This Wikipedia entry for Digital PR is curious for a variety of reasons.
First up, it has clearly been flagged as an orphan entry (ie few or no other articles link to it). Second, it has been marked as a blatant piece of ad fluffery.
And when you read it, you note the very poor use of English. The final line had a certain odd quality to it:
“Digital PR is also a new style of pr not just an agency! Many agencies do this form of pr not just the above group.”
Which seemed a rather mangled way of saying “other PR agencies are available.” As well as a lame attempt to make out that this item had been written independently.
I was curious to know more about this H&K division – clearly I’d missed something. On checking out the Digital PR web site, I discovered that they are: “an agency specialized in the research and implementation of the most advanced digital communication tools.”
Hmm. Lots of non-existent links. Garbled English at every turn. The most recent “news” dated from May 2007.
Perhaps these guys could do with some help. It was only after looking at the contact page that it revealed they are based in Milan (they also have an office in Madrid). I’m sure the copy is fine in Italian and Spanish – but it felt like they’d hired a cheap translator to do the English version.
However, I came away with a general sense that they were shooting themselves in the foot – as well as, by association, tainting the view someone might get of H&K’s overall capabilities in this area.
Having a key search term like “digital PR” linked to a high ranking Google slot (via a Wikipedia entry) would on the surface appear to be a good thing – but allowing this entry to remain there – as well directing English language speakers to unhelpful content – (if they can even be motivated to click on the link as most people will realise it is a very unsubtle plug) does seem rather counter productive – both to Digital PR and H&K.
Anybody who feels like helping Digital PR to remove this unhelpful Wikipedia entry can of course go here.
Not only that, but we could do with someone writing a more detailed and objective entry to replace it. Any takers?