Corina’s Concerns Be lowly wise, think only what concerns thee and thy being.– John Milton, Paradise Lost

When not to issue a press release?

1. When you’ve got nothing to say.

It’s amazing how many companies miss the mark on this one. I’ve learned from another blogger (can’t quite remember who) that the litmus test of a press release should be: “If this were an article, would I forward it to a friend to read it?” and if the answer is no, then don’t send the press release. Why do we then still send them, when it’s clear that we’ve got nothing to say?

Partially, it’s the client’s fault. Many expect their PR department or agency to show evidence of their work. The principle is that if you’re salaried or on retainer, you should do something to earn your money. Sometimes the client desires exposure for something that the PR knows does not have mass appeal, and pushes for a press release. Many PRs comply.

Partially, it’s the industry in Romania. I’ve spoken to several PRs who say that pitching individual stories to journalists is something they seldom engage in, because there’s not a lot of response. The media is rather generalized, with limited trade media in which to place a story without universal appeal.

Partially, it’s the PR him or herself, just phoning it it. In the hands of an expert, drafting a press release is a 30 to 45 minute tasks, provided you have the right quote, the leeway to create one, or access to a quotable source.  Developing a story individually for a media outlet takes much longer.

And sometimes, the cause is just ignorance.

2. When you’re whitewashing.

Recently, there was a major screw-up at an opening event for a new company. It was covered in the press and on the main blogs (as evidence of bad organization and self-promotion), but what struck me the most was that the day after the screw-up, which made many laugh and many cringe and was, by that time, public knowledge, the company’s PR agency sent a blithe after-the-event release counting participants and saying how much they enjoyed themselves. The contrast between what others reported and what the press release revealed was very sharp, and to the detriment of the client. In crisis situations, a press release is never recommended, personal contact being preferred, but a press release explaining the screw-up and company assurances that it was a one-off wouldn’t have been entirely amiss. A whitewashing press release in the face of glaring evidence is never a good idea. Other means of restoring the tarnished reputation must be employed.

I’m sure there are other situations in which sending a press release should not be considered, but these are my top two. I’d be curious what others think on the subject.

Posted under PRealities

A September post on contact persons in press releases deplores the hours that the blogger/journalist wastes on waiting for responses from people listed as contacts on press releases, and outlines the expectations from such contact persons:
- that he or she answers requests rapidly
- that the contact person knows the subject of the press release and is able to speak about it
- that, if written answers are provided, they are provided in a timely manner
- that he or she has supplementary information or illustration materials readily available
- that there is someone else who can supply all this info if the original contact person is unavailable

And in a nutshell, that is why, throughout my career, I was the contact person for press releases, although with increasing seniority I could have “dumped” the responsibility on somebody else. But let me explain why in a country like Romania it makes sense to have a senior rather than a junior executive be the primary contact for the press:

- Decision-making power and speed of decision – the more senior the contact, the more aware they are of what information they can release, to who and in what form, or the better access they have to the key decision makers who speak on behalf of the company. This cuts into the time needed to respond to the always urgent inquiries from local journalists.

- Credibility. In a hierarchical culture such as ours still is, most people want to speak to or here from the organization leaders, whose discourse is seen as both more interesting, and more reliable. Thus, the more senior you are, the better your message is heard.

- Ability. Seniority generally equals more experience, and in most normal situations, that translates into a higher ability to generate quotable phrases, give compelling answers, and even engage in effective evasive maneuvers if contacts are pushed into answers they don’t want or can’t give.

Just my two (senior) cents.

Posted under PRealities