By Danny Sullivan
I was over in Canada last week for some important meetings and it really drove home to me the value of being able to converse face-to-face. As a remote worker, I spend a fair amount of time joining meetings by phone, which is an effective but impersonal method of communicating.
My experience last week of sitting in a new client’s boardroom with about ten other people in the room was very positive. Ideas were being exchanged and the conversation was flowing dynamically. Had I been forced to participate in the same meeting by conference call, it would have been a far different story. Simply trying to determine who is speaking at any one time would have been a huge challenge, let alone trying to interject with constructive comment from my little speaker in the middle of the room!
Similarly, the roundtable I had with colleagues during my visit was a highly constructive one. The benefit of being able to interact in a lively conversation, without having to wait for a suitable period of silence to make oneself heard is a real benefit. Those little physical gestures that we use to convey humour, emphasize a point, or to imply something else than what is being said, all become moot to the guy on the end of the line.
This may all sound obvious, but in today’s productivity focused workplace, we often feel that the time spent traveling to sit in the same room as a colleague or client is time that could be better spent on other things. Why not just catch up by phone and save yourself those precious minutes or hours?
Read More
By Danny Sullivan
When a technology company approaches the date of a significant news announcement, the possibility of offering the story to media under embargo is often raised. For those unfamiliar with the term, it simply means giving selected media advance access to the news that you will be distributing, usually on the understanding that they do not publish anything until after your news has been issued. Although some publications have a policy not to accept material under embargo, the majority of news-oriented media tend to like them a lot and for good reason. Most editors and reporters that have to deal with breaking news are swamped every day with a deluge of potential stories, all of which demand on-the-day coverage. By receiving information on a news story in advance, they are able to conduct interviews at a time that is convenient for them and produce their article over the course of a few days, rather than in the fraught few hours available on release day.
But it should be noted that using embargos is not a valid strategy unless you are already convinced that your story is going to be regarded as worthy breaking news on the day. Embargoing a story that would normally be rejected on launch day for having little news value does not suddenly give it the prospect of receiving blanket coverage. Indeed, it will probably be rejected even quicker if you try and do so.
Similarly, make sure you are targeting the right people with an offer of embargoed news. You’ll be wasting your time speaking to an editor about a week-long embargo if he or she doesn’t go to print for another month! Embargos have to provide some advantage to the media before they’ll be interested.
There is often a fear among tech companies that the media may break an embargoed story before the agreed date of release. Most media are very accustomed to working with embargos but, at the end of the day, it is only a verbal agreement that can easily be broken, intentionally or otherwise. While such an event is a potential risk, it is a very uncommon occurrence – the media know that their continued enjoyment of the benefits of embargoed news is predicated on such agreements being adhered to.
So please use embargos, but do so wisely, and the media will thank you for it.
By Danny Sullivan
In my post about analysts back in December, I promised to expand a bit more on the differences between the large analyst companies and the smaller, boutique firms.
The large, global analyst firms that publish all those high-profile industry reports are the undisputed top dogs. They command huge consultancy fees and can have a significant influence on companies looking to make technology decisions. As such, these firms are usually the first to be mentioned when technology companies start thinking about getting in front of analysts.
This is completely understandable, and engaging with these analysts may well prove to be a good decision, but tech firms embarking on their first round of contact with analysts should not put all their eggs in one basket. For almost every technology discipline, there are also smaller analyst firms that specialize in research and analysis of those sectors.
These firms, while not necessarily commanding the same level of influence as the big boys, still present a potentially valuable option to tech companies. Their tight focus on an industry sector can mean that they are better equipped to share advice and insight with companies operating in those sectors.
The smaller firms’ sphere of influence among the companies that represent your prospects is likely to be less than that of the larger players, but it should not necessarily be assumed to be so. I have worked with boutique analyst shops that had the ear of IT executives at some of the world’s largest organizations.
Ultimately, the big firms may still end up being your preferred choice for pursuing an analyst relationship, but companies should always look closely at all the players that are out there before making their decision. Taking the time to find out more about the analysts your space may result in some pleasant surprises.
By Danny Sullivan
Today, over on SearchEngineWatch, Marty Weintraub posted an interesting comment warning marketing chiefs against creating “an IT marketing fiefdom”.
His point is that just because your IT guys do the techie stuff, doesn’t mean they should be the ones in charge of search engine marketing.
“In too many cases, you’re wasting loads of money on elaborate systems with no vision; well-installed machines absent timeless marketing principles; and fiefdoms of executive elves who need some basic training in SEO 101.”
Marty’s advice can be applied even more broadly in certain cases. I’m thinking of those entrepreneurial gear heads who start technology companies and feel they can do it all themselves, including marketing. In most cases, a very bad idea.
By Danny Sullivan
Any person working in technology PR has probably had to deal with a fair amount of rejection in their time. And no, I’m not trying to make some kind of controversial statement about the psychological make-up of the average tech PR practitioner (although wouldn’t that be interesting?).
I’m simply talking about news release rejection syndrome. It might sound something like this…
“You’re calling from who? About what? No, I can’t do anything with that.”
Show me a PR professional who says they’ve never had an approximation of that conversation, and I’ll show you Pinocchio.
Unfortunately, responding to that conversation with a mumbled “Okay, goodbye,” is as far as a lot of PR practitioners are able to go. And there is a good reason for this – they are often under-equipped in their understanding of the story to go any further.
It doesn’t have to be like that. What at first sounds like the utter rejection of your breaking news story may yet hold the promise of good quality coverage, if you have the ability to go beyond the words written on the pages of that release.
A knowledgeable, well-briefed PR person should be able to move beyond that initial exchange to explore additional avenues and opportunities that may exist for coverage. Perhaps these will not fall in the short-term, but gaining an understanding of your long-term opportunities is a highly valuable exercise.
Understanding and being able to discuss the whole story and not just today’s news should be a requirement for anyone trying to pitch a technology or business desk. Sure, it’s not going to save you from the rejection of your news release, but it’s going to give you the best possible chance of succeeding over time.
