It’s easy to knock PR pros and our 18 ways PR people piss off journalists is an evergreen article on the PRWeek website that continues to generate traffic (as is 12 ways journalists piss off PR people to be fair).
The power dynamic between journalists and PR professionals has changed over the years.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now six PR pros to every reporter. And while that means there is more competition for journalists’ attention, it also means reporters have to rely more on PR pros to fulfill their busy commitments across multiple beat and segment areas.
That has led to the PR function getting more and more on the front foot and attempting to introduce extra restrictions and hoops to jump through before they’ll provide journos with access to their clients.
They’ll also typically now ask reporters to agree to an embargo in writing before sending out a release, something I refuse to do personally. Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but “we don’t break embargos” is my response.
One of the biggest bugbears for reporters on the increasingly rare occasions when they gather and haven’t got an immediate deadline to hit is the burgeoning trend among PR pros to ask journalists to supply questions up front prior to an interview with an executive or representative.
The argument is that prior knowledge of questions helps the interviewee to be prepared and have some talking points prepared. In reality, it leads to canned responses and bullet points prepped by the PR team that play it safe and remove any of the spontaneity and genuine interest in the subject matter.
It’s why answering questions via email is also a no-no.
For years, PRWeek ran a feature in our Agency Business Report with contributions from each of the large marketing services holding company CEOs that were gathered via email. It was the dullest piece of content in the whole package and we dropped it a couple of years ago.
We will only ever bring it back as a direct interview piece and this year we’re doing a write-around as none of the major holding company CEOs will speak to us — so they will have literally no control over what we publish. Breaking PR rule number one that you should engage with relevant media on stories. But such is the febrile and frightened climate around business at the moment. To be clear, the PR agency CEOs all talk to us – I’m talking about the holding companies.
The landscape is changing and new players that don’t come with mainstream heritage are operating to different standards than mainstream media outlets.
On Semafor’s most recent Mixed Signals media podcast, hosted by editor-in-chief Ben Smith and media reporter Max Tani, Jubilee Media founder Jason Y. Lee admitted his Jubilee YouTube channel gave the Biden White House access to their video with Pete Buttigieg and the right to censor it before it was published.
Ironically, of course, the content they had the most problem with was the really interesting stuff that would have engaged viewers most. And it would have presented the administration in a good light.
Let’s not be naive about what goes on behind the scenes in today’s fractured and dysfunctional media in terms of negotiation around an appearance, especially in the sports and entertainment fields, but also leaking into politics and business. What Jubilee did would be anathema to old-school journalists and editors, but creators, influencers and new media platforms operate to different rules and standards.
Either way, some things are absolute no-no’s for journalists (and creators) and should either never be done, or should be rectified as soon as possible. These include factual inaccuracies, breaking the rules of on-background and off-the-record conversations, not being properly prepared for an interview with a senior executive and, of course, breaking embargoes.
I would add asking for questions before an interview to this list. There’s nothing wrong with getting a steer on what the general theme of an interview will be. But asking for questions takes all the spontaneity out of the process and typically results in bland content.
Many times it is the comms team or handlers insisting on these conditions and the interviewee is perfectly happy to field whatever comes at them.
In the Pete Buttigieg case, a lot of the best material got left on the cutting room floor because the Democratic admin team had the right to veto which segments appeared in the final product.
The things people are most interested in cutting are often the things that will do best for them. The Jubilee format meant Buttigieg encountered issues and questions contrary to his own beliefs and responded effectively to them, something he is particularly good at. But a lot of it was never seen.
It’s a false dichotomy. And a false economy.
This is my view as a journalist and editor. What do PR pros think? Email me here or post on LinkedIn comments.
