The model of “blogger relations” is one that is constantly evolving. I think that both sides are learning what works best for them.

Ideally, the relationship is symbiotic. We pitch, they write. Our clients are happy, their audience is happy.

I think that by bringing up alternative ways to engage bloggers shows a couple of issues at work. First is the blogger vs. journalist argument. Sponsored posts and such don’t work for the bloggers that are considered journalists. Being mindful of that, there are still creative ways to engage. Take the “media tour” of old. Instead of setting up in a metro daily’s conference room, we are bringing clients to coffee shops, neighborhood haunts and home offices to chat with this new era of influencer.

But there’s still room for the “traditional” model. Working with people who blog as part of a news reporting organization (news paper, online media etc…) The goal is to drive coverage for our clients while providing elements that are genuinely “newsworthy.” (what passes for newsworthy is another discussion) We can do so by engaging in a genuine conversation with our pub targets. My advice? I think a solid model looks something like this if you’re able to do it:

• Obviously knowing your target is job one. Make sure they’re appropriate. If you have doubts, imagine what they’ll feel.
• The difference between “please write about this” and “I would love to hear more about what you’re working on and how this can fit in” is huge.
• Keep the relationship professional. This is hard. We know when our reporters get married, get fired or get scooped. But I think it’s important to keep the focus on the client and what your outreach brings to the table.
• Be brief. Be right. Be gone. Keep your outreach focused and to the point.

So, what do you think? How is this model changing and how are we changing with it?

While at the recent BlogWorld Expo, I sat in on a session that proposed the creation of a network of blogs with content specific to the various products or services your client sells. Relevant key words in the blogs’ titles and content will help it rank so that it does not dilute the keywords in other articles.  The strategic use of keyword specific anchor text and linking structures will help as well.

Now, I’m not an SEO expert, but as a PR person, I see the many benefits to this. But there’s a side of me that asks, “Is this genuine?” There’s two sides to this. One of them is black, the other is white. So, I think it’s a gray hat strategy.

The Black Hat

From what I understand, the bad side of this comes in how the blogs are presented. If a network of blogs all have different designs, branding/names, domain registrations and IP addressees, then the assumption is that they are not related. But if all links and referrals point back to a single vendor, this is blatant link farming and search engines look at this extremely unfavorably.

This is a disingenuous method of boosting your page rank. And it does a dis-service to your readers. This will also, if identified by the search engines, end up hurting your ranking and site more as a result of being viewed as manipulative of the search engine results page.

The White Hat

Creating quality content is never a bad thing. But there’s a right way to do this. The theory is sound, but the practice needs to be executed properly.

If you keep the branding and disclose who runs the sites, then the benefits should still come. The underlying premise here is that the content is valuable. Provide information that helps guide a purchasing decision and that will help convert the traffic to revenue.

Technically, there’s more to good content than the words on a page. Ensuring that your site (or sites) is properly optimized with the appropriate links and anchor text, page structure (tagging, linking structure, focused keywords, etc.) and linking out to other quality content are just as important to helping your client’s blogs rank.

Sharing your content is where a different side of blogger outreach comes in to play. Spend time cultivating relationships with other bloggers and sites for content distribution and linking purposes, rather than develop this network artificially yourself. Develop authoritative sites that are on topic and link out to more sites than just your own.

So, in the end, it all comes back to “write quality content.” What do you think of this model, is it unethical? How would you improve upon this model?

~ Extra special thanks to Kristy Bolsinger for her help w/this post. Always good to have a fact checker

A variety of federal agencies exist to monitor the practices of these industries from FINRA, the SEC and even the ATF. But none of them seem to have kept up with the rapid evolution of public relations and corporate communications practices. In fact, the FINRA document regulating online marketing practices for financial services companies is nearly a decade old.

But some government agencies are making strides to enter the modern information age. The SEC recently hired Mark Story to help connect to the new media scene. And its recent launch of investor.gov, a microsite dedicated to protecting and engaging with investors, shows just how far its come.

But there’s still a huge gap between accepted best practices for the use of social media technologies and what the federal government says you can and can’t do. The confrontationalist side of me says, if there are no rules, how can you break them?

But that is a dangerous precedent to set. Instead, we must develop suond practices that help interact with the community, but protect the interests of a company’s investors.

My advice

My simple advice is to know the rules. Then, come as close to breaking them as you can.

For example, about two years ago, the SEC revised its rules regarding the release of material information to include the use of a corporate blog as a means to do releases. So, time to set up that blog network for your audience. I have yet to see a company completely turn off its use of a wire service, however.

Also, FINRA has proposed an update to its rules, which strike me as a bit much. What do you think?

My value add is this presentation. Some of the elements didn’t quite make it into the Slideshare, but they were hilarious. Thanks again to Mark and Shannon Paul for taking the time to do this panel with me.

Here’s the quick background: TechCrunch obtained multiple documents from an alleged hacker who had broken into Twitter employee’s email accounts, Google Documents (There’s a reason it’s not compliant, but that’s a different issue) and other documents and information. TechCrunch verified w/Twitter and its lawyers the accuracy of the documents and even interviewed them. Then they published some of the documents. They were even kind enough to redact personal information.

Journalism 101

From the days of muckraking and yellow journalism, obtained documents have been one of the best sources of great information for reporters. The methods and tactics used to acquire these documents range from the legal (Washington Public Records Act, Federal Freedom of Information Act) to the potentially unethical.

But here’s an important step that separates journalist from sensationalist: The journalist attempts to verify the information before publishing. The Sensationalist does not.

As a holder of an actual, real-life journalism degree, I sat through hours of press law and have filled out my fair share of information requests. I have also obtained information through anonymous sources or obtained information in other ways. And I used those documents. But after verifying on my own.

The right to publish

Now, the debate over whether or not TechCrunch should have published or not is broken into two parts:

• Is the information newsworthy?
• Is the information “off limits?”

The newsworthiness discussion is for another day. I am focused on the ethics involved in publishing the documents. TechCrunch absolutely acted within the boundaries of accepted journalistic ethics in publishing those documents. If it had simply published the entire .zip file without making an attempt to check facts or redact personal information, it would have been very out of line.

Instead, it looked for the information it deemed “newsworthy” and ran with it. To recap, it verified the information with Twitter, attempted to elicit on-the-record comment from Twitter and published the information that was applicable to the story it accompanied. TechCrunch even solicited comment from third-party companies named in the documents.

One could also make the argument that Ev and Biz and some of the Twitter team are “Limited Purpose Public Figures.” This means that some of their information is subject to federal and state open records laws and that their expectations of privacy are a bit different than the average citizen.

In this case, the combination of a good journalist and a good lawyer are difficult to beat.

Should they have published

Well, in my opinion yes and no. If TechCrunch wants to use this as a standard for applying journalistic ethics to its reporting (coverage?), then great. But the fact is that TechCrunch is a blog. Its writers express opinion and insert themselves into the stories they are writing. Independant sources are a rarity, as is interviews with the subjects they’re writing about.

I’ve written about the difference between blogger and journalist before, and I think it is completely applicable here. And this gets right to the heart of the debate. If the New York Times had published those documents, would we have even flinched?

I’m sure my opinion is different than some, so tell me what you think.