I subscribe to most of the “leading” media sites and journals. Chock full with numbers, studies and feedback from around the industry, I initially thought they’d be invaluable in helping me and those I worked with create useful campaigns for clients.

Boy was I wrong. The insights, backed by numbers from somewhere, did no more to help me than blanket “you suck” comments do to help bloggers. MediaPost revealed that consumption of traditional media was down and that internet and mobile (aren’t they almost the same thing?) consumption was up. Unless you live in a cave, you already knew this.

To add to those rather unhelpful numbers, there’s still an argument on the newness of social media. Some pundits claim the web has always been social, others argue that social media didn’t exist until a few years ago. For the record: the term social media wasn’t in widespread use until a few years ago and the rise of Twitter and Facebook are what made it a big deal. Can we just agree on that, please?

Also, texting will never supplant email and Twitter will never kill Facebook, but RSS use may fade, which I hope doesn’t mean it will go away.

Now it’s time for a bold prediction: people want technology to adapt to them, instead of the other way around. This may go against the past 30ish years of consumer technology (I still like using a keyboard and wouldn’t trade it for voice recognition, regardless of speed) but we as people like to feel somewhat connected to what we interact with.

For the PR profession, I think this means a similar shift to what Jerry Maguire experienced all those years ago. Less clients. More high-touch relationships. Big firms will shrink, boutique firms will rise. Campaigns will become less about large relationships and more about closer ones.

Problem is, there’s no numbers for me to show this. How do we measure this kind of interaction?