To clarify, Edward was NOT the prophet I was refuting. I agree with his statement. His comment reminded me that some others are suggesting a gate-wide-open mentality, which I disagree with. So I wanted to bring that up.

I’ll give a more general post on the topic some thought, but, to be honest, the message would be the same.

The reason a Domino’s executive made the plea is that it should have been made by an executive. I’d have recommended the same thing. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Domino’s internal PR people recommended the same thing. People would rather hear from the executive than the PR person in a situation like that. BUT, you’re crazy if you think that wasn’t a strategic decision or that the message wasn’t at least discussed ahead of time.

Thanks for sharing your insights, as always!

And what about competitive info, or negotiations behind the scenes? Some of this information maybe be “interesting” or “fun” for consumers and media to learn, but it also means the brand in question won’t be around long.

Public relations has always been about common sense. Anyone who is on either polar points of gatekeeper vs. foodgate isn’t using it.

I think you – and Heather and others commenting here – hit it on the head when we say that we have to do what we feel is in the best interests of our business, or our client. Being completely open and transparent may only be a recommended strategy for a fraction of companies – and rarely, if ever, for private companies. But ultimately it depends on one’s unique situation what they should do from a SM perspective.

It bears repeating again – social media is simply a tool in the PR person’s arsenal. It’s a means to an end. It’s not the end-all, be-all strategy. In the best cases, social media is part of a larger, integrated marketing strategy to advance a company and a brand. I think we find that the approach we take with social media is defined as much or more by the other components of the bigger picture as anything else.

@JasonSprenger

Yes – your post hit a nerve in me. Fortunately we have a lot of great new tools to work with to help our clients and companies get their messages out. It’s true we have to move faster than ever before to keep up with the speed of online conversation. The tones of the messages have changed as well, as we speak not only to journalists but to consumers as well. Thanks to the viral nature of the Internet, this means it’s more important than ever before to make sure the message is accurate and appropriate. That’s what my and my staff’s job is and hopefully the reporters we work hard to please will recognize that. We’ve never considered ourselves gatekeepers; rather we shape, refine and disseminate the most pertinent information to make it easier for anyone to deliver factual news to their readers or viewers. Recommending that a company throw caution to the wind without key messages or control creates a very dangerous opportunity for misinformation to be propelled across the Web.

The one thing I would also tell the coaches and teams that I represented is that yes, you do need to be as upfront and as honest as you can with a journalist. But that doesn’t mean you have to tell them everything you’ve ever learned, or everything that is currently going on with your team.

The same principles, I believe, apply for more corporate/agency PR settings. Give your users/consumers and journalists access, but don’t feel inclined to always give them every last bit of information that you have. Because you are definitely right, journalists don’t have your brand’s best interests in mind, and if you give them all the dirt, they are going to print it. As always, use a little bit of common sense. It works wonders.

@KeithTrivitt

PR academics want us to believe that main function of PR in an organisation, is serving societal interests, and making management to change so that these interests can be, in fact, served. Yea, I was very surprised myself, when I learned it.

PR is probably one of the most difficult to define professions out there. I don’t think there are any straightforward answers to your question, David. It really depends on the perspective, and probably the case too.