Amazon and Zappos, PR2.0?

Rich Becker has a thought-provoking post about the Amazon-Zappos handling of the news of their deal. CEO Jeff Bezos chose YouTube and Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh chose a blog post to break the $807 million* acquisition. He observes how both CEOs decided to handle the news-breaking themselves with the tools at hand - and distribute the information directly to their audiences.

I do wonder, where there any PR professionals involved? This is an important question, your ability to evolve your job may depend on it.

If business people decide that taking matters in their own hands is preferable to relying on mainstream media (maybe because the news in this case doesn't contain much detail, does it?), then what is the role of PR? Is it the follow up with news organizations *after* the release? Is it to research and know that detail?

The role of the public relations professional is also to help the business understand the needs of its publics. In this case, they might have suggested that a video of how Amazon got started and the simple principles that guide the organization (if that's what they were) might not provide enough information to any public - never mind Zappos employees who are now thinking about what's going to happen to them.

PR2.0 doesn't mean there is no thought put into who is affected by the news, how to inform them best, and how to help connect them with the news. Admittedly, Tony did a much better job. He answered the top three questions, and provided more detail around the agreement.

Bezos didn't fare so well. David Lidski live blogged his video at Fast Company, reminding us that the role of the reporter is that to remain skeptical and ask reality to explain itself.

If, as Rich suggests, this was an attempt at controlling the message, they probably got away with it. Newsrooms are not very crowded these days, and many reporters and journalists are asked to cover more ground with fewer resources. Where were the PR people?

Comments

[Marshall Sponder]

Good point - in cases like this, do we need PR? You've got 2 charismatic brands with CEO's that know what they want to say and how to say it.

[Rich Becker]

Valeria,

Thanks so much for carrying this conversation forward.

I have to admit, the more I think about the initial communication, the more confusing it becomes for me.

Today, I'm even less sure which audiences or publics they were trying to reach. While most speculators guessed they were trying to reach internal audiences, social media (alone) seems like an odd medium because touches significantly more people. (That, and I cannot fathom ever telling employees that they can read about news that impacts their lives, um, right after it's posted.)

I'm not the only one. Some people have since concluded it was intended for customers. Yet, most of the message does not really pertain to customers beyond two executives opening and closing chapters, respectively, in their lives. There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose, within the context. Beyond the context, there are some problems. And the one you point out is perfect.

Where was public relations in all of this? And why didn't any one of them advise that either we consider all publics equally important or we might be communicating that none of our publics are important. Like you and many of our respective colleagues, I think, I'm a proponent of considering and communicating to all publics as public relations is not merely media relations.

If, at the end of day, companies decide they communicate only to select publics, such as select customers, without any consideration of any other public, then where does that really leave the consumers? I suspect it would leave them reading messages that are more controlled than ever.

Sure, I'm not certain if these two companies intended to the control the message or not. It could very well be the opposite; however, despite intent, it seems to me the net result was a controlled message.

All my best,
Rich

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Marshall - we do. It's like asking do we really need Web analytics people when we can look at the reports ourselves? I agree that not all PR people are equal, but a business would need to have the sense of hiring the ones that help it understand the needs of its publics.

@Rich - it was not a well thought-out communication that was probably trying to reach too many audiences with differing needs in one shot. With social media public relations is even more about publics! Controlled messages are potentially irrelevant. Someone reached out to me and said I cannot assume no PR people were involved. If they were, oh my.

[Beth Harte]

Valeria, I have been chatting with Rich about this on his blog and I think my view is probably not the typical one...

I like what Tony/Jeff did, I like that they by-passed traditional media and published information that any constituent could see and make their own.

I learned about the deal on Twitter before the mainstream folks got their heads wrapped around it enough to write an article. I already had what I needed to know and to make a decision about the brand that I am loyal to (Amazon). As a consumer, I don't care that Tony's email was addressed to employees (actually, that gave me greater respect for him) or that Jeff did a video. As a marketer, I think what they did sets the bar high for the next CEO or PR person with a huge deal on their hands.

I am not a shareholder of Amazon and could care less about the financial dealings. I am, however, a customer and I do care if the service I receive is going to change due to the acquisition. From what I could see, all the mainstream information was about the deal...not about me as a customer. Again, where PR folks could take a lesson.

I think this is an example of PR 2.0 in action and, honestly, I think some of the mainstream media are miffed that they were by-passed. The Fast Company piece was a bit rude. He sounded ticked and bitter to me. When I first saw the piece I thought it was a joke because there was no author associated with it –- at least not that I could find at the time).

Did Zappos/Amazon control the message AND the medium? Sure they did! What’s wrong with that? Is it better to deal with the media, try to control our messaging/information and then hope & pray that the media gets it right AND without bias & speculation? Then if that’s not enough, we wait and hope our company was put in a good light and the correct information was shared. And when it wasn't we ran around explaining "what went wrong." At least now with some online publications we can make corrections in the comments. There used to be a time when the media was the 3rd party validation that companies needed...now we have customers and evangelists for that.

Should PR folks be worried? Yep, they should...because contrary to the belief that social media will take away their workload, it actually doubles it in some cases. In this case, Tony/Jeff selected a social media platform, so it’s incumbent on *them* to personally follow through and leave comments (perhaps a PR 2.0 pro might have suggested this wasn't the best use of their time?). PR people weren’t the spokespeople, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a job to do. The PR people should be monitoring all of the media outlets and blogs that captured this story; making a list of place for Tony/Jeff to comment (themselves!); analyzing each and every post and its comments for sentiment; track all social networks for pass-along, etc. This is time-consuming, hard work.

I don’t know Valeria...you tell me, am I off kilter here? We tell companies they need to directly focus on the customer, to be social, to listen, to engage. And when they do we beat them up for bypassing PR and the media... am I missing something?

[For those who don't know me, the last question was meant to be rhetorical. :)]

Beth Harte
Community Manager, MarketingProfs
@bethharte

[Valeria Maltoni]

Beth,

That covered only one channel. As an Amazon customer, feeling warm and fuzzy about the company's history didn't change anything for me - I use the site on the strength of its features and convenience. And yes, their customer service has been good on the one occasion I needed to connect with them.

I see both sides of the argument. And hey, if the services of PR are not needed, good for them. As an exceptionally good communicator (why be modest?) I can create plenty of situations where conversations are negotiated successfully for many publics. The reality of business, as laudable as these efforts are, is that management will not prioritize those communications when customers need them, only if it suits their purpose.

Public relations and communications work as two-way (or they should). Would there be taxation without representation, so to speak? Push without stewardship?

I don't see PR as merely an administrative or back office function. Because you know what would happen, don't you? I do and businesses that view PR professionals in this light are partly responsible for the proliferation of mismatched pitches and lack of conversation. Plus we go back to the idea that everyone can do marketing and PR who can talk and write - and we both know that is not the case.

As for Zappos, it will be interesting to see what happens next, in six months, etc. I've been involved in several M&As throughout my career and have not once found that culture can be bought. Change is a hard thing, even if you want it.

Am I missing something? Good thoughts!

[Beth Harte]

Valeria, as always you balance the conversation!

I absolutely believe that PR 2.0 will bring PR professionals back into a counsel seat versus the dreaded administrative or back-office function. Mainly because PR pros need to stop being the mouthpiece (especially in social media channels) and instead they need to focus on areas of data/analytics, trending, monitoring, connecting dots, etc. This is where the true PR pro will stand out. ;-)

"...management will not prioritize those communications when customers need them, only if it suits their purpose."

That is the danger of social media and PR 2.0! If management doesn't participate in a channel/method that *they* select, the next time out of the gate they might not fair as well (we've seen that all too often). As I said, Jeff and Tony should be joining each of the conversations on the platform *they* selected (i.e. social media). Conversations via social media fragment & they need to follow and participate in those fragmentations.

I, too, have been involved with M&As. Let's just say I don't believe everything I am told or I read. Time will tell.

Thanks Valeria!

[Steve Seager]

Great informative comments and some interesting issues raised.

Where were the PR people? A quick thought: "Both CEOs decided to handle the news-breaking themselves with the tools at hand - and distribute the information directly to their audiences." Hm.

Did Hsieh or Bezos actually say this? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any reference to them saying they alone were responsible for the choice. CEOs may lead an organisation but Hsieh and Bezos both have sizeable pr departments and senior counsel. Do we really think they operated in total isolation? Unilateral decisions?

Interesting as this discussion is, I would love to read more posts on what is right in the industry to help drive it forward rather than these issues highlighting cracks. I've tried, but there's not many around. Is it because it's easier to talk about what's wrong rather than what's right? Maybe we are guilty of too much negative spin on our own industry?

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Beth - thank you for coming back to the conversation. I couldn't agree more on PR people needing to lead where things may be going next - by counseling, being informed, and walking the talk. Time will indeed tell.

@Steve - wow, your first time here and you make a pretty large assumption. If you note on the post, I did ask the question if PR people were involved. I realize it's probably easier to scan posts and comments, esp. when lengthy... I have a whole category labeled PR on this blog. You're welcome to it any time. Problem is that people prefer to bitch on posts where they perceive there is no solution, than join the conversation where I make recommendations. Would love to hear your thoughts on what I can do to get a better conversation going on those posts. As a matter of record, in my day job I do practice what I preach :)