Comments on: Top ten ways not to choose a social media consultant

By: Lucy Toman

Lucy Toman — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:12:18 +0000

I laughed out loud at number 4. It's serious point – when I go looking for help on social networking all I find is people talking about tools. Yeah, got a blog, got Twitter, got Facebook – so far so really obvious. Let's move the Web 2.0 discussion on from tools to talking.

By: Bill Sledzik

Bill Sledzik — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:35:36 +0000

I'm with you (and Richard) on No. 11. If you think this social media thing is "new," then you are either 1) under 30 or 2) completely unaware of what public relations is all about.

My thoughts on it here: http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/symmetrical-pr-meets-the-cluetrain-manifesto/

Thanks to Judy Gombita for pointing me to your post.

By: Will

Will — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:32:18 +0000

Completely and utterly agree - so much so that I think I wrote a similar post (only more semantics focused):

http://wannabeadman.blogspot.com/2008/12/semantics-recession-and-merging.html

Nice blog, btw.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:30:09 +0000

Goog list.
Would, also, like to add those who don't reference general ideas to case studies. They shouldn't mimmick others, but they should be able to demonstrate a broad knowledge of what others are doing.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:26:10 +0000

Like the list.

Would, also, like to add that they should reference certain ideas to case studies. Not to mimmick others, but that they have studied the work of others (and are, of course, creative in coming up their own ideas).

By: david brain

david brain — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:15:35 +0000

Halleluah to number 7 . . . .

By: Matt Anderson

Matt Anderson — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:52:47 +0000

I have always found that when I am looking for experts to work for me in certain areas of web 2.0, I put out a Twitter request.

The best will find you the others are simply in the dark...

By: Paul Seaman

Paul Seaman — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:36:35 +0000

I do hope you’ll allow me a second comment on your excellent post.

Modern (Web 2.0, online, digital) communication techniques do not substitute traditional ones; they complement them.

For instance, at my home, the TV, radio, email, SMS, IM, blogging, social networking, POTS and Skype are virtually going on at the same time. Each serves a different purpose.

Moreover, those who argue that online strategies must be nice, non-judgmental, and inclusive have got it wrong.

All meaningful relationships, like all brands of value, are exclusive. They have boundaries and values, which define and demarcate them and give them meaning. Identification with a brand – or a declaration of the status of a relationship – can be nothing but a judgmental action.

Nevertheless, niceness as a behavioural-trait can be maintained even in the midst of battle. That’s why British and German soldiers once played football together and sang Christmas Carols to each other during a lull in fighting one glorious and much-remembered Xmas during the First World War. But niceness should never be confused with affiliations, values, attachments or actions as such. What we seek to tap in to runs much deeper than that.

By: Richard Bailey

Richard Bailey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:21:05 +0000

Excellent. Number 11 is vital: it pretty well summarises all the preceding 10 points.

By: Paul Seaman

Paul Seaman — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:55:08 +0000

Dear Stuart,

Your ten points are sharp, very sharp. Experts in this field are experts are until somebody thinks up something new and shows us all how to make it work. PR is a creative art.

Point number 11 is spot on (but, then, so are most of the others)

I was not sure before what to make of your blog. Now I am a fan. You bring depth and insight to the table.