A Pittsburgh tragedy has raised some interesting questions about the interactions between the media and public agencies, and how public relations staff should behave when put in an adversarial relationship with reporters.
A woman named Ka'Sandra Wade was shot to death by her boyfriend before he killed himself. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette learned that police officers had earlier investigated a 911 call made by Wade, but left her home after her boyfriend told them everything was fine. The police department, in response to questions emailed about this 911 call by Post-Gazette reporters, sent a press release to all local media outlets which included a verbatim copy of the reporters' email. In a subsequent editorial, the newspaper framed for the public the police department's offense:
Arthur Yann, a vice president of the Public Relations Society of America, referred details of the case to his association's ethics committee. The panel called the city police's PR approach "ill-advised" and a "violation of an unwritten custom of journalism."
The Newspaper Guild, which represents Post-Gazette staffers, said this "was not just an attempt to ruin a 'scoop' for two reporters, it was an attempt to derail any communication between reporters and police beyond what officials offer at staged news conferences." The Guild said the department wanted "to punish and intimidate reporters who dared to demand answers to important questions. ..."
That is precisely the problem. Some members of the public in a media-hostile age may dismiss this as special pleading. But once a government agency arrogantly decides to punish perceived enemies, reporters from any news organization become candidates for the same treatment -- the Post-Gazette one day, WPXI the next, with the ultimate victim the public's right to know. To dismiss this as unimportant is to suggest that a young woman's life was unimportant; it is to suggest that the people of Pittsburgh don't deserve real answers about public safety, police performance and what their tax dollars are buying. (link)
One caveat before we discuss who is right, and who is wrong, from a PR standpoint: A government agency has an obligation to the news media and the public (the former being a surrogate for the latter) that many of our organizations do not. (Though I would argue that we all have an obligation to treat the public, as individuals and in the collective, in an ethical manner). But many of us do work in industries that are covered aggressively by media outlets in competition with one another. So this discussion matters.
I always assume that any email I send in a professional setting can be forwarded without my knowledge and consent. But assuming a thing can happen does not make that thing right. I would never forward a reporter's email to a competing news outlet without that reporter's knowledge and consent. It betrays an implicit trust that exists between journalists and public information officers, and it's also rather stupid; that reporter will never trust me, or by extension, my organization, ever again. Similarly, if a friend sends me an email and assumes confidentiality, I'm a jerk if I violate that confidentiality, whether or not they knew it was possible.
Nonetheless, the police department was under no obligation to keep the Post-Gazette's scoop under wraps. In fact, once the department realized that it would soon be public knowledge that its officers failed to prevent a murder, it was smart for the department to come clean with everyone. It would have been even wiser to have revealed this information even before it came to the attention of any media outlets. Now one has to wonder whether the incident is only under investigation because it was outed by reporters.
As to the Post-Gazette's assertion that the police department's intention was to intimidate reporters, well, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. Now every reporter who wants to communicate in email with the police department has to wonder where their email will end up, and whether it is worth asking tough questions at all.
Showing posts with label media relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media relations. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Still alive
It's been an interesting couple of months. My mother died, I moved, and the job has been crazy. (Crazy good, though.) Before I make my full-fledged re-entry to blogging, let me share friend and former colleague Dave Copeland's thoughts on PR in a post about bad pitches:
I don’t complain about them – a good P.R. person is not the nemesis or evil entity a lot of hack journalists pretend they are (while cowering at their teet when they need to). But I will say it’s very rare for me to consider an unsolicited pitch from a P.R. person I haven’t previously worked with.
Two things: Who is enough of a tool to offer to send a journalist a gift through the mail? I don't want to work with a journalist who can be bought, because if they can be bought by me, they can be bought by the competition. (Of course, publications can be bought, and that's OK with most of us -- if I buy an ad and you offer me editorial, I'm damn well going to take it.)
Second, notice the emphasis on relationships. Dave has to know you if you want to dance. There is a reason it's called "public relations", people.
I don’t complain about them – a good P.R. person is not the nemesis or evil entity a lot of hack journalists pretend they are (while cowering at their teet when they need to). But I will say it’s very rare for me to consider an unsolicited pitch from a P.R. person I haven’t previously worked with.
Two things: Who is enough of a tool to offer to send a journalist a gift through the mail? I don't want to work with a journalist who can be bought, because if they can be bought by me, they can be bought by the competition. (Of course, publications can be bought, and that's OK with most of us -- if I buy an ad and you offer me editorial, I'm damn well going to take it.)
Second, notice the emphasis on relationships. Dave has to know you if you want to dance. There is a reason it's called "public relations", people.
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Spin Cycle, 7/2
A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other
things I find interesting.
Dewey Beats Truman: The erroneous reporting by Fox and CNN that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act has provoked a justifiable backlash about media chest-pounding over getting scoops, particularly when said scoop is now measured by mere seconds:
But worrying about being first on reporting something that is handed to you and everyone else? By 24 seconds? To borrow the Gail Collinsism, I think I speak for everyone when I say, it's really not important.
Worse than that, it's dangerous. The health care decision is a complicated piece of business. It's worth taking the time required to fully understand it before reporting on it. It's that rush to be first or almost first that leads to world-class mistakes like CNN and Fox News made this morning, when they reported the health care law had been overturned.
Twitter Does Mobile Right: Twitter says most of its ad revenues comes from its mobile platform, in contrast to rival Facebook which has struggled to offer users a compelling mobile experience, let alone generate significant ad revenues there. The simplicity of Twitter no doubt sets a lower bar for creating a good mobile experience, but unlike Facebook, I find using Twitter's mobile interface to be more user-friendly than its web platform.
I Don't Like You Like That: The great Brian Solis reminds marketers that a "like" on Facebook is not a license to drown your followers in boring content. It's not an "opt-in":
The difference between Like and other direct response triggers is that the Like is an act of fleeting value that must be earned over and over again. Often, it’s an “in the moment” action that expresses affinity, interest, alignment, and sometimes endorsement. And as an expression, Likes are a form of social currency and their value goes up and down with each engagement.
In other words, you have to earn that "like" each and every time you post something on Facebook.
Bad for Hacks, Good for Flacks: An Australian publicist finds herself in hot water over an online article in which she notes that recent newspaper downsizing is good for the public relations industry. Know what? She's right. The only problem is she comes off as callous toward so many people losing their jobs, and her thoughts more properly belonged in a trade publication, or as a presentation at a PR conference. Know your audience.
Dewey Beats Truman: The erroneous reporting by Fox and CNN that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act has provoked a justifiable backlash about media chest-pounding over getting scoops, particularly when said scoop is now measured by mere seconds:
But worrying about being first on reporting something that is handed to you and everyone else? By 24 seconds? To borrow the Gail Collinsism, I think I speak for everyone when I say, it's really not important.
Worse than that, it's dangerous. The health care decision is a complicated piece of business. It's worth taking the time required to fully understand it before reporting on it. It's that rush to be first or almost first that leads to world-class mistakes like CNN and Fox News made this morning, when they reported the health care law had been overturned.
Twitter Does Mobile Right: Twitter says most of its ad revenues comes from its mobile platform, in contrast to rival Facebook which has struggled to offer users a compelling mobile experience, let alone generate significant ad revenues there. The simplicity of Twitter no doubt sets a lower bar for creating a good mobile experience, but unlike Facebook, I find using Twitter's mobile interface to be more user-friendly than its web platform.
I Don't Like You Like That: The great Brian Solis reminds marketers that a "like" on Facebook is not a license to drown your followers in boring content. It's not an "opt-in":
The difference between Like and other direct response triggers is that the Like is an act of fleeting value that must be earned over and over again. Often, it’s an “in the moment” action that expresses affinity, interest, alignment, and sometimes endorsement. And as an expression, Likes are a form of social currency and their value goes up and down with each engagement.
In other words, you have to earn that "like" each and every time you post something on Facebook.
Bad for Hacks, Good for Flacks: An Australian publicist finds herself in hot water over an online article in which she notes that recent newspaper downsizing is good for the public relations industry. Know what? She's right. The only problem is she comes off as callous toward so many people losing their jobs, and her thoughts more properly belonged in a trade publication, or as a presentation at a PR conference. Know your audience.
Monday, June 18, 2012
The Spin Cycle, 6/18
A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other
things I find interesting.
Digital Dads: In a victory for gender equality, men now also have a patronizing label that marketers have affixed to them to describe their online habits. This caught my eye:
Though digitally savvy dads embrace the good things that come with new technologies, they're also more acutely aware that too much digital tethering can be bad for their kids. Six in 10 Digital Dads (and half of Average Joes) make it a point to limit the amount of time their kids spend online. Forty-two percent of Digital Dads and 31 percent of Average Joes shoo their children outside to play.
How about limiting the amount of time the Dads spend on their devices? My wife and I love our devices but we love our kids more, and we've had to set ground rules for ourselves to ensure we aren't checking our Facebook status when our daughter is telling us about her day at kindergarten, or our son is asking to play "Star Wars." My wife is convinced that this generation of children will grow up resenting their parents' attachment to technology.
Why Are Reporters Always Picking on Us? Christopher Parente is mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore from journalists who gripe about bad pitches and other nasty PR habits without acknowledging their own foibles. I hear ya, Chris. And certainly we need to point out, publicly when necessary, when news outlets misrepresent our clients and employers, and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to tell our story directly to our target audience. But I can live with the abuse of journalists, even if they refuse to admit they need me most of the time as much as I need them. At least in my market, I'm better paid, and there's a good chance my job will still exist five years from now.
Pass the Grain of Salt, Please: The recent study that defended the efficacy of Facebook ads was funded in part by Facebook -- no big deal, organizations fund research all the time to test their product -- but also involved more or less self-selected respondents. It doesn't mean the results are worthless, just qualified.
Digital Dads: In a victory for gender equality, men now also have a patronizing label that marketers have affixed to them to describe their online habits. This caught my eye:
Though digitally savvy dads embrace the good things that come with new technologies, they're also more acutely aware that too much digital tethering can be bad for their kids. Six in 10 Digital Dads (and half of Average Joes) make it a point to limit the amount of time their kids spend online. Forty-two percent of Digital Dads and 31 percent of Average Joes shoo their children outside to play.
How about limiting the amount of time the Dads spend on their devices? My wife and I love our devices but we love our kids more, and we've had to set ground rules for ourselves to ensure we aren't checking our Facebook status when our daughter is telling us about her day at kindergarten, or our son is asking to play "Star Wars." My wife is convinced that this generation of children will grow up resenting their parents' attachment to technology.
Why Are Reporters Always Picking on Us? Christopher Parente is mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore from journalists who gripe about bad pitches and other nasty PR habits without acknowledging their own foibles. I hear ya, Chris. And certainly we need to point out, publicly when necessary, when news outlets misrepresent our clients and employers, and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to tell our story directly to our target audience. But I can live with the abuse of journalists, even if they refuse to admit they need me most of the time as much as I need them. At least in my market, I'm better paid, and there's a good chance my job will still exist five years from now.
Pass the Grain of Salt, Please: The recent study that defended the efficacy of Facebook ads was funded in part by Facebook -- no big deal, organizations fund research all the time to test their product -- but also involved more or less self-selected respondents. It doesn't mean the results are worthless, just qualified.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Silence is golden. Just ask Netflix
Dave Copeland explores Faceboo's less-is-more PR strategy, which seems to be shared by a lot of other tech companies who find that playing hard to get with the media yields dividends -- or at least, does no harm, which is often just as good. My gripe, as always, is that a lot of people seem to conflate public relations and media relations -- the latter is a tool of the former; they are not interchangable. The fact that you spurn traditional news media coverage is not evidence that you don't do public relations. My first boss always said one of the tough parts about being in public relations is that often your greatest achievements are the stories that don't run.
Besides, with almost 1 billion users and growing, how much has Facebook really needed the traditional media, which has been bleeding readers, viewers, and listeners for decades? The real question is whether Mr. Zuckerberg can continue to dodge the fourth estate now that he has taken his company public and tripped over a hurdle or two along the way. Dave's article notes the coy strategy employed by Apple's Steve Jobs, who could speak directly to Apple's cultish fans even before social media and other forms of audience-centric communications were so dominant. Can Facebook, which has engendered far less affection than Apple, pull this off?
For his sake, let's hope Zuckerberg has learned the lesson of Reed Hastings, and follows the advice of Bart Simpson: If you don't know what to say, keep your fool mouth shut, and at least you won't make things worse.
Besides, with almost 1 billion users and growing, how much has Facebook really needed the traditional media, which has been bleeding readers, viewers, and listeners for decades? The real question is whether Mr. Zuckerberg can continue to dodge the fourth estate now that he has taken his company public and tripped over a hurdle or two along the way. Dave's article notes the coy strategy employed by Apple's Steve Jobs, who could speak directly to Apple's cultish fans even before social media and other forms of audience-centric communications were so dominant. Can Facebook, which has engendered far less affection than Apple, pull this off?
For his sake, let's hope Zuckerberg has learned the lesson of Reed Hastings, and follows the advice of Bart Simpson: If you don't know what to say, keep your fool mouth shut, and at least you won't make things worse.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Don't copy my copy
Recently I opened my morning newspaper to find a story I had placed, and been expecting. I was happy: The messages reflected what had been in the press release I had supplied to the reporter as background. In fact, some of the language appeared nearly verbatim as I had written it. I was pleased -- but also a little disappointed.
I was surprised at my own reaction. I remember sitting stunned several years ago when, during a session at a National Science Writers Association conference, I heard some PIOs grouse about reporters passing off a press release as their own story. Journalistic ethics aside, isn't that our goal? Aren't we supposed to get our message into the media as unfiltered as possible? And while we should take pride in our work, there's no reason to have pride of authorship as PIOs. Most of the writing I do gets credited to someone else as a matter of course.
Yet, we expect journalists to dig a little deeper into the stories we present to them. I do my best to ensure that when I write a press release, it is concise and tells a complete story. Press releases have to have a life of their own if they are to do any good, regardless of whether they get picked up by the media. Nonetheless, I have neither the time nor the staff to plumb the depths of every story my organization has to tell. The pitch we make to a reporter, whatever form that pitch takes, is meant to be a tease. It's to entice them to tell a richer a story, even if that means we have to cede control over the message. That was the source of my disappointment: The story was good but could have been so much better, and I was as disappointed in myself as I was the reporter.
And what about those reporters to whom we lob these pitches? They're not sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for us to call or email. I did that job for six years. If I had given every story the attention it deserved, I would have written maybe two a year. That's no excuse for ethical shortcuts -- and mind you, I'm making no such accusation in this case -- but the temptation to let others do the reporting for you is sometimes too great to ignore. Whether journalists or PIOs, we have more tools than ever to tell great stories -- but still not enough time in which to do it.
I was surprised at my own reaction. I remember sitting stunned several years ago when, during a session at a National Science Writers Association conference, I heard some PIOs grouse about reporters passing off a press release as their own story. Journalistic ethics aside, isn't that our goal? Aren't we supposed to get our message into the media as unfiltered as possible? And while we should take pride in our work, there's no reason to have pride of authorship as PIOs. Most of the writing I do gets credited to someone else as a matter of course.
Yet, we expect journalists to dig a little deeper into the stories we present to them. I do my best to ensure that when I write a press release, it is concise and tells a complete story. Press releases have to have a life of their own if they are to do any good, regardless of whether they get picked up by the media. Nonetheless, I have neither the time nor the staff to plumb the depths of every story my organization has to tell. The pitch we make to a reporter, whatever form that pitch takes, is meant to be a tease. It's to entice them to tell a richer a story, even if that means we have to cede control over the message. That was the source of my disappointment: The story was good but could have been so much better, and I was as disappointed in myself as I was the reporter.
And what about those reporters to whom we lob these pitches? They're not sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for us to call or email. I did that job for six years. If I had given every story the attention it deserved, I would have written maybe two a year. That's no excuse for ethical shortcuts -- and mind you, I'm making no such accusation in this case -- but the temptation to let others do the reporting for you is sometimes too great to ignore. Whether journalists or PIOs, we have more tools than ever to tell great stories -- but still not enough time in which to do it.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
It's a clip show
I'm using an influx of new followers to my Twitter feed, which includes a link to this blog, as an excuse to do a recap of the most-read posts from Spin This in 2011, with a little added commentary to make it all worth your while. Here goes:
1. Matt Lauer, meanie
This was not only the most popular post of 2011, but has gotten the most hits since I started this blog in July 2010. I'll admit to walking back a bit the argument I made in this post that my fellow PR practitioners spend too much time worrying about the perception of the public relations industry. It sparked a healthy conversation with Frank Strong, PR in Pink, and Gini Dietrich about the consequences of negative stereotypes of our field, and how we should go about combating them. My prescription -- that we should simply let our good work speak for itself -- was a bit naive; if that was all that was required to maintain a good reputation for a person, organization, industry, etc., than no one would have any need for our expertise in the first place. The bottom line is that our clients and employers do need us, not just as communicators but as strategic advisors, to help them make sound decisions, and they won't trust us to do so if they see us as nothing but spin artists.
2. Brand Journalism 101
In this post, I talked about the opportunities that digital communications tools provide those of us in marketing and PR to tell our stories directly to our target audiences, bypassing the news media and other traditional filters. It's about giving your audience value: information that is useful to them but that also advances your organization's strategic goals. Some people call it content curation. Whatever you call it, it's the reason why there's never been a better time to be in public relations.
3. Stop this man before he speaks again
Just when it appeared that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings couldn't do any more damage to this once vaunted brand, he gave an interview in October to the New York Times Magazine in which he seemed to blame his company's customers for the debacle that was Qwikster. Previously I had discussed the difference between a genuine crisis and a PR crisis, and noted that Netflix had both on its hands, thanks to its CEO's verbal diarrhea.
4. Print is still fit for news
We're not dead yet, says the traditional news media, given a media use survey that found affluent audiences -- the ones that are often most coveted by marketeers -- still get most of their news from TV and print, and prefer to read magazines in print rather than online. The bottom line for professional communicators: Know your audience, know their preferences, and don't forget the old tricks even as you master new ones.
5. It's the message, stupid
This post was of particular to interest to my Pittsburgh readers, but is of relevance to everyone. I dissected the public relations battle between hospital giant UPMC and insurance giant Highmark. I concluded that despite a preponderance of negative publicity, UPMC was coming out ahead because it was consistent in its message that it had a plan that would allow Highmark subscribers to continue to have access to UPMC physicians. The lesson here is that the messages conveyed by media coverage may be more important than the tone of that coverage.
Well, that's likely it for 2011. Have a Happy New Year, and thanks for all your support. Let's do it again next year.
1. Matt Lauer, meanie
This was not only the most popular post of 2011, but has gotten the most hits since I started this blog in July 2010. I'll admit to walking back a bit the argument I made in this post that my fellow PR practitioners spend too much time worrying about the perception of the public relations industry. It sparked a healthy conversation with Frank Strong, PR in Pink, and Gini Dietrich about the consequences of negative stereotypes of our field, and how we should go about combating them. My prescription -- that we should simply let our good work speak for itself -- was a bit naive; if that was all that was required to maintain a good reputation for a person, organization, industry, etc., than no one would have any need for our expertise in the first place. The bottom line is that our clients and employers do need us, not just as communicators but as strategic advisors, to help them make sound decisions, and they won't trust us to do so if they see us as nothing but spin artists.
2. Brand Journalism 101
In this post, I talked about the opportunities that digital communications tools provide those of us in marketing and PR to tell our stories directly to our target audiences, bypassing the news media and other traditional filters. It's about giving your audience value: information that is useful to them but that also advances your organization's strategic goals. Some people call it content curation. Whatever you call it, it's the reason why there's never been a better time to be in public relations.
3. Stop this man before he speaks again
Just when it appeared that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings couldn't do any more damage to this once vaunted brand, he gave an interview in October to the New York Times Magazine in which he seemed to blame his company's customers for the debacle that was Qwikster. Previously I had discussed the difference between a genuine crisis and a PR crisis, and noted that Netflix had both on its hands, thanks to its CEO's verbal diarrhea.
4. Print is still fit for news
We're not dead yet, says the traditional news media, given a media use survey that found affluent audiences -- the ones that are often most coveted by marketeers -- still get most of their news from TV and print, and prefer to read magazines in print rather than online. The bottom line for professional communicators: Know your audience, know their preferences, and don't forget the old tricks even as you master new ones.
5. It's the message, stupid
This post was of particular to interest to my Pittsburgh readers, but is of relevance to everyone. I dissected the public relations battle between hospital giant UPMC and insurance giant Highmark. I concluded that despite a preponderance of negative publicity, UPMC was coming out ahead because it was consistent in its message that it had a plan that would allow Highmark subscribers to continue to have access to UPMC physicians. The lesson here is that the messages conveyed by media coverage may be more important than the tone of that coverage.
Well, that's likely it for 2011. Have a Happy New Year, and thanks for all your support. Let's do it again next year.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Fair is fair. Or is it?
Recently I attended PRSA Pittsburgh's Professional Development Day, which started off with a panel about PR ethics that included a local newspaper reporter. He raised an issue that provoked much discussion about the relationships between PR people and journalists: Is it ethical for a PR person to feed a story to one reporter over another, and if so, is there a right way and a wrong way to do it?
Here's the story the reporter told: He got a press release from a medical device maker about a breakthrough product, with the caveat that the story was embargoed, and the company wouldn't give him the information he needed until the embargo had lifted. But lo and behold, the following day, his competitor had the story, clearly spoon-fed by the company's flack.
That was unethical behavior, and to get at why, it's necessary to talk a little bit about embargoes, which most reporters hate, as do a fair number of PR people. In some situations they are, however, a necessary evil. Case in point: I used to work at Carnegie Mellon University, where one of my main duties was to promote scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these journals imposed an embargo on stories about published research. The reason: Embargoes, it was believed, leveled the playing field, and took away a reporter's incentive to land a scoop. As a result, the thinking goes, all journalists covering the story will have adequate time to report on the research thoughtfully, and will be less likely to misrepresent it to the public.
The bottom line for me was that if I allowed a reporter to violate an embargo it would have damaged my institution's relationship with the journal, not to mention the researcher's relationship. But the reasoning behind embargoes is valid, and many public information officers at research institutions, particularly those that are public or receive large amounts of public funding, believe they have an obligation to keep the public informed about the work its tax dollars support. I admire them for it, and to the extent that they believe embargoes advance that purpose, I don't argue with them.
So back to our medical device maker, whose PR rep used an embargo not to ensure that the story would be reported accurately but to lull a reporter into backing off a story so their competitor would have a clear shot. That's deception, pure and simple; it's unfair and it was unethical.
But that doesn't mean that as PR practicioners we are required to treat all reporters equally. When I tweeted as much during the panel, Bryson W. Thornton of FedEx replied "Not equally but fairly." Fair is a slippery concept, and what a reporter regards as fair may not be the same as what a PR person thinks is fair.
Look, not all news outlets or journalists are created equal. Some publications have much larger readerships than others, even in the same market. Some journalists are more thoughtful than others, and are more likely to get the story right. And sometimes we know that handing a journalist an exclusive is the best way to guarantee that we get coverage with our strategic messages intact. I've done it, and it works, and I've been prepared to pay the price in the form of damaged relationships with the scorned reporters.
What I didn't do was lie about it, or use trickery to throw a reporter off my scent. To a journalist, it may be a distinction without a difference, but as a public relations officer, my job is to reconcile my client's or employer's interests with those of the public, and it is to those two entities that my obligations lie. The media is but a conduit between the two, and I must have some discretition over how I utilize it.
Here's the story the reporter told: He got a press release from a medical device maker about a breakthrough product, with the caveat that the story was embargoed, and the company wouldn't give him the information he needed until the embargo had lifted. But lo and behold, the following day, his competitor had the story, clearly spoon-fed by the company's flack.
That was unethical behavior, and to get at why, it's necessary to talk a little bit about embargoes, which most reporters hate, as do a fair number of PR people. In some situations they are, however, a necessary evil. Case in point: I used to work at Carnegie Mellon University, where one of my main duties was to promote scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these journals imposed an embargo on stories about published research. The reason: Embargoes, it was believed, leveled the playing field, and took away a reporter's incentive to land a scoop. As a result, the thinking goes, all journalists covering the story will have adequate time to report on the research thoughtfully, and will be less likely to misrepresent it to the public.
The bottom line for me was that if I allowed a reporter to violate an embargo it would have damaged my institution's relationship with the journal, not to mention the researcher's relationship. But the reasoning behind embargoes is valid, and many public information officers at research institutions, particularly those that are public or receive large amounts of public funding, believe they have an obligation to keep the public informed about the work its tax dollars support. I admire them for it, and to the extent that they believe embargoes advance that purpose, I don't argue with them.
So back to our medical device maker, whose PR rep used an embargo not to ensure that the story would be reported accurately but to lull a reporter into backing off a story so their competitor would have a clear shot. That's deception, pure and simple; it's unfair and it was unethical.
But that doesn't mean that as PR practicioners we are required to treat all reporters equally. When I tweeted as much during the panel, Bryson W. Thornton of FedEx replied "Not equally but fairly." Fair is a slippery concept, and what a reporter regards as fair may not be the same as what a PR person thinks is fair.
Look, not all news outlets or journalists are created equal. Some publications have much larger readerships than others, even in the same market. Some journalists are more thoughtful than others, and are more likely to get the story right. And sometimes we know that handing a journalist an exclusive is the best way to guarantee that we get coverage with our strategic messages intact. I've done it, and it works, and I've been prepared to pay the price in the form of damaged relationships with the scorned reporters.
What I didn't do was lie about it, or use trickery to throw a reporter off my scent. To a journalist, it may be a distinction without a difference, but as a public relations officer, my job is to reconcile my client's or employer's interests with those of the public, and it is to those two entities that my obligations lie. The media is but a conduit between the two, and I must have some discretition over how I utilize it.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Print is still fit for news
A recent media use survey finds that network TV and print are still the top news sources for the most affluent audiences, and that most read magazines in print rather than online.
Makes sense to me. I certainly don't fit the demographic, but this jibes -- to a certain extent -- with my own media preferences. I still get a lot of news from television, though not necessarily the broadcast networks; I watch a lot of cable news. Plus, I still prefer to read the hard copy version of magazines, particularly those that specialize in long-form journalism or have a strong visual appeal. I rarely read The New Yorker anymore because I dropped my print subscription some time ago.
I would also submit that I'm more likely to read higher quality publications in print than online. If I'm going to take the time to sit down with the print version, let alone pay money for it, I expect that it's going to be worth my while. After all, I can check out online news sources just about anytime, often with little or no cost.
This bias carries over into my work. Last summer, I got my employer a nice placement in the Chronicle of Higher Education online, but was disappointed to discover it didn't make the print edition.
What does all this mean for PR? For one, we can't write off traditional news sources, particularly if we are trying to reach a more affluent, educated audience. Two, even though media relations and public relations are not one in the same -- the former is a tool of the latter -- we can continue to expect that our efforts will be judged on our ability to secure choice media placements, no matter how many other strategic priorities we have to juggle.
Makes sense to me. I certainly don't fit the demographic, but this jibes -- to a certain extent -- with my own media preferences. I still get a lot of news from television, though not necessarily the broadcast networks; I watch a lot of cable news. Plus, I still prefer to read the hard copy version of magazines, particularly those that specialize in long-form journalism or have a strong visual appeal. I rarely read The New Yorker anymore because I dropped my print subscription some time ago.
I would also submit that I'm more likely to read higher quality publications in print than online. If I'm going to take the time to sit down with the print version, let alone pay money for it, I expect that it's going to be worth my while. After all, I can check out online news sources just about anytime, often with little or no cost.
This bias carries over into my work. Last summer, I got my employer a nice placement in the Chronicle of Higher Education online, but was disappointed to discover it didn't make the print edition.
What does all this mean for PR? For one, we can't write off traditional news sources, particularly if we are trying to reach a more affluent, educated audience. Two, even though media relations and public relations are not one in the same -- the former is a tool of the latter -- we can continue to expect that our efforts will be judged on our ability to secure choice media placements, no matter how many other strategic priorities we have to juggle.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Sarah Palin's one-finger salute
Sarah Palin is having a good laugh at the expense of the media, and the New York Times' Mark Leibovich is laughing with her:
I’m all for political people extending every courtesy to us poor, pampered media types. The predictability afforded by such courtesies is often our friend, especially with a deadline looming. But as someone who has consumed —and contributed to — a massive body of predictable campaign coverage over the years, I find something refreshing about the “winging it” approach. And it was instructive to see the media so disoriented upon being deprived of the familiar setups, set-pieces and bubble-like environments of a modern presidential campaign.
I'm no fan of Palin, and I don't share her apparent contempt for the mainstream media. (I say "apparent" because much of her barbs at the "lamestream" media are simply political theater.) But I can see where she's coming from. She's taking a swipe at the sense of entitlment that some reporters and news outlets have regarding the way that large organizations and public figures share information with the public.
Last year I attended a presentation by Tom McMillan, vice president for communications with the Pittsburgh Penguins. He recounted with some amusement how a reporter once complained to the Professional Hockey Writers Association that the Penguins had broken news on the team's own blog rather than feeding it first to the media. The Pens have a devoted and plugged-in fanbase that doesn't care whether it gets news about the team from the source or from the filter or sports writers. In fact, many hockey fans probably prefer getting news straight from the team. A failure to understand that reality is why the media has been slow to adjust to the changes wrought by the Internet and social media.
And guess what? Tom McMillan knows that, aggrieved or not, hockey writers aren't going to stop covering the Penguins just because they now have to compete with the team's own PR operation. So it is with Sarah Palin. Despite all the media's kvetching, they still end up covering her, and she's probably banking on it, as Leibovich notes. The rest of us aren't so lucky. We have to play by the rules if we want our clients and employers to get covered by the mainstream media, and most of us still value that coverage. Many of us cling to those rules as much as reporters and editors do. They bring order and predictability to what we do.
As Leibovich explains, Mitt Romney is clearly in this camp. His team orchestrated a classic campaign kick-off announcement, and it seemed to achieve the desired results. I'd go so far as to say that Palin's ham-fisted attempt to upstage him worked in Romney's favor. Yes, it was a reminder that he doesn't possess her outsized influence, but it also made him seem sympathetic. For a guy who seems so blow-dried and calculating, he seemed human for an instant.
The dilemma that Palin faces is the same one I described in this blog last year. She's still a cult brand, and she hasn't seemed to figure out how to expand her appeal without alienating her base -- or else has no interesting in doing so, something that conservatives are taking note of disapprovingly. It's only a few months to the first primaries. Rivals like Romney soon will figure out they don't have to worry about being upstaged by Palin. All they'll have to do is run out the clock.
I’m all for political people extending every courtesy to us poor, pampered media types. The predictability afforded by such courtesies is often our friend, especially with a deadline looming. But as someone who has consumed —and contributed to — a massive body of predictable campaign coverage over the years, I find something refreshing about the “winging it” approach. And it was instructive to see the media so disoriented upon being deprived of the familiar setups, set-pieces and bubble-like environments of a modern presidential campaign.
I'm no fan of Palin, and I don't share her apparent contempt for the mainstream media. (I say "apparent" because much of her barbs at the "lamestream" media are simply political theater.) But I can see where she's coming from. She's taking a swipe at the sense of entitlment that some reporters and news outlets have regarding the way that large organizations and public figures share information with the public.
Last year I attended a presentation by Tom McMillan, vice president for communications with the Pittsburgh Penguins. He recounted with some amusement how a reporter once complained to the Professional Hockey Writers Association that the Penguins had broken news on the team's own blog rather than feeding it first to the media. The Pens have a devoted and plugged-in fanbase that doesn't care whether it gets news about the team from the source or from the filter or sports writers. In fact, many hockey fans probably prefer getting news straight from the team. A failure to understand that reality is why the media has been slow to adjust to the changes wrought by the Internet and social media.
And guess what? Tom McMillan knows that, aggrieved or not, hockey writers aren't going to stop covering the Penguins just because they now have to compete with the team's own PR operation. So it is with Sarah Palin. Despite all the media's kvetching, they still end up covering her, and she's probably banking on it, as Leibovich notes. The rest of us aren't so lucky. We have to play by the rules if we want our clients and employers to get covered by the mainstream media, and most of us still value that coverage. Many of us cling to those rules as much as reporters and editors do. They bring order and predictability to what we do.
As Leibovich explains, Mitt Romney is clearly in this camp. His team orchestrated a classic campaign kick-off announcement, and it seemed to achieve the desired results. I'd go so far as to say that Palin's ham-fisted attempt to upstage him worked in Romney's favor. Yes, it was a reminder that he doesn't possess her outsized influence, but it also made him seem sympathetic. For a guy who seems so blow-dried and calculating, he seemed human for an instant.
The dilemma that Palin faces is the same one I described in this blog last year. She's still a cult brand, and she hasn't seemed to figure out how to expand her appeal without alienating her base -- or else has no interesting in doing so, something that conservatives are taking note of disapprovingly. It's only a few months to the first primaries. Rivals like Romney soon will figure out they don't have to worry about being upstaged by Palin. All they'll have to do is run out the clock.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Mark Cuban's lament
A couple of items caught my attention recently in relation to my previous post about brand journalism. The first comes from the blog of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who doesn't think he should have to tolerate online sports writers covering his team:
In the year 2011, I’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo, or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room before or after a game. I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website, but I think we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned. I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters. (link)
So he doesn't like Internet reporters, and his team can communicate directly with fans online anyway. I certainly agree with the second point. Last year I attended a talk by Pittsburgh Penguins v.p. of public relations Tom McMillan, who said that fans are just as eager to get news about the franchise directly from the team rather than sports writers. The Pens do a great job communicating with and cultivating their fans, so I'm not going to disagree.
But then Cuban goes on to say that his team still needs traditional media outlets like newspapers and TV stations -- including ESPN:
The same logic that applies to newspapers, applies to TV. They own a segment of the population that doesn’t always read the sports section, but will turn on the TV to catch up. It may be the local news broadcast for some. It may be ESPN.
He does understand that ESPN and ESPN.com are owned by the same people, right? Those four letters they share are no coincidence. Hell, some of the same personalities work for both outlets. Kind of like saying to someone, "I really like your brother, but why is your sister such a slut?" (Not to mention that Cuban funded an online investigative news venture that many people think is an ethically suspect arrangement.)
Then again, when you are billionaire, you can pick a fight with whomever you wish, I suppose.
The other item that caught my eye is about a news site called Futurity created by a group of universities sharing research news directly with the public, rather than relying on a shrinking pool of science and technology writers. I hate to say I told you so, but...
In the year 2011, I’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo, or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room before or after a game. I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website, but I think we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned. I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters. (link)
So he doesn't like Internet reporters, and his team can communicate directly with fans online anyway. I certainly agree with the second point. Last year I attended a talk by Pittsburgh Penguins v.p. of public relations Tom McMillan, who said that fans are just as eager to get news about the franchise directly from the team rather than sports writers. The Pens do a great job communicating with and cultivating their fans, so I'm not going to disagree.
But then Cuban goes on to say that his team still needs traditional media outlets like newspapers and TV stations -- including ESPN:
The same logic that applies to newspapers, applies to TV. They own a segment of the population that doesn’t always read the sports section, but will turn on the TV to catch up. It may be the local news broadcast for some. It may be ESPN.
He does understand that ESPN and ESPN.com are owned by the same people, right? Those four letters they share are no coincidence. Hell, some of the same personalities work for both outlets. Kind of like saying to someone, "I really like your brother, but why is your sister such a slut?" (Not to mention that Cuban funded an online investigative news venture that many people think is an ethically suspect arrangement.)
Then again, when you are billionaire, you can pick a fight with whomever you wish, I suppose.
The other item that caught my eye is about a news site called Futurity created by a group of universities sharing research news directly with the public, rather than relying on a shrinking pool of science and technology writers. I hate to say I told you so, but...
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Still not dead
Boy am I tired of reading articles and blog posts by PR experts telling what tools I should discard because they are supposedly useless and antiquated.
The press release is of course the major target. I don't know if it is laziness or what, but some PR people just fish for an excuse not to have to write these. It's not my fault if you can't be bothered to write good ones, or can't stand up to internal politics and scrub them clean of jargon and useless quotes.
Yes, I still use them to get good media hits. And yes, I still create media lists, but I craft them thoughtfully so that my stuff goes to reporters who are relevant and won't see it as spam.
We are in an audience-driven business, now more than ever. You have to know what your audience wants and needs, how they consume media and acquire information. That should dictate what tools to use.
In case you are wondering what set me off, it is this:
5 things PR should eliminate immediately
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
The press release is of course the major target. I don't know if it is laziness or what, but some PR people just fish for an excuse not to have to write these. It's not my fault if you can't be bothered to write good ones, or can't stand up to internal politics and scrub them clean of jargon and useless quotes.
Yes, I still use them to get good media hits. And yes, I still create media lists, but I craft them thoughtfully so that my stuff goes to reporters who are relevant and won't see it as spam.
We are in an audience-driven business, now more than ever. You have to know what your audience wants and needs, how they consume media and acquire information. That should dictate what tools to use.
In case you are wondering what set me off, it is this:
5 things PR should eliminate immediately
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Expert
When I worked in media relations at Carnegie Mellon University, an English professor who was a pop culture expert once told me she aspired to be the next Robert Thompson, the oft-quoted Syracuse University professor of popular culture. Alas, she never reached this rarefied air of punditocracy, but in my defense, how do you compete with a man capable of weighing in on the cultural import of spaghetti tacos?
In tomorrow's NYT, reporter Helene Stapinski performs what might appear to be a near-impossible feat of journalism dexterity -- producing a college professor to support her thesis that more Americans now consume spaghetti tacos than ever before.
“Spaghetti tacos has made it possible to eat spaghetti in your car,” Robert J. Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, tells Stapinski. “It’s a very important technological development. You don’t even need a plate.”
But maybe Stapinski's reportage isn't so remarkable, after all. In fact, she's only continuing a longstanding NYT tradition in quoting Thompson -- and has become the 78th NYT reporter to do so, in 150 separate stories over the span of almost two decades. (hat tip to The NYTPicker)
OK, it's not in my professional self-interest to turn this blog into a forum for abusing the media, but, really, New York Times? Not that I wasn't guilty of similar behavior during my career as a newspaper reporter. Under deadline pressure you only have so much time to find a sage voice who can discuss whatever lame story idea your editor hands you two hours before deadline. I can't count the number of times an editor told me, "Call a psychologist" or "Get a sociology professor to talk about this."
And it's every university flack's dream to latch on to the kind of professor so eager for media attention they make themselves available night and day to talk about any subject even tangentally related to their discipline. Hell, we enable them. As I've told many professors, you don't really need to be an expert on a subject to answer a reporter's question. You just need to know more than the average person.
But the question is, of what value is this to our institutions? Does Syracuse benefit from the name recognition that Robert Thompson brings? Is that what people think of when they think of Syracuse? Does the average reader -- not media critics, not PR people, not academics, but real people -- even pay attention to an expert source's affiliation? I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to discourage my professors from taking media calls. If a university wants to raise its profile, particularly outside its home region, you can do worse than get a professor quoted a couple of times in the New York Times. (Which I happily did last year, thank you very much.) It certainly benefits an institution, and a professor, when he or she gets to discuss their own research in the course of being an expert source.
And besides, who doesn't want to eat spaghetti in a car?
In tomorrow's NYT, reporter Helene Stapinski performs what might appear to be a near-impossible feat of journalism dexterity -- producing a college professor to support her thesis that more Americans now consume spaghetti tacos than ever before.
“Spaghetti tacos has made it possible to eat spaghetti in your car,” Robert J. Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, tells Stapinski. “It’s a very important technological development. You don’t even need a plate.”
But maybe Stapinski's reportage isn't so remarkable, after all. In fact, she's only continuing a longstanding NYT tradition in quoting Thompson -- and has become the 78th NYT reporter to do so, in 150 separate stories over the span of almost two decades. (hat tip to The NYTPicker)
OK, it's not in my professional self-interest to turn this blog into a forum for abusing the media, but, really, New York Times? Not that I wasn't guilty of similar behavior during my career as a newspaper reporter. Under deadline pressure you only have so much time to find a sage voice who can discuss whatever lame story idea your editor hands you two hours before deadline. I can't count the number of times an editor told me, "Call a psychologist" or "Get a sociology professor to talk about this."
And it's every university flack's dream to latch on to the kind of professor so eager for media attention they make themselves available night and day to talk about any subject even tangentally related to their discipline. Hell, we enable them. As I've told many professors, you don't really need to be an expert on a subject to answer a reporter's question. You just need to know more than the average person.
But the question is, of what value is this to our institutions? Does Syracuse benefit from the name recognition that Robert Thompson brings? Is that what people think of when they think of Syracuse? Does the average reader -- not media critics, not PR people, not academics, but real people -- even pay attention to an expert source's affiliation? I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to discourage my professors from taking media calls. If a university wants to raise its profile, particularly outside its home region, you can do worse than get a professor quoted a couple of times in the New York Times. (Which I happily did last year, thank you very much.) It certainly benefits an institution, and a professor, when he or she gets to discuss their own research in the course of being an expert source.
And besides, who doesn't want to eat spaghetti in a car?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
"Earned" media
Some of my colleagues at my previous job used to fret over newsroom layoffs, because it meant fewer reporters to whom to pitch their stories. But a Boston hospital correctly sees this phenomenon as an opportunity:
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center doesn’t have a lot of extra money to spend, but lately it has gotten a lot of bang for its buck by pitching to short-handed TV stations and Web sites in Boston.
“They don't have any reporters anymore,” said Rhonda Mann, Beth Israel’s director of marketing communications, at the recent Mayo Clinic-Ragan Social Media Summit. “In Boston, everyone has laid off writing staff, but they still have columns to fill or airtime to fill, and they need content.”
Mann has used that reality to her advantage: She’s given stations much-needed health content in return for the hospital’s name mentioned on the show. (link)
It's dogged, old-school media relations, and it's good to know it still works. On the other hand, if you're a journalist reading this, you just might want to weep at all the free advertising this hospital is getting:
For example, Beth Israel’s hand surgery numbers had been down, so Mann pitched a four- to five-minute segment on carpal tunnel syndrome, making one of the hospital’s surgeon available to talk about the condition. Now, every month or so, the station brings in someone from Beth Israel to present common health tips. Doing so fills time and gives anchors a topic to promote for the next day.
“They’re looking for good health content. There’s a need for health because a lot of the first people laid off covered a beat, health in particular,” Mann said.
To fill that void, Mann pitches health topics of general interest—such as back pain, headaches, heartburn—and boils them down into five easy-to-remember tips or facts. She also makes it easy for the station by offering to do the work.
“Make it easy,” Mann said. “Say to the producer, ‘Would it be helpful if I sent a lead in?’ or, ‘I'll send five things, so you can do a graphic with bullets.’ The producer says, ‘This is great, I don’t even have to think.’ ”
Who says journalism is dead?
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center doesn’t have a lot of extra money to spend, but lately it has gotten a lot of bang for its buck by pitching to short-handed TV stations and Web sites in Boston.
“They don't have any reporters anymore,” said Rhonda Mann, Beth Israel’s director of marketing communications, at the recent Mayo Clinic-Ragan Social Media Summit. “In Boston, everyone has laid off writing staff, but they still have columns to fill or airtime to fill, and they need content.”
Mann has used that reality to her advantage: She’s given stations much-needed health content in return for the hospital’s name mentioned on the show. (link)
It's dogged, old-school media relations, and it's good to know it still works. On the other hand, if you're a journalist reading this, you just might want to weep at all the free advertising this hospital is getting:
For example, Beth Israel’s hand surgery numbers had been down, so Mann pitched a four- to five-minute segment on carpal tunnel syndrome, making one of the hospital’s surgeon available to talk about the condition. Now, every month or so, the station brings in someone from Beth Israel to present common health tips. Doing so fills time and gives anchors a topic to promote for the next day.
“They’re looking for good health content. There’s a need for health because a lot of the first people laid off covered a beat, health in particular,” Mann said.
To fill that void, Mann pitches health topics of general interest—such as back pain, headaches, heartburn—and boils them down into five easy-to-remember tips or facts. She also makes it easy for the station by offering to do the work.
“Make it easy,” Mann said. “Say to the producer, ‘Would it be helpful if I sent a lead in?’ or, ‘I'll send five things, so you can do a graphic with bullets.’ The producer says, ‘This is great, I don’t even have to think.’ ”
Who says journalism is dead?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
That's not what I said
Burson-Marsteller anaylzed how companies' messages are conveyed in the media, including bloggers, and found a 48 percent gap, meaning nearly half of the message reported by the media does not reflect what the company intends.
A couple of thoughts, off the top of my head. One, the findings are rather intuitive. In fact, a lot of us in PR are happy when half of our message gets picked up in media reports. When a story comes out that reflects 100 percent of what my university is trying to get across, it makes me feel like I can go home for the year. This is exactly why savvy PR people have embraced social media: because it allows us to communicate directly with our audiences.
After all, media coverage is a means for a PR practicioner, not an end. It provides two functions: conveys strategic messages to your taraget audience, and provides third-party validation for your organization's endeavors. As for the latter, there isn't a great substitute for the prestige that can come from a good media placement. But as a communications conduit, the news media is rather inefficient. You have to rely on the reporter to get the story right. You have to rely on an editor or producer to place it where an audience will see it. Does it get buried on the inside pages of the local section, or during the last few minutes of a news broadcast? And you have to hope that the intended audience actually reads, watches or listens to the report.
Social media allows you to push out your message to the people you most want to listen, and get their feedback -- sometimes instantly. And when you do have a good media placement, you can get it front of people, instead of hoping that they happened to have seen it.
Another interesting tidbit from the Burson-Marsteller study: News releases continue to be reproduced verbatim. So much for the death of the press release. This should surprise no one who has spent time promoting scientific research. Many, many science news web sites and blogs -- many of them reputable -- print what they pick up from PR news services directly. I heartily concur with Burson-Marsteller that the lesson for PR people is to writer press releases for your target audience, not for reporters.
A couple of thoughts, off the top of my head. One, the findings are rather intuitive. In fact, a lot of us in PR are happy when half of our message gets picked up in media reports. When a story comes out that reflects 100 percent of what my university is trying to get across, it makes me feel like I can go home for the year. This is exactly why savvy PR people have embraced social media: because it allows us to communicate directly with our audiences.
After all, media coverage is a means for a PR practicioner, not an end. It provides two functions: conveys strategic messages to your taraget audience, and provides third-party validation for your organization's endeavors. As for the latter, there isn't a great substitute for the prestige that can come from a good media placement. But as a communications conduit, the news media is rather inefficient. You have to rely on the reporter to get the story right. You have to rely on an editor or producer to place it where an audience will see it. Does it get buried on the inside pages of the local section, or during the last few minutes of a news broadcast? And you have to hope that the intended audience actually reads, watches or listens to the report.
Social media allows you to push out your message to the people you most want to listen, and get their feedback -- sometimes instantly. And when you do have a good media placement, you can get it front of people, instead of hoping that they happened to have seen it.
Another interesting tidbit from the Burson-Marsteller study: News releases continue to be reproduced verbatim. So much for the death of the press release. This should surprise no one who has spent time promoting scientific research. Many, many science news web sites and blogs -- many of them reputable -- print what they pick up from PR news services directly. I heartily concur with Burson-Marsteller that the lesson for PR people is to writer press releases for your target audience, not for reporters.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Alive and well
The Bad Pitch Blog is tired of PR navel-gazing over whether the press release -- traditionally the basic tool of media relations -- is dead. Indeed, this has been a popular topic for years now in online PR discussion groups and at conferences. The Bad Pitch Blog nails it:
At the end of the day, if it's newsworthy, it doesn't matter what format it's in. Serve it up on toast...there are more than enough creative options. But the more the public relations industry talks about the press release, the more we have an answer as to why PR doesn't have a seat at the table.
The public relations industry needs to spend as much time on critical thinking, where we provide more value, as it does on the nitty gritty of the tactics. Maybe this rant is telling me the industry needs to spend more time on critical thinking. Perhaps it's the challenge of a discipline that must scale between thoughtful strategy and detail-oriented execution. But that's more of an opportunity than anything else. (link)
People still use press releases because they still work, at least with the traditional media. (Which we still care about, by the way.) But they only work if they are well-done, properly targeted, and about something the reporter is likely to care about. In other words, a good press release shares the same characteristics as other good tactics in PR. As a former colleague once said, it ain't rocket surgery.
At the end of the day, if it's newsworthy, it doesn't matter what format it's in. Serve it up on toast...there are more than enough creative options. But the more the public relations industry talks about the press release, the more we have an answer as to why PR doesn't have a seat at the table.
The public relations industry needs to spend as much time on critical thinking, where we provide more value, as it does on the nitty gritty of the tactics. Maybe this rant is telling me the industry needs to spend more time on critical thinking. Perhaps it's the challenge of a discipline that must scale between thoughtful strategy and detail-oriented execution. But that's more of an opportunity than anything else. (link)
People still use press releases because they still work, at least with the traditional media. (Which we still care about, by the way.) But they only work if they are well-done, properly targeted, and about something the reporter is likely to care about. In other words, a good press release shares the same characteristics as other good tactics in PR. As a former colleague once said, it ain't rocket surgery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)