Excellent post. Tweets and retweets are merely indicators of reach. That's as far as it goes -- like counting clips. The crucial question that practitioners (and informed clients) should ask is whether the PR/social media program influenced behavior. Did it move the needle in a particular direction? The desired effect should be defined prior to execution, along with the appropriate measurement tool. Possible indicators might be 1)call to action (generating visit to website?) 2)attitude tracking (likes) 3) straw polls/surveys. The number of tweets & retweets tells us nothing about behavioral or attitudinal change, absent content analysis.

I think this is a flawed concept for reasons stated by others, namely, 1) reluctance by "influencers" to take the time to be engaged via this closed platform and 2) the many unsophisticated (OK, let's call them lazy) publicists (I dare not refer to them as PR professionals) who will continue to "spray & pray." But in keeping with this alliteration, I am further concerned about the pay-to-play model being proposed. Essentially, you are asking me to pay to engage in conversation with an influencer when I can do so for free via Twitter, Facebook, or other social media. When "influencers" engage in social media, one presumes that they are there to listen as much as to report or analyze. When a PR professional contributes helpful, informed, timely news or trends, (at times serving a client interest or agenda), it constitutes a perfectly legitimate and honest means for delivering a relevant pitch; it should meaningfully contribute to the dialogue and add context or a fresh perspective. There is no quick fix to long-term relationship building between PR professionals and the media we try to inform about news or trends important to our clients. I'm afraid the idea of a closed platform, with an entry fee, is no substitute for what's always been true to the practice of PR. After all, the "R" factor is all about the relationship. @gronnerpr on Twitter