Too much PR spin about nothing…way too much.
Where exactly does it say, and in what great volume of proper human conduct, let alone some PR book of knowledge, that every thing written or visually presented absolutely must be given its fifteen minutes of fame?
I recently read two different pieces on two completely separate “news items” that made me aware all over again that not everything is worth my time of reflection let alone your time. But for the sake of discussion, I’ll discount that to another five or ten minutes. The first was the hoopla generated over a rather badly drawn political cartoon in the New York Post last week attempting to humorously tie together stimulus packages and dead chimps…and the second was a book review in USA Today on a new PR tome titled, “PR: A Persuasive Industry” . The former received considerable coverage over several days on national television while the latter was relegated to an interior page of the newspaper. Both however, suffer from the same identical maladies. First, the subjects of the criticism, a cartoon and a book, are inferior examples of their breed…and second, the criticism itself is ineptly presented.
Starting in reverse order, all of the critical comments pro and con surrounding the cartoon focused on the issue of suspect racism in it’s content by the media and the talking heads who were determined to take advantage of the potential controversy of the perceived subject. Give me a break! First and foremost, it was a stupid political cartoon, by an institution protected under the 1st Amendment for two hundred years. But more to my point, it wasn’t even close to being a good political cartoon…it was in fact, a badly conceived and drawn cartoon, not worthy of publication, let alone comment, based on its lack of aesthetics and humor alone.
The second example personally caused me more discomfort because it delves into a profession (Public Relations) and a skill (reporting and smart writing) I hold with some esteem. If the reviewer, Seth Brown, doesn’t do his research or write any more skillfully than is presented in this “review” than he should be eternally grateful for every check he receives while masquerading as a writer…. "Public relations doesn’t have great PR.” Wow…that’s insightful! “Perhaps the most alluring thing about being a PR consultant is that no formal training is required: no certification, no universally acknowledged test, no courses offered at many prestigious universities…” Really? Someone better tell that to the Northwestern’s, Boston University’s Cal State’s, KU’s or the PRSA.
The book itself as quoted in his review sounds a bit sophomoric and defensive…. "There is much more gray than black and white in the field of PR ethics.” Duh! The authors define PR according to Mr. Brown, as “the planned persuasion of people to behave in ways that further a sponsor’s objectives.” Makes us sound like ad agencies for breakfast cereal on Saturday morning TV.
But Mr. Brown does end well…”If you’re looking for a book to conclusively answer your PR questions, keep looking.” Hear, hear. (In difference to full disclosure, I have not read it, only Mr. Brown’s review, which does not make me want to spend the money or time to do so.)
Sometimes, some things just simply do not require nor deserve their fifteen minutes of fame nor to be reviewed. These people, these things, these attempts at art, at communication or aggrandizement are just inept. And that’s ok. Try again.
Sorry, Andy Warhol.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The new PR economy…let’s make a deal
I was recently in a luggage specialty store shopping for a rolling carry-on (one of the greatest inventions of the latter half of the 20th century…should any of us have thought of it first, we’d never be laboring in the PR mineshaft again.) As I asked the store clerk about various brands and sizes, I was struck by his not only giving me this information, but his insistence on disclosing the discounted price for each as well. I inquired as to why; and he said, “no one is paying retail any more, so why chance losing the sale. Better to cut to the chase.”
Indeed. Are we are all looking to play “Let’s Make a Deal” in our daily lives these days, even when it comes to PR?
The evidence is certainly pointing in that direction particularly in light of the fact that money is harder to come by (unless of course you’re a major financial institution) and therefore each dollar must stretch further in spreading your good word. The good news, if there is any, appears to be that the need and desire for PR is staying strong to a degree because of the recession, i.e., PR is often considered a credible promotion tool of lesser cost than advertising. Advertising Age magazine recently stated…“While the recession showed its teeth in December—the U.S. economy shed 577,000 jobs—the public relations industry added 1,200 jobs. Meanwhile, advertising and media companies eliminated 18,700 jobs in December. Ad and media industry job losses total 65,100 since the recession began” according to the publication.
And while PR is demonstrating a resurgence in attractiveness in these tough times, (if not in quality…please refer to my earlier rants on the PR’s wastefulness of the media’s time on Blago, Jessica, et. al.) the industry’s costs of providing it’s services are seeing a downward pressure commiserate with it’s increase in need. In many cases this is absolutely justified and is a natural reaction to years of bloated hourly fees and retainers. But I believe it is more than a natural pushback to traditional PR firm’s charging for their own self-designated importance than their client’s actual needs. This drive for a “deal” when discussing PR compensation is becoming part of the fabric of the recession itself. “Everyone is dealing these days, from auto dealerships and luggage stores to the government itself…so why not PR?”
It’s a valid question and is particularly relevant given the often abstract and obtuse nature of the service our industry provides. Thank goodness that there continue to be enough media left to receive our outreach, and we still seem to be a better “deal” than wasteful advertising. And those of us that have been preaching accountability while being compensated under a “pay-for-performance” structure all along, it’s even smugly gratifying to see clients demanding more “value” for their tightening budgets. But we can’t get too complacent congratulating ourselves with how much better our accountability factor is over those fat hourly fee folks. Value as it’s now being defined in recessionary terms means less cost but with the same service/result.
“Pay-for performance” PR may have to make a few deals of its own to survive.
Indeed. Are we are all looking to play “Let’s Make a Deal” in our daily lives these days, even when it comes to PR?
The evidence is certainly pointing in that direction particularly in light of the fact that money is harder to come by (unless of course you’re a major financial institution) and therefore each dollar must stretch further in spreading your good word. The good news, if there is any, appears to be that the need and desire for PR is staying strong to a degree because of the recession, i.e., PR is often considered a credible promotion tool of lesser cost than advertising. Advertising Age magazine recently stated…“While the recession showed its teeth in December—the U.S. economy shed 577,000 jobs—the public relations industry added 1,200 jobs. Meanwhile, advertising and media companies eliminated 18,700 jobs in December. Ad and media industry job losses total 65,100 since the recession began” according to the publication.
And while PR is demonstrating a resurgence in attractiveness in these tough times, (if not in quality…please refer to my earlier rants on the PR’s wastefulness of the media’s time on Blago, Jessica, et. al.) the industry’s costs of providing it’s services are seeing a downward pressure commiserate with it’s increase in need. In many cases this is absolutely justified and is a natural reaction to years of bloated hourly fees and retainers. But I believe it is more than a natural pushback to traditional PR firm’s charging for their own self-designated importance than their client’s actual needs. This drive for a “deal” when discussing PR compensation is becoming part of the fabric of the recession itself. “Everyone is dealing these days, from auto dealerships and luggage stores to the government itself…so why not PR?”
It’s a valid question and is particularly relevant given the often abstract and obtuse nature of the service our industry provides. Thank goodness that there continue to be enough media left to receive our outreach, and we still seem to be a better “deal” than wasteful advertising. And those of us that have been preaching accountability while being compensated under a “pay-for-performance” structure all along, it’s even smugly gratifying to see clients demanding more “value” for their tightening budgets. But we can’t get too complacent congratulating ourselves with how much better our accountability factor is over those fat hourly fee folks. Value as it’s now being defined in recessionary terms means less cost but with the same service/result.
“Pay-for performance” PR may have to make a few deals of its own to survive.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Good PR, bad PR…or not PR
Those of us in this profession that have made the decision to make a living the hard way by asking to be paid only if we actually land positive press coverage for our clients rather than ‘counsel’ them, may be passing on some good income these days. I hope it’s not a sign of the dour economic times, but it’s apparent there are a lot of clients out there in need of some solid counsel rather than publicity. Do Michael Phelps, A-Rod, Jessica Simpson, and continuing fan and press fav, Blagojevich, come to mind?
Maybe it’s a backlash to the seeming adulation and feel-good nature of the coverage of the historic inauguration and charismatic new president, but we, as represented by the media we subscribe to (and ingratiate ourselves to as PR people) lately seem to have veered toward a fascination to report and elevate the weaker and sillier side of our nature. It’s as if we needed a good old-fashioned, what my grandmother used to say, “come-uppence” for being so smug in our reporting of real news that seriously affects our lives and incomes. “Enough” said the media kings and the publicists that feed off of them…"bring back the court jesters!” And of course, there are those amongst us, more than happy to do so.
The fact that we’re in the midst of an important debate with valid issues on all sides of the aisle that will affect all of us in the most personal ways over the next few years does not preclude us from the enjoyment of entertainment news, of sports, of even some fluff to lighten our day. Not at all. We all need and deserve a guilty pleasure or “silly fix” once in a while. But to be transfixed on it, to have it become a story with legs is an embarrassment to the media covering it, the audiences into it, and to the PR-types behind the scenes promoting it for income and profit.
Having been the PR renegade for most of my working life, it’s not entirely comfortable for me to wear the cloak of professional indignation in discussing my brothers and sisters in the business. The battle I’ve waged against fat retainers and hourly fees versus a pay-for-performance model is not the issue here, however. Public relations and specifically media relations under any compensation model can be a really tough business with more than enough justified criticism from within and especially from without. But for that very reason, it’s especially important to note and separate the pros from those that simply feed off the weaker side of our and some of the media’s nature. Too many of us have worked way too hard for way too many years fighting to squeeze in some justified media attention for clients deserving of the public’s attention, to be lumped together with the self-anointed “PR Gurus” or “PR Impresarios.”
Call it and them what you may, but please don’t call it “good PR.”
Maybe it’s a backlash to the seeming adulation and feel-good nature of the coverage of the historic inauguration and charismatic new president, but we, as represented by the media we subscribe to (and ingratiate ourselves to as PR people) lately seem to have veered toward a fascination to report and elevate the weaker and sillier side of our nature. It’s as if we needed a good old-fashioned, what my grandmother used to say, “come-uppence” for being so smug in our reporting of real news that seriously affects our lives and incomes. “Enough” said the media kings and the publicists that feed off of them…"bring back the court jesters!” And of course, there are those amongst us, more than happy to do so.
The fact that we’re in the midst of an important debate with valid issues on all sides of the aisle that will affect all of us in the most personal ways over the next few years does not preclude us from the enjoyment of entertainment news, of sports, of even some fluff to lighten our day. Not at all. We all need and deserve a guilty pleasure or “silly fix” once in a while. But to be transfixed on it, to have it become a story with legs is an embarrassment to the media covering it, the audiences into it, and to the PR-types behind the scenes promoting it for income and profit.
Having been the PR renegade for most of my working life, it’s not entirely comfortable for me to wear the cloak of professional indignation in discussing my brothers and sisters in the business. The battle I’ve waged against fat retainers and hourly fees versus a pay-for-performance model is not the issue here, however. Public relations and specifically media relations under any compensation model can be a really tough business with more than enough justified criticism from within and especially from without. But for that very reason, it’s especially important to note and separate the pros from those that simply feed off the weaker side of our and some of the media’s nature. Too many of us have worked way too hard for way too many years fighting to squeeze in some justified media attention for clients deserving of the public’s attention, to be lumped together with the self-anointed “PR Gurus” or “PR Impresarios.”
Call it and them what you may, but please don’t call it “good PR.”
Sunday, February 1, 2009
PR at its low point… the Blagojevich media circus tour
What we witnessed this last week was one very sad spectacle for a profession that, while never held to the standards of say, investment banking or even politics, nevertheless continues to at least strive for a modicum of respectability. The sadness lay not so much in the now ex-governor’s search for his version of truth and justice, but in the “publicity plan” and firm that devised it; and one assumes was paid handsomely for its execution.
It’s not that Blagojevich didn’t deserve PR advice, for he surely did every bit as much as insurance giant, AIG, did upon learning of their need for redemption in the press (as well as a large hunk of federal cash.) But rather than pay the princely sum of $100,000 per month in retainers and hourly fees to Burson-Marsteller, Governor Blagojevich chose to summon the keen insights of the PR firm that gave such great advice to Drew Peterson, run by the guy that none other than Ms. Media Credibility, herself, Nancy Grace, refers to as “The PR Guru”…Glen Selig and the Publicity Agency. Just how much, I wonder, did the ex-governor have to pay to gain exposure on just about every talk show currently on the air...not surely enough to make up for becoming a walking, talking target and joke. Mr. Selig clearly was not responsible for the ruination of Blagojevich’s political career or alleged illegal acts. Blago did a wonderful job of this all on his own. But without question, his subsequent descent into becoming a truly memorable and long standing punch line and poster boy for modern media self-flagellation is owed to the modest efforts of Mr. Selig and his firm. A firm that bills itself as “the only PR firm created and staffed by former journalists.Which means we know news better than any other agency out there. So if your goal is to land news coverage or manage news coverage, there is no agency better than our agency.”
Really? The only PR firm staffed by former journalists? I can name literally hundreds, including my own, INK inc. No agency better at news coverage or managing news coverage…? Was this sad spectacle of a ruined Illinois politico traipsing from one talk show to another, a sound example of garnering coverage or managing the news? Not to most of the PR agencies I’m familiar with, nor the clients that really deserve coverage of newsworthy happenings that might actually enrich or expand or inform their audiences. Most of us in this profession take pride in the real work and process of gaining both the attention and the coverage of the news media. It’s damn hard work and it takes a collaborative effort between the client, the news media and the PR rep to see it through to success.
But the media itself is not without blame for this spectacle, or for PR firms like Mr. Selig’s, that cater to its insatiable appetite for the bizarre, controversial, and even grossly sad. I wish the media that truly pander to this type of “news” were still the exception, and by and large, they are. But broadcast media in particular, is seeing sensationalism crowd journalism for airtime. It doesn’t take much skill (and little to no scruples) to “manage the news” by asking these types of media outlets for interview time with a controversial subject…newsworthy or not. (If David Frost could get a “confession” from Nixon, no telling what Whoopi will get out of Blago!)
Unfortunately this type of “Blago PR Circus” is growing and going to be around as long as there are clients in search of perceived media redemption, media outlets more interested in gotcha’s and scoops than journalism, and PR firms willing to suck up to both.
It’s not that Blagojevich didn’t deserve PR advice, for he surely did every bit as much as insurance giant, AIG, did upon learning of their need for redemption in the press (as well as a large hunk of federal cash.) But rather than pay the princely sum of $100,000 per month in retainers and hourly fees to Burson-Marsteller, Governor Blagojevich chose to summon the keen insights of the PR firm that gave such great advice to Drew Peterson, run by the guy that none other than Ms. Media Credibility, herself, Nancy Grace, refers to as “The PR Guru”…Glen Selig and the Publicity Agency. Just how much, I wonder, did the ex-governor have to pay to gain exposure on just about every talk show currently on the air...not surely enough to make up for becoming a walking, talking target and joke. Mr. Selig clearly was not responsible for the ruination of Blagojevich’s political career or alleged illegal acts. Blago did a wonderful job of this all on his own. But without question, his subsequent descent into becoming a truly memorable and long standing punch line and poster boy for modern media self-flagellation is owed to the modest efforts of Mr. Selig and his firm. A firm that bills itself as “the only PR firm created and staffed by former journalists.Which means we know news better than any other agency out there. So if your goal is to land news coverage or manage news coverage, there is no agency better than our agency.”
Really? The only PR firm staffed by former journalists? I can name literally hundreds, including my own, INK inc. No agency better at news coverage or managing news coverage…? Was this sad spectacle of a ruined Illinois politico traipsing from one talk show to another, a sound example of garnering coverage or managing the news? Not to most of the PR agencies I’m familiar with, nor the clients that really deserve coverage of newsworthy happenings that might actually enrich or expand or inform their audiences. Most of us in this profession take pride in the real work and process of gaining both the attention and the coverage of the news media. It’s damn hard work and it takes a collaborative effort between the client, the news media and the PR rep to see it through to success.
But the media itself is not without blame for this spectacle, or for PR firms like Mr. Selig’s, that cater to its insatiable appetite for the bizarre, controversial, and even grossly sad. I wish the media that truly pander to this type of “news” were still the exception, and by and large, they are. But broadcast media in particular, is seeing sensationalism crowd journalism for airtime. It doesn’t take much skill (and little to no scruples) to “manage the news” by asking these types of media outlets for interview time with a controversial subject…newsworthy or not. (If David Frost could get a “confession” from Nixon, no telling what Whoopi will get out of Blago!)
Unfortunately this type of “Blago PR Circus” is growing and going to be around as long as there are clients in search of perceived media redemption, media outlets more interested in gotcha’s and scoops than journalism, and PR firms willing to suck up to both.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Quality journalism is a two-way street…historically speaking
Recently the New York Times ran a story , “When the News Wasn’t New” that a current exhibit at the Folger Shakespeare Library on Capital Hill demonstrates there has been cynicism about the art and science of gathering and reporting of news and opinion since the professions’ erstwhile “official” beginnings some 360 years ago in England. It seems that much of the criticism at that long ago time was centered upon, “no wisdom…just much posturing and gossip.”
It goes on to state that, “It is strange to think that the genetic code of modern journalistic culture was laid down four centuries ago in England, mixing hype and high seriousness, incorporating battles over press freedoms, suffused with a spirit of competition and a need for marketing. The newspaper, we also see, evolved as the creator and mirror of its public.” (Nothing mentioned about public relations in this exhibit, but alas you just know there were PR-types in tights, floppy hats, and quill pens pushing that “hype” referred to above. But more on that later.)
Somewhere I hear that oft-used and much abused cliché… The more things change, the more they stay the same
Except the profession is in real danger this time of folding in upon itself, as it undergoes its latest metamorphosis from tangible printed page to a digital social digest due to dramatically changing technology and a younger audience eager to embrace it. Coupled with a crippling economy, these forces are driving the business side of journalism to dictate the quality of its product like never before in the 360-year history. While the conflict of cost versus editorial quality is as old as the profession itself (or any other for that matter,) the wholesale whittling down of both staff and infrastructure has definitely given rise to a much weaker editorial product.
There are those on the shadier side of the PR profession that look at this as a good thing, not a problem…believing that since those inside the media are weaker and the news holes to be filled, larger, the opportunity to gain coverage of clients, deserving or not, has increased exponentially. The rest of us (with whom I prefer to number myself) however, recognize this means we must work ever harder, and in tandem with the media to see that our clients’ stories fit the new and different demands of those on the media side grappling with these changes while still trying to be journalistically sound.
The media has a responsibility as well, in spite of its economic and transition woes. Those on the editorial side that truly care about their profession need to stay vigilant and proactive in preserving quality and integrity in their gathering and reporting. The good editors, reporters and producers that survive (and we all know who they are…or should be) must not let themselves be replaced by expeditious ineptitude under the guise of budget efficiency…i.e., laziness and penny pinching.
How can we help keep them employed and working with us, not against us? Deliver them real news story ideas and pitches that demonstrate understanding and respect of the media for which they work…not tripe and puffery. Bring them news that can be conveniently researched and reported…i.e., make them look good to their boss. In return, let them know (politely, of course…hey, it’s still the media) when they don’t show you similar professionalism and respect in their reporting or broadcast. Demand the same standards from them as they expect from us…solid homework, grasping of the facts, and an intelligent presentation.
With a little work and mutual respect, who knows…maybe we’ll both be around for another few hundred years…but I’m glad we lost the tights!
It goes on to state that, “It is strange to think that the genetic code of modern journalistic culture was laid down four centuries ago in England, mixing hype and high seriousness, incorporating battles over press freedoms, suffused with a spirit of competition and a need for marketing. The newspaper, we also see, evolved as the creator and mirror of its public.” (Nothing mentioned about public relations in this exhibit, but alas you just know there were PR-types in tights, floppy hats, and quill pens pushing that “hype” referred to above. But more on that later.)
Somewhere I hear that oft-used and much abused cliché… The more things change, the more they stay the same
Except the profession is in real danger this time of folding in upon itself, as it undergoes its latest metamorphosis from tangible printed page to a digital social digest due to dramatically changing technology and a younger audience eager to embrace it. Coupled with a crippling economy, these forces are driving the business side of journalism to dictate the quality of its product like never before in the 360-year history. While the conflict of cost versus editorial quality is as old as the profession itself (or any other for that matter,) the wholesale whittling down of both staff and infrastructure has definitely given rise to a much weaker editorial product.
There are those on the shadier side of the PR profession that look at this as a good thing, not a problem…believing that since those inside the media are weaker and the news holes to be filled, larger, the opportunity to gain coverage of clients, deserving or not, has increased exponentially. The rest of us (with whom I prefer to number myself) however, recognize this means we must work ever harder, and in tandem with the media to see that our clients’ stories fit the new and different demands of those on the media side grappling with these changes while still trying to be journalistically sound.
The media has a responsibility as well, in spite of its economic and transition woes. Those on the editorial side that truly care about their profession need to stay vigilant and proactive in preserving quality and integrity in their gathering and reporting. The good editors, reporters and producers that survive (and we all know who they are…or should be) must not let themselves be replaced by expeditious ineptitude under the guise of budget efficiency…i.e., laziness and penny pinching.
How can we help keep them employed and working with us, not against us? Deliver them real news story ideas and pitches that demonstrate understanding and respect of the media for which they work…not tripe and puffery. Bring them news that can be conveniently researched and reported…i.e., make them look good to their boss. In return, let them know (politely, of course…hey, it’s still the media) when they don’t show you similar professionalism and respect in their reporting or broadcast. Demand the same standards from them as they expect from us…solid homework, grasping of the facts, and an intelligent presentation.
With a little work and mutual respect, who knows…maybe we’ll both be around for another few hundred years…but I’m glad we lost the tights!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Five points CEO’s could learn from the new communicator-in-chief
The upcoming presidential inauguration signifies more than just a dramatic change in the politics of the administrations or the direction this country will be turning towards. If the transition period has been any indication, it also signifies an equally significant shift in how communications will be handled moving forward. Nearly thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan was hailed as the great communicator in the manner in which he shaped his words utilizing his training as an actor, but also in the way he was able to relate those words directly to the American public through a medium he was intimately familiar with…television.
On January 20 we are about to greet another ‘great communicator’ that knows not only how to shape his words as an obviously talented orator, but also knows how to use the media to transmit those words for the greatest impact. Only President Obama doesn’t limit himself to television nor try to circumvent any other media in the process. He seems, at least at this very early point in our relationship with him, that he understands the value of consistently good communications and not just the importance of periodic media outreach.
Oh, that all of our CEO clients should understand that axiom…that serving one’s (or company’s) self-interest lies in serving the needs of others…and no, not their shareholders, the media.
With my apologies to the new president and his administration, I’d like to suggest there are five key points of their communications strategy as it appears to relate to the media that the vast majority of CEO’s could benefit to learn and practice.
On January 20 we are about to greet another ‘great communicator’ that knows not only how to shape his words as an obviously talented orator, but also knows how to use the media to transmit those words for the greatest impact. Only President Obama doesn’t limit himself to television nor try to circumvent any other media in the process. He seems, at least at this very early point in our relationship with him, that he understands the value of consistently good communications and not just the importance of periodic media outreach.
Oh, that all of our CEO clients should understand that axiom…that serving one’s (or company’s) self-interest lies in serving the needs of others…and no, not their shareholders, the media.
With my apologies to the new president and his administration, I’d like to suggest there are five key points of their communications strategy as it appears to relate to the media that the vast majority of CEO’s could benefit to learn and practice.
- Run a tight ship…but an open one. Make sure you’ve done your homework and have your facts straight and a firm communications strategy in place…then encourage open communications to the media.
- Be straightforward in your dealings with the media. Don’t try to outsmart or be in any way disingenuous, i.e., don’t be sneaky, unavailable or lie.
- Don’t be afraid of your competition. The media looks most favorable on those that are willing to mention or show respect to their competitors when necessary.
- Respect the media’s needs, deadlines…and even shortcomings. CEO’s that demonstrate an understanding and respect for the job the media is charged with completing will most often gain a mutual respect in return…even when both sides may not always deserve it.
- If mistakes are made (and they will be) go back to point one…be open about it. Admit the mistake and provide the correction and explanation…and move on. If the other four points have been consistently adhered to, the media will as well.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Media job cuts can offer opportunity for PR pros, but be prepared for some flak....
Most of the following I must credit to its original author, a friend and associate of mine here at INK inc, and one of the best PR pitchmen in the business, Gary Hanauer. Gary’s analysis and conclusion in a recent company memo is so solid, I thought it worth sharing the best of it…
“ It was a horrendous day at Forbes, with editorial layoffs being announced by Steve Forbes today, and writers grieving over their fellow "family members" being let go. Some were good, promising writers, according to one of my buddies, who survived. Apparently 19 were fired from the magazine and web in the wake of Forbes deciding to merge those two operations. Supposedly, none were senior level people. Forbes editor Bill Baldwin and Forbes.com editor Paul Maidment are now coeditors of the combined unit. Time magazine recently went through the same process.
Gawker says 17 were from the print side, "chiefly those with the longest tenure and the highest salaries," which kind of conflicts with the idea that none were senior level folks. The two from the web were recent hires. Most of the junior reporters who served as fact checkers are long gone. Forbes is also rumored to be moving from its fancy 60 Fifth Avenue digs to Forbes.com's dumpier newsroom at 90 Fifth Avenue so that Forbes can sell the old place. But it's a very bad time to be selling real estate, so the move is still undecided.
What does this mean for us old PR types? I've been around the block for a while and have discovered some tricks that work. And since placements are the lifeblood of the PR business and the only way we get paid at INK, I wanted to pass along what may sound like a new perspective to some and an "old hat" to others.
Believe it or not, with a little bit of attitude adjustment, what's happening at Forbes and elsewhere could mean more (media placements) for our clients!
Why? Because we're pros who don't dilly dally around and waste the time of reporters.
Think about it… with fewer reporters, the ones who are surviving are busier. Who will they be more inclined to turn to for help? To us. The pros like ourselves, who know how to come to them with timely, well thought out pitches that stand out from the crowd. And, the pros who are willing to go the extra mile to think of the "big picture" and to think "out of the box" to get the job done.
Obviously, we should always put our own client and their story forward first. But we should be willing to occasionally pitch a broader story that yes includes our client, but also includes mentioning the names of additional sources beyond the client, even at the risk of mentioning a few of the client's competitors, if it would help you sell a trend or other story and achieve the publicity our client wants.
That isn't how most agencies work, which is why their attempts to achieve publicity at top tier media often flop. They’re thinking like PR people, not the reporters and editors they’re trying to influence."
"In other words, now more than ever, we need to put on the "eyeglasses" of the reporter and try to think like them. What are the tools the reporter will need to get the job done right away? What are the ingredients?
Our job has grown. It's no longer good enough to just give a reporter a lead and a source, and to consider our work done. To move our idea from being merely another interesting pitch to one a reporter will actually use and build a story around, we need to, during the first conversation, tell the person we are pitching why they should do the story "now," when our client is available, who else they could or should interview beyond our client, and how you, as the reporter's new best friend, can send them all the information that's needed to proceed. If that sounds like P.R. 101, but if so, it’s been forgotten.
Additionally, many PR people pitch a story without saying why it must be done either now or soon. And they don't go beyond mentioning the client's name or beyond suggesting the CEO is an interviewee. If so, they’ve only done half their job…which is my point.
My advice about pitching the bigger story, even involving competitors, may sound counterintuitive, but in an age when reporters don't have the time to do much homework and at a time when a sophisticated reporter is going to have to gather this information anyway, my view is that we should be maximizing our chances for success in any way we can, as well as speeding the story from the idea stage to fruition".
And good advice it is, Gary.
“ It was a horrendous day at Forbes, with editorial layoffs being announced by Steve Forbes today, and writers grieving over their fellow "family members" being let go. Some were good, promising writers, according to one of my buddies, who survived. Apparently 19 were fired from the magazine and web in the wake of Forbes deciding to merge those two operations. Supposedly, none were senior level people. Forbes editor Bill Baldwin and Forbes.com editor Paul Maidment are now coeditors of the combined unit. Time magazine recently went through the same process.
Gawker says 17 were from the print side, "chiefly those with the longest tenure and the highest salaries," which kind of conflicts with the idea that none were senior level folks. The two from the web were recent hires. Most of the junior reporters who served as fact checkers are long gone. Forbes is also rumored to be moving from its fancy 60 Fifth Avenue digs to Forbes.com's dumpier newsroom at 90 Fifth Avenue so that Forbes can sell the old place. But it's a very bad time to be selling real estate, so the move is still undecided.
What does this mean for us old PR types? I've been around the block for a while and have discovered some tricks that work. And since placements are the lifeblood of the PR business and the only way we get paid at INK, I wanted to pass along what may sound like a new perspective to some and an "old hat" to others.
Believe it or not, with a little bit of attitude adjustment, what's happening at Forbes and elsewhere could mean more (media placements) for our clients!
Why? Because we're pros who don't dilly dally around and waste the time of reporters.
Think about it… with fewer reporters, the ones who are surviving are busier. Who will they be more inclined to turn to for help? To us. The pros like ourselves, who know how to come to them with timely, well thought out pitches that stand out from the crowd. And, the pros who are willing to go the extra mile to think of the "big picture" and to think "out of the box" to get the job done.
Obviously, we should always put our own client and their story forward first. But we should be willing to occasionally pitch a broader story that yes includes our client, but also includes mentioning the names of additional sources beyond the client, even at the risk of mentioning a few of the client's competitors, if it would help you sell a trend or other story and achieve the publicity our client wants.
That isn't how most agencies work, which is why their attempts to achieve publicity at top tier media often flop. They’re thinking like PR people, not the reporters and editors they’re trying to influence."
"In other words, now more than ever, we need to put on the "eyeglasses" of the reporter and try to think like them. What are the tools the reporter will need to get the job done right away? What are the ingredients?
Our job has grown. It's no longer good enough to just give a reporter a lead and a source, and to consider our work done. To move our idea from being merely another interesting pitch to one a reporter will actually use and build a story around, we need to, during the first conversation, tell the person we are pitching why they should do the story "now," when our client is available, who else they could or should interview beyond our client, and how you, as the reporter's new best friend, can send them all the information that's needed to proceed. If that sounds like P.R. 101, but if so, it’s been forgotten.
Additionally, many PR people pitch a story without saying why it must be done either now or soon. And they don't go beyond mentioning the client's name or beyond suggesting the CEO is an interviewee. If so, they’ve only done half their job…which is my point.
My advice about pitching the bigger story, even involving competitors, may sound counterintuitive, but in an age when reporters don't have the time to do much homework and at a time when a sophisticated reporter is going to have to gather this information anyway, my view is that we should be maximizing our chances for success in any way we can, as well as speeding the story from the idea stage to fruition".
And good advice it is, Gary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
