PRs aren't the bad guys
05/01/10 14:24 Filed in: PR
OK, it's been a while since my last entry, busy with
the book launch. Sorry about that.
I thought it was worth offering some comment on this guy's blog, though. Freelance journalist Kevin Braddock has blogged about PRs and the scattergun approach to journalism. Strictly between ourselves, I think he's a bit anti. He's named a number - OK, over 200 - PRs who've sent irrelevant releases over the last 12 months.
First, the vested interests: if you'e in PR or are a business owner and are concerned about your press relations and how to sustain them, I offer a media training service and you'd be welcome to book onto the course coming up on 27 January in London. End of pitch.
I don't know how long Mr. Braddock has been in journalism. I've now been doing this for some 21 years and I have to say he has a point. I don't like receiving poorly targeted releases either.
But why stop there? Later this month my accountant will be jumping up and down, maybe literally, if I haven't got the details of my tax return together. Oh yes. I hate this, it's an intrusion on my time. My wife will also be asking me to tidy the roadkill I laughingly call my 'office', too.
These are parts of the job I do not like very much. But you know what? They're part of the job. I have to do them or I'm in trouble, simple as that.
Likewise sifting through press releases. Yes, it's a phenomenally dull task. No, I'm not all that struck on it. But if I want to do the bits I do enjoy then funnily enough I have to get on with it, or I might miss something. And anyway, who am I to tell the PRs who to and not to target? I'm a journalist, they're PRs, they send stuff through - and you know something? They don't work for me. I do not pay them, I do not control their terms and conditions of employment and at no stage do I get to tell them how to work.
My experience is nowhere near as bad as Kevin's, mind, probably because my focus is tighter (that's not a criticism, a wide-ranging brief can be a good thing). But whine about poor targeting? Frankly I'd rather offer something constructive.
Like a suggestion that PR people should, as many of them already have, find out which social media contains their target group and hang out there. (This advice freely filched from my book and yes, that's my Amazon affiliates link). Make contact, say something helpful - it's much more difficult to dismiss an approach from a complete stranger as compared to one from someone who you know, whose face you'd recognise, who's almost certainly a human being.
Unfortunately most PRs are going to have to take this one on the chin. It's so difficult to respond to someone who has the power to exclude your client from something he's writing.
I'm not in that position, of course. So I've contacted some of the people on Braddock's list, funnily enough. One denies being a PR; one (you can check this with the search and replace function on your word processor) is apparently someone called noreply - I'll leave you to guess why they didn't reply. Another was intrigued by the list he'd published and her presence on it - and guess what, he'd never been in touch to say he wasn't interested.
I thought it was worth offering some comment on this guy's blog, though. Freelance journalist Kevin Braddock has blogged about PRs and the scattergun approach to journalism. Strictly between ourselves, I think he's a bit anti. He's named a number - OK, over 200 - PRs who've sent irrelevant releases over the last 12 months.
First, the vested interests: if you'e in PR or are a business owner and are concerned about your press relations and how to sustain them, I offer a media training service and you'd be welcome to book onto the course coming up on 27 January in London. End of pitch.
I don't know how long Mr. Braddock has been in journalism. I've now been doing this for some 21 years and I have to say he has a point. I don't like receiving poorly targeted releases either.
But why stop there? Later this month my accountant will be jumping up and down, maybe literally, if I haven't got the details of my tax return together. Oh yes. I hate this, it's an intrusion on my time. My wife will also be asking me to tidy the roadkill I laughingly call my 'office', too.
These are parts of the job I do not like very much. But you know what? They're part of the job. I have to do them or I'm in trouble, simple as that.
Likewise sifting through press releases. Yes, it's a phenomenally dull task. No, I'm not all that struck on it. But if I want to do the bits I do enjoy then funnily enough I have to get on with it, or I might miss something. And anyway, who am I to tell the PRs who to and not to target? I'm a journalist, they're PRs, they send stuff through - and you know something? They don't work for me. I do not pay them, I do not control their terms and conditions of employment and at no stage do I get to tell them how to work.
My experience is nowhere near as bad as Kevin's, mind, probably because my focus is tighter (that's not a criticism, a wide-ranging brief can be a good thing). But whine about poor targeting? Frankly I'd rather offer something constructive.
Like a suggestion that PR people should, as many of them already have, find out which social media contains their target group and hang out there. (This advice freely filched from my book and yes, that's my Amazon affiliates link). Make contact, say something helpful - it's much more difficult to dismiss an approach from a complete stranger as compared to one from someone who you know, whose face you'd recognise, who's almost certainly a human being.
Unfortunately most PRs are going to have to take this one on the chin. It's so difficult to respond to someone who has the power to exclude your client from something he's writing.
I'm not in that position, of course. So I've contacted some of the people on Braddock's list, funnily enough. One denies being a PR; one (you can check this with the search and replace function on your word processor) is apparently someone called noreply - I'll leave you to guess why they didn't reply. Another was intrigued by the list he'd published and her presence on it - and guess what, he'd never been in touch to say he wasn't interested.
0 Comments