By Danny Sullivan
Working at an agency, it is always interesting when you first sit down with a prospective client to find out more about them and determine what their requirement for PR might be. Often, companies have not given much thought to what it is they are hoping to achieve through media relations, but simply feel that they need to be doing some of that “PR stuff.” While it may well become clear that such companies can probably benefit from doing such stuff, it’s probably not a bad idea to have some idea of what story you want to convey before pulling the trigger.
An effective PR program does not simply operate as a standalone function, and should be a natural extension of an organization’s marketing operations, seeking to help achieve the same goals. It is not uncommon for early stage meetings, originally intended to lay out the scope of the PR program, to turn into extensive internal and external messaging sessions. And while it’s certainly better for this to happen at the outset of program than at a later stage, I often can’t help but wonder why such a session had not already taken place long before the prospect of using PR was ever raised.
We of course expect, and encourage, fullsome discussion around the focus and objectives of a PR program, but companies can benefit from having a clear idea of the basics before calling in an agency. Questions like: Who are we targeting? In what sectors? Where are they located? Who are our competitors? How are we different? and so on.
It may seem obvious, but having such information clearly established before engaging a PR firm will ensure a smooth, swift start to your media relations program.
By Leo Valiquette
Francis posted a good piece today over at Dangletech on the misperception that marketing and public relations activities are a wasted effort during the summer months when sandy beaches and boat docks beckon. Linda blogged quite handily herself on the issue a little while back.
There are, without doubt, fewer pairs of eyes available in July and August to pay attention to the news, but I contend that a greater number of the eyes that remain have more time to keep abreast of, even catch up with, the news and information that’s relevant to them.
In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that more people will take note of your activities than at other times of the year, when the the volume of work makes it difficult to keep the inbox clear, never mind take the time to read papers and magazines.
Case in point. During my time as a reporter and editor with the Ottawa Business Journal, the paper migrated away from publishing specialty magazines and supplements between Canada Day (that’s July 1 for our international readers) and Labour Day, which is the first Monday in September. I’m not sure now how or why this came to be, but a perception had taken hold that no one’s around to read this stuff during July and August. Perhaps it was the advertisers themselves who believed, for whatever reason, that their budgets were poorly spent this time of year.
Frustrated by this summer blight, OBJ publisher Michael Curran and I reviewed the traffic numbers to the OBJ website, and the pickup rates for the print edition of the newspaper, through the summer months over the past few years. Rather than seeing declines, we saw increases. More people were coming to the website, more people were picking up the paper from the curbside box, than they were during other months of the year believed to be prime advertising periods, such as September to November.
How is this possible, when there are undeniably fewer people at work on any given day? I think the answer is a simple one. It’s summer time, it’s nice out. Who wants to stay cooped up in the office all day? Instead, people go for a walk, visit the newspaper boxes out on the street. Meanwhile, back in the office, with many staff away, fewer projects are underway and the workload eases off a bit, giving people more time to surf the web and catch up on their reading (which is no doubt all work-related ;).
My former colleagues at the OBJ confirmed this morning that this year is no different. Web traffic for July came in higher than it did for many of those “busy” months of the past year.
As Linda said in her post, why miss the opportunity to make some noise when your competitors are taking the summer off from getting their messages out?
By Leo Valiquette
Over at Glass House, Frank Shaw takes a moment to talk about, taking a moment. The power of silence, the impact of that empty space between words, whether written or spoken.
Not that there’s much chance to enjoy the comfort of one’s own silence, or anyone else’s, for that matter, in this age of social media. As Frank points out, we’ve given up thoughtful introspection for constant distraction and torrents of inane chatter (OK, that’s my phrase, not his), but the point stands.
Meanwhile, the folks over at the Bad Pitch blog continue to showcase the worst of what the PR profession has to offer with another fine example of someone for whom “thoughtful introspection” is an alien concept. Cake, anyone?
Enjoy.
By Leo Valiquette
In my years as a journalist I endured my fair share of embarrasing gaffes, both my own and those of my staff (which I was often on the hook to explain, apologize for and redress.)
Despite the emphasis on clean, factual and reliable content, the occassional mistake is made in the newspaper business. Nobody’s perfect and the strain of rushing to meet a deadline can easily lead one to skip out on taking the time to check the facts through a second time.
Of course, it’s difficult to feel all that sympathetic about the plight of harried reporters when it’s your good name that’s attached to the error. Maybe they called your CEO Rob when his name is Rod. Or said your flagship product is still in trials when it has been commercially available for six months. There’s the little things that don’t matter so much, such as whether your company was founded in 1989 or 1990, or the big whammies that can land you in a lawsuit — like that defamatory off-the-cuff remark that was never intended to be on the record.
Sometimes the error is clearly on part of the reporter. On the other hand, I’ve seen many examples of interview subjects horrified to see what they said on the record immortalized in print desperately backpedal and claim no such thing passed their lips.
But what makes my teeth gnash as either PR consultant or newspaper editor is the simple, easy things that can be verified within thirty seconds by journalists with this little thing called the internet. In one client’s case, it amazes me how many little factual details about the company, its history and the features of its product are so consistently mixed up by some media despite the fact that it’s all there clear as day on the online newsroom page of the corporate website.
You can lead a horse to water, but …
All we can do for our clients is ensure we have provided all that factual information in as clear and concise a format as we can, as readily available as it can be. Never pass up the opportunity to follow up with a journalist to ensure they have everything they need to complete their story and make sure what they need is what they have.
If factual errors do appear in the final product, don’t lose your cool. Contact the reporter in polite, but firm fashion, to point out the problem, without pointing fingers. If they aren’t receptive to the idea of addressing the matter, then call their editor. A correction notice in a subsequent issue of the publication is a common method of setting the record straight. Don’t be extreme in your demands for redress, but don’t let your concern be casually dismissed.
Though it’s often seen as a nuisance by journalists, it isn’t unreasonable to ask to run through an article pre-publication to verify whatever facts, figures, proper name spellings, and dates they are using. Don’t expect to be handed a copy of the entire article. That’s not considered a reasonable request (for reasons I won’t go into here). Instead, the journalist will simply run through what they’re using with you over the phone or through an email.
The tone and angle of the story is beyond your control, but in this way you can at least ensure that the peevish journalist who’s writing unfavourable things about you at least has their facts straight. If you don’t like your portrayal, but there aren’t any factual errors in the piece, well, you can always try and get your side of the story better represented with a letter to the editor, but that’s a topic for another time.
