Technology reporters on the record: how PR flacks annoy them

• November 04, 2011

By Linda Forrest

“You’re doing it wrong” can be an irritated admonishment of your practices or a helpful push in the direction of improvement. It’s all a matter of how you see the world, whether you’re a glass half full or a glass half empty kind of person.

In the longstanding symbiotic relationship between PR professionals and reporters, there have been tomes written on how one side thinks the other side is failing and flailing.

Inspired by National Post tech reporter Matt Hartley‘s thoughtful blog post on why we hate your press release, this round-up shares the words of a few technology reporters as they point out the areas for improvement in the modern PR professional’s approaches.

From Matt’s post:

Over the years, I like to think I’ve developed a good rapport with many members of the PR community in Canada. I feel I’ve grown to understand their craft, and I feel that I’ve developed wonderful professional relationships with some incredible individuals. Some of the best stories and biggest scoops of my career have been facilitated by PR folks.

Indeed, without the help of my PR contacts, I wouldn’t be able to do my job.

However, some PR folks just don’t get it. They don’t understand what I do, or the very nature of the reporter’s job. They don’t understand my publication. They pitch me silly stories at inconvenient times. It’s frustrating, and these few individuals give the PR profession a bad name.

Rather than just bemoan the shoddy efforts of what he recognizes are but a few of our ranks, he goes on to detail the top ten things he loves about press releases, and the top ten things he hates. All valid points and any PR practitioner hoping to engage with the media could stand to read his missive.

In his post entitled What annoys technology journalists about PR, freelance journalist Stuart Dredge provided direct quotes from other reporters about what they didn’t like about their interactions with PR professionals. Their complaints fell into a number of specific categories:

Not researching the target

The first category is self-explanatory. In his comments, though, Dredge brought up an excellent point: he, like many other reporters, have changed beats over time. On behemoth websites for major media outlets, however, the wrong reporter may be listed as covering a beat that they no longer do. It’s up to both the outlet to communicate the correct information about who currently covers a beat and the PR practitioner to make this determination before launching into their pitch, or including a reporter on an email list. We just switched media database providers because our existing one offered no insight into when the record was last updated; just because someone covered telecom five years ago, doesn’t mean they do now. Yet another reason to not rely fully on a media database alone; building an up-to-date media list is a time and labour intensive exercise for which there are no short cuts.

Not following through

Be responsive. Provide the media with what they need to cover your company. Dredge comes to the PR flack’s defence on this one saying, “Yeah, this can be frustrating, although I appreciate that a PR person working on a bunch of clients is as likely to get sucked into non-responsiveness as I am with deadlines.” Ask any PR practitioner and they’ll tell you a horror story about a reporter tearing their head off for deigning to call to follow up a release. You’re also likely to hear stories of the best possible coverage coming from following up a release or pitch with a well-timed, respectful phone call. I strongly disagree with the much floated idea that the phone call is dead. PR practitioners need to know their market – the specific journalist’s preference for communication via whatever channel (okay to pitch via Twitter, prefers phone calls to email, etc.) It’s part of our job. Do it.

Hassling

It’s common sense: don’t be a jerk. Be persistent, not annoying. A healthy amount of pushback on a “no” is acceptable; if they won’t cover this sort of announcement, what will they cover? Dig to find out why your story doesn’t meet the editorial threshold and what you can do to leap over that hurdle.

Dredge sums it up nicely:

Talking to people, the real problem here is that a follow-up call about a relevant thing when you’re not on deadline is A Good Thing. A follow-up call about something not so relevant when you’re busy is not. Hassling is in the stressed mind of the beholder (or something). That said, it’s about politeness on both sides – ‘Do you have time to talk now?’ and ‘Actually, I don’t, but this time might be better’ seems like a friendlier way forward.

Another thing: the ideal call from my point of view is ‘we have this company, they’re doing x, might that be relevant?’ – literally two or three sentences, as a lead-in to either me asking more questions, or asking for the release etc. I get the impression with some calls that people have been told they have to give me the full five-minute pitch – even if 10 seconds in I say ‘that’s good, can I get the release?’ or ‘No, I don’t cover that’.

Picture not-so-perfect (sending big attachments)

Sending your release as an attachment is just plain a bad idea. Attaching big photos to your email is also verboten. Have an online repository of downloadable high-resolution images, links to videos, and provide these upfront. Having a well-stocked newsroom on your website is essential.

Standing on the shoulders of giants (piggybacking on the release of a rival company, sending over clients’ comments the day a story is in the paper)

Dredge said that he didn’t really take issue with these, er, issues. If an outlet is writing about a client’s space, why shouldn’t they counter or add to or support whatever conversation is happening in their media marketplace? Reacting – either positively or negatively – to coverage is standard practice as well. Following up to thank the reporter for coverage is never out of place and if there are additional comments that the coverage itself has brought about, send them along. If something in the article is factually incorrect, it’s important to provide those details too (but be aware that the toothpaste is already out of the tube in the echo chamber that is social media.)

I’d highly recommend both of the posts referenced above – regardless of what side of the divide you’re on. You just might learn something that improves your practice if you’re a PR flack, or at least know that you alone are not the sole hack suffering the bad pitches of shoddy PR practitioners.

Image: Paul and Partners Inc.