I’ve always taken it that the phrase ‘social media release’ was really little more than a gimmick. What sensibly crafted, professionally displayed online press release does NOT have the capability of full sound and vision these days? But do they make it any more ‘social’?

My company, Press Dispensary, added multimedia to our releases several years before Todd’s phrase rang out, but we saw that as evolution, not a mutation that required a new name.

And I don’t quite get the use of the word ‘social’ in this context. Do photos and videos make a release more social, or is it just good content – in whatever medium – that socialises a release? A highly interesting or side-splittingly funny paragraph is naturally social, with or without other media.

The reason why I’m piping up here is that I have just a wee bit of concern about the phrase ‘social media’ when applied to releases: I have a suspicion that some members of the profession assume that somehow a ‘social media’ release is a tool specifically for ‘the social media’ (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn et al) while a text-only release isn’t. And although it’s true that photos in a release can also be displayed on (say) Flickr, and videos might also be displayed on YouTube, thereby increasing the number of channels to market, I’m not convinced they mean that a multimedia release is social while a text-only release isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong: I advocate additional media for our clients. I like those extra channels, and I also like the fact that we provide journalists, picture editors and bloggers with high-res, print ready images to make their lives easier and more fruitful. And I’ll use the phrase ‘social media release’ if I think that’s what my clients understand best. But I’m not convinced it’s right … and, more importantly, I’m concerned that it’s possibly becoming the Emperor’s new clothes in our business sector.

Rob Shepherd
Press Dispensary