These comparative posts are often presented as PR vs. advertising as if the two were in a Thunderdome of marketing budgets. At their best, both disciplines are very powerful, and neither does the other’s job particularly well. The time to consider which practice to use is well before you hit budgeting — it’s when you identify the need. While both are effective means to influence public perception, the effects are not similar. You can see it pretty clearly for yourself in the story of how Santa Claus took his modern form.

Santa Claus — the large man with the snowy-white beard in a red suit that lives at the North Pole — is the result of two efforts to meet two distinct needs. The success in each resulted in a character with near global recognition and centuries of staying power.

The archetype of a solstice visitor bringing good cheer (in various forms and with various names) sprouted to help dispel the gloom of winter in the near arctic regions of western Europe. Some versions were children, some were religious, some were gift-givers. The need was not global agreement, but making the bleakest part of the year a bit more hopeful. You might call it a stretch to say Santa was a PR stunt, but none other than Martin Luther (who knew how to create a stir with the written word) co-opted the local and increasingly secular St. Nicholas traditions, celebrated earlier in December, to draw more attention to the feast that marked Jesus’ birth.

The beginnings of Santa Claus were grass roots, word of mouth, owned by the community and earned propagation by sharing value with the audience. It was passing ownership of ideas that enriched everyone. That sounds a lot like PR. As the stories ran into each other — particularly in America, where many traditions from around the world met and mingled — the stories adapted and the versions that best met the goal of keeping up holiday cheer continued.

Coca Cola had a different goal. The drink sold well in the summer when people were looking for refreshment, but in the colder weather, a hot cocoa sounded a whole lot more inviting. The company found its perfect seasonal counterpart in another white and red icon of good cheer. By investing heavily in tying its brand to a similarly bright and rosy Santa, the brand created a globally recognized version of the jolly old elf.

The advertising goal, connecting a product to the holiday season, required everyone to have the same associations with the season — a brute force tactic for a brute force need. A “Father Christmas” in his green robe (as was tradition in the British Isles) wouldn’t do because it was off-brand. Imagine Santa in an all-white robe. I can’t do it, but it’s certainly not less appropriate for a seasonal character that arrives with the snow. That’s how effective advertising can be in forcing an image into our collective heads.

So, as you consider your goals for 2012, consider Santa Claus regardless of the holidays you celebrate, and how you can best get your ideas spread around the world.

Before I started working at Matter Communications, social media was an up-and-coming medium. Facebook was still exclusive to college students and everyone was basing their friendships off MySpace’s top eight. Fast forward to 2011, and social media is a whole new ball game. For example,  I was scanning my Twitter feed today when I noticed that my colleague, Andrew Rodger, had posted an article from Forbes magazine regarding social media power influencers.

I instantly clicked and began reading all about these professionals who are using platforms such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, blogs and Google + to connect with the online world. The part that I found most interesting was that when the influencers were asked which platform they are most focused on, the answer was none. Instead they choose to focus on an integrated strategy that leverages content to connect with a variety of audiences.

The more I read through the article, the more I realized how social media has shaped my PR career over the past few years. When I first started at Matter, Facebook was the only program I was signed up for. I did not have a Twitter account and was also not interested in signing up for one. Today, I can’t imagine my life without it. I use Twitter to scan for breaking news stories and follow reporters. There have been many cases where reporters have tweeted about an article they are writing, and I’ve had an opportunity to pitch a client. Twitter is also a way for my clients to send their own news out. Whenever there is a big announcement, product launch or great article they appeared in, we tweet about it.

LinkedIn has also helped spread news for certain clients, while being a resource for others. Whenever I am assisting with award submissions or in need of a biography, I can look up my client’s LinkedIn page for their full background and develop a bio. Clients can then make a few quick edits or send their approval rather than starting from scratch.

It’s very interesting to see how much social media has grown and changed over the years. Do you find social media as useful as I do?  I know I love being able to log into the different accounts and have an infinite amount of information at my fingertips. Can’t wait to see what they come up with next! Tell me what you think.

I’m a fan of Wikipedia. There, I said it.

Despite all the controversy in recent years, when I want to get an unbiased, jargon-free description of what a company or individual does, I can often find it at Wikipedia which, while certainly not perfect, has really tightened up its standards of quality and objectivity.

Some of us in the PR business have even helped guide companies or individuals through the process of creating or editing Wikipedia pages.

Last week, many of us took notice when a U.K. PR agency was criticized for alleged “unethical” behavior when it made suspicious edits or additions to multiple Wikipedia pages for its clients. The firm denied it had done anything wrong, but the public backlash in the BBC and other outlets was unfortunate.

The fact that Wikipedia can be edited by just about anyone with an Internet connection, and the fact that it’s the sixth most popular site on the Web, makes it a tempting target to add lofty-sounding mission statements and superlatives.

In my opinion, a well-written Wikipedia article has three things:

1. An objective, concisely written 30,000 foot view of the company, where I learn what the company is about, major brands it’s associated with, where it’s headquartered, generally how big it is, etc. If it’s an individual, a fair description of why they’re notable and so on.

2. An accurate representation of “the good” as well as “the bad.” For example, if you read a Wikipedia article on “The Godfather” Michael Corleone, and it ran on and on about his charitable contributions and leadership qualities, but only made a passing reference to his being the head of a criminal organization, it would obviously set off a few alarms. The good and bad have to all be represented accurately, and I’ll draw my own conclusions from the whole picture.

3. A clearly written description of what the company or individual does. This is probably the hardest part and what generates a lot of the editing. The best articles make minimal use of words like “solutions” and “leading” and get straight to the point. A mish-mash of industry jargon and catch-phrases is going to be flagged.

I think it’s also helpful to keep in mind a June 2011 survey of Wikipedia editors by the Wikimedia Foundation, in which 53 percent of respondents said they edit Wikipedia because they find incomplete or biased articles.

The Wikipedia editing process is certainly tricky and controversial, but those who build a reputation for making fair and accurate edits will have more success as Wikipedia contributors in the long run.

Do you trust Wikipedia, or is it the Wild West of the information world?

For years it was called the B.O.D. or Building of Death by employees of the Clear Channel stations inside. An afternoon talk show host had adorned the seven floor office building with the name after the light tan façade had been painted charcoal black with purgatory grey accents, but the name stuck for a variety of reasons. As I pulled up in my rental car for the first time in six years, a smile crossed my face upon discovering that the entire edifice had been painted purgatory grey and this subtle change was just the beginning.

Armed with as many bags of Chick-fil-a as my arms could carry I walked into the WGST/GNN newsroom with my mentor and subtly greyer News Director Matt Cook and on the surface little had changed in the room since I had anchored and reported there a decade earlier. The news desks, carpet and news booth were frozen in time from the days when I’d open a newscast with the time and temperature, but the second I closed my eyes a different story unfolded. In that half second I noticed that the scanner noise that still haunts my dreams was gone and the room was exceptionally quite. The acrid smell of the running cart eraser could not penetrate the smell of chicken and biscuits because it just wasn’t there.

In the News Directors office I listened to him tell me that they didn’t need scanners anymore because the Twitter newsfeed from surrounding police, fire and EMS had principally replaced the need for them. The AP was important, but following other reporters and anchors on Facebook and Twitter also ensured that they had every morsel of information that the competition did.

The news staff of close to 25 people was now a meager six, two of them part-time. There was little opportunity for anchors to do interviews as each of them were cranking out newscasts for at least  three  or four stations scattered around the southeast.  The few times they reported live from the field, they employed 4G technology for crystal clear transmission back to the studio instead of using a giant bag phone or bringing a giant Yagi antenna with them.

The  former clutter of noise that used to fill that room was now replaced with digital white noise. Sans the bags filled with buttery biscuit goodness, how would a Public Relations professional cut through these new barriers? After we discussed ways to better use social media and technology to get on the radar of editors and reporters, one of the news anchors of the station poked his head in and thanked me repeatedly for making the effort of bringing food in and listening to him rant.  He went on about how everyone wanted something from him and it was nice that I would just introduce myself and want to get to know him.

I left the Building of Death with a most valuable piece of information that I will resolve to employ in 2012. Not the new social media channels for outreach (though important), but the reminder that in this New Year I can’t just ask and take from reporters and anchors (friends or otherwise). That as with any relationship there needs to be give with the take. I need to make time to chat and get to know those I work with before I can expect to take of their time. This sounds like a “duh” moment, but when you are juggling multiple projects with multiple clients and reporters are juggling multiple stories for multiple media outlets it is easy to let these simple, personal gestures disappear.

Having worked in public relations my entire career, I’d like to think I have my finger on the pulse of how and why people communicate. Like any PR professional, I spend a lot of time exploring emerging media and social networks to help our clients make informed choices on the best way to tell their story.

Yet in this age of multi-channel, fragmented media I still believe that sending a personalized letter or card in the mail is a great way to make a lasting impression.

To prove my point, think of the last time you received a correspondence by mail that wasn’t a bill, bank statement or promotional ploy to “Buy Now and Save Big.” Even if it’s been years I bet you can still remember how it made you feel. Do you remember the image, the text, the message? Perhaps you even saved the card or letter somewhere for safekeeping?

As the Holidays approach, I’ve been busy signing cards and stuffing and stamping envelopes. I actually enjoy the process because I believe this type of correspondence is much appreciated by the receiver and it also gives me time to reflect on the relationship I have with them.

In an age when all the talk is on one-to-one communications, personal branding and points of difference, I think businesses of every size can make a meaningful impact on those they care about by simply taking the time to send a note of thanks or card of goodwill.

And while I’m an advocate for sending more traditional tidings, I’m not naive to the fact that others will disagree with this approach as more and more businesses and consumers are flocking to text, video and e-mail to deliver their holiday cheer. I also can not ignore the fact that the U.S. Postal Service recently announced their plans to reduce services next Spring, so I’m left wondering if I am alone in my belief.

So in closing, I’m asking for your help!  Do you think that holiday greeting cards or personalized letters have become passé or do you still find joy in sending and receiving personalized snail mail? I’d love to get your thoughts!

And on behalf of myself and the entire team at Matter, I’d like to wish all our readers a healthy, happy new year!

Earlier this year, I blogged about who public relations professionals are, the many different roles we fill and my ongoing challenge to explain to family and friends what I actually day in and day out. It seems my relatives, though, aren’t the only ones struggling to understand the definition and purpose of public relations.

You may have heard by now that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) recently launched an initiative to “modernize the definition of public relations and increase its value.” The initiative, aptly named ‘Public Relations Defined,’ aims to re-define public relations with input from those of us in the industry.

As it turns out, PRSA last formally updated its definition of public relations in 1982. More recently, a new definition was proposed but never officially adopted:

Public Relations is the professional discipline that ethically fosters mutually beneficial relationships among social entities.

Pretty vague, if you ask me.

I’m not sure the heart and soul of PR has changed dramatically over the years, but the ways we communicate and execute successful campaigns sure have evolved. And with ever-changing technology, social media and the 24-hour news cycle, that evolution is continuing at a rapid pace. Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites not only provide new ways to communicate with reporters, consumers and other audiences and stakeholders, but their effective use is nearly required. Video news releases are in; faxed press releases are out. Public relations is now mobile, social, visual. It’s out of the box.

So, how do we incorporate all that public relations is and all that we do as public relations professionals into one clear and concise definition? Will the industry come up with a definition that will finally help us answer that nagging question about what do for a living? (Please, before I head home for the holidays and face the masses would be great!) Last week, PRSA released a “snapshot” of what the Public Relations Defined initiative has gathered so far. You can find the list of top words generated from the submissions here. Front-runners include, “organization,” “public,” “communication” and “relationships.”

What would you add? How do you define public relations? If you want to contribute your two cents to PRSA, today is the last day to submit ideas at PRDefinition.PRSA.org. Otherwise, stay tuned to the PRSA website next week, when the draft definitions will be published and voting begins.