[petercooper]

I don't know about impressed, but I'd say "pleased." It emphasizes the less-than-secret fact that there are fewer "gatekeepers" now and that serious PR is within the reach of more businesses than ever before. That's an awesome thing - never before has PR been so meritocratic.

[timf]

Interested in what you mean by 'meritocratic'. Do you mean that these gatekeeper super-nodes are usually talking about your work strictly because it's good/cool/useful/exciting? Serious question, that is the only way I could make sense of it.

I'm having trouble understanding how that would mean serious PR is within the reach of more businesses than ever? Or just more good/cool/useful/exciting businesses that deserve it, you are saying?

[petercooper]

I think there's more than one story in this article. Beyond the surface stories, it's demonstrated that PR professionals are no longer obligatory gatekeepers to the press (this was never strictly the case, but far more so than now). It even says as much:

For publicists, the era of e-mail, blogs and Twitter has the potential to turn the entire idea of P.R. professionals as gatekeepers on its head.

On page 2 there are several paragraphs emphasizing that self-PR is becoming popular and is even encouraged:

Some business people say that because journalists would rather hear stories directly from the entrepreneurs who are genuinely excited about their companies — rather than from publicists’ faking excitement — the role of publicists becomes less crucial.

That screams a more meritocratic environment to me. Less reliance on old-boys' networks and more possibilities to do your own PR.

By "meritocratic" I'm not referring to the optimal situation where the best businesses and ideas get the best coverage; that's impractical. Instead, I mean that if, as a developer/founder/partner/whatever, you knuckle down and learn PR for yourself, your success in getting coverage will correlate roughly to how well you do your PR. Back in the "old days" doing your own PR was almost unheard of and required having a significant number of contacts - lots of "old boys networks" and not meritocratic at all.

Pages 3 and 4 are a bit "dirtier" in the processes they expose and the fact that the publicist clearly leverages her contacts. The thing is, you wouldn't have even seen this info ten years ago - the guts of PR work were well hidden. Now almost anyone can replicate this stuff if they really want to and it's not even that hard.

[ojbyrne]

I can't even being to guess how you come to this conclusion, and the word "meritocratic" is, quite frankly, offensive.

[petercooper]

and the word "meritocratic" is, quite frankly, offensive.

That sort of off-the-hip response leaves nowhere to go with a civil and rational discussion. Bravo.

[ojbyrne]

Actually that's my point. I can't begin to grasp (though I welcome input) how your comment helps. Perhaps I spent too much time in essentially what is an anti-meritocracy that is PR in the valley. Unless of course, by "meritocracy" you mean hot women and open bars.

[petercooper]

I think we might have a different benchmark of meritocracy in this situation. I suspect you're thinking along the lines of coverage and interest being based on how good a company and its ideas are?

My idea of PR being more meritocratic than it once was is based on that it's now more easily possible to do your own PR and to get results based on your efforts. The more effort you put into your PR, the better the results. PR being no different to other disciplines (sales, marketing, development) in this case.

[ojbyrne]

I think I'm just more impatient. "More meritocratic" is probably true, but imho, it's a long way from ideal.