August 19, 2003

The Big Issues of My Workday:

We distributed a news release over Business Wire, and are preparing to send it out via mail to a few hundred industry reporters and editors. In the release, there is an obscure acronym, CRADA, which stands for cooperative research and development agreement. Unless you work with the DoD (Department of Defense, which is fond of obscure acronyms) you will not likely have heard of a CRADA, so in accordance with AP style we spelled it out then put the acronym in parentheses afterward on first reference.

Now here's the tricky part. When the release is single-spaced, the second reference (in which the acronym CRADA stands alone) comes on page 2 of the release; when formatted for mailing the release is double-spaced, putting the second reference on page 4. That's a really long interval to remember an obscure acronym, especially in a release with several other acronyms and abbreviations to keep track of. So, what to do?

Person A suggested we keep the acronym on second reference. Person B recommended spelling it out. I was on the fence about it, so I took it to the boss. His decision? Spell it out and restate the acronym in parentheses. Not very elegant, not AP style, but it's a preferable solution for clarity's sake.

Yep, we deal with the tough stuff like this, every day, so you don't have to. All part of the job.

Posted by Andrew Huff at August 19, 2003 02:11 PM
Comments

I asked this question in my office and the immediate response - 4 pages? I doesn't matter what it says on page 4 since the reporters won't even read that far.

According to those I asked, the acronym would be fine on second reference, but they all balked at the thought of a 4 page release.

Posted by: Paul at August 19, 2003 03:27 PM

Well, they're probably not writing in-depth news releases on results of three separate medical research studies. And like I said, it was only two pages when single-spaced.

Were I writing a release about a new chuck key, I'd balk at two pages.

We find our releases are appreciated and frequently used at their current length by industry folk, despite how it makes some PR pros squirm. More information is better in most cases, no matter what they say.

Posted by: Andrew at August 19, 2003 03:34 PM

I'm not really in PR, I just happened to be in an office with several writers who do it. And my attempts at doing PR have been failures. But I thought the idea of a press release was to have just enough hook to get the reporter to call for more on the story.

I know you may have mentioned this before - but how many reporters just pick up the release and run with it? That's probably the sign of a very successful PR campaign too - if you manage to get your own words about the client into print.

Posted by: Paul at August 20, 2003 11:52 AM

But I thought the idea of a press release was to have just enough hook to get the reporter to call for more on the story.

The idea behind a news release isn't just to pique a journalist's interest, but also to make it easy for him/her to cover the story. That usually means giving them as much information as possible (without going overboard -- that's what press kits are for.)

Some PR pros do it the way you described, but a release with just a hook relies on the reporter not being too busy to pick up the phone and call about the release. Considering human nature runs toward apathy and the general state of busy-ness in most newsrooms, there's little incentive for the reporter to take the bait and follow up on the hook.

Our method plays into the reporter's apathy: If there's enough material in the news release to write a story, the he/she is more likely to do it.

We regularly get our news releases into print verbatim or near-verbatim. And not just in the Podunk Press; we've gotten rewrites into Crain's and other high-visibility publications. I'm confident it's our strategy of providing the whole story, not just a lead, that makes us successful.

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2003 01:57 PM