Why do PRs ask me to guarantee what I write about?

The following problem just in from a technology journalist:

Dear Doctor Spin – I understand PR clients are hard to come by and hard to keep - but is that a good excuse for trying to suck up to them by adopting US practices? Since the downturn, PR companies have started to suck. They suck up to the Americans and seem to forget that UK journos have a different view of the world. Over the past year or two I have had PRs ring me to say their client wants to
take me to the US. Sounds good so I say "yes". The next question from the PR is: "Who will you cover it for? And how much coverage can we expect?"

I’m thus expected to ring up an editor and say, "Hi, I'm going on a trip to
the US. How much space will you give me?"

Any editor who hasn't hung up by this point will ask, "What are you going to
be writing about?" So I get back to the PR.

"What are they going to tell us about?" I ask

"Oh I can't really say because you might publish now before the
announcement," says the PR.

"Can't tell you what I'll be writing about,"  say I to the prospective editor.
- and the phone crashes down at the other end of the line.

For goodness sake PRs. Tell the client to have faith in your choice - you're
supposed to be professionals not pet poodles. Yes, they are spending a lot
of money on me and want to see some results, that's understandable. But
surely it's the PR's job to pick the right journalists without having to ask
for cast iron assurances of coverage. Isn't that the professional approach?

From my end of the telescope it sounds like the client thinks they are
buying coverage. Don't they have faith that their announcements deserve
coverage?

Am I being unreasonable?

This is common condition predicated on the fact that the needs of PR clients and journalists don’t necessarily converge. The client is paying the agency to deliver a result of some form. In a sense, the client is making an investment decision – and as with any investment, the client is seeking the best return for the lowest possible risk. The PR agency is thus employed to help the client achieve this – or in other words to minimise the risk and maximise the return.

In exactly the same way, the journalist has an investment decision to make – namely one of time and effort measured against likely return ie a story (or stories) that can be written.

The PR agencies concerned here are using a very blunt instrument in order to try and minimise the risk (ie maximise the guarantee of coverage). The fact is, there are no guarantees in PR. It also suggests that the real motivating factor for getting the journalist to go on the trip is other than what it might seem. In short, is going on the trip the only way for the journalist to get the information needed to write a story? Or is the PR company suggesting to the client that having the journalist turn up is result enough?

The journalist quite rightly needs to have some idea of what he may expect to get by going on the trip. Obviously the PR doesn’t want to give the whole game away, but there has to be some compromise in order to allow the journalist to make a valid assessment of whether it is worth his while. At the same time, the client wants to be reassured that they are not inviting someone who will simply come on the trip as a “jolly” and never have any intention of writing anything.

However, to ask the journalist how much coverage the client can expect is clearly a redundant question – aside from the fact that it is up to the publication to decide how much space a story gets, this can’t be predicted or guaranteed in advance – and certainly not without any information on which to make even an educated guess. A bit like being asked to guarantee the outcome of a race when you have no idea who the runners and riders are.

Is the journalist being unreasonable? Probably only in suggesting that this is an imported US practice. Although UK journalists tend to think of US journalists as being far more cosy with vendors, I very much doubt that US journalists would happily guarantee what they will write about with no insight into what they are likely to receive by way of information. Likewise, UK PR companies are just as capable of making such demands without the need to be taught it by their American cousins.

Can this condition be cured? Almost certainly yes. Though it will require both clients and agencies to take a more considered view of their media relations investment strategies.

Comments

[Guy Clapperton]

It can be worth the PR's while trying to see it from the journalist's point of view as well. We're not necessarily in our business for jollies, and if we're freelance we've got to make our time count - that means selling stories, basically, or else we don't eat.

The idea of anyone going on something for a simple jolly is to my mind highly unlikely - we wish we had the time, same as you!

Regards
Guy

[Mary Branscombe]

And while we appreciate that the client and PR both have a business to run, sometimes I feel I'm asked to view myself as an employee justifying an expense rather than a guest being educated. Balance in all things, but no journalist can guarantee coverage in advance unless they're the editor and even then if the story turns out not to be worthwhile it won't go in.

[Truth Not Spin]

Re: Guy Clapperton's "The idea of anyone going on something for a simple jolly is to my mind highly unlikely..."

He's clearly never worked at VNU!

[Doctor Spin]

Perhaps Guy would like to answer that comment?