I’ve been following along to the CASE Advance Annual Media Relations Professionals Conference at #CASEMRP the past few days and there has been some great dialogue; topics have ranged from digital media strategies, the need for external validation and “comment moderation and censorship” – an utterly ridiculous assertion – to the Washington Post requesting their writers to become more actively engaged with their readers in the comment section.

In fact, one of the more interesting ideas I heard was InsideHigherEd asking higher ed PR folks to encourage their local reporters to call them for perspective on their stories. I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I never thought to do that. Have you? It would certainly improve your stock value as a resource to both.

I did want to add a few comments on connecting with reporters through social media. The general consensus seemed to be that in terms of pitching, Twitter was the most viable platform, with G+ and Facebook trailing far behind if not DOA. (Of course, perhaps that was due to the fact I was following the conversation on Twitter.) Many tweeters were recommending the timely DM as the most effective practice.

I, for one, am not a fan of the DM. I don’t even like the Twitter direct pitch. Any and all success I’ve had generating stories through Twitter has been through the soft sell – building those old school relationships and letting reporters dig into my institution for themselves after I’ve built enough curiosity and good will. Maybe that’s too passive aggressive for the modern day PR/marketing hybrid, but that seems to work best for me.

How about your institution? What role do you think your communication team’s metrics plays in all this?

@MikeLesczinski