Lately, a number of writers I know are finding reason to either bash PR pros — or call out a positive experience with one as a rarity. This is highly disappointing, especially given the number of former reporters who venture into PR. I value my relationships with PR practitioners for a number of reasons. When I’m on deadline, I can count on them to call me back and help me out, and when I’m fishing around for sources, I rely on PR pros to introduce me to businesses, individuals and trends that I may not be aware of.
Still, despite all the good PR folks out there, there remains a negative image. Perhaps, the economy is to blame — clients are demanding more results, more coverage, more return for their investment in PR, and reps are doing whatever they can to deliver. Regardless of what’s at the heart, here are a few simple things PR pros can do to help better manage relationships with the writers they work with.
1. Answer questions. Your client hired you to develop messaging and pitch a story. When a reporter asks a question that doesn’t appear on the fact sheet or release you prepared, that doesn’t mean you should ignore the question. Finding the answer is a good way to keep the writer happy.
2. Be prepared to work. If you pitched the interview or story idea, know that a reporter may be intrigued — but not willing to commit immediately. If a writer asks for more information, be ready to give it. Giving another sales pitch isn’t the answer. Your pitch worked — the writer just wants to explore a little deeper, which is his job.
3. Be gracious. If the writer says no, don’t launch into all the reasons why she’s making a terrible mistake. Acknowledge that it’s her call and offer to be a resource for future stories.
4. Offer your assistance. I recently reached out to a PR rep for a particular story. In our conversation, I mentioned that this subject was proving difficult to find examples for. Within minutes, she offered up two other sources and provided backgrounders “just in case” I needed help. And I did. She then offered to arrange the phone interviews for me. She made my job easier, and as a result, got more than her original client covered.
5. Ask questions. It’s easy to get in the habit of just trying to find someone who likes your pitch. I get that. But expert PR pros also know that asking questions might help yield a higher-quality media list. I am happy to answer questions like, “Is this a topic you cover all the time? Would it be helpful to receive updates about XYZ company?” It might be easy to identify a newspaper reporter’s beat, but asking questions of freelancers can help you develop a great — and mutually beneficial — relationship.
Today, I’d like to take a moment to offer up a blog you might not be familiar with. If you’re interested in media analysis, critiques and musings, check out veteran media exec’s Alan D. Mutter’s Reflections of a Newsosaur.
In today’s post, he comments on the media’s ethnic profiling in its Mt. Hood coverage. Click here to check it out.
By now — unless you’ve been hiding in your attic — you know of the “Balloon Boy” from Colorado. Yesterday, I received a call from my mother telling me to turn my TV to CNN for some dramatic coverage of the balloon. I obliged. And there it was — video of the family’s experimental balloon gliding to Earth … and CNN’s anchors, well, making it worse.
Night in and night out, I watch Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart mock CNN for its idiotic coverage. Then, I watch the comedian ask more pointed and intelligent questions of his guests than the vast majority of journalists. But it’s easy to assume that Stewart’s team pulls the worst CNN coverage it can find to poke fun of. But after watching yesterday’s coverage, I am led to believe that they don’t have to work that hard to find poor coverage.
Yesterday, I saw an anchor ask a “hot air balloon expert” why in the world a family would have such a thing. The expert’s response (paraphrased): For fun? Later, I watched CNN’s crack new team analyze a photo of the balloon and an indecipherable black speck. By zooming in and out on their touch screen, they repeatedly told viewers that the photo doesn’t show much … except a black speck that may or not be the boy falling from the craft, that may or may not be … anything. But they were pretty sure it WASN’T a smudge on the lens. Thank goodness for CNN.
Actually, the more I watched, the more convinced I was that it may be time to say farewell to 24-hour TV news. The coverage is not better — in fact, it may be worse. It does nothing to deepen our understanding of our world. So, sure, let’s keep Headline News on a loop … Rotate through the top stories every 30 or 60 minutes so that you can watch the news according to your own schedule. But let’s seriously re-think the value of around-the-clock news channels.
NOTE: I encourage people to comment on this blog. It’s about dialog. However, this is not an opportunity to espouse political views on health care (or any other topic). Comment on the discourse. Comment on the media. Deliver your insights on misinformation campaigns or marketing ploys. But please leave political diatribes at the door. Thank you.
I make it a point not to discuss politics in this blog. For one thing, it’s a measure of self-preservation — I don’t want to miss out on opportunities to do good work because a client dislikes my politics. For another, I want to stay on-message. The AVC blog relates to communications, media, marketing, PR, language.
But these days, I can’t help but be reminded of the various points where politics and communication collide. Staying on-message has never been so important. And in a time when newspapers are folding and reporters are seeking new careers, never before has good journalism really mattered.
I’m wrapped up in the health care debate. How can you not be to some extent? It’s everywhere. There’s White House messaging, congressional messaging from both sides of the aisle, various news reports, third-party analyses of the arguments. And yet, with all this information, very few of us can grasp what will be in any measure of a bill. We are trying to understand the issue and reach an informed conclusion, but it’s increasingly hard to find civil debate — anywhere. For me, there are just too many messages. And it seems that instead of talking about the issue and really delving into it, pundits and politicians and media figures are talking AT us — telling us the world might end if we do it … or if we don’t. But truly informed, fact-based debates are lacking. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough …?)
I recently posted a commentary about health care on my personal Facebook page. I added no commentary of my own. A handful of friends “liked” it or commented. Three friends in particular kept the conversation going. The thread now stands at a hearty 35 comments. Aside from being my most successful FB post (when measured by the activity that follows), the discussion that ensued was controlled. Passionate, but controlled. Participants’ political views ranged from libertarian to near-socialist. But questions were being asked and answered. Ideas were being heard and considered. Experiences were shared. We are nowhere near being able to solve the health care issue in this contrary, but I think there’s something to be said for the nature of the conversation. It has — to some extent — given me faith that such a conversation is possible. If you have the right people in the room.
We all have a stake in what happens — and from where I sit, the first obligation our news media and our leaders have is an obligation to civil, informed discourse. Don’t market to us. Don’t play PR tricks. Don’t fling incendiary catchprases at each other. Don’t mislead us. Persuade us with facts. Yes, actual facts. This is not a light beer you’re selling. It’s a critical change in policy. I crave civil and clear communication about this issue … and other issues, too. And I’m left to wonder if I’ll ever get it.
The first few hours of my day are typically predictable — breakfast, e-mails, small work tasks, exercise and scan the news. I listen to NPR and peruse MSNBC.com. Occasionally, I check out a few local sites and review my Google Reader for anything else of interest. But a newspaper hasn’t come to my house in years — why pay for something you can get for free, right?
And herein lies the problem. At some point, newspapers decided that CONTENT didn’t have value. Newsprint, ink, running the presses, delivering the paper — these had value because they had hard costs. The content’s value, though, was demeaned when news organizations began posting it online for free. And as newspapers begin to shut down, they absolutely must review their business model. Advertising alone isn’t enough to sustain. If you have a nonprofit, a la NPR, you have different options available to you. (I personally contribute to NPR because I value its content.)
A Harlingen, Texas newspaper, the Valley Morning Star (a Freedom Communications paper), has recognized this. Subscribers to the print edition will have free access to the online edition, but there is no more free online access. In a story in the paper explaining the changes, the paper’s publisher, Tyler Patton, said this: “The days of giving content away, which costs money to create and for which we charge our print subscribers, I think, are just over.”
Finally. But it’s not like online readers are getting ripped off. Online access will cost a mere 3.95/month.
Perhaps this is a shift in the way newspapers will be run — you can’t give away your product and expect to run a viable business for long. And the bottom line is this: If your content is good, people will pay for it. People will pay a premium for premium news products like the NYTimes or the Wall Street Journal. And if the product is poor, the same thing will happen as happens with any bad product — it will fail in the marketplace. And that’s OK.
Content has a value. And it’s exciting to see this recognized.
Our long national nightmare is over.
I am, of course, referring to the media’s coverage of Michael Jackson’s death and funeral. OK, I know, I know. It’s not over. There are still reports to be filed, estates to be litigated and doctors who might get sued.
For the record, I was never a big fan of the King of Pop. I can’t deny he had talent, but it wasn’t talent that spoke to me like it spoke to the masses who have been over-exaggerating their love for him in the past week. Hence, I don’t have the same emotional reaction to his death. Death is tragic, yes. But MJ and I just weren’t tight enough for me to react with such deep sorrow.
What did sadden me, however, was the media coverage surrounding his death. Let’s start with the CNN text alerts that I’ll soon be canceling. On the day of his death, I received four — one to announce he had suffered cardiac arrest, the second to say he was in a coma, the third declaring he had died (according to other sources) and a fourth to confirm that yes, he had in fact died, CNN confirmed. In the days since, there have been various “breaking news” alerts regarding Jackson. Yesterday, there were two — one to say his golden coffin was in front of the stage as his memorial was under way. The start of his service was breaking news? Really? The second was to let me know this breaking gem: that his daughter says he was the best dad ever. I say again. Really, CNN? That’s breaking news?
I have often questioned the value of my CNN text messages as breaking news. A funeral that was so widely publicized? Not so much breaking, I’d say.
Matt Lauer took Today Show viewers on an absurd tour of the empty Jackson home, telling them where items once were. Jon Stewart dedicated part of his show to all the bad celebrity death coverage of late. Even MSNBC’s tech blogger got in on the action yesterday — declaring that the Internet was working just fine despite increased traffic from those trying to watch the service online. OK, that’s not entirely fair. That was his lead — that things were fine, but he followed up with some interesting stats about which celebrities were demanding the most traffic during the service. Interesting, yes. Newsworthy? Questionable. But it’s a blog targeted to a demo who cares about such things. So, fine.
Still, at the end of the day, Michael Jackson was a great entertainer. But an entertainer nonetheless. One with a controversial and storied past. With his passing, the sudden renewed interest in his life is just short of embarrassing. Sure, “news” editors and producers have seen public interest and catered to it, but to what extent? Will we ever see a time when these gatekeepers once again — I dunno — gate-keep? Is the death of Michael Jackson really a 10-day story? At what point does it become an obsession rather than news?
I’d say we’re well past that point.
One person whose job I don’t want today: Gov. Mark Sanford’s press secretary. I’m sure that job has more than its fair share of hard, stressful and just plain bad days, but on a day when your client/boss destroys his political and personal reputation in one press conference, that’s gotta be a tough day. Let’s face it: There are few things uglier than an extramarital affair — except a public extramarital affair.
Lies and deception are hard to walk back — no matter how good a PR strategist and speech writer you are. And when the offense is so grave as to betray a marriage vow, many of us can’t help but wonder if there’s any promise this guy might honor. If he’s willing to cheat on his wife, what lie won’t he tell? How do you convince people you’re worth trusting in office … even if your wife can’t at home?
But perhaps worse than his affair was the way he got caught. Really, Gov. Sanford? Disappearing to Argentina for five days? Having your staff say you were hiking? Really? How long can that last? I know you’re not the president. I know you’re no Jon or Kate. But you’re a public official. Reporters watch you. People know you.
Now, there’s the aftermath. It appears there’s something of a tidal shift. Rather than thinking him a dishonorable, fallen future presidential candidate, pundits, politicians and the public alike are starting to think he’s not so bad. He was honest and straightforward. He took accountability — and he’ll take his lumps. There’s even sympathy for the public way in which he has to take his lumps.
It’s hard for me to personally sympathize for anyone other than his wife and children, but I can appreciate those whose opinions of him changed just by observing his sincerity and honesty (albeit, a bit too late for me).
So, I turn it to you … Honesty may always be the best policy. Was Sanford’s too late? Will this just be a blip in his political career? Does anyone even CARE about politicians and their extramarital affairs? After all, we seem to expect them to lie and deceive — so, are we maybe even relieved when their lies aren’t about their jobs? Comment, discuss, pontificate.
With the advent of citizen journalism and free, easy-to-use online publishing tools, media consumers have an infinite number of places to go for information. We can read blogs, subscribe to podcasts, follow people on Twitter and tune in to YouTube. But even with these changes in our midst, I’ve been under the impression that one thing remains true, and that’s this: Mainstream media outlets are still held to a higher standard of truth and accuracy than that guy who writes a blog from his basement.
But maybe not so much.
If you missed the news about Entrepreneur magazine this year, Folio blogger Dylan Stableford provides a good summary:
http://www.foliomag.com/2009/do-publishers-owe-it-their-readers-ensure-accuracy-what-they-publish
And as he notes, in the court documents, Entrepreneur argued that it is “under no duty to provide information with care to its readers.” Hmmm. Maybe the magazine is just trying to save itself legally, but I still can’t help but question whether I will continue reading this publication.
Ultimately, though, the question is: How do we know which media outlets we can truly trust? Can you trust any of them? Share your thoughts … The conversation is open.