• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing Blogs

headshot

by Trevor Young

on May 13

PR vs. Media fight to a nil-all draw

Advertise with us

Public relations and the media have managed to maintain – not too well I might add – an uneasy alliance of sorts for decades.

To me, the situation seems to be getting worse as the pressure heats up on both parties thanks in part to ‘The Dreaded Acronym’ (GFC).

For two industries that utterly depend upon each other, I can’t understand why there’s not more love between both professions – i.e. PR practitioners and publicists on the one hand (one side of the fence?) and journalists/editors/producers/on-air ‘talent’ on the other.

Scratch that. I do know why, and like most things in life when there are two ‘combatants’, neither party is right and the answer generally lies somewhere in between.

Being a pragmatic former journalist who now works in public relations (and have done so for a good number of years), I feel a tad qualified to comment.

Firstly, the media’s argument against PR:

  • They send us crap all the time – poorly written, badly targeted, irrelevant press releases
  • They’re always ringing us and hassling: “Did you get my press release?”
  • They get in the way when I want to speak directly with their client (or their boss, the CEO)
  • They’re in your face with good news and can’t be found when there’s bad, and
  • They never get back to us with information when they said they would... haven’t they heard of deadlines?

Now, PR’s argument against the media:

  • They don’t treat us with any respect whatsoever
  • When we have news they’re dubious and picky, when they wants news from us, they’re demanding and prickly
  • They’re bloody lazy and expect to get everything for nothing
  • They never answer their phone or return emails, and
  • They RSVP to attend an event/lunch/meeting and then simply don’t turn up.

You get the picture.

Ill-directed, badly-written crap    

There is no doubt a proportion of PR people simply do not understand the media and as a result tend to send ill-directed, badly-written crap to journalists and producers. This is probably the number one bugbear for journos, and rightly so. As a PR professional, I can tell you it annoys the heck out of me!

Why is it the case? I think combination of factors really. Training is an issue. I’m not convinced enough time is spent teaching PR students writing for the media-type subjects (this is probably because public relations is such a wide-ranging course and media relations is but one part of PR). That, and there are no barriers to enter the profession.

Also, as hard as it is to believe, I know for a fact some PR people simply don’t read newspapers, watch television or listen to the radio anywhere near as much as they should. They might love being in the PR biz but they’re not ‘media junkies’. I find this hard to comprehend, and it’s a big issue because we’re all feeling the knock-on effect of this lack of knowledge and awareness.

Many clients too put great pressure on their PR agencies. They think their story is the best thing since sliced bread because they live and breathe it (‘it’ being whatever the basis is for the press release) and the PR people – either out of fear or lack of confidence – are too scared to stand up to them. Naturally, this situation generally ends up in tears. So clients too, have a role to play in all this.

Brusque and dismissive

On the other hand, some journos and producers can be overly brusque and dismissive even when you’ve handed them a golden story on a platter, but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the fact.

And, there’s no question many in the media simply do not appreciate the squillions of hours PR people put in to organise media briefings and events, set up interviews and photo opportunities, arrange for talent to be available at a certain time, do research and get further information.

Mutually beneficial relationship

However, there are also many, many journos and producers who work closely with PR people and together they share a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship. The media guys understand the job PR has to do, and the PR reps in turn understand what the media wants. It’s a win-win for both parties. Obviously, this respect is hard earned, but isn’t that the way most professional relationships are borne?

What if PR went on strike?

This much I do know: If the entire PR/publicity profession went on strike for a week, the media would be in all sorts. It’s simply not possible – especially today when news departments have been cut to the bone – for newsrooms to able to source sufficient ‘non-PR delivered’ content.

Imagine it: no news conferences (e.g. footy clubs, government, police) – no photo calls, no interviews facilitated with senior executives or government ministers or other spokespeople (or celebrities or sports stars), no pitching of genuine story ideas, no whispers for the gossips, no issuing of genuine news releases, no launch events, no showings for the fashion media, no gadgets sent to the media for review, no previews of films or TV shows, no media briefings by public companies, no product for competition giveaways – I think the media tends to forget all these activities are driven by hard-working PR people, day in, day out, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

Little wonder it’s purported that 80 per cent of media content is driven by PR!

So what do you reckon guys?

PR people – can you start getting your act together and be a bit more responsible with what you write and how you approach the media? Can you have a bit more empathy for people in the media, and indeed, perhaps start thinking like journalists/editors/producers? Can you muster the strength to take a reality check back to your clients as to, really, how newsworthy their ‘widget’ really is.

And journos – can you guys relax for a moment and think about how your (working) lives are actually made easier thanks to the PR industry? Can you have a bit more empathy for people in PR and maybe not see them as irritants to be tolerated but rather, genuine sources of stories? And yes, saying thank you occasionally would go down a treat.

Related Articles

2 Comments

lisallew
  • Wrote on 14 May, at 10:06AM
What a refreshing viewpoint. I read Trevor's piece with much interest. I, too, am a journalist who 'jumped the fence' into PR. I'm still very much involved with journalism, as I write and edit a major consumer magazine. My other hat is PR, which I've been involved with for 18 years. By wearing these two hats, I very much understand what each party does and needs.

I understand why journos can get jack of PRs. There are some unbelievably naive consultants out there, who have no appreciation of how the media operates. As my company produces a consumer magazine, we also receive a lot of media releases. And bloody hell, some are absolutely atrocious! In a previous position I was responsible for teaching young consultants how to write media releases. There is an 'art' to it! Because you're in PR, it does not mean you automatically know how to write. I also believe it would be good for young consultants to go sit in a newsroom and see just how the media operates. I'm sure that the communications courses are fantastic (myself, I started life as a cadet journalist), however you can't expect to know absolutely everthing when you graduate. The media is a very dynamic industry.

Wearing my other (PR) hat, I do get annoyed with journalists who think they're better than me. I started as a cadet journo 25 years ago. I've worked in print, radio and tv, and I know how a newsroom operates. I don't pitch in crap, and if a journalist isn't interested in a story, then a quick (polite) response would be refreshing. I am not into taking up peoples' time - plus I understand only too well about deadlines. I, too, am busy and trying to meet deadlines. Hence a bit of mutual respect would be nice. Also, if a journalist asks for some information or images, a polite thank you would be nice.

Of course, there are some lovely journalists who are most appreciative of what we provide them - and the speed with which we send information / images or set up interviews. That all comes down to understanding what they want and when they want it. And if you can make it even faster, then even better. I love nothing more than being able to provide some great stuff (quickly) to a journalist, and then seeing it appear.

Journos also need to understand there are times when PRs undertaking follow up is vital. We've pitched in some excellent stories over the years, but journalists have only been made aware of them when we've called to follow up. That's because they're inundated with emails, which is why we follow up. Story ideas can become lost. We only undertake follow up when the story is a good one, not when it's crap. Perhaps other PR consultancies should take note!

Whilst journalists call PRs "flacks", the reality is that there are a helluvalot of former journalists who are in PR. My father was one of the first PRs in Australia, after having worked as a journalist (across many different rounds), and that was at a time when PR was viewed as very much complementary to journalism. Unfortunately some bad practices have crept into the PR industry (plus it's probably become too easy for people to get into it), which has blighted how many (not all) journalists view us.

Trevor, I think your points were excellent. Let's hope that the industry pulls itself up by its bootstraps and proves that we're not the poor cousins in the media world.
rogermarshall
  • Wrote on 15 May, at 01:56PM
Great points well made. The roles of the journalist and the public relations practitioner have never been more hotly debated. At a time when readers are more than ever voting with their mice, both professions need to get serious about meeting reader needs for quality and quantity.

The debate last year accompanying Nick Davies’ accusations of “Churnalism” (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2348362.htm) – the supposed over-reliance on public relations “spin” among the media in Australia and elsewhere – got both media and PR industries up in arms. But in reality there’s nothing really new here – churnalism has always existed. From the regional dailies redrafting national news into a local context, to the modern slow news-day when YouTube videos make it onto the main broadcast bulletin, deadlines and quality have long been at loggerheads.

According to Davies, “…your average Fleet Street reporter now has only a third of the time to spend on each story that he or she used to have 20 years ago.” Ask a journalist in the late-eighties, well before the technology revolution, if they had 66% of their day to loll around while they pondered over the quality of their best work! Rather, ask them if they’ve forever felt under the gun of the editorial deadline!

Davies points the accusing finger directly at the PR industry (my predominant industry experience). Agreed, public relations certainly has a greater responsibility than ever before to assist the media in producing quality, succinct, reader- orientated content. But, again, this is not new. Quality content and understanding of individual journalists’ requirements have long been the differentiator between good and bad PR practices.

Yet the role of PR and its part in disseminating content IS changing fast. Attending a client’s global PR summit centuries ago in 2004, I recall one team demanding a PR strategy that centered on issuing one news release every day whenever possible. Even back then it seemed like a theory favouring white noise over quality news, and I expressed my dissent accordingly. The team in question determined their geographical market required they behave more like publishers than PRs. Their approach is still fraught with pitfalls (not least spamming) but the publishing analogy got me thinking…

Both PR practitioners and many journalists are experiencing a whole new challenge today (although many still don’t realize it). That challenge is the transition from word of mouth to word of mouse. Today, the clarity, volume and depth of unique user and page view data being recorded in the new era of mouse click metrics makes traditional measures of audited circulations and pass-along readership look like an exceedingly blunt instrument.

But volume (the publishing approach) and quality (the journalists’ mantra) can be good bedfellows. Lack of time is no excuse for poor journalism or poor PR strategies. Just look at the process of verifying news facts. Never before have PRs and journalists had a greater responsibility for getting it right, or better access to information to check the accuracy of our work, and research insightful, objective points of view.

Spraying sales-speak at journalists has never been a good idea. But for the good corporate communicator, a company’s points of view should now more than ever provide the original, relevant, insightful, objective perspectives that form the backbone of quality journalism.

Why? Because digital media consumption mean that these viewpoints get delivered to a larger, more valid, more interested audience than ever before. PRs (and media) seem to often forget that while the Internet continues to engage the biggest audiences we’ve ever known, these audiences are also the most demanding, most discerning and most critical we’ve ever known.

As a growing proportion of the media are remunerated on the number of page views their copy generates, similarly the PR industry is moving further away from counting column inches of success to measuring mouse click metrics that result in customer dialogue and engagement.

Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur (http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/05/keens_the_cult_of_the_amateur.html) recognised a society of news and views consumers that fact check against a modern quality benchmark called the ‘consensus of the masses’. This new regime dictates that journalists and PRs alike must ensure better quality of information, better research and better insight than ever. It also represents an opportunity for PRs and journalists to harness old differences and turn the traditional pull-push divide into a commonly agreed metric based on quality of information.

The responsibility for quality has got to be shared by both parties if we’re to retain the credibility of our respectful professions, products and audiences. We’re all under the modern pressure of ‘Internet time’.

Journalism has never been tougher. Agreed. But it’s wrong for Davies and his followers to point the generic finger at the PR fraternity. Good PR has been, and always will be, a friend of the media. Bad PR, like bad journalism, will never prevail, especially in the digital world.

  • Both the above fields are required for unauthenticated comments. * indicates a required field.


    *

    * This email will not be available or visible to anyone.
    (optional)