A while back, I wrote about the idea of eliminating press releases all together. This created a mountain of incoming emails from irate PR folks.
The reason I recommend doing this begins with the press releases you send. For your viewing pleasure, here are some headlines from CES-related releases I’ve received. Even though these are public announcements, I’ve taken steps to protect the guilty here:
xxxxxxxxxx Expands its Line of Noise Cancelling Headphones, While Introducing Innovative NoiseGard /digital Technology
That was the email subject line also. Fascinating, no? Now, I host a daily, national radio broadcast that runs on over 300 stations around the US during morning drive time, but this headline does the opposite of capturing my attention. It makes me sleepy and annoyed.
Here’s some more:
xxxxxxxxxxx Showcases Innovative Android Embedded Software Solutions for Consumer Electronics, Automotive and Mobile Industries at CES 2011
So what?! Why are you sending this to busy journalists? What’s interesting about this? I bet even you weren’t interested in this when you wrote it.
xxxxxxxxx Becomes First Consumer Electronics Manufacturer to Launch Cloud-Based Interactive Television Solution With ActiveVideo
If I read this headline three times, I might possibly begin to grasp what it means. Maybe. Here’s how I’d say it: “xxxxxxxxxxxxx Changes Television Forever” That is interesting. It makes me wonder how, and why?
More:
XXXXXXXX IS FIRST TO LAUNCH NEW LINE OF PORTABLE TELEVISION PRODUCTS FOR EASY RECEPTION OF BOTH STANDARD AND MOBILE DIGITAL TV BROADCASTS
This came in ALL CAPS, just like that. This headline tries to cram two paragraphs of information into a single line. I have no idea what a mobile digital TV broadcast is. If that was added to create interest, it does the opposite: it adds confusion.
I can keep going with these for pages. But I’m getting cranky. The truth is that 95 out 100 press releases I’ve received this week are this bad. And I am not exaggerating.
Here’s the problem with these headlines (and the press releases that follow them):
- They don’t capture anybody’s attention.
- They’re not very interesting.
- They’re blasted, to thousands of people — and every single recipient knows that he or she is one of thousands considering this horribly presented story.
- As such, they’re impersonal.
- And they do nothing to address the subject matter that each journalist actually covers.
- You’re not building relationships with journalists — you’re damaging them with these releases.
- This is lazy. The email subject line should not be 75 words. It should not be the same as your release headline.
What would happen if you eliminated sending these horrors? Can you think of one bad thing that would happen? Why do you send them? Do they get you coverage? Maybe with one percent of the recipients, and then, I’d bet purely through dumb luck.
If you stopped sending these press releases tomorrow:
- You would be forced to build relationships with journalists instead of blasting them with impersonal, terrible press releases.
- You would be forced to learn what each journalist you deal with actually covers.
- You would be forced to understand each journalist’s audience.
- You would actually need to customize your pitches for each audience — is there a downside to this?
- You would communicate far more with journalists personally — by phone and email — as you present your story.
“But how can we eliminate our press releases? That’s what our companies / clients pay us to do!”
Precisely. They’re putting their multi-million dollar product investments into your hands, and you’re turning your single best opportunity with a journalist for coverage (the best opportunity is the first pitch; once a journo says no, it’s nearly impossible to change her mind) — into near certain failure. Let me say it differently: your press releases are killing these products.
I’d love to keep talking about this, but I need to go to the CES show floor now, because I need to figure out what products all these companies are actually releasing!
Great points. For a newer VP of Pr for Toastmaster’s, your insight is valuable.
Couldn’t agree more, killing the first pitch is PR suicide. And God forbid you try to actually build personal rapport with a journalist and do more work than pressing “Send” on the release.
All true, unless of course your press release contains actual news. Such as, something like: 2 in 3 teenagers in Fresno are obese, or Climate Change speeding up rate of extinction. Sure, there are lots of dopey press releases that never get into the news — but if you look in the news, a good number of the stories were generated by press releases touting real stories.
Thanks Margi and Glenn.
Garrison: Your main point is true, on the rare chance that press releases actually contain news, journalists are stunned and dumbfounded into covering them! (I know it was just an example, but the obesity thing isn’t news anymore. By the very formulation of the word, news must be new, and goodness knows childhood obesity has been covered ad nauseum.)
Thanks for the advice. I was considering press releases when my lastest project was ready for release, but I’m thinking twice about it now.
The press release isn’t the problem. It’s sometimes not even the press release writer who often knows better. Most often, it’s the lawyers inside the company or the executives who don’t allow creative license.
Carol — Indeed, PR media relations people distributing the press release are only doing what they’re told. And I once had a client — a well known brand — who basically said that legal was was naming its products. Lawyers! People who are paid to turn the easy into the complex!
I’ve been lucky as a PR person to have a number of reporter friends and they’ve shown me some of the garbage that comes in. Too many PR people forget that reporters are people too…sounds funny, but seriously…what real live person would find some of this gibberish interesting?
I have this conversation with junior staff all the time. They’re often amazed to see how much more effective a brief email that says “I saw you’ve been writing about ____ lately, and thought you’d find this interesting” then a few sentence overview in plain English, no buzzwords allowed. Let the reporter make his or her own assessment. They seem to appreciate the simplicity, the “no pressure sale” and the fact that you may have actually read something they wrote.
One personalized email that turns into some coverage is a whole lot more rewarding than some buzzword-filled piece of spam that gets sent to 1,000 contacts, only to be ignored or deleted. What a concept.
I’m a journalist in New Zealand.
American PR companies are by far the worse for sending out dull press releases. In this part of the world the most dismal material comes from US-owned subsidiaries, so I suspect the problem lies more with clients than with PRs.
Here’s what works for me. A simple phone call with the “boy do I have a story for you” line. Even “my client is doing this, do you think that might be interesting” works better than most press release crud.
One issue in this country is there are a swag of publications which are advertorial-lead. They’ll happily rewrite the crud if they think they’ll be able to get some ad dollars back from the client. The client sees the material in print and ticks off a few KPIs for its PR team.
Because they do this, they cheapen everyone’s craft. But that’s another story.
From my own experience, so many people that work in PR have no idea and no real interest in what they’re meant to be promoting and an accompanying lack of ability to write engaging copy.
Combine all these and you get the one size fits all attempt to get someone’s attention when they don’t know what they’re talking about or who they’re trying to say it to.
I have to agree with both Carol and Bill. Clients do indeed curb the creativity to such an extent that the PR agents just shut up and do what we are told.
It makes one wonder if we can still call ourselves consultants, or whether that is just another buzz word. On the flip side ( an I say this at risk of irking certain publications), Advertorial should be banned! It defiles the media and strips the journalists who write these pieces, of their credibility. The label “sell out” is one I have heard in my circle of journalist friends. They no longer qualify to don the label “journalist” without inverted commas!
As a PR agent, I couldn’t agree more. Press releases should be validated by ticking off points on a check list, before going to press. For example:
-IS IT RELEVENT?!
-is it newsworthy
– have you ensured that your facts are quantifiable?
– is it SPECIFICALLY targeted at the audience which you are sending it to?
… and I think you get the gist of it, yes?
So, in a nutshell. Yes clients limit our creativity, and yet they pay us to promote their brands. If we know that spreading weak press releases is detrimental to the brand(and honestly, how could you not) – then surely it is our [the PR consultant’s] responsibility to advise accordingly? I believe, that once this step is taken, the relationship between client and PR may even be stronger. This is similar the the trust a small child develops for a caregiver. Albeit, this trust takes some time, and is dependent on actual results. Once the child realizes that the said adult is in control, they are no longer afraid an vulnerable, as protection is ever close at hand. This therefore,instills a sense of trust and security. This represents a relationship, where the motives of the adult are not questioned as often, and the actions accepted willingly, based on the perception of expertise and knowledge.
Well that’s my analogy anyway…
Any consultant who “shuts up and does as he is told” is not worth a dime. Our job is to get clients to do what they need to do, uncomfortable as it may be. This is based on the assumption, of course, that we know what they need to do …. 🙂
Surely, a sensationalist headline!
Killing the press release is not the solution.
It’s junk that is badly targeted and written by people that either should know better. Perhaps they should go and get some training, and not send search engine optimized stories out to jounalists. Even so, some of those examples you gave should end up in the bit bucket.
As a PR person, I agree with the premise that press releases are increasingly ineffective. I also agree that way to many are very poorly written. However, it does take time to change direction of a large ship (if you will). PR people have been trained to make sure their releases conveyed an air of professionalism; that was what distinguished a PR professional from Joe off-the-street.
To write a headline that is catchy (XXX Changes Television Forever) comes very close to hyperbole – a cardinal sin for a PR person.
But now, the game has changed. The premise of writing catchy press releases and “building relationships” with journalists instead of blasting them with releases sounds good, but if a busy journalist is truly busy, do they really have the time for relationship building outreach from literally thousands of PR people? I don’t think so. Besides, with the explosion of influential bloggers, there are now (what seems like) an infinite number of “journalists”. It’s nearly impossible to build meaningful relationships with all of them, and the most influential have hordes of folks chasing them, looking to “build relationships.”
Journalists like to think they they are the best originator of ideas; they naively believe a catchy or pity headline will stand out among the many they receive. I’m not totally convinced of that.
As poorly written and thought out that many press releases are, and despite the fact that far too many are just blasted out indiscriminately, they do have a place and purpose when used properly. I feel that the sheer volume of information that exists prohibits true one-to-one relationship building with all but a very select few journalists. Press releases shouldn’t be eliminated, just made better.