How is it possible to create a news release that’s unusable even though the subject is potentially newsworthy? Botched news releases, unfortunately, are easy to concoct, particularly when the promoter doesn’t understand why a release is imperfect.

Case #1: “‘Federal lawmakers will have to ease tax restrictions on domestic feldspar production if industry capacity is to rise,’ according to Homer T. Smith, president of the Obscure Minerals Council.”

On its own this release is okay. The difficulty is this: Homer has denuded an entire forest knocking out daily releases for the past five years.

Editors receiving email and envelopes from Homer don’t open them because Homer is just not important enough to be a daily news feature. The tragedy for Homer is that every so often he says something which deserves coverage.

Case #2: “At a recent convention of all major mechanical testing associations, Lazlo T. Hunzindonger, executive director of the National Coalition for Micrometer Reform, announced that an independent standards review committee, which will have a major impact on mechanical testing, has been established and is now in effect.”

For all the information it conveys, this release may as well be written in a particularly obscure Babylonian dialect. What’s the point? Why will the new committee make a difference? From whom or what is it independent? When is “recent?”

Case #3: “Fromqualf Industries announces the introduction of the Fromqualf QUADRAPOWER LASER REAMER, a remarkable improvement on the Fromqualf DYNOPOWER LASER REAMER. The new Fromqualf QUADRAPOWER LASER REAMER will use LASER POWER to vaporize as many as FOUR olive pits SIMULTANEOUSLY, thereby increasing productivity in this KEY FOOD PROCESSING AREA.”

The difficulty here is that Fromqualf has produced nearly unreadable copy because it’s name is used repeatedly and far too many words are capitalized. Why not re-write the same information in plain language and drop a few “Fromqualfs.”

Case #4: “The greatest event in computer history will occur today when King Arthur Computers introduces the amazing, wondrous, labor-saving Round Table #111, a computer that will revolutionize the entire computer industry if not the Western World .
. . .”
Journalists are constantly bombarded with new idea and product announcements, many hawked in terms that would embarrass P.T. Barnum, were he alive. Reporters tend to view such claims with skepticism, in part because a single day may bring three “wonders,” six “miracles,” 14 “marvels” and at least one “awesome.”

Case #5: It’s 9 AM sharp when a delivery truck pulls up with what looks like a carton of lead pipes. But wait! It’s not building materials, it’s merely a single news release of immense proportions; a 26-pounder. Can it be that a reporter will devote an entire day — or week — to reading this massive document? Is it true that the entire release is single-spaced? Can it be there is no cover letter, summary or index? Does anyone believe reporters will use such releases for anything other than door jams, pressing flowers, or ballast?

Case #6: “The Central Club will feature Govenor Hern Simth as its guest speaker on . . . .”

If a release is full of errors, particularly names — Governor Henry Smith in this example — journalists may wonder about the credibility of both the release and its promoter. At a minimum, a release should be read by several people or checked with a computer spelling program before it’s mailed.

Technorati Tags: bravado, capitals, clarity, frequency, size

But for many of us, it’s not enough to just receive information. We want more from the media and by “more” we mean access. We want to appear in print and on the air. We want to promote our ideas, publicize our products and enhance our names. We want access for reasons of commerce and ego; because appearing in the media creates a certain cachet, importance, currency and credibility machines can’t build and dollars can’t buy.

Yet as much as we want media access, most efforts to reach print and broadcast outlets fail. An informal survey of one Washington news bureau showed that it received nearly 2,000 news releases, announcements and letters plus more than 100 telephone contacts — in a single week! Today a lot of the mail and phone calls would be replaced with email, but you can bet that the results would be largely the same: Of all these pleas, pitches and petitions, not more than one or two percent of all PR pitches ever found their way into the media.

The story in newsrooms around the country is basically the same. Substantial amounts of time and money are spent developing campaigns that often produce few tangible results. Visit any news operation, whether it’s print or broadcast, and you’re certain to find piles of discarded news releases, unused photos and unread documents. Judging from the large number of promotional efforts that fail, it’s clear few people understand how journalists work or why they choose one story and not another.

But while promotional failures are common, there are some professionals, some businesses and some individuals who are successful and who receive positive coverage on a continuing basis.

How do successful PR practitioners do it?

All promoters are different and the precise strategy that works for one may not work for another. Yet despite differences, successful promoters do have something in common: They behave within definable guidelines that can be observed, measured and copied by others.

This is a guide to the media; how information is obtained, packaged and distributed; how you can obtain ongoing news coverage; and the sales, profits, and prestige which flow from such attention.

Based on training, experience and observation over a period of more than 40 years, it argues that media access is not reserved for corporate giants or presidential candidates. You’re important and reporters would like to hear from you, but only if you know how the system works and how to package your ideas. In turn, if more people are familiar with the news business, journalists will spend less time sorting through unusable email and unworkable story proposals.

Competing in the Information Age

Understanding how the media works is not merely a matter of idle curiosity. Whether you work for a corporation, company, association or cause, whether you are self-employed, having access to the media on a continuing, positive and productive basis is a decided advantage, one that can often be measured in terms of enhanced prestige, greater recognition and larger revenues.

Not only is an understanding of the media important today, but the probability is such that information will become increasingly important in the coming years. The reason: Our growing development as an information-based society.

If it’s true that information has value, it is also true that information per se is not particularly valuable in isolation. A cure for cancer would be wonderful, but if the discovery is made by a hermit who refuses to share his secret, few if any people will benefit.

To have maximum value, information must be widely disbursed, freely received, evaluated, and then redistributed so the entire cycle can begin again. For this process to be successful, to avoid the problem of ideas in isolation, there must lines of communication and those lines are what we call the “media.” Websites, blogs, social media, search engines, specialized magazines, business weeklies, cable TV, books, company newsletters, morning newspapers, computer networks, letters to clients, radio broadcasts and advertising mail are all examples of the media.

Technorati Tags: experience, fail, failure, media, newspapers, promotion, public, radio, relations, success, TV

In a word, no.

Every year Fortune magazine identifies the 500 largest American companies, the very organizations that should dominate the media, if domination were possible, on the basis of size, resources and influence. But how many Fortune 500 firms can you name? Suppose you stop 100 people on the street and showed them the Fortune list. How many could identify the principle products or services offered by individual companies?

There is a somewhat perverse reality concerning large organizations and the media. Although corporate giants, unions, government and other institutions receive extensive press attention, one can argue that general media coverage is remarkably limited considering the players involved.

The Missing Ingredient

Suppose General Widget, a $5 billion conglomerate with 32 factories in 11 states, increases sales by 12 percent. A news release goes out, but what gets into print? Maybe a paragraph or two in business sections or just a single line in a list of corporate earnings. What gets on radio or TV? Five seconds on a business report or maybe nothing.

What’s the problem?

Large organizations often have little to offer to reporters other than size. They’ve grown big over many years doing things that in many cases are not new (“We built the Cloverdale Works in 1903 . . .”), innovative (“We’ve been making the #407 widget for 36 years . . .”), or particularly understandable to anyone outside the industry (“The reverse camber rod flexes inversely when the glombar decelerates, causing the rear fleenstones to twist laterally . . .”).

There are many General Widgets in the world and they often compete for attention in a limited number of national media outlets. With so much competition and so little space, it’s obvious that not everyone will receive coverage.

General Widget — with its excellent information program and media contacts — is always there. A journalist who cannot find information and ideas from other sources can always go back to a General Widget.

The Advantages of Small

Individuals and small organizations, however, are rarely beset by the problems above. Being small often means being new, innovative, and highly-competitive. There may be similar companies or organizations elsewhere, but relative to a given area or industry a small firm can be unique.

Small businesses are often at the heart of terrific stories. Would you rather read about companies closing and factories laying off workers or about new technologies and prosperous entrepreneurs? Small organizations must be doing something right, they consistent generate more new jobs than the largest companies.

The absolute best case, of course, concerns the Internet. Just look at the leading Internet sites today and ask how many of the companies behind them even existed 10 years ago. These companies are often the source of great stories.

What Reporters Want

The media, for its part, loves to hear from individuals and small organizations. But for journalists, the problem of dealing with individuals and small businesses is that it’s hard to tell who represents a good story and who doesn’t. There may be 5,000 small organizations in an area or industry, but do reporters really have the time to call each one?

If you’re a professional individual, association leader or have a small business you might want to help those websites, periodicals and stations that might reasonably have an interest in you or your ideas, products or services. It’s okay to send a brief email to a few journalists, something that says, “If it ever happens that you do a story about my product (or service or industry or whatever we may be able to provide (information, a plant tour, statistics, reports, a lively interview, etc.). We’ve been in the business for 14 years (or: “We’ve developed a new technology,” or “I’m the president of an industry group,” or “We’re the largest broker in town,” etc.) and we may be a useful source when it comes time to develop a story. Please feel free to call.”

Given a choice between calling old sources time and again, or new sources who may offer different perspectives, journalists will be open to new contacts. After all, the very fact that there is a new source may justify or validate an otherwise mundane story in a business always looking for something new, something different, and something unique.

Technorati Tags: email, getting, journalist, new, old, reporter, source, started

Advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry and it’s hard to believe a business of such size is possible without an observable record of success. Certainly advertising does offer benefits; each year selected products and services increase sales and expand their market share because of successful ad campaigns.

Yet the concept of advertising is not always attractive or plausible. It presumes, by definition, that would-be advertisers have money to spend, an unlikely situation for new firms, companies operating at a loss or organizations with limited revenues.

Even if you have the money to advertise there are still problems. Audiences must be defined, themes and concepts developed and the entire presentation packaged in a creative manner. Given these requirements, developing productive ads isn’t simple and results are not guaranteed.

Competition For Time & Attention

Ads must also be placed with great care. Not only do ads compete among themselves for the time and attention of readers, viewers and listeners, they also compete with the editorial material they surround.

If you’re an advertiser, you want your ad to appear in a successful medium that attracts a specific audience, yet you don’t want a medium that’s “too” successful. Such a publication or program will attract many ads and your’s may not stand out in such a saturated environment. At the same time, you also don’t want a medium offering such riveting editorial content that your ad is ignored, a concern which may explain the mundane nature of so much television programming.

For many people, money alone is the difference between advertising and media marketing. The only problem with this quick and neat distinction is accuracy: “Free” promotion, in an absolute sense, is an illusion.

Although media coverage may be free, the expense of obtaining such exposure is not. Whether you do it yourself or hire professionals, it takes time, preparation and considerable thinking to generate worthwhile media exposure.

The Dollar Value Of Advertising

If media marketing is not free, then how much is it worth? Why can’t you place a price tag on media marketing efforts by calculating the cost for equivalent advertising space? Suppose you can buy advertising space at $100 per column inch in a metropolitan daily. Shouldn’t a 15-inch story be valued at $1,500?

In statistical terms it’s certainly possible to calculate the value of media coverage if our standard is raw space, impressions or air time. The problem, however, is that we’re attempting to compare radically different concepts.

Advertising is unfiltered communication that allows you to control the content of your message. Short of libel, crazed medical claims or bigotry, you can say whatever you want and most media outlets will run your ad untouched. With media marketing, you rely on journalists to interpret your story.

Advertising allows you to place an ad any day or, if you like, every day. For a premium, you can often assure which page or section will carry your ad. With media marketing not only is timing unsure, but it’s impossible to project when an article will appear — if at all — or whether a broadcast will air. Worse still, even if you obtain coverage, you can’t be sure what will be presented; you have no control over the length, content, style, placement or context of whatever is being printed or broadcast.

When comparing advertising to media marketing the distinctions above seem to give a significant edge to advertising. But there’s another value to consider: The nature of communication.

Adversarial Communication

Advertising is an adversarial form of contact. Somebody is trying to sell something and no matter how well presented, advertising is advertising. Even so-called “institutional” advertisements, the messages that tell us to drive safer, drink less or give more to charity are adversarial in the sense that advertisers seek to enhance their names by associating with a particular public concern. If institutional efforts are meant as purely munificent gestures, then surely there is no reason why such ads can’t be anonymous.

Media marketing is not an adversarial form of communication precisely because it’s filtered through independent journalists and their editors or news directors. The public reads, watches and listens with the expectation that working journalists have gathered the news for us. If they write or broadcast information about a particular subject we assume there must be some news value in the topic. News articles and broadcasts are not perceived as places where goods and services are sold or as forums where coverage can be bought, and therefore information which appears in the news is not regarded as adversarial communication.

Suppose a bank spends $10,000 advertising a new certificate of deposit (CD) in a local business section and receives 150 responses. Suppose also that a columnist writes about the CD and the result is 800 queries.

Is it possible the firm’s ads are merely ineffective? Sure. Another reason, however, is that people resist salesmanship. The very act of selling, in and of itself, causes us to raise our defenses. But since news articles, blogs and broadcasts are not commonly perceived as marketing tools, the public has no reason to be defensive and therefore a major barrier to acceptance is removed.

Advertising tells the world how you want to be regarded, but when you’re the subject of press attention, it’s the media making an evaluation. With positive editorial coverage from an independent media outlet, you gain the implicit, undeniable sanction and approval of the publication or program that carries your story, an entitlement that cannot be fully valued in the same way that we price column inches or minutes of air time. And, it should be said, it’s an entitlement that can’t be bought.

Technorati Tags: ads, adversarial, attention, marketing, media, time, unfiltered

Think about it this way.

In the coming year several hundred thousand people will become licensed as real estate agents, the number of insurance brokers will proliferate and banking will become far more competitive. We’ll continue to churn out CPAs and financial planners at a rapid rate and another 30,000 or 40,000 law students will graduate.

The number of competitors in virtually every business and profession is increasing, but while we have more people vying for clients and customers we do not necessarily have more business to divide. We have reached a point where many fields are saturated with well-trained, highly-qualified professionals and the result is a buyer’s market of sorts, an environment where those who buy services are insufficient to support the growing army of professionals who covet their business.

Today it is not enough to have credentials and a quality product. Image and perception often spell the difference between success and failure in many fields and the practical reality is that those who communicate best have a stunning advantage over would-be competitors. Here’s why.

The Advantages of Public Relations

First, promotional skills are essential in many fields where products and services are often indistinguishable.

In the eternal search for market distinction, individuals and businesses try to stand out in the midst of competitive clutter. Because a large number of substantially similar choices are available in most fields, it’s difficult for consumers, users, buyers or clients to objectively select one competitor and not another. Since the alternatives are basically alike, there are no “wrong” choices and therefore decisions are often made on the basis of familiarity and name recognition, major by-products of media attention.

If we need insurance and the cost of one whole life policy is much like another, which policy do we choose? All brokers will tell us that they have the best deal and surely such policies seem largely identical.

In many fields product distinctions are unclear and one result is that we’re encouraged to have brand loyalty, not because we particularly benefit, but because brand names are often the only way the products of one firm can be distinguished from those of another.

Blindfold 100 people, have them ride in cars of similar size and cost, and the probability of their matching an auto’s comforts and ride with specific brand names is just about zero. The story is much the same with adhesive bandages, writing paper, photocopies, washing machines, paper tissues, gasoline, eyeglass lenses, canned corn and tires, to cite a few examples. Indeed, it’s entirely common for one factory to produce identical products which are then marketed under different — and sometimes competing — labels.

The world of services is even more perplexing. Professions have a way of homogenizing their practitioners. The person who finishes at the top of his or her class in medical school and the individual with the lowest passing grades are both known by the same title after graduation: Doctor. For the public, it’s tough to tell who’s best, who’s the most competent or why one should be selected over another.

If there are 100 lawyers in town and you need a will, which attorney do you choose? They all went to law school. They all graduated and passed a standardized bar exam. So who do you select? The one nearby? The one with the fanciest furniture — and perhaps the highest fee? The one your neighbor used?

As hard as it may be for service users to make distinctions among service providers, it’s also difficult for providers themselves to demonstrate differences. In the modern sense, there is little marketing experience in many fields, in part because licensure laws traditionally-banned advertising as “undignified” or “unprofessional.”

Now marketing is increasingly widespread in every field and profession, prices in many specialties have declined but to a surprising degree at least one old problem remains: How do you find the best lawyer, broker, banker, doctor or dentist?

New Clutter Versus Old Clutter

What has really happened is that we’ve replaced one form of clutter with another. Before it was hard to choose professionals because there were few objective standards by which they could be judged. Now it’s hard to judge professionals because advertising tells us not who is best, but who is available.

Given few objective clues, a consumer may well opt to buy from the car manufacturer who wins the most races and gets the most name recognition, rather than the firm which quietly concentrates on building a better vehicle. The broker quoted in the real estate pages will receive more referrals than the broker who makes little effort to market his or her services. The attorney who writes a weekly legal affairs column will stand out, not necessarily because he is — or is not — the world’s leading legal authority in a given specialty, but because his name is familiar.

Second, we increasingly define importance by the extent of media coverage received. If it’s not in the media it isn’t important. Conversely, receiving media coverage creates importance.

Suppose we have two candidates for political office. Barringer is athletic, telegenic, speaks well and has faithfully memorized 26 position papers prepared by his advisers. Springer, his primary opponent, is 90 pounds overweight, wears suits long out of style and has an entire campaign based on two flyers typed at home.

Who gets the most attention? Barringer. Why? Because he’s a media-oriented candidate. His ideas on a variety of subjects, or at least his adviser’s ideas, have been carefully prepared and written out. Every night another 20-second bite from his stump speech is used on TV. Barringer is seen as the “stronger” candidate because he gets more exposure and, in circular fashion, because he gets more exposure he is the stronger candidate. If Springer ever won, his victory would be described as a “major upset,” not because he beat a candidate who is objectively better, but because he defeated someone with greater media access.

Third, the Internet is wonderful but it has added to the issue of clutter. You can get a great website build for little money and it will look and feel pretty much like the site owned by the biggest company in town. This is “good” in the sense that now everyone has a chance to get their story out, but not-so-good in the sense that it’s hard to tell which company is better. It may be the company with the better website, or maybe not.

Fourth, to gain media attention, size and money are important, but not as important as creativity and packaging. Media marketing is among the most democratic activities we have. Anyone can play, you don’t need a huge inheritance or a powerful job to gain press attention (though such assets may help).

What Journalists Want

What journalists want are story concepts to interest their readers, visitors, viewers and listeners. If you’ve got such an idea, if you know how to package it, the probability of getting coverage is excellent. If you haven’t got a workable idea, then money, power and position are worth little. Wastepaper baskets and email accounts in newsrooms around the country are filled with releases from the nation’s largest firms and most prestigious institutions, organizations which — despite their size and dollars — failed to understand the media’s essential needs.

Some may read these words and argue that while promotion is important, you don’t need journalists to appear in print or on the air. Why bother with media marketing when you can buy as much space and time as you want, or at least as much as you can afford? The answer, as we shall now explain, is that advertising and editorial coverage involve markedly different values.

Technorati Tags: access, clutter, competition, jouranlists, marketing, media, websites