Getting Ink

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.

Dance, monkey, dance...

Is there anything easier for your average PR firm than selling in a survey story during a quiet news week?

This, however, has to be one of the weakest survey stories I've seen for a long time. Airfix conducted a survey of 2,000 parents and, according to PR Week, discovered that: "62% of PROs feel they are missing out on time with their children", "the highest figure for any of the 30 professions included in the survey".

Furthermore, PR Week reports: "88% of PR and marketing types want to spend more time with their kids". No sh*t, Sherlock.

What makes this poor excuse for news even weaker is that only 72 (or put another way, about 3%) of the 2,000 sample size actually work in PR and marketing. So that 62% headline figure? Represents the views of, erm, 45 people. Hold the front page.

Things that make you go "Oh, grow up for goodness' sake"

Someone opened an email to me this week with the word “Yo”.

The next sentence was about the challenges of retaining control of the HR function during redundancies.

It does make me laugh when PRs try to introduce faux mate-iness into work emails. For example, a fellow hack this week told me they’d received an email from a PR asking if the hack was “around for a gossip”, which is just embarrassing, frankly.

Of course, corporate wankspeak is just as bad. This morning a PR contact actually sent me an email with the words: “Let’s run this up the flagpole and see if it flies”. Er, let’s not. 

At 101 training events, I always make a point of saying PR execs shouldn’t ever use a word with a journalist that their mates in the pub would laugh at. This includes such gems as “herewith”, “facilitate” and 99.5% of instances of the word “dialogue”.

However, don’t go the other way and imagine we are your mates in the pub. Because in most cases we’re not. Communication with a journalist should be simple, direct and straightforward. Anything else and you risk them either not understanding what you mean (someone once asked if their idea was a “snug fit”, and I had no idea what they were on about, so I just deleted the email) or they will  forward the email to people who actually ARE their mates and they’ll laugh at you*

* I have never done this. Obviously.

Why do you do these things to me?

For some reason, it's been a bumper morning for PR nonsense. Is there a full moon? Or are these people just DUMB? 

This morning, I needed to find a contact for an analyst firm in the UK. The website has a generic email address for PR enquiries, but no name or phone number. I'm on a deadline, so I want to speak to someone and know the enquiry is being dealt with, rather than sending an email into the unknown abyss. Not having a press contact on your website? Dumb. 

Next, I do a search of my emails for the analyst firm's name. I turn up two press releases sent in the last month - NO PHONE NUMBER on either press release. Seriously, a major UK PR agency issued a press release without a phone number. That is also dumb.

I find another email from one of the PR execs concerned, this time it has a number. She's on voicemail. Go back to my inbox, search again. Second PR exec on the account also on voicemail. And the third. There's no option to press zero to get reception. So I have to Google the agency name, ring the front desk and ask to be put through to someone on the account. I get put through to the first girl, who is still on voicemail. I decide to give up on that analyst firm.

I phone the press officer in-house at another analyst firm, to find he's on holiday but his voicemail at least says if I have an urgent press enquiry, press 0 now and ask for a colleague. I press 0 and get through to the receptionist who tells me there is nobody else in the UK or even Europe handling press enquiries, and I need to call the US. This is dumb because the US HQ is on West Coast time, so there won't be anybody taking calls until at least 5pm my time. What's even dumber is the receptionist doesn't know the name or number of the US press office, and suggests I look on the website for the generic office number. Gah.

So, if you're hoping journalists will actually, you know, interview your client, here's some tips:

• Have a phone number on the press release. Every time.
• Have a direct contact on the website, not a generic email with no name attached.
• Answer your phone.
• If you can't answer your phone, divert it to a colleague's phone.
• Don't have everyone on an account leave the office at the same time.
• If everyone leaves, divert someone's phone to a mobile.
• If everyone leaves or is in a meeting, let the receptionist know what's going on and when you'll be back.

That'd be great. Thanks.

Another mail merge story...

We've blogged before on Getting Ink about the perils of relying on technology to address your mail for you. But it happens to the best of us - take a look at this story about DWPub (the company that provides Sourcewire, Response Source and FeaturesExec) sending out flyers with genders and names mixed up.

Ellie describes how the flyers from DWPub ("you've got the story, we've got the contacts") arrived with odd names:

• “Miss Ian Lovell”, Comms Officer - I’m guessing this one is for me, Miss Eleanor Lovell
• “Mr Eleanor Fern”, Press Officer - for Richard Fern?
• “Mr Richard Dunn”, Head of Press and Media Relations - for Peter Dunn?
• “Mr Annie Rowley”, Director of Communications - for Ian Rowley our Director?

Daryl has posted the official explanation and apology here.