Industry backs new campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

Gemma O'Reilly - 29 January 2010

It's interesting that the some members of the PR industry are spearheading this campaign. What's the general consensus - is it a good idea?

Cathy Wallace - 29 January 2010

What strikes me about this is yes, anything that can help PR professionals and journalists work together better has to be a good thing and spam emails are maddening. BUT - it's so arrogant. I'm a journalist and I think it's arrogant. What right do journalists have to demand all these terms and conditions from PR professionals, when we don't reciprocate? I'm sure PR professionals would like a charter that clamps down on journalists quoting out of context, manipulating an angle or from running an entire story provided for them by a PRO without once referencing the client. It has to work both ways - journalists are far too quick to label PRO's the bad guys. At the end of the day we need PR professionals as much as they need us - no more, no less, just as much.

Will Sturgeon - 29 January 2010

Like anybody working responsibly in PR I'm keen for our profession to escape the reputation it has but that can't be done in isolation, or by designing new and creative ways to go over the same old ground. If we want to talk about inconvenient truths then I'm afraid the PR industry is going to have to break out of its comfort zone and offer a frank and open discussion about the problems with journalism, as well as PR. This is a symbiotic relationship whether we like it or not.

I know from being on the journalist side of the fence there are some really poor PR people out there but I also know much of the most vocal criticism around this apparently crumbling relationship is a result of a breakdown in two-way communication and a minority of inconsistent or unreliable journalists who invite upon themselves a poor working relationship with the PR community and then air their grievances very publicly.

Until we accept and address the issue from both sides, all the initiatives and fancy animations in the world won't make this Bill of Rights anything more than a publicity stunt and this week's bandwagon.

Helen Fitzpatrick - 29 January 2010

I agree that PR spam is not the way forward and gives us a bad name. But if you try to ring a a journalist to ask if they want a release first, they get annoyed and ask you not to phone them.

I think part of this campaign needs to involve journalists accepting that not all PRs are bad, we have a job to do and, yes, we should do it the right way, but they need us sometimes and they should treat us with respect too.

Neil Henderson - 29 January 2010

if people followed the basics then we wouldn't have this probkem.

\(1): Don't ring newsdesks for a non urgent or on the day story. PR's would ring me at 6.26 just minutes before I was putting out a carefully crafted TV news show... not clever or wise.

It's like ringing 999- please don't do it. Ring planning or in papers try the assistant editors.

\(2): PR spam isn't the problem it is how releases are written. People on newsdesks tell me that they take 12 seconds to decide if a story fits on the phone and less in an e-mail.

The minute they see a brand logo at the top of an email it is deleted.

\(3): If you put the story title in the subject line there's no chance of it being read.... if they're not interested.

\(4): follow up calls are tedious... 'Have you got my press release really has to stop.';

Paul Armstrong - 29 January 2010

LOVING this idea. Sitting on both sides of the fence as a part time journo and a pro I can't tell you how many times I have sent a press release back saying - remove from list, totally missed the mark, or marked people as spammers. It's somewhat par for the course with the cream of the crop forging relationships and moving forward stronger for it. I think it partly starts from the top with managing expectations of clients and not applying unrealistic pressure on junior members but also respecting the process and its stakeholders.

Adrian Johnson - 29 January 2010

I personally think the PR Week headline \(Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam) is a bit misleading.

If you look at the comments over on the website I think in the main people agree with the sentiment but don't believe the campaign will work.

Don't get me wrong, we need to foster better working relationships with journalists, but I don't think this is an answer.

However, I do have a very simple, quick and fail-proof suggestion to end all this Braddock-inspired fuss.

It goes out to the over-spammed journalists: when that email comes in from the PR wonk, right-click, hit 'Block sender'. Done.

Better still, right-click, hit 'Block sender's domain' and you will stop all emails from the entire PR agency.

Adrian

Umpf

Neil Henderson - 29 January 2010

It is about relationships.

If you cold call anyone they will tell you to go away.

But if you invite them for a coffee or send them a nice intro e-mail they will in the main reply.

Joe Wiggins - 29 January 2010

Once again, a few bad apples are giving the industry a bad name. Neal is right, it's about building relationships and understanding each other. The best results come through collaboration on both sides and this only comes about from experience. Agency juniors under pressure to hammer out 'stories' they don't understand to people and publications they don't know are the root of the problem.

Alex Blyth - 29 January 2010

It's an entertaining and fresh take on an old issue and it made me smile, but I'm not convinced this debate is entirely hitting the mark.

I receive a huge amount of bad press releases - I just delete them and it doesn't really bother me.

But the agencies who hire me to train their staff on how to prpduce effective press releases don't do so because they're worried about bothering journalists - they don't work for journalists - they do it because they know that building good relationships with journalists through intelligent pitches and well targeted releases is what produces results for their clients.

If I ran a PR agency that did all these things well then in fact I'd be quite happy to see all my competitors alienating journalists, demoralising staff and churning clients.

So I'm not quite sure why an agency boss would want to start this campaign. Surely better to let their competitors remain bad?

Unless...unless...they're hoping to highlight the fact that they do this well. And to generate a debate on the topic, thereby drawing to everyone's attention how good they are at building media relationships.

And I've fallen for it......Doh!

Claire Murphy - 29 January 2010

Maybe the Bill of Rights could add in something about not emailing pictures over unless they've been asked for. Huge jpegs play havoc with delicate little inboxes.

Kim Atkins - 29 January 2010

Joe, I think you have raised a very good point. Having been an agency junior and executive, I was constantly put under pressure to get results. Given lists of 100s of journalists \(no exageration) to call, with no targeting whatsoever. What is needed is for those at the top to recognise this and inject a change of ethos into their organisations, quality not quantity. All too often it's the work experience or junior PR who gets it in the neck, simply because they don't know any better.

Greg Simpson - 29 January 2010

All of this is great to hear – whether you think the authors are just trying to give themselves a nice little pat on the back for their sterling work and gain a few clients and journalist contacts from this or not is a different matter!

However, decent PRs have been doing this for ages. This isn't anything new, so, is this really news? The problem is that bad practice is rife, with far too many agencies lazily utlising software and databases and forcing junior staff into PR "Sweat Shops" where they have little grasp of the story, the journalists' requirements, the clients' briefs and goals or the whole picture.

Account Directors hand down decrees to Account Managers, Account Managers frantically try and juggle the time they have got, farming menial tasks out to the juniors who then have to find a way to get the story into as many places as possible. Given that brief and the software available – shooting fish in a barrel is always tempting. Send a release to 100 journos and hope it sticks – that way they'll justify their role to the managers, the managers utilise their staff and the directors report back coverage – however relevant.

Greg Simpson - 29 January 2010

All of this is great to hear – whether you think the authors are just trying to give themselves a nice little pat on the back for their sterling work and gain a few clients and journalist contacts from this or not is a different matter!

However, decent PRs have been doing this for ages. This isn't anything new, so, is this really news? The problem is that bad practice is rife, with far too many agencies lazily utlising software and databases and forcing junior staff into PR "Sweat Shops" where they have little grasp of the story, the journalists' requirements, the clients' briefs and goals or the whole picture.

Account Directors hand down decrees to Account Managers, Account Managers frantically try and juggle the time they have got, farming menial tasks out to the juniors who then have to find a way to get the story into as many places as possible. Given that brief and the software available – shooting fish in a barrel is always tempting. Send a release to 100 journos and hope it sticks – that way they'll justify their role to the managers, the managers utilise their staff and the directors report back coverage – however relevant.

However, as the dust settles, media relationships are broken \(sometimes forever, sometimes without having even started) and staff are demoralised, having performed menial tasks with zero use of the creative talent that hopefully got them in the door in the first place. These juniors \(if they stay) then rise through the agency/their career and repeat this bad practice all over again.

Adam Parker - 29 January 2010

Having listened intently to the ensuing debate since yesterday morning, it seems to me that there is a real desire to have this discussion and some fantastic points, suggestions and comments are being made. However in constructing the language around the campaign we appear to have put up a barrier for some in the form of some of the language used.

The worded "demanded" was used in conjunction with the word "believe" as we had based this initial list on public posts written over the years by journalists and bloggers and by feedback from the research. However this did not mean that we "know" that these are demanded by *all*, that is one of the things this campaign and the resulting debate is aiming to establish.

Secondly the title the "Bill of Rights" seems to have got some peoples' backs up. Leaving aside whether we would be having such a fascinating conversation if softer language had been used we do not want this to be, as Will says, just a publicity stunt and this week's bandwagon. So if people will help us we are offering to tear it up and start again. What should this be called? What should be in it? Should it represent both sides of this debate? Alternatively forget about this campaign and someone else take up the standard – CIPR, PRCA? What matters most is surely that having got this discussion started we don't miss this opportunity.

John Coventry - 29 January 2010

what I never get about ridiculously boring debate is this:

Why don't journalists just delete emails they dont want like the rest of us do?

And why dont PRs just foster relationships better.

The whole thing's ridiculous.

John Coventry - 29 January 2010

what I never get about ridiculously boring debate is this:

Why don't journalists just delete emails they dont want like the rest of us do?

And why dont PRs just foster relationships better

The whole thing's ridiculously dull.

And also, isnt the term 'bill of rights' dramatically overstating the issue? just do your job better. On both sides.

Stephen Waddington - 29 January 2010

PR and media response to the Inconvenient PR Truth campaign launched yesterday falls into two camps: broad agreement or a direct challenge, not to the key message of the campaign, but its style.

The irony could not be more delicious. The campaign has utilised a well worn PR tactic, namely powerful content, to get attention. It's pulled in opinion from across the industry and is now an open platform for discussion. And there has been lots of positive input.

But the campaign's language has also been the target of criticism. It stands accused of dramatising the issue yet much of the content is collated, or crowdsourced to use digital parlance, from articles and blogs where PR spam has been debated over the past two to three years.

Realwire and the campaign in general have been called "arrogant" for its approach to raising the issue. I caught up with its CEO Adam Parker for breakfast this morning. He has strong opinions which he is forthright in sharing but he certainly isn't arrogant. Engage on the issue and you'll find out for yourself.

As Parker says in his latest post on the campaign site his objective is to create a discussion around the issue across the PR and media industries and work towards some solutions.

Yes of course it would be great if a PR or media industry organisation or publication was campaigning on this issue – but they aren't and none have picked it up until now.

Final thought: maybe PR spam isn't really the issue that it is claimed to be in which case the campaign will die a natural death. But I doubt it.

Rob Shepherd - 29 January 2010

I don't think there is a massively crumbling relationship between PR and journalism: my experience \(I'm another who's served on both sides) is that it's pretty much where it always was. It's also true that the issue of poor press release practices is not a new one – nor is the issue of poor journalism. What's new, though, is that it's become ever easier, on the one hand, to send press releases out electronically in high volumes, indiscriminately, as if it's direct mail looking for response rates, and ever easier, on the other hand, for journalists to block them electronically and silently, potentially cutting the wheat with the chaff. As a result, some journos are being very vocal about a failing system and some high profile PRs are – utterly wrongly – declaring the press release a lost cause. What's also new is that some bloggers without a journalist background are being drawn into the PR world for the first time and not all of them like what they find there.

The press release is neither a lost cause nor outmoded – I can attest to that on a daily basis – but I fear the balance is shifting and there's a danger of self-fulfilling prophesies, damaging the symbiosis between PR and journalism and therefore hurting both sides. That's why, when Realwire approached us at Press Dispensary about supporting the campaign from launch, I gave a resounding agreement. Maybe there is some robust \(inflammatory?) phrasing in there and maybe that's a good thing if it provokes the discussion that it is provoking. The language and detail are up for grabs but the principle – of more diligence, of examining attitudes and consciences – is an utterly sound one.

Rob Shepherd

Press Dispensary

Rob Shepherd - 29 January 2010

I don't think there is a massively crumbling relationship between PR and journalism: my experience \(I'm another who's served on both sides) is that it's pretty much where it always was. It's also true that the issue of poor press release practices is not a new one – nor is the issue of poor journalism. What's new, though, is that it's become ever easier, on the one hand, to send press releases out electronically in high volumes, indiscriminately, as if it's direct mail looking for response rates, and ever easier, on the other hand, for journalists to block them electronically and silently, potentially cutting the wheat with the chaff. As a result, some journos are being very vocal about a failing system and some high profile PRs are – utterly wrongly – declaring the press release a lost cause. What's also new is that some bloggers without a journalist background are being drawn into the PR world for the first time and not all of them like what they find there.

The press release is neither a lost cause nor outmoded – I can attest to that on a daily basis – but I fear the balance is shifting and there's a danger of self-fulfilling prophesies, damaging the symbiosis between PR and journalism and therefore hurting both sides. That's why, when Realwire approached us at Press Dispensary about supporting the campaign from launch, I gave a resounding agreement. Maybe there is some robust \(inflammatory?) phrasing in there and maybe that's a good thing if it provokes the discussion that it is provoking. The language and detail are up for grabs but the principle – of more diligence, of examining attitudes and consciences – is an utterly sound one.

Kathy Lewton - 31 January 2010

Interesting concept and debate.

When I saw the headline that said the "industry" was backing this campaign, I searched the story for mention of any of the major global agencies or any mention of the major PR organizations \(PRSA, Institute, Council, Page, etc.).

Not that the four individuals mentioned who are backing the campaign aren't credible and smart -- but do you think saying the entire INDUSTRY backs this is a bit of overkill? Not one major agency \(i.e., Edelman, Fleishman, Burson, Weisscom, WagEd -- I'm just using PR Week's own list of leading agencies here) and not one association of any sort??

Jonathan Welsh - 31 January 2010

I'm in favour of the campaign apart from the fact that it is a PR campaign in itself and therefore rather self serving for those involved. I advocate a code of conduct set up via the CIPR and/or PRCA - in conjunction with the NUJ - which sets out some rules regarding training junior execs in building contacts and contacting journalists. It should be about increasing professional accountablity and skill across the industry rather than a PR opportunity for those within it...

Adam Parker - 31 January 2010

Jonathan and Kathy we agree with you about the need to widen involvement and include the CIPR, PRCA and other relevant industry bodies as I said in my comment above.

On a related topic we have posted up answers to what seem to represent the main FAQs based on the conversations we have seen and engaged in. Re: the animation here http://bit.ly/AIPRTanimfaq and the Bill of Rights here http://bit.ly/AIPRTbillfaq . Which we hope will help people to understand the thinking behind the campaign better.

jayne warren - 01 February 2010

Like many of the commentators here, I have been on both sides of the fence - journalist and PR for more years than I care to remember.

I would suggest that some PRs would do well to gain a basic idea of how to write a decent press release \(including punctuation, spelling and grammar), and that they don't confuse PR with sales.

All too often I used to get so-called press releases that were a not-very-well-disguised sales ploy, followed by loads of irritating calls which began with "how are you today?". Being asked how I am by a total stranger who clearly has no interest in my well-being is something I would also add to the 'banned' list.

Claire Southeard - 01 February 2010

As members of the press have commented, journalists need contact from PRs so I don't agree with some of the generalisations put forward in this bill.

I don't believe that emailing press releases - even well written, relevant and targeted ones - always works without a conversation. Too often a journalist has responded positively to a phone call and ended up running a story they hadn't seen, despite the timely email that was sent some hours before. So, until that contradiction is cleared up, I think it's a difficult argument to win because human contact works.

But I welcome the idea of championing the importance of intelligent, relevant media relations because the alternative is miserable for all involved. It can't be any fun reaching your 20th stressed journo of the day with yet another "have you actually read our publication" or "but we don't do health stories" or "do you understand this is a NEWS programme?"

It partly requires PRs to be genuinely media conscious and to understand their target media and yes, it's about well written press releases but it's also about diligently updating industry knowledge and contact lists regularly.

I agree the tone of the bill is a little accusatory and as such, it perhaps falls short of creating a level playing field from which to launch this debate but I take my hat off to the sentiment. I think it's very healthy to sit back and challenge ourselves to re-think how we do things. It can only make us more effective.

Herbert - 02 February 2010

I totally agree with Clare Southeard. I'd add that in my experience, calls to reporters on local papers after a release has been sent can be necessary and are not always unwelcome. Sometime, their inboxes get full, perhaps over the weekend, and they delete everything without checking through \(possibly because they know a lot won't be wanted ...). If you know what they really will want to use \(because you have a relationship with them and understand each other), it's never a problem calling, provided your call is not on a deadline.

This is all about intelligent targetting. I'd rather send out six press releases and get 100% coverage in the right media than send out 100 and get 10% in less useful media. Unfortunately, some bosses don't understand that...

As an interim who often works in the public sector, I've worked with a lot of ex-journalists. All have commented that they didn't know the breadth of work a PRO undertakes, and had renewed respect for them once they'd joined their ranks. I was lucky in my early years as a PRO in being invited to spend a morning on the picture desk of the local paper, where I found my own releases being handled. It would help if we could walk a few miles in each others shoes, but the economic environment is not very conducive to that right now.

There is no place for arrogance on either side; we have a symbiotic relationship and really do need each other.

David Micallef - 03 February 2010

The one point that everyone seems to be missing here is not how you send the story out, but that you actually have a story to send out. As a PR hack I regularly dissuade clients from sending out a non-newsworthy release because it will hurt the agencys relationship with the journalist/publication as much as it will hurt the client.

As far as the tactics, I think that the 'Bill of Rights' is a piece of crap.

Just like media organisations are cutting the amount of journalists \(and they have to rely on PRs more), PR budgets are also being squeezed - so sometimes a procured list is the easiest way to make sure you have reached everyone that the story is relevant to. If it doesn't concern you, press the delete button, i use it at least 100 times a day.

I agree with not calling to ask if they've received a press release, but sometimes its necessary. Today I called a national health editor with that exact same question and do you know what his response was? "Thanks for bringing that one to my attention- it's a good piece of news"

Adam Parker - 05 February 2010

I commented above that it was clear to us based on the initial response that the campaign would be more constructive and inclusive if leadership on the issues raised was taken forward by the industry bodies.

We are therefore delighted to see that the CIPR is going to take the issues raised by the campaign forward as per Jay O'Connor's statement last night http://www.cipr.co.uk/News/releases/2010/February/inconvenient_truth_response.html and that the PRCA are also indicating that they would support such a move.

Martin Turner - 07 February 2010

Oh dear. I didn't see this until the print version of PR Week arrived on Friday. This could be unkindly represented as a PR campaign by four magnates to raise their own profile again, and to boost their competitive advantage. If you're the volunteer PRO for a tiny voluntary organisation which is going to do it's annual thing, and you need to send out press releases to your regional media \(probably 200-300 papers, magazines, radio and TV) are you really going to be able to ring them all up beforehand to ask for permission? And, since they've never heard of you, are they likely to give it? Much more likely they will think you are a rank amateur for ringing up in the first place. Media outlets vary in what they want -- BBC radio wants you to ring, hard-pressed local weekly newspapers want a press release which they can quickly crib. But, if they want your stuff, they will use it. For the rest, this 'bill of rights' is about some standard good practice, mixed in with some unworkables. As pointed out earlier on this thread, any such relationship should be reciprocal.