Monday, August 13, 2007
Which of these two outcomes do you prefer?
You're a hard-working public relations practitioner--it doesn't matter the setting, really. You've been asked to do some media relations work, and you start with the good ol' standard press release. You've crafted a good piece--not overly promotional and one that you think will get some hits. So you send it out, and it was successful... some outlets decided to take the release and send out some journalists to do some investigating and write their own stories. Others decided to print the release "as is" but put their name on the release. Which would you prefer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is a question that comes up a lot and that students also ask me in class. I personally know a lot of professionals who consider "as is" publication of a press release a great success. Moreover, our PR curriculum seems to encourage students to produce work which can be printed "as is." But, I think there are ethical issues to be considered here. My main issue with "as is" printing of releases stems from disclosure issues (an ethical concern addressed by PRSA). I don't like the idea of the public reading a press release thinking it is actually a piece of journalism created by a reporter (who they, rightly or not, may consider to be a neutral or unbiased source). In my opinion, the public has the right to know the actual source of a message. Of course, my opinion is rooted in my personal beliefs about the appropriate role of the media.
Well, I believe (and I teach students) that the best press-release is the one that is highly newsworthy. So, in this case the answer is obvious - if a newspaper sends out a journalist to write a story it means they consider a piece to be more important and newsworthy for them then if they just re-print it. So, my choice would be - sending a journalist to do the story. Also, it provides better opportunities to establish relationships with the media - reporter and editor - so, it may be better in the long run, too.
I'll give you what I think would be the agency view.
The client would be thrilled to see the release they have approved published with all of the positive points included and the negative points omitted. They would also see the benefit in the public perception of the piece as a legitimate article and since making the client happy is actually our ultimate goal, this would be the preferred outcome.
However, until the article is captured you have nothing to present to your client showing media interest in the story/event. One of the best parts of the job is receiving follow-up questions and interview requests from a press release that has been sent out. I have never written a release with the intention that it is published directly. I don't think this is ever really the goal, but it is a better outcome than a negative/incorrect piece or no piece at all.
May I add, that I totally work for The Man.
Tough question. Would I like to see my well-crafted press release appear unedited as an article? Of course, but like Alex said, the real goal is to solicit enough interest to have an outlet send a reporter. If you think about the size of the typical press release, that's not much of a story. It's better than nothing, certainly, but it's always the goal to get maximum column inches. I've actually had newspapers print my press releases, but it always happens at newspapers with 1 reporter and 3 readers. They're just happy to have something free and well-written to publish.
Having been on both sides of the fence -- the PR and the reporter side -- I agree with most or all of what's been said already. When I was on the PR side, we would've been thrilled to have our releases used "as is" because they've been approved as accurate by the source(s), particulary important with issues that are complicated, technical or controversial. It also saves the source's valuable time, and precludes any chance that a reporter can make an error in the reporting, or slant or bias something our sources said, or put them in a bad light or make them sound stupid because they may not be used to talking to the media. In addition, there's no need to worry about the source saying more than should be said either on or off the record (about a controversial subject in particular).
Having said that tho, we were also thrilled when the release resulted in no more than an idea for a story or a contact with a reporter, especially if it was from a big-name outlet, that might lead to a long-term relationship where they would seek us out. Our goal was to write releases that we would have written had we still been reporters covering the story, including using commets from outside sources (that weren't always positive) That effort went a long way toward developing credibility with the media. And so the stories could have been published "as is." But we never expected it. And frankly we were always surprised when it happened (and as a former journalist, I was appalled that it did for many of the reasons already stated).
But as newsrooms continue to become increasingly strapped for personnel, and with greater expectations about output, I can't help but think this is only going to become a growing problem/issue.
So only being in the "real" PR world for three weeks, I have come to realize that the "as is" publication is something that the clients do actually get excited about, but it would also depend on the outlet. There are hundreds of online publications that "publish" articles "as is" however many people do not see those.
When a reporter actually does their own story though, you have less control over the messages. But, you may have more impressions through this.
I guess there are positives and negatives to each.
If a reporter used my press release with their byline, I would be terribly worried about the journalistic standards of my local paper. I would prefer the reporter do their own research and write their own story, or as in the case here where we have a community newspaper, the Gainesville Voice, print my story with my byline. It just seems the most honest and I think that readers get that.
I'd have to go with the journalist chasing the story. An article reported on by a journalist will provide more credibility to my client and its products or services than a company-issued press release. There's always the risk involved that the article won't be all positive, but that's the beauty of journalism.
Post a Comment