What Must PR Do? Part 4 Press Releases

OK, I'm sorry I ever used the line about seeing a future for PR people who insist on clinging to command and control strategies in the restaurant service industry.  It was my first speaking engagement related to Naked Conversations.  I wanted to be edgy and memorable, which I apparently was, but what I said that day at BlogOn has been misquoted and misinterpreted ever since. I can live with that. But some people see me as a former PR practitioner who has turned against my former profession and that is just not true.

I am saying what I'm saying without glee and with a sincere hope that people still in the practice of PR will see the problem soon enough to be part of the solution. Not all of them will, I am convinced. Condemning what I have to say without actually listening to what I have to say will not make the problem go away. Hell, it won't even make me go away.

The big problem for the PR industry is not blogging. Blogging is part of the solution.  The big problem is that as an industry it has lost its credibility. The Edelman Trust Barometer, a poll conducted annually by the world's largest PR agency, finds PR people rank lower in credibility than lawyers. And, unlike lawyers, PR people are in the image business.

This is PR's problem #1. I will address that issue in a future in this ongoing series. Shel Holtz, one of the PR practitioners whom I most greatly respect seems to think I've argued that all press releases should be spiked, because we now have blogging. I pay close attention to Shel because he has credibility with me, a great deal of it even though I've never met him. He has that credibility because I've been reading (and listening) to his blogs since before I started my first. I mention this to demonstrate how blogging is part of PR's solution, but I digress. Shel also thinks that I confuse PR with media relations, but I don't. PR people do a great deal more than that.  They are part of strategic communications teams. The most effective practitioners interact directly with company CEOs, not the marketing teams.

I do not think all press releases should be spiked. I do think a great deal of them should be spiked.  I think those that still go out, should stop trying to be marketing documents, and try harder to be flat informational documents.

I learned about press releases from Regis McKenna, the founder of the first technology PR agency who was universally considered a marketing guru, back in the early 80s when I worked in his agency.  He taught that press releases should be factual statements delivered with the editor in mind. In fact, it was fine with him if they were just notes to editors and analysts who mattered. The key was to have the relationships with editors and analysts who mattered. For that reason, each media list was hand-selected so that the releases would go only to the editors, we practitioners knew mattered. "The editor's job is to write the glowing stories, not ours," we were taught. "And the client needs to trust us."

So general practice at a good many agencies followed the concept of the editor as customer.  The release's job was to let the editor understand that something had happened that you considered newsworthy.  The editor would then call the PR person who would then facilitate a direct conversation with the client.

It was all pretty simple. Until the Internet came along and marketing people discovered that press releases could be read by anyone who wanted to read them. So they went from information documents to full-fledged marketing documents, and committees of marketing people would cram in adjectives and phrases, then legal departments would then neuter by placing fine print disclaimers about forward looking statements at the end of the release. The purpose of a great many releases was no longer to inform editors.  It was now an attempt to generate buzz.

Press release almost never tell bold-faced lies, but they do play a game of inches in attempt to mislead. They try to make minor implementations seem like major innovations. All too often the fluff and puff by claiming "firsts," and "mosts" even when those firsts and mosts don't matter. Most observer will tell you they contain "spin," a term I hated when I practiced PR, because spin sounds like a PR kind of word for "lie."

Shel, it would be an impossibility to eliminate all press releases.  First, public companies are required to have them. Second, press releases are a legitimate way of communicating information. But information and marketing hype are different things. The Blanche Dubois policy of telling the truth the way it ought to be, has no place in public relations, or at least it should not.

Industrywide, senior people should take a look at the philosophy and process of writing press releases. And they should think long and hard about the issues of credibility and press releases.

In Naked, we talked about the difference in an auto company releases a fat, elegant press kit to accompany a new car launch, and a team of mid-level engineers blogging for two years about their struggle to make a better car. Which communications medium would you believe?

But there is a place where I do believe blogging can effectively replace traditional marketing, particularly the press release--the start up. While it makes sense for companies like General Motors or Proctor and Gamble to issue releases, why should an unknown, unbranded company with an untested product spend north of $10K a month trying to get editorial attention?

If they have new technology that makes a difference, like Riya or Mike Davidson's Newsvine, won't they get further by just blogging? As BJ Fogg has pointed out, stealth, for a startup is over-rated. A company can begin the process earlier, and get prospects involved in making the product or service better? This is one way that blogging can help credibility.

So would a PR program dovetail it? In a large company, I think The answer is yes.  But in a start up, where there is resources are always limited, I think having a blogging program and a traditional program creates diluted focus and defeats both programs.

Comments

[Shel Holtz]

We can remedy the fact that we've never met. After all, we live in the same neck of the woods. Lunch?

[Mike D.]

Totally agree. In fact, at Newsvine we're meeting with a PR firm next week not because *we* want to but because *they* want to. It's going to be an interesting conversation for sure.

Them: "We can help you get your story into major news publications."

Us: "You mean like The Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and the Seattle P-I?"

Them: "Yeah."

Us: "We're already in there."

Them: "How did you manage that?"

Us: "I don't know. I just wrote about Newsvine on my blog. People seem to come to where the story is these days."

Them: "How much traffic do you get to your blog?"

Us: "About 300,000 views a month."

Them: "Ooooookkkkkkkk. Well nice meeting with you."

I think what Shel I. is saying is that the role of the PR person doesn't need to go away. It just needs to change. And that is really true of every profession in the world except for maybe a horse carriage operator.

I can only speak for myself, but what I would have needed ten years ago is someone to write press releases for me and shmooze journalists. What I need today is more of a "PR coach". Someone to brief me on the ways reporters may try to coax sensitive information out of me. Someone to tell me if a certain reporter is known for insightful articles or slam jobs. Someone who could perhaps maintain their own blog within our company domain and act as a sort of ombudsman to any issues customers might bring to the table.

I come from a company whose PR policy is among the most archaic and controlling in the business: Disney. I worked there for five years before leaving to start Newsvine and I loved almost everything about the company, except for the PR policy. The PR policy was basically "You are not allowed to talk to the press or give any sort of interviews under any circumstances." This rule is slightly relaxed for executives at the VP level or above but even they have to route everything through the PR department. The only interviews I gave at Disney were ones that occurred before I was even aware of this rule. After that, I was more or less silent.

This was extremely frustrating because every few months a respected publication like OJR.org would ask to interview me about a totally benign and positive subject like designing with web standards (a movement I spearheaded at Disney) and I'd go to PR and ask to do the interview. The response was always something along the lines of "We don't see a whole lot of value there so please respectfully decline."

Value? You don't see the value of acting as a role model for the advancement of web standards? How about thousands of developers wanting to perhaps work for Disney instead of a competitor?

The problem with a lot of PR folks these days is that they aren't changing fast enough. I don't mean to lump all PR people into the same group here, because certainly there are those who are *absolutely* changing with the times, but a lot aren't... and I think Shel I.'s main point is that *those* sorts of people are probably on their way to extinction. The other sort is on their way to reinventing the industry... in a very good way.

[Kami Huyse]

First of all, I agree with Shel, a well-placed "pitch" to a reporter with which you have a relationship is more effective than a marketing piece dressed up like a press release.

Second, a good press release, with journalistic values, can be helpful since it does show up in the google results. However, if it is a superlative ad, people aren't stupid, they will just click on.

Third, I love Mike's idea of PR as ombudsman, that is how I personally see my role to my clients, as a representative of the people. As the conscious in the board room.

As an aside, I had a run-in with Disney PR a few months ago. I am the editor of a B to B trade journal and I got a password from our Disney contact and selected a photo from their online system for an upcoming article (good so far). When I tried to dowload the photo, I could only get a low-res shot. I was told I would have to wait six weeks to get a high res photo and I would have to run its use by the Disney folks. I kept calling/e-mailing, until finally, someone in the PR dept e-mailed me a high res photo, without need for clearence. Why have an online photo site if you can't actually get the picture there?