The penny drops for Scoble

Looks like Robert Scoble Shel Israel is waking up to the fact that Edelman is not really a blogger just a big PR behemoth looking for some 'thought leadership' to monetize - Naked Conversations: Edelman--The Missing Linker.
Edelman talks the talk but as Scoble Shel Israel correctly points out (belatedly) he is a long way from walking the walk. Pity he and Shel Robert didn't catch-on before the book hit the decks. (Of course, as Robert, Shel and Richard all know the Edelman name will help sell copies)
Maybe Edelman's illustrious cluetrainer blog adviser, David Weinberger, could do a little more intensive education of his client over the hols.
PS I was looking forward to Edelman participating in Global PR Week 2.0 but I don't think he's interested in that sort of online collaboration.
If Edelman wants to be a blogger he has to do a little more than just do more linking he has to be a bit more supportive of the online PR blogging community. After all Richard, participating in the efforts of others to make PR more open through the use of social media is more valuable than just writing deathless prose about the need to reform PR.
PPS I came up against the same problem with Hill & Knowlton earlier in the year. These big PR corporates have a real problem with sharing the stage and that shows up in their 'blogging' efforts.

Update 1: Major league stuff-up I didn't read who posted the referred to piece on Naked Conversations and wrongly assumed it was Robert (as my 12 yr old says, assume makes an ass out of u and me)

Update 2: Have a look at Pubsub's recording of Edelman's outlinks. Game, set and match on Shel's point about his linking behaviour)

Tags: Scoble, scobleizer, Naked Conversations, Shel Israel, Edelman, PR, Public Relations, Global PR Blog Week

Comments

[Robert Scoble]

Um, that was Shel Israel who posted that. But, I agree. I can tell a lot about what kind of blogger someone is by their linking behavior.

[Trevor Cook]

Sorry, Robert. I read the maryann post and then stupidly assumed the next one was written by you too.

[shel israel]

Hi. My name is Shel. I'm the other guy.

[shel israel]

Oh, BTW, one other thing. Iw rote the Maryam post as well. I checked and sure enought, the signatures are up there for anyone to see.

[Trevor Cook]

This is what I get for blogging while eating some seasonal ham & eggs at the breakfast table

[Trevor Cook]

BTW - the bigger issue here is whether big PR companies can really embrace blogging as anything other than another product to sell to clients. If you look at active PR bloggers most of them are from small agencies or individuals. Steve Rubel recently tried to get the big agencies moving, but transformational change always comes from the perimeter never from the centre.

[Niall Cook]

I don't think that it's just big agencies that "have a real problem sharing the stage". You don't need to be a big agency to have a big ego. In fact, one could argue that the converse is true.

I would also like to think that we are proving perceptions like this wrong with our "blogging efforts". We're trying to be an active participant in the conversation. We're not going to change everyone's spots overnight, but at least we've giving it a go.

PS. The link to Global PR Blog Week 2.0 (which H&K actively participated in) is incorrect.

[Jeremy Pepper]

The whole thing seems odd to me. Edelman is the head of a large firm (largest independent), and he was one of the first CEOs to blog. That in itself is commendable.

But, Niall, what does actively particiated in really mean? If we are using the one post as a bar, heck, then Richard Edelman actively participated in the first one, where I interviewed him, and they participated in the second one, with another interview by Mark Rose. Taking time to be interviewed still seems participatory to me.

As for the Wiki, I think people sense a less than true altruism for the project. If one person wants to lead, it takes more than just posting one question and hoping people respond. Be proactive, more so than what is going on right now.

[Niall Cook]

Jeremy, I don't disagree about Edelman's participation. I'd like to think that our three articles constituted active participation.

[Piaras Kelly]

Re: Edelman's links - I disagree also. First off, there were people crying out that the majority of bloggers seem to just link to other bloggers or popular stories and hardly discuss it.

Now we have the case of Richard Edelman who constantly creates original content, but doesn't link. The argument sounds childish to me. I link to other sites, but I try to concentrate on creating new content rather than commenting on what someone else has said already. That's what comments on their blogs are for.

[richard edelman]

Trevor, I agree that I should have linked to Suw's blog. I also commit to including links in all of my content in 2006. Consider this a New Year's promise to the blogosphere and hold me accountable for getting it done. You are right--I should set an example of proper behavior, which is conversation, not preaching. Got it and thanks.

[Mark Rose]

Hi y'all. We haven't connected since PR Blog Week 2.0. Glad to see this discussion here, Richard's comment, and Richard's mention in his blog (with links back!). Basic axim of PR: Admit when you're wrong, rectify, move on. That's what Richard has done. Richard was open to doing a podcast in his NY office for the PR Blog Week 2.0 but our schedules were crazy at the time so it never happened. Hey, he runs a big, blobal PR agency - he has to be promotional. It's in his nature. But he does take chances being out there with a blog. By comparison, how many other CEOs of top agencies have consistently updated blogs? Most agency CEOs put out poorly disguised marketing reports obviously written by committee. Leads me to a question we might ask Richard: Does he write his own blog? Always? Or, does he have multiple personalities?