For years, big-name PR agencies — and sadly, most game publishers, movie studios, record labels, plywood manufacturers, etc. — have focused most or all of their publicity and marketing efforts on scoring the big kahuna: coverage, big or small, in top-tier media. A small column on the fifth page of USA Today‘s Money section was — and still is, to some extent — a glorious achievement, to be pursued at any expense.

Quick digression: the Internet’s been around for a while. I remember having a Geocities site back in 1997 or something. Since the birth of the hideous Dancing Baby there have been countless sites run by enthusiasts — for free, simply maintained out of love for the subject matter. You could say these guys were the low-fi ancestors of today’s blogging elite. There were chat rooms, message boards (BBS anyone?), and generally a ton of places where consumers gathered to learn about products, talk about them and share their love for them.

Is that really any different than the current situation?

Even today, a lot of — if not most — PR departments spend all of their time chasing rainbows with those top-tier outlets, sacrificing a huge potential audience. We’ve long been taught that, while quantity of coverage is important, the quality of that coverage is of the utmost importance. So let’s think about this for a second: if you’re a major player in your industry or have a truly exceptional new product, then it’s quite possible for you to get great placement and positive editorial tone — high-quality coverage. If you’re repping a company that doesn’t have those things — that could still be an excellent company with a tremendous product, but one which may not be interesting to the mainstream audience — you’re going to be in for a tough climb to get to the peak of media notability. I’m currently focusing a lot of my time on GOG.com, which is in just that sort of situation: it offers an amazing product — a slick website, a great offering of games for a particular audience, and a fairly revolutionary outlook on digital distribution (DRM-free and all that jazz). However, can we really compete for media coverage with companies like Activision, with their billion-dollar-and-then-some revenue?

So what do you do? Well, back in the day we’d focus heavily on enthusiast media, and that’s definitely still the case today. You’ll always have better luck with journalists who are active in the industry in which you’re operating. But even back when I first got into the PR game with BioWare — at a time when the company was still working hard to make a name for itself — in 2000 or so, I realized that we could work with the websites and other outlets that didn’t necessarily get a million hits a month — the ones that were usually overlooked by bigger companies and agencies — to not only secure a significant amount of coverage, but also to ensure that coverage was incredibly positive.

You see, people who aren’t used to being treated as “special” — and no, I’m not talking about that kind of special — appreciate the effort that much more. I’ve long believed that, through personal attention and caring about everyone’s needs and desires, you can effectively create a massive network of evangelists to help spread the word about your products. This general concept birthed “viral marketing,” which became a big bullet point on big agencies’ service offerings a few years ago when YouTube rose to prominence and when ilovebees put Halo on the map.

Even then, a lot of marketers didn’t catch on. They pushed out some half-assed attempts at engaging fans on a more individual level. And they still spent most of their time chasing the holy grails of coverage — magazine covers and whatnot. Don’t get me wrong — that coverage is still important. But should you sacrifice close interaction with your most vocal supporters — the people who pay for your products, love them and are loyal to your company?

With the recent rise of Twitter and Facebook and other forms of social media, once again companies are hopping on the “individual people are awesome” bandwagon. They still don’t “get it,” though, and spend most of their time simply pushing info to consumers without realizing that it’s a two-way road. Check out this short post by Derek Sivers about companies’ inability to use social media effectively, equating a bad date with many companies’ social media policies. Get with the program, folks — people (as opposed to media) have always been the primary influencers. When Jimmy started his Geocities site in 1997, the 20 people who visited his site were still there to hear what he had to say. When I hopped on an IRC network in 1998 to talk about Diablo II, I was still talking to people who were passionate about the product and gaming in general. Social media has simply offered a handful of convenient and well-publicized places for individuals to convene in order to discuss their lives, their passions and their favorite products and companies.

“Public relations” isn’t “media relations,” folks. The definition of PR seems to have moved away from its literal meaning — relating to and interacting with the public. If I focus my attention on individuals — or any number of “second-tier” websites and blogs (or third-tier or fourth-tier or even the guy who only gets 3 hits a year) — I can reach a massive audience. Those individuals appreciate even a moment of your time — particularly if you’re working for a company they adore — and will become extensions of your PR efforts (not necessarily your media efforts, of course), telling their friends, Twitter followers, and everyone else about your company and its products. They want to help you succeed. Let them do that. It just takes a bit of your time.

I think the video offers a fascinating look at changes happening in the games industry due to the spread of gaming among the masses. A lot of interesting viewpoints are expressed by guys like Chris Taylor and Dave Perry and my old boss, Dr. Ray Muzyka, and really, I’m immensely excited about the future of games. I have so many ideas floating around in my head that could feasibly see the light of day given the many options available to prospective developers today. And I’m not very smart… just imagine what actual smart people could do with these options!

I understand the appeal of social gaming. I’ve played Farmville. Yeah, what? Wanna fight about it? So I’m a virtual farmer. I, like millions of others, have timed my day around my crops — “I’ll be drinking by 9, so I won’t be able to effectively tend to my raspberries.” It’s free, too, so it’s got that going for it.

I love small-scale games and indie projects. Tale of Tales’ horror game (?) The Path was one of the coolest experiences I’ve had on my PC in years. I’ve been playing Shadow Complex, OMFG. I have no beef with that stuff.

BUT! What bothers me is that a lot of people seem to be writing core games off entirely — like they’re some unwanted and shunned older child, just not as cute as the fresh newborn social baby. It’s like the PC Games Are RUINED thing all over again… finally we can take the spotlight off of of that argument. What this whole shift shows us isn’t that one medium is going to succeed over another, but that there are a lot of people who want to play games and they want to play them everywhere. As long as there’s an audience, companies will be there to deliver a product that fills the demand. In the case of big blockbuster games, there’s a huge audience out there, and it’s going to take a looooooong time (long) for those gamers’ tastes to shift so dramatically as to kill that market.

With the potential core gamer audience growing, pricing becomes an influential element in the gamer’s product of choice. Can $60 games succeed in a world where gamers can get a longer-lasting game for free online? At $30 or even $20 I know that I’d buy a lot more games just to try them out. I’d love to see someone try that. But shouldn’t we be looking at this all as a huge opportunity instead of the second coming of Pauly Shore? Armageddon is not here yet, folks.

It seems reasonable to believe that core gaming on the PC might actually thrive in this new market — social gaming acting as a gateway to more in-depth experiences, all just a click or two away from Mafia Wars. Mac gaming should be a big open door, with the strong brands and gaming appeal established by the iPhone and iPod. As an Xbox 360 connects to Facebook, it becomes a conduit between two completely viable gaming platforms.

With the creativity that exists in the world and the increasing power of tools made available to creators, gaming only stands to benefit from its status as the new hot-shot in the entertainment industry. We can make broad, sweeping epics and we can do minimalist projects that challenge the definition of the word “game.” Let’s ditch the end-of-the-world crap and embrace the fact that the future is full of possibility.

Get outta here, you greasy game journalist!

Frustration is a natural byproduct of a modern life — for a lot of us human existence in the 21st century is just an endless, stressful race to the top, and we’re bound to slip over the edge into complete batshit insanity once in a while. With so much going on, we’d go nuts even if we didn’t interact with the other lovely humans inhabiting the planet, but when someone else’s negligence, failure or general idiocy is the cause of your batshit insanity… well… things tend to get a bit heated. One of the first lessons we learn in business, though, is to not let one’s emotions take control; frustrated as you may be, you should be taking time to think about the long-term implications of any outburst. “Will this come back to bite me in the ass?” should be the first question out of your mouth… and if you’re asking yourself that question, you should probably sit on the email, phone call or bar-of-soap-in-a-tube-sock beatings.

So allow me to digress for a moment. Video game PR is a rare breed — up there with the film industry — in that PR reps largely control the media landscape. That’s no secret, of course; most reviews are based on game copies provided by publishers, preview opportunities are usually a valuable commodity exchanged for some sort of premium placement and are often subject to embargoes that help coverage fall in line with marketing efforts, and countless sites just re-post press releases verbatim. This is a gross generalization, I realize, as there are a lot of great sites and journalists out there that go the extra mile to generate original content that wasn’t pushed by a PR rep — coincidentally a lot of these guys came from a traditional journalism background. But largely it’s the publishers that determine where and when their games get coverage, and in almost all cases the coverage is closely controlled to be positive.

The seedy underbelly of the games industry exposes itself. When a journalist goes rebels and does something as recklessly disrespectful and anti-gaming as write a negative article about a game or publisher, a lot of PR reps and executives forget that golden rule and do something so unimaginably dumb in times of duress that I just can’t wrap my batshit insane head around it: they put that journalist on their blacklist. This list may not actually exist as such — I’d love to meet a PR rep ballsy enough to have a Games_PR_Blacklist.xls file on his or her desktop — but at the very least it’s a big mental note that said journalist is to never, ever (EVER) be treated like a real human being so long as he lives. Forget about review copies, forget about invites to the E3 demo, forget about the lavish press tour and accompanying open bar.

While not always the case, most blacklisting is decreed from high up in the corporate structure, not from the PR team. After all, it’s the PR team’s job to get as much coverage as possible — big, positive coverage, of course — while ensuring that journalists love them and their company/client. When your intimidating, power-tripping, fancy-car-driving boss comes running into your office yelling, “How the fuck did you let this happen?! You’ll pay for this!” after a not-so-flattering review, it might seem like an affront to common sense to look him in the eye and say, “you know, I worked really hard on this campaign, really respect my relationship with this journalist and feel he makes some good points about our shitty game, so please stay out of my business.” That’s really what the reaction should be, though.

It shouldn’t be a yes-sir-I-shall-do-my-job kind of thing — you, the PR rep, want this journalist to cover your games in the future, right? What if you leave the company? What if your boss gets fired and new management has a good relationship with that writer? Forever you’ll be the jackass PR rep that had to repeatedly respond to the journalist with something like, “we don’t have any review code available” or “your invite must have been lost in the mail.” A PR professional’s most valuable asset is the contact list (a nice rack doesn’t hurt, as evidenced by yours truly)… or rather the relationships with the people on that contact list, and that fact should always be in the back of your mind. Always.

Sure, it’d be nice if we could live in China — they have a national journalist blacklist… we wouldn’t have to do the dirty work ourselves, and the journalists could be mad at someone else when they’re denied a coverage opportunity. But if there’s anything to be learned from China (or Iran or any other communications-controlling nation) it’s that if there’s a message that needs to get out there, it’ll get out. Social media — rise of Facebook and Twitter, yadda yadda — has connected people in such a way that any sort of negative story will spread just as quickly or faster than a positive one. Blacklist a journalist — or better yet, an entire website (I’d link to examples, but I do have to make a living by pitching publishers) — and word is likely to get out. A writer will put up a blog post, he’ll link it on Twitter and within a day you’re on the front page at Kotaku and Joystiq and Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GameSetWatch and Fidgit and EVERYWHERE.

So blacklisting was a good idea, right? The PR rep sacrifices a relationship with a journalist; the PR rep hates his boss a bit more; the publisher no longer gets coverage on a major website; and potentially, if that journalist is just batshit insane enough, the blacklisting actually becomes a negative PR story of its own, far worse than a 6.5 out of 10 review of a game that was supposed to get 8s.

I’ve had to blacklist people in an agency capacity — it’s been a couple of years, but it’s happened. I fought it, trying valiantly to convey the notion that the writer really made valid points (sometimes you guys really don’t help with this, by the way — play the damn game!). Conveniently, it’s usually been at the request/demand of a single client, so I’ve been able to maintain my relationships with other products… it’s a nice little loophole that’s kept me from looking like an asshole and gaining more enemies than I really need. I’m sure I’ll have to refuse review copies at some point in the future because my client/employer doesn’t like a journalist or website… but damn, I’m scared of things coming back to bite me in the ass. Wired’s Chris Anderson famously hit back at inept PR reps by creating a blacklist of his own, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we’re just building up slowly to some sort of armageddon for games-industry PR pros, when journalists just band together and say, “we’re running the show now” and create some sprawling online PR-rep blacklist. They’ll block our email addresses, screen our calls and throw out our party invites. They’ll dictate the coverage, they’ll write negative previews before a game ships, they won’t post shitty screenshots and lame hype trailers. And the PR professionals of the world will sit there, scratching our heads, wondering how journalists could have become so frustrated with us.

Again, the question posed was, “In your experience, how has the emergence and growth of social media and social networking affected or changed the way companies interact with their customers?”

Stephanie Schopp:

Social media has changed customer interaction so much for the better! Speaking from my experience as a public relations professional in the digital media and interactive entertainment industries, my involvement on the two major social networks Twitter and Facebook revolves primarily around media relations, staying informed and building stronger relationships with associates.

Up until the time Twitter became popular, it seemed that the social network still kept communication with fans of a celebrity or product at an arm’s length – you could have “fan pages” but it was likely that someone else (a manager for a celebrity or hired marketing guns, for example) was managing one-way communication to the audience. It was yet another outlet (albeit a good one) to reach the target audience where they were hanging out – on social networks. But it still lacked the inherent personal touch that Twitter so capitalized on (in my opinion.)

With Twitter (as a customer) I feel more involved with the things (product, brand, game, celebrity) that I identify with – I can have actual interaction vs. merely identifying myself through various Facebook fan pages that place me in my preferred social groups/demographic.

For example, on Facebook, I’m a fan of The Daily Show, Arrested Development The Movie,  NY Times, Stardock’s Elemental video game and Chewbacca. From there you can easily see that I’m awesomely hilarious but a well-informed PC gaming space nerd. But my interaction with all of the above things stops there. I’m merely a member of those groups, I do not interact with them.

With the personal interaction on Twitter I debate various points or articles that the people I follow (primarily representatives of media outlets) post about, provide feedback for upcoming trend pieces and/or interact with fans of my client’s games. While I could potentially do these things on Facebook, Twitter seems so much more of an inviting medium to use: it’s in real time and discussions are concise and to the point. Unlike my answer to this question.

Making a brand more personal through social networks helps create stronger customer loyalty, which is something companies have always strived to do whether through advertising or a good PR program. Social networks have made this objective easier (and less expensive) to accomplish and drastically changed interaction – they are an incredibly valuable and powerful public relations and communications tool when managed effectively. I think that in the near future as this medium continues to evolve we’ll start to see more marketing budgets expand for social network management as part of an overall internal marketing or public relations strategy, rather than a one-off campaign (e.g. – hiring a consultant to create a MySpace page and build “friends” or contracting a “community manager” for certain projects.)

…Shit. Did I just talk my way out of a job?

Marty Kawa:

I’ve got a confession to make here. After going through the first part of the roundtable I feel a bit small, with all these awesome guys, their sleek style and well thought answers. It feels kind of weird when you have so many smart people around and then it’s your turn to add something interesting to the conversation.

A few years ago I was involved in the development of a turn-based strategy game. We started off with a seven-strong team and decided to conquer the world with our amazing product. Among other stuff I was also responsible for PR. Then I learned how much you can do being honest and how important it is just to talk. Back then I had serious problems with putting together a correct sentence in English, not to mention writing a press release. The only thing I was able to do was email journalists with my broken English saying that their help may make or break our game. You’d be surprised how supportive they were; I was offered help with editing of our press release and enjoyed coverage on almost every major gaming site around the world. Eventually the project was canceled, but one thing stayed in my mind – don’t send a press release and then follow-up; talk with the fellows on the other side of the fence and back it up with a solid release.

Thanks to tools like Twitter or Facebook we’re closer to other people — both media and end users — than ever, and that creates a unique opportunity to interact with them in an informal manner, and to create long-lasting relationships. I find it mind blowing that I’m able to exchange views on new releases with editors of the leading gaming outlets or discuss our products with gamers. What’s more important, it’s much easier now to spot new gaming websites and support them. As Guy Kawasaki once wrote: “nobodies are the new somebodies” and “it’s better to have army of committed nobodies and than a few drive-by somebodies.” I’d also add to this that you never know who’s going to be the next Kotaku, and any help offered to a gaming site in its embryonic state is greatly appreciated and allows it to expand. That gives us more opportunities to present our products to wider audiences and, on the other hand, allows the customer to make an informed buying decision.

The transparency that comes with social media may be frightening to some companies, and undoubtedly some of them would love to stay behind an invisible wall of press releases, contact forms and heavily moderated forums. However, I genuinely believe that an open discussion can create winners on both sides and it’s always worth talking. You know, we are people, too.

And yeah, shameless plug is unavoidable here, let’s talk: twitter.com/marty_k

Tom Ohle

How did I manage to make it all the way to the end of a two-part knowledge-trough on a site I started up without actually offering my own opinion? I should give lessons.

To the topic at hand: As Rob alluded to in Part 1, “social media” is today what “viral marketing” was two years ago — it’s just a matter of time before it starts appearing on every PR agency’s list of services (if it hasn’t already), and there are so few marketers that really understand it and know how to effective use it. At the height of its popularity, the term “viral marketing” was bastardized to essentially be the creation of a YouTube channel and a MySpace page — surely it would be enough to just toss out a few little morsels for fans to chomp on, and they’d offer their eternal devotion to your company or product.

That little — for the most part poorly executed — concept has morphed into something much more involving in the past two years — “social media” — but I think a lot of inexperienced (or inept) marketers still assume it’s enough to just create accounts on Facebook and Twitter, using them to push information to consumers. Sorry, I know they still assume that, because I have a ton of people following me on Twitter that do nothing by push their own agenda without reciprocal interaction. The reality is that a good social media campaign takes time; if you really want to build up a loyal fanbase that expands your brand visibility by passing the love along to their friends, you need to be in it for the long haul. You need to spend time every day for months (or years, I’m guessing — we’ll see), slowly building your “social” fanbase, and you have to engage them properly.

You need to use the tools at your disposal — the aforementioned Twitter and Facebook, as well as your own company message boards, external message boards, blogs, media outlets and anywhere else that people gather — to engage customers, potential customers and even detractors. I’ve long been a believer that every single person you deal with is a potential customer, and if you can convince one person to buy your product, you’ve spent your time well. Okay, so the math doesn’t always work out when we’re talking about $5.99 games, but you get the idea.

We have to spend so much more time listening to our customers. If someone talks shit about your product, don’t get upset — just respond and see if you can help them get over their problem. And if you give that one person a positive experience, you may have gained a new customer — or at least lost a detractor, and they might even tell their friends about it. It’s amazing what a personal touch will do to calm the raging fires inside some rabid jerk’s gut.

Until next time, keep fit and have fun.

While those numbers are important, the breathless reports have not accounted for what people do after they sign up for a Twitter account. Creating a Twitter account doesn’t equal becoming an uber-user, or even a casual user, of the micro-blogging site. Nielsen Online data released today suggest more than 60% of people who sign up for Twitter abandon the service.

Of course you can read the rest of the article, but the gist of it is that, according to a Nielsen Online study, only 40% of the people who post on Twitter this month will still be there next month. But… but… Oprah and Ellen and MC Hammer use Twitter. Surely Ashton Kutcher can’t be campaigning for global prominence on a service that can’t even keep an audience. That’s what you’d be saying if you’re one of those people who actually cares about celebrities and their one-way communication on Twitter.

But really, I don’t think this is an unexpected revelation. After all, it took me months to figure out what the hell Twitter was for. I had Facebook for status updates, AIM for chatting with friends and colleagues, and LinkedIn as a useful networking tool. And… well… uhh. I still don’t know what Twitter is for, but I know that I use it a lot more now, and I can more readily see the appeal. But Twitter’s usefulness isn’t immediately clear to the new user. If you don’t have followers and aren’t following anyone, it seems like a useless blog-to-myself app that has a ridiculously restrictive character limit.

I even went through a spell of following everyone who followed me, just so I could see my internet popularity soar to staggering new heights. And that may be another reason Twitter is seeing low retention rates: faceless marketers. For every two useful people I followed, I had about 10 guys (and gals) trying to tell me how I could gain 20,000 followers in just 30 days! My reach would be huge! Oh, what’s this? An endless supply of highly insightful and strangely irrelevant quotes from dead celebrities? Wonderful. Unfortunately it’s these “marketers” that do a lot of the outreach to new users. A total noob (yeah, I went there) might be thrilled to see 10 new followers in their first day, only to be completely put off by the flood of ridiculous marketing messages. At least I can bask in the fact that all of these marketers are hovering around the same follower numbers… leading me to believe that they’re all just following each other, sharing their own secrets to Twitter success with other secret-holders.

What about you? Did you immediately understand Twitter? Why do you think the site/service is having such a tough time retaining users? Are colored jeans from the 90s still fashionable?

But as with all formal business, why would you leave something to chance? With the unreliability of the ever-growing Twitter, is it really fair to assume that I’m going to get your DM for assets in a timely manner? Or am I being naive and thinking that I have a choice in the means of communication?

Twitter is starting to become one more thing journalists and PR people have to check for professional communications after we check MySpace, Facebook, email, AIM, and Voicemail. Is it a fair assumption that Twitter, with all its real-time carefree social glory, is yet another mandatory inbox?

I hope not.

This first piece won’t be quite as roundtabley as we’d like, since we’re still ironing out the process, but hopefully you’ll find some interesting thoughts in here anyway. Without further stalling, here’s the question posed, then hit the jump to hear the responses from luminaries Scott Steinberg, Sean Hollister, Douglass Perry and Rob Fleischer:

In your experience, how has the emergence and growth of social media and social networking affected or changed the way companies interact with their customers?

Scott Steinberg:

Simple – it’s changed the entire flow of conversation. Dialogue used to be a one-way street: Now the consumer’s become a critical part of an ongoing narrative. Moreover, it’s forced companies to abandon previous launch strategies, which oftentimes amounted to little more than “fire and forget.”

Control of the message and medium still remain in some part of the hands of the originator, at least at the outset. But thanks to social media and information’s unfettered ability to spread at a dizzying rate, in a flash, it’s possible to lose one’s grip on it. As such, marketing and PR have become much more of a service-oriented practice, and one that requires constant vigilance to stay on top of. Social media, social networking and consumers themselves have made it mandatory for communications professionals to tear down the wall separating them from end-users, be more transparent, and take an active role in any given exchange. It’s a beautiful thing too, as it’s high time everyone finally started putting themselves in the public’s shoes for once, began truly walking the walk and (gasp!) actually stood behind their product.

These days, any given product, service or brand has a lifecycle which literally evolves by the second – so too must the message and approach change and adapt in real-time to meet the needs and concerns of end-users. As such, the days of spin and thought control are quickly dwindling. Modern marketing and public relations professionals are quickly being forced to become more honest, open and forthright with the general public, and realize that relationship building and trust are paramount.

Sean Hollister:

On a technical level, our current social media only really do one thing worth mentioning. By providing ready-made online services, they allow companies to cheaply and easily disseminate information direct to their most interested customers, and in turn, enable those customers to get information about their interests direct from the source. In a nutshell, social media eliminate the middleman — whether he be journalist, advertiser or marketer — for any who decide to opt in.

But social media’s greatest strength is not in creating a more direct channel for information. Where social media have truly excelled — and where they hold the most promise — is in changing social norms about how, and what sorts of information can flow.

It is an established idea that a reputable company must maintain an unblemished public face; for this and other reasons, they maintain PR staff, build heavily monitored information channels, and distribute carefully worded press releases.

Problem is, real people don’t have unblemished faces. Customers don’t always appreciate corporate-speak and sweeping policy.

Now, social media have offered an intriguing way around the issue. Treat customers as individuals, yes, but also let those customers know your company as individuals, too. (Know @evolvetom, the Diesel-jeans-wearing, soccer-loving, sometimes-body-building kickboxer, not just Tom Ohle, VP of PR and Marketing at CD Projekt RED.)

Then, let those individuals say genuine things about your company and its products that you won’t find on the press release – things that will keep your enthusiasts coming back for more. Funnel them into forums and message boards, another form of social media, where they can share their enthusiasm with the like-minded. Build them into an evangelist community that gets perks and information straight from the source.

That is the formula that social media has begun to afford a number of companies in the game space. But most of what I’ve described is not a result of the simple existence of places like Facebook and Twitter – you can still post a link to a dull press release right in your Tweet – it’s of a mentality that there are such places where the connected elite can go to become part of “the club.”

As these new social media become discovered by the Oprah-watching populace at large, I think it will be a challenge to keep that magic alive, but those who get it right will have a far better reputation with their customers.

Rob Fleischer:

In the past 2 years alone I’ve probably seen social media/networking change company’s plans 3 or 4 times. Everyone wanted to be big on MySpace, then it was Facebook, then it was their own community blogs, then twitter. Being viral is the biggest directive I’ve heard. But how do you orchestrate that? Sure you can build an army of interns or programs to build the click count, but is that really making an impression? Either your viral or you’re not. You’ll know after just a week or two. You can’t force yourself on the masses. They can smell marketing from a mile away so the debate has really come down to how subtle can/should you be or do you just go out there and hit them over the head and try to be up front with a message.

From strictly a numbers standpoint, the new networking sites and options for gamers in general have made it a lot easier to talk to them directly, but the trick is to keep that interaction engaging for the long run. I don’t know many people who are still keeping up with their MySpace pages. Facebook and Twitter seem to still be growing and some of the recent contests with pictures and ideas and giveaways seem to have gotten a little bit of traction which is great. But getting out in front of these technologies is tricky so it’s been more about maximizing them in interesting ways.

Douglass Perry:

The emergence of social media is both a thrill and a frustration. It’s refreshing and rule-breaking and riddled with ADD-infused mini-mini thoughts. While folks might use MySpace or Friendster, I have found myself coupled to my computer screen using Facebook, as I re-acquaint myself with friends from high school and college. And wonder why my wife makes comments night after night like, “Facebook, again?”

I can’t speak from the PR in any official capacity, but as a freelance journalist and consultant, using Facebook is a super focused means to send out a story, get a quick response, or say hello to the folks I know in the game industry. I try to post only a few, select stories on Facebook so as not to spam anyone, and I recommend that same practice to others. (I’m still working out how much is the right amount, mind you.) But I enjoy and pay attention to invites to out-of-the-ordinary PR events and follow group updates. If a PR event wasn’t on Facebook, I wouldn’t think that a PR coordinator or event planner was missing out, but it’s another useful tool in the toolbox. It can be used to cast a wide net that might draw a broader audience than a traditional tight-knit game group, depending on who you make friends with, or it be an alternative to setting up a blog.

The emergence of social media means there are newer, more tech-savvy, and fun ways to connect, but newer doesn’t always mean better. When it comes down to it, making phone calls and seeing people in person is more far more valuable and a greater experience than chatting on Twitter or checking messages on blogs and boards. But when you want to connect to people who live across the globe, re-connect with old friends, or target a fast, connected slice of your targeted pie, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are quick, convenient, and an efficient use of time.

Tune in later this week for more illuminating thoughts from other contributors, and let us know what you think by commenting!