Getting Ink

Just wrong on every level.

Sometimes you get a voicemail message that's SO amazing - in a bad way - that you have to listen to it three times.

Then you have to put it on speakerphone and ring a friend so they can listen to it too. Then you listen to it again, just to make sure you heard it properly. Wow.

With certain identifying details removed, here's the message a PR exec left on my mobile today:

"Hi Sally, it's --- from ----. I'm just calling about an article you wrote for --- magazine where you quoted ----. It was in the context of talking about a ----- that they had purchased from ----. Now I noticed that the vendor name -----, which is based in -----, is missing. I can see where it should be inserted, but it isn't there.

I'm a bit - well, I'm very unhappy actually because the whole point of us responding to the Response Source request was to promote ----- and they're not even mentioned in the article. And it's not going to be enough for you to just insert -----'s name into the article online, because it's over a month old now, so they wouldn't even get the leverage or the views.

As I said, we're pretty unhappy about it. So I was thinking we could do something else with --- magazine so that ----- can get some coverage. What I'll do is drop you an email and perhaps you could call me as soon as possible..." 

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

For those who aren't sure why this is a hugely inappropriate email to send to a journalist, here are some handy tips:

Providing a customer quote is a great way to increase the odds of your client getting coverage, but if you want a guarantee? Buy an ad.

Sometimes copy gets cut by people other than the writer and for many different reasons. Maybe they need to free up space on the page. Maybe a competitor to your client just bought a big ad next to this feature. Maybe the editor just didn't like the sentence where your client got named. Maybe the customer didn't say anything interesting about you. Blaming the writer won't get you anywhere apart from on their 'don't bother talking to that one next time' list. 

If you don't like something, I suggest calling the editor and asking them to compensate you with another feature that DOES include your client's name. Also, please tape the call and post it online. Cause I'd really love to hear how that works out for you. Or you could just say, "Disappointed we didn't rate a mention there, is there anything else you're working on we could help with? Or perhaps you'd be interested in an exclusive interview with another customer?"

Unbelievable.

But if the PRs are all dead, who buys the beer?

It's just been one of *those* days today.

I called a PR agency at 10am, explained I was writing a story based on a release they’d issued, and I needed to speak to someone before 3pm.  At 2pm I hadn’t heard anything so emailed the PR – to get an out of office reply.

Concerned, I rang switchboard to speak to someone completely new who said they might possibly be able to arrange an interview some time tomorrow. Or I could use the quote from the press release – which, I have to say, was a classic of the genre.

I admit, I laughed at the guy. I felt badly about it and apologised, but the idea that someone from a major PR agency didn’t realise that an online newswire wouldn’t wait 48 hours for comment on a release about a new data centre (this is not earth shattering news) seemed pretty ludicrous.

I posted three messages about the experience on Twitter – and was chastised by Jon Clements for “PR bashing”.

I reckon I look like more of a "PR tickler" compared to the guy who's just posted "Why PRs Should Die"

I know it's ironic, but even I read this and thought: "Oh grow up, you idiot, reading crappy press releases is part of your job". Personally, I don't think this sort of rant does anyone any favours - I don’t think anyone reading that post would learn anything constructive about how to do media relations better. I also suspect a few PR execs reading that post are now just a little less keen to phone a journalist and pitch a story or idea. So who’s benefiting exactly from this kind of pointless ranting? 

I know I like a good moan as much as the next journo, but I do try (honest) to be constructive, mostly. So if nothing else, my rant for today should remind you that in online news, getting an interview tomorrow is just too damn late. The story HAS to go up today or not at all. See?

And besides, if all the PRs die, who buys the journalists’ beer? Especially now we’re not allowed expenses any more. Ha - bet you didn't think of that, Mr Miserable Bastard, did you?

Emails I have received this week

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm as fond of email as the next journalist. But this week? Email has not been a friend of mine. I just keep getting annoying emails. Maybe I'm just having a grumpy day. You be the judge:

Annoying email #1: "I am not in the office. Sorry for the inconvenience."

This from a PR. No alternative contact, no switchboard phone number, no idea when you might be back. You're just not there. Helpful.

Annoying email #2 "Special Offers from Catholic Gifts"

It's spam. I know it's spam, you know it's spam. But if I delete it, and something bad happens, I'll always wonder if it's because I deleted an email from God. Well, not directly from God, but you know what I mean.

Annoying email #3: "The finance director is on holiday"

So you're a £10m company. You employ 200 people in London and San Francisco. But one teeny tiny person goes on holiday and you're suddenly unable to pay any bills? Gosh, hope the electric isn't due.

Acronyms: not big OR clever.

One of the subjects I cover as a hack is technology. And not fun, "oh, look at my new iPhone" technology, either. I write about enterprise technology, covering very big, expensive, complicated computer systems. 

One of the worst things about enterprise IT is the acronyms – it’s like alphabet soup. There are acronyms for hardware, software, standards, job titles – you name it, there’s probably an acronym. Or two. Tech hacks quickly learn the golden rule – always spell out an acronym first time you use it in copy – even if you think everyone knows what it stands for.

So I was a bit surprised to get a press release today from a major tech company with an acronym that wasn’t spelled out. I had no clue what the acronym stood for - in 10 years covering tech, I'd never seen it before. I asked my news editor – she didn’t know what it stood for either. So I called the PR. And here’s where it gets good. They didn’t know what it stood for, either. She was apologetic and tried Googling for me but came up with nothing. She promised to get in touch with the client ASAP and get back to me.

Now, that's all very helpful but seriously? Don't put out a press release unless you understand what it means. If you don't understand a technical term, what makes you think I will?

Oi, enough with the spam, already!

I posted on Twitter this morning, one of my semi-regular rants about the ills that the world of public relations inflicts on us poor, innocent journalists.

My Tweet (I know, get me with my 2.0 lingo!) said that sending identical emails to 150 hacks isn't pitching - it's spam.

Of course, most people immediately agreed with me, but some inconvenient types thought I was insisting on personalised press releases, and said it wasn’t practical to tailor pitches to journalists if you’ve got limited time and resources.

Hmm. Not so, friends, not so. Next, time, try the Sally Whittle recipe for pitching (tequila chaser optional):

As a PR, you’ve got limited time to invest in getting a client's story out to the press. 9 times out of 10, you're not working with the market leader and the news isn’t exactly “Hold the front page” stuff.

In this scenario, a blanket press release broadcast to everyone in your Cision database is never going to be the most effective tool at your disposal. What is? Your knowledge of a) the client and b) the media.

Using this knowledge, you can identify perhaps 10 media outlets that you know SHOULD cover your client because their audience will want to know this information.

Again, using your skills and knowledge, you identify the relevant contacts at those outlets and the best way to contact them - perhaps email, phone or even Twitter DM.

Next, think for each outlet: what’s the story? (clue: your client is almost never the story). Consumer publications will be interested in how the news affects real people in the street, while trade publications might be more interested in how it drives business improvement or changes a competitive landscape.

On that basis, you can create 10 pitches that are personalised to different media. You’re not writing a novel for each person – just a brief intro and a few bullet points outlining the assets you’ve got that will help them put together that story – perhaps pictures, case studies, review kit, interview opps etc.

Sending these pitches will almost always generate better results than a generic press release sent to all and sundry, and has the added advantage of helping you to build real working relationships with key media contacts – at the very least, you’ll be showing that you’re someone who takes the time to understand who their audience is, and what they’re interested in.

Besides, you can always spam out the release the next week, if you really feel the urge, can’t you? 

How not to do media relations, part 607,043

Got a fantastic press release today, about a new book.

On the upside, it's a book about management and improving employee morale. This is good because :

a) if ever there was a time morale could use a boost in most companies, it's about now and
b) i do write about HR, business and management, so it's a book that might be relevant to me

That said, there was just one teeny, tiny error on the PR agency's part. At the bottom of the release was a contact telephone number and a link to buy the book on Amazon.co.uk.

Hmm.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm going to guess that most of my clients are more interested in books BEFORE they're published. If you're going to pitch journalists about a book, we'll usually expect a preview copy, which allows us to review the book in the same week or month that it's published.

This means we're unused to buying review books from Amazon. Seriously. You can't afford to send out a few review copies? I know it's a recession, really I feel your pain, but you know what? If you don't send a review copy, we won't buy the book. We'll review the other books where we WERE sent review copies.

Oh, so *that's* where my sparky edge got to.

It has been said lately, by the likes of Wadds and Katie Moffat, that I seem to have mislaid my sparky edge. Apparently, I've been quite calm and reasonable and - whisper it - even nice to PRs using social media.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what might have happened to rob me of my sparky edge. I still have the same combination of lovely versus basically psychotic clients, I still have far too much work and not enough life ... what's new?

Then I figured it out. I haven't used Response Source* in a while.

Oh yes, friends. Response Source, from what I can tell from recent experience, is where The Stupid People go to die. Some of the world's most stupid people can be found on Response Source. They like to hang out there and send spectacularly stupid, annoying emails to people like me, who don't even have the time to fully enjoy the slack-jawed, empty-headedness on display. 

I was working on a feature Friday - short deadline - and I needed examples of youth projects where technology had been used to engage young people in sport, exercise and healthy living. So I put out a quick response on RS, asking for people who knew about such projects to drop me a line. Having used RS in the past, I even put TECHNOLOGY in capital letters to make it, you know, stand out a bit. Cos it's sort of important to the feature topic.

So, why, why, why, do I get email responses like this?

PR: Further to your request for info on projects that engage young children in health and exercise, I can put you in touch with headteacher  XXXX, at XXX, Tel: XXX XXX XXXX, who will be able to help.

I reply: Can you tell me a bit more about this before I call?

PR: Hi Sally, I've just been chatting to the head and I'm afraid they don't do anything that ties in with your feature. Kind regards, XXXX

Some responses remembered the TECHNOLOGY but not the health and fitness bit. As in:

Hi Sally, I have seen your response source for schools and community groups that have used TECHNOLOGY to improve engagement. [seriously, I love that the PR person capped it up, to help me out]. Our client, XXX, recently supplied a UK school with 150 XXXX, which are used in the school's creative suite for graphic design and cartooning. I thought I'd drop you a line to see if this was the kind of thing you're looking for..."

Well, in so far as it has naff all to do with health OR fitness, no, it's not really what I'm looking for. Should've capped that bit up too, obviously.

Seriously, while none of this is the end of the world, sending this sort of stuff really does make me roll my eyes and think, "Wow, [insert sender's name here] really isn't that bright." And that's not what you want to be top of my mind the day you send a completely brilliant pitch that I delete because, guess what, I think you're a muppet.

* Disclaimer: Other media request services exist, idiots may be found using any one of these services.

Probably not the sort of 'media buzz' the client had in mind

I'm not an expert, but I'm going to guess that when Peter Cassidy at the APWG (a group that campaigns against the misuse of email) issued a press release about some new research into email fraud last night, he was hoping for a bit of media buzz.

Which he got - just perhaps not the sort he'd hoped for.

Peter accidentally sent the release with all the recipient names in the cc field, so when UK journalist Dan Kaplan replied, pointing out that the release was based on five month old research, everyone else on the receipient list saw it.

When Peter replied to Dan, with the sterling explanation that "we were busy in November, and it didn't seem right to issue a release between the holidays," everyone saw that too.

Everyone also saw the complaint from CNBC that they'd received the release twice. Then everyone saw the email from the reporter at The Industry Standard, pointing out the irony that this flurry of emails (20 and counting) was prompted by an email from an organisation apparently devoted to stamping out the abuse of email.

This was followed by an email from a reporter at the Boston Globe, pointing out that: "Anybody who's not dropping everything else to jump on this five-month-old story has skewed priorities."

After that, everyone saw the emails from Wired, Techtarget, Internet Retailer, CFO, Smart Computing and various publications across Europe and the US asking to be removed from Peter's distribution list.

Oh dear. The lesson we can take from this: please be kind and use bcc: when issuing press releases.

If you just can't get enough...

I just read what might be the funniest blog post ever. A guide to Twitter for reporters, broadcasters and feature writers from Daryl Willcox, the normally exceedingly bright chap who runs Response Source.

It made me laugh because last night I was answering a Q&A for a PR blog, and was asked what I hate most about PR. I replied that my PR hate (insofar as I have one) is just that there's so much of it. There are so many agencies, freelancers, in-house PRs, social media muppets etc, and they're bombarding journalists constantly through email, phone, mobile, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook. The sheer volume of information is terrifying when you're on a deadline and prone to procrastination.

So Daryl's idea that:

"One of your first Tweets should be 'I'm a journalist for [name if outlet] magazine/newspaper/website and I'm looking for info from PR people on [keywords relating to your specialist areas or 'patch']"

just makes me think, "Great idea, why don't I just cover myself in honey and run through a swarm of bees while I'm at it?"

It's like, totally cool.

It used to be the only time I heard the word "awesome" was in the context of Biblical events or at Microsoft press conferences (Microsoft execs seem to have some kind of verbal tic that means everything is awesome. As in: "that new feature allowing you to save documents straight into HTML is totally awesome").

But in recent months I've had the word used in pitches from PRs a number of times, mostly to describe new enterprise technology deployments or research into corporate HR policy. These things aren't 'awesome'. Look up 'awesome' in the dictionary and I doubt you're going to see anything about 'reduced time to answer customer queries by 8%'.

I'm an English grad, so I accept I'm a bit of a word nerd. But you know what? Basic literacy shouldn't be too much to ask for. Yesterday, I got an email from a PR asking for some details about a project I'm working on.

"plz cud u send the synopsis thru agen - thanx!"

When did illiteracy become cool? Was I out of the office for that memo? What do you think I infer about your status as a communications professional when your email makes you sound like an eight year-old who has just been given her first ever mobile phone? And what's thanx? You've saved yourself from typing one whole letter there, missy, well done.

I thought it might be helpful for anyone emailing journalists to know the three top language quirks that are likely to make me think you're probably not that bright:

• Using text abbreviations in email. Please don't do it. Nobody ever got ridiculed for using full sentences and correct spelling. The same can't be said for people who use thx, l8r and u. Especially if they're over 23.
• Not knowing the basics of grammar. Don't use 'like' when you mean 'such as'. People like me will judge you. For the record, 'like' is a comparison, 'such as' is an example.
• Putting kisses at the end of emails. Ugh. I might overlook it if you work in beauty or fashion PR, but when your client is a management consultancy? It's just weird, bordering on upsetting.