked you?"), their Director of Marketing, John O'Dell, simply commented for all to read, "'Rome was not built in a day.' Stay tuned." He acknowledged that he was aware his website was being discussed and alluded to future developments. Their website still gives me a headache, but I am extremely impressed by their public relations.

Readers may remember specific posts of mine that may have offended some organizations. It's true, I've gotten my fair share of angry personal e mails. These e mails frustrate me, but not because the blog or I am being criticized. Quite the opposite, actually: I wish readers with concerns or differences of opinion would publish their comments, just as I put my opinions out onto the interweb every week. Here are some of my responses. I've cut and pasted but removed names.

Dear Record Label,
The issues you raise are interesting and important, and your perspective is obviously well-earned and quite valued in the industry. That being the case, I'm disappointed you didn't submit your thoughts as a blog comment and have asked that I keep your e mail between us. Should you change your mind, I would be thrilled to post your note on the blog in whole or in part.

Dear Presenter,
...Also - if you want to post any of this e mail as a comment to the post, it can be totally anonymous; only I see the e mail addresses.

Dear Publicist,
Thanks for your note and your phone call, though I'm disappointed you didn't post your thoughts as a comment! The point of the blog is to spark discussion about "behind the scenes" PR topics that no one has wanted to talk about in public (ironically enough), and I'm certainly happy to be argued with. So please feel free to post your e mail in its entirety.

To date, no one who has sent an angry e mail has agreed to post their angry e mail as a comment. What then, I wonder, do they think is accomplished from just communicating with me? Will I be wounded, take the post down, alter my writing in some way? Nope, but I will most likely be extremely interested in the contrary opinion, as, I imagine, would other readers. The only thing I really do with these e mails is respond with what I've pasted above and then forward them to the ArtsJournal editor, Douglas McLennan. I feel that since he asked me to be on his site and hosts my ramblings, he has the right to know that some people out there are unhappy with said ramblings. While I always click 'send' worried he's going to kick me off ArtsJournal, he inevitably writes back something like, "Great! People are reading and care about what you're saying!" OK then.

This personal e mailing is not limited to negative correspondence. I receive positive comments a few times a week; not just "I like this blog" notes or whatever (which are lovely, and thank you for those), but actual constructive thoughts about posts and comments, sent just to me. When I suggest they post their thoughts--even post their thoughts anonymously!--they shy away. Again, I am so glad you're reading and caring, but what am I supposed to do with your e mail? Know you're smart? Tell a friend about the insightful e mail I received?

I'm not trying to discourage extra-cir-blog-ular (if that wasn't so awkward I would copyright it) personal interaction, here. I enjoy corresponding offline with bloggers I don't necessarily know personally, and it's always a treat to meet them face-to-face eventually. The same goes for readers: when San Francisco-based publicist Karen Ames organized our publicist summit (i.e. six bottles of wine) last spring, I was so thrilled when Maura Lafferty, Marketing and PR Coordinator at New Century Chamber Orchestra, came and introduced herself. "Oh! You comment on the blog all the time!" I said, all the while thinking, "I'm glad you're a real person and not just my sister writing in under a pseudonym to make me feel better about myself." This wasn't someone who had ever contacted me directly, but I recognized her from the comments she made in the public forum. Conversely, though, there are people who have contacted me directly, never having commented, and I've enjoyed getting to know them as well. But most of them commented to say hello, not to offer private content commentary. The third slice of this is talking to people I already know about what I've written in the blog, the most terrifying recent example of this being when I got coffee with an editor last month and he mentioned looking forward to seeing my haircut. So blogging has become a way - like various social networks - of updating acquaintances without actually updating them. 

Where does this off-the-record vs. on-the-record culture leave us? Is anything accomplished by an anonymous comment? I understand that sometimes people's jobs prohibit them from slapping their personal opinion in a blog comment field, but if readers don't know where a commenter is coming from, how much can they value his or her opinion? I could be commenting on my own posts, for all anyone knows! And if a discussion that was started in a public forum is made private, who benefits? Two people? What conversation could be sparked and what progress could be made if those private discussions were submitted for public consumption?

Alright: this post will either get a lot or zero comments.

Update 9/3, 9:31am: Since posting this entry, I've received four private e mails about it.  There is one public comment.