• Home
  • Media Training
  • PR Support
    • Pitch support
    • PR training
  • Journalism
  • Copywriting
  • Contact
  • Blog
Media Pilot
Telephone +44 (0)20 8996 1660

What's gone wrong with PR pitches to journalists?

13/11/2014

3 Comments

 
Pitching a story to a journalist is supposed to be at the heart of the PR person's craft. Or rather it used to be until part of the PR world decided that 'media-facing' activity was a poor substitute for wooing clients with talk of brand strategy, social media engagement and content management.

All too often expanding into these new activities has drawn experienced staff away from direct dealings with the press. And as many senior executives have delegated responsibility for contacting  journalists to the junior members of their team the art of the pitch has given way to indiscriminate emails and inept phone calls.

Today the quality of pitches is plumbing new depths. And the frustration of a few poorly-led and ill-trained account executives is manifesting itself in pushy and sometimes downright rude messages. If I was a client of these agencies I would not be happy to see how my retainer was being spent. Poking journalists in the eye only ensures that the client in question gets very firmly ignored. And that can be forever.

So just what should a savvy PR person do if their pitch is to avoid annoyance and deletion? There are two simple rules to obey when pitching a story to any journalist. They concern tone and frequency.

Tone

You are inviting someone to spend their valuable time taking an interest in your proposition. Phrase your message as a polite request. Terms that imply any degree of obligation on the part of the journalist are simply insulting.

So don't suggest that it has been a while since the journalist last mentioned a client (in other words "we think it's time you wrote about them again"). Or try hinting that the client's enormous importance should put them at the front of the queue (which reads as "how could you not write about them?"). 

The only people qualified to decide what goes into a story are its author and his/her editor. There is no quota system guaranteeing mentions of a particular business or product. If material isn't judged right for the story it doesn't go in. Expressing incredulity that the journalist is not prepared to interview a client is deeply counter-productive and can damage an agency's future credibility.

Frequency

It should be obvious that journalists receive a lot of unsolicited emails and calls. You will not increase the chances of a journalist taking a pitch seriously if you keep repeating it. They probably know your client is out there by now and do not require weekly or monthly reminders of this fact.

Confine your contacts to occasions when you really do have a strong story to tell. And send one email. That's it.

Returning again and again requesting a response to the original message is irritating and exhibits a lack of respect for other peoples' time. There is no mileage in phoning or emailing to inquire whether previous messages have been read. With the current economic pressures on the press no one writing for a national publication is going to be remotely impressed by this kind of tactic. 

Try to remember just how short of time most journalists are. If you want your pitches to establish a productive relationship with a journalist or title this is a good place to start. Yes, individual pitches often vanish into the ether. But in the long-term you will find journalists are a lot more receptive to communications from people who show a bit of consideration when pitching.

And keep it polite. If you can't do that then you're not really doing public relations at all, are you?



3 Comments

Can I see the copy before you publish?

23/6/2014

4 Comments

 
Yes, it's happened again. A business decides it will only grant interviews to journalists who allow it to check their copy. Guess what? No one wants to take up the offer. No coverage. Not smart.

So why won't journalists allow people to see their copy before publication? Here, once and for all, are the reasons. And it's a long list.

Let's start with the obvious. Journalistic independence might sound like an abstract concept to some, but it is firmly rooted in commercial reality.

If you know that every company mentioned in a publication has altered the story to suit its own purposes, why bother reading the paper at all? All you're getting is advertorial. No different from advertising.

At this point any rational business will decline to advertise in said title because no-one in their right mind is going to bother reading it. No readers equals no one to look at the adverts.
There goes the title's main revenue stream. So allowing copy-vetting is commercial suicide. Simple eh?

Chain of command

Then there's the technical aspect. Think about how publications are actually produced.
My stories do not appear just as I write them. They have to pass through editors whose job is to fit my words into a space in the paper that may have shrunk since they asked me to submit a certain amount of copy.


These editors don't have the time or inclination to consult me before cutting my copy to fit that space. This is an industrial process intended to get a lot of words into print in order to meet a fixed publication deadline. Nobody checks back with the writer about this. That simply wouldn't work within the tight deadlines required by mass media.

So what appears under a journalist's byline may well have been chopped and changed by others working on editing and page lay-out. Journalists expect a fresh set of eyes to spot paragraphs that need trimming or amending. The first the writer knows about these changes is when the publication appears.

Journalists are used to seeing chunks of their copy cut away in the editing process. I have no say over this, nor would I want to be involved in it. Once I hit send I'm onto my next piece of work.

Journalistic doctrine

What all of this means is that I cannot guarantee that any given quote or mention of a company or individual will ever appear in the final story. So there really is no point in letting you see these words in the first place.

If I do tell you that you're in the story only for this reference to be chopped by a hard-pressed editor the odds are that you will feel misled by me. Worst case, you might decide that you have grounds for complaint to the title I write for. That's a hostage to fortune I'm not willing to give. And any serious publication expects journalists to hold fast to this principle.

So no matter how many times people declare they only want to "check their quotes" I won't be sending them through. Not only am I in no position to confirm what will eventually appear in print, but I honestly believe that if I share copy with one party I'm morally obliged to share it with everyone mentioned in the piece. I'm that kind of person.

With several sources quoted in each article bouncing sentences back and forth between multiple interviewees would see the time taken balloon. Freelance journalists are paid a fixed sum for an article, so time is money. Anything that stretches out the production of a piece means they work for less. Not an attractive proposition.

Writing rules

This still leaves the question of what we call house style. Every national newspaper, each website, all of the vertical sector press, they all have a house style that dictates how every contributor phrases certain terms and picks a specific vocabulary.

One of the many skills of a journalist is getting up to speed on house style in no time at all and then switching to an entirely different style for another publication. Freelance journalists pride themselves on their ability to write for many publications simultaneously, slipping in and out of tabloid and broadsheet idioms without missing a beat.

House style is there to make it easy for readers to consume stories. It isn't intended to reflect the internal jargon beloved of people the title interviews. We retain the right to translate whatever verbal garbage you've created into something the wider world will understand. So absurd job descriptions and impenetrable mission statements are transformed into lucid and logical language by the magic touch of house style.

These house styles are the domain of journalists. It isn't remotely likely that a third party will get to grips with them all. How on earth could everyone I write about be qualified to re-work sentences in the correct style? It's a complete non-starter.

A very bad idea

All of the above spells out the practical reasons why I am never going to agree to allow interview subjects to review my work before it's published. But there's something else you really do need to consider. Asking a journalist to show  you the copy in advance is downright insulting.

Yes, the moment someone blunders into the final seconds of a conference call with "Michael, can I ask a favour..." I know exactly what is coming and stop it dead with a sharp "No!".

If you want to see my words in advance it's clear that you don't trust me to get the story straight. After a career working in heavyweight newsrooms and contributing to highly-respected titles I think I've earned the right to say that I'm good at what I do. Very good in fact. 

If you think otherwise, and let me know you reckon I might screw the story up by asking for copy approval, can I make a suggestion? Don't bother doing the interview in the first place. That way neither of us will get annoyed.

As a general rule, I cut right back on mentions of any business in my copy if they've irritated me by closing the interview with a request to check my work. I may even drop all reference to the offending body. There are always plenty of alternative interview subjects who wouldn't dream of making this fundamental error.

Remember, you're talking to a journalist because you want to win the huge commercial benefit of editorial coverage. Once you've secured the interview you need to get your messages right with proper training and practice. Do that and the end result should be nothing to worry about.
4 Comments

Want a rapid checklist for a TV interview?

12/6/2014

0 Comments

 
An email drops from a good friend who works in the energy sector.

He's got a short interview with the BBC lined up. It's inked in for this very afternoon and he's understandably apprehensive.

How can he prepare inside a couple of hours and make sure he gets his message across without looking bad when the boss watches his performance in front of the camera?

I can spend a whole day preparing a client for media opportunities. But what occurs to me when someone needs a rapid email checklist that will turn the ordeal he fears into a welcome opportunity?


The thoughts that leap straight into my mind and his inbox are:
Keep it simple
Talk as if you're addressing an intelligent 12 year old
Do not use one single technical term or any specialist industry language
Remember that most people have a limited understanding of how the energy sector actually gets light and heat into their homes
You've got a very strong message, so plug it
and don't be reluctant to repeat it
This is an opportunity to be seized and exploited for your business. This is a good thing, welcome it!

How did he perform? Pretty well by my viewing. Just 30 seconds of his comments from a five minute interview made it into a much longer package
and he got across two key points.

Impressed by what a difference my advice and some brief preparation made, he's now ready, in fact keen, to repeat the experience.

The lesson here is that media exposure is not something to be feared. Honest.
Oh, and do call a media-savvy  friend when an interview looms.
0 Comments

    Author

    Michael Dempsey writes for the BBC website and assorted national publications. He is passionate about the value of clarity in business  communications. Opinions are his own. 

    Categories

    All
    Economist Commissions
    FT Commissions
    PR Advice

    Copyright

    All rights reserved.

    Archives

    April 2021
    January 2021
    July 2020
    May 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    November 2018
    July 2018
    April 2018
    October 2017
    May 2017
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Glebe House
8 Reckitt Road
London W4 2BT
Telephone +44 (0)20 8996 1660
Email info@mediapilot.com
© media pilot limited


website by brianharrisdesign