This is not going to be a rebuttal to Jeff Pulver’s post on PR, because as a member of both the press and the PR fraternity, I can share his perspective, support his views and more importantly understand the pain. Also, please read the comments from Pal Alan Weinkrantz, who sums up nicely what I wish more PR folks would understand about this problem and take to heart what Alan poses as suggestions.
Please be aware that I feel the pain from not only the press’ side of the fence but also from the PR implementer’s perspective and the pressure from a client, as I’ve walked in their shoes too during my career on all three sides of the equation.
First off, any member of the press has to recognize that they are a target for stories. But we as responsible members of the PR industry have to pick and choose who we approach in the press, when we approach them, how we approach them and with what stories. The media sure makes it easier for us when they take the time to talk with us, and have a fairly straightforward conversation about what they are working on, how far out they need for stories and what they consider “news” for their readership, listenership and audiences. That said, every pitch does not deserve a reply but a friendly and polite approach sure warrants more than no reply at all, even if the reply is a polite no.
It shouldn’t be hard for really professional PR people to figure out that on the daily broadcast I co-host with Ken Rutkowski on KenRadio.com, that we want hard news that is breaking, vs. feature puff piece type of stories. That said, educating us for background, is what allows Ken and I to weave other companies, trends and facts into the segment, something few PR people seem to grasp. It’s those verbally recallable associations that frames out the story and provides the color that makes the story interesting. But very few PR people take the time to provide landscape, roadmap and competitive perspectives simply because all they know is their client’s own story.
Nor should it be hard for those that read this blog to figure out that I’m trying to make sense of complicated technology that appeals to the mass market or enterprise, by being more of a lighthouse not a repository of all things provided in press releases about VoIP. I don’t care about session border controllers, network monitoring or circuit boards. Yet I get as many approaches (pitches) from those folks every VON as I do from the companies with stories that my audiences would care about, making it harder to sift through the daily barrage of email. What’s hilarious is in some cases I’ll get multiple approaches from the same person for different clients versus the approach I’ve asked my team to follow, of giving the media the menu to pick from. I’ve actually asked some agencies to treat me that way, but unfortunately, they just can’t seem to comingle clients because I suspect they must be billing by the word or by the email sent, if not by the hour.
PR folks can be in many regards news sources if they take the time to be more savvy, not just pit bull ankle biters for their clients. Without news sources stories wouldn’t find reporters. That said, sending mass mailings to every reporter on the VON list is so off target and ill conceived it’s just plain dumb for PR person to do. Yet it is being done every day, so it’s no wonder so many members of the press have asked my friend Susan Donahue who leads the VON PR effort to keep them off the list.
Take this one that came to me today, on a Saturday.
On Tuesday, September 12 Apparent Networks will unveil Nortel’s plan to leverage AppCritical’s network analytic technology within Nortel’s VoIP solution portfolio for business. The media release is attached. It is sent to you today, in advance of its issue date under NDA, to help you prepare your upcoming coverage.
I’m making an example of this because for starters, I’m not under an NDA with either company. Second, the proper term is embargo, and third, if you’re going to do either, it requires concurrence, not simply a request. Beyond that, this is a partnering announcement which while possibly important for one side, is relatively unimportant for the other, as only the Apparent Networks’ PR person was listed on the release. While we have to put these type of releases out also for our maturing start-up clients, we certainly counsel them that not to expect a windfall of press coverage that matters around this type of effort. Thankfully our clients understand that.
Now back to Jeff’s post about a shadow list.
I’m opposed to this on principal, not because the current state of affairs requires it, but because it favors agencies with more bodies, i.e. the big firms, and predominantly the firms in New York and San Francisco with respect to technology who have a greater chance to build face to face relationships with members of the media, and to ascertain who is going to conferences without being on the media list. In effect the shadow list keeps the smaller companies out of the game. As Jeff has pointed out, it is firms that are mucking it up (my interpretation is this is the coming from the larger firms based on the kinds of approaches I’ve received or small exhibiting companies with an internal marketing person tasked to do PR outreach who just doesn’t know any better), and not making it easier but harder, so in effect the hidden list had to unfortunately come about as a result of the large firms blind staggers approach that has harmed the agencies that have helped build thing up at VON over time.
The second reason I’m opposed to the shadow list, is that it favors the house PR firm, and any clients they may have. Just like a wager at a casino, the house always wins, so in essence, as was done at Comdex for so many years, the second list provided the house PR team with an edge over all the others, or an unfair advantage, because it shifts the odds for broader coverage to the event itself first, and any clients they may have. Fortunately, my respect, and trust for Susan and Todd, lets me sleep at night knowing they go out of their way to help everyone to the fullest of their abilities, and not play favorites, so unless proof to the contrary can presented please don’t attack them.
My third point on this is directed at the clients themselves who are exhibiting at VON, or other conferences. It’s more than likely your PR person, internal or external, has counseled you on what is proper, and what can, should or is proper to do. Unfortunately, the lack of real PR experience or even education on the subject make a CEO rarely an expert, let alone a product manager who grew up on the technical or engineering side of the house, or worse, came out of grad school with an MBA, but rarely any true world PR experience. As a case in point, my college marketing text book had one chapter on the subject and most marketing programs or even Journalism programs have two courses or less on the subject. If graduate schools business have more than that I’d be surprised, but book knowledge versus real campaign experience is a whole different game. The reason the PR agency or PR person exists is because they know what, who and why something is a story. Unfortunately, the crowd of “know nots” putting pressure on those in the know controls the paycheck and the check book, so guess who wins the battle in too many cases. My friend and colleague Bill Ryan when he ran one of the Valley’s most successful firms, NRW in the 90s, used to regularly “fire” clients because his inflow of prospects was so large when they tried to tell the agency what to do despite the firm being one of the best at what they did. I agree with that approach as it keeps you in business in the long run.
In this world of getting coverage there is no real formula. It’s an art form. Good PR people, media folks and clients know that, and practice their art and in turn appreciate you more in all the way around.