August 20, 2003

More on PR

Ideally, a news release should be all a journalist needs to write a story. In fact, it should be able to be the story: the 100 percent "hit" is getting the news release in print as-is in a high-profile publication. Yes, it can be done. Not often, but it does happen. Read some of the articles about the Bush administration's War On Terror from the days just post 9/11 and compare them to the official announcements and you'll see what I mean

Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ideal situations in the world. Try as you might, your news release will most likely have some unanswered questions or unjournalistic elements. But in principle, the more information you include, the less a reporter has to dig for that information and therefore the more likely he or she is to use your release. This can work to your advantage in a couple of ways.

Good reporting contains more than one source, or so they teach in journalism school. If you include more than one source in your news release, you increase the likelihood that those will be the only sources quoted -- which means less chance for a dissenting voice to appear in the article.

Overall, you want to play upon the strongest of human states: apathy. Give them everything they need, within reason. Less is not more. Or rather, less is more: less work for the journalist is more coverage for your client. The less work the journalist has to do to report the story, the better, and that means a fully fleshed-out news release. What are they going to do with a one-quote release that only gives them a story idea, but not the story? File it if you're lucky, more likely toss it.

Furthermore, your media relations person must be briefed on the issues may come up regarding your company -- including and especially sensitive spots -- so he or she will know how to handle inquiries. Don't keep secrets from the person on the front line, or you're leaving him or her in a vulnerable position that could jeopardize his or her relationship with the media.

Posted by Andrew Huff at August 20, 2003 02:49 PM
Comments

Note: I removed some of the more inflamatory material of this post on the request of my employer. As it didn't really apply to my point anyway, I was OK with it.

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2003 08:47 PM

It's interesting to read from the point of the spin doctor, as it were. I may disappoint you by exceeding your expectations for the press, though. ;) As someone who's read more than my fair share of press releases, I have to say I'm not necessarily looking for my work to be done for me and it doesn't necessarily mean I won't be interested in the views of a "dissenting voice." I also can read through most "spin" and am not interested in it, by and large, although I know it's a living. What I like best are actual facts, like study results or statistics, that actually have some value. Just my .02.

Posted by: Anne at August 20, 2003 09:40 PM

Actually, you don't disappoint me at all. I'm glad you don't take this stuff at face value -- and part of what I deleted specifically referred to the fact that most journalists see through it. I took that part out only because it related to another section that I took out.

I didn't say that journalists wouldn't be interested at all in a dissenting opinion, just that it would help reinforce a client's point of view. It's also just better writing.

The thing is, the majority of PR is not spin at all. It's just information -- the facts and figures you're talking about. Yes, most of the quotes are manufactured, but they're not completely made up, just cleaned up or put into better words. Facts and figures are the lifeblood of PR as much as journalism; without them we'd have nothing to say.

There are plenty of very lazy journalists, and PR pros love them, because it makes our job easier (provided they're lazy enough to use the release, but not so lazy as to ignore it altogether.) There are lazy people in every profession, though, including PR. It's lazy PR people who put out the crappy stuff you throw away; it's lazy journalists who print it, thereby validating it for the lazy PR pros. I'm glad you're not one of them.

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2003 11:57 PM