Press Releases: So 1995 or still important in 2015?

I love it when something I wrote a year or more ago sounds fresh. (OK, sometimes I hate it.)

I last wrote about press releases in October 2013. I'm tempted to simply re-share the whole piece; it still works.

But that wouldn't do my blog any favors, now would it? (Wink, wink)

Press Releases Still Matter. 

Press releases are sort of like phones. They still matter, we still need them, but the way we work with them has changed a little bit. Here's how to think about them, and how to use them effectively, in 2015.

Press releases were built to do a job: that is, to let the press know about something that maybe it (the press) should tell the world about. Closely related: press releases were the original spin machines.

They can be read at a press conference when something bad has happened, for example. They can announce that something good has happened. Or they can ballyhoo a new product.

Press releases once worked pretty well at getting the press's attention. Has that changed? No, not really. What's changed is the press, which is a rather archaic word, so let's say "media." Roughly eight billion channels and the internet have appeared since the dawn of the press release.  Each news outlet has its own agenda.* So, how well do they work? Ah, that's a good question. The answer is, they work great, when you have a great plan. (See Marketing 101, specifically as it relates to goals, audiences, targets, testing, and - well, you get the point.)

At some point, press releases got a little too big for their britches. Or maybe that was a mixup at the office party when PR and Marketing got confused and tried on each other's job descriptions and everyone went home in the wrong hat.

Ah-um, yes; that belongs in another post too. Back to press releases.

They can't do everything. But, when you design them to do a specific job, they do it well.

Who needs press releases in 2015? Large organizations

One way to characterize a large organization - whether it's a public university, foundation, hospital, or everyone's favorite corporation - is as an information center. Most large organizations produce enough internal news to publish a daily newspaper. And the people who work there might, at some point, be expected to know what's going on in any given department. Which is silly, because people who work in a university's biology department really can't know everything that's going on over in the agriculture department (although it would be nice) or public health (that would be nice too) or history departments.

One thing press releases do really well is serve as a news archive of sorts for accomplishments. And other things that happen. And not just in public institutions, but also in corporations. Particularly since employees often are also shareholders, I hope that many of them read their company's press releases regularly. Hint: If I were in charge of a large organization, I would require employees to read every press release the company issued, the PR department would be stellar, and very well paid.  ;)

Who needs press releases in 2015? Small organizations

Remember that party I mentioned, where marketing and PR got a little too cozy? Yeh, well, it's not exactly an incestuous relationship. The fact is there's a huge gray area where Marketing and PR both need to work closely together. We could say they're cousins. It might be a good idea for me to kill this analogy now.

To clarify, when I said "press releases got a little too big for their britches," what I meant was we all got confused about how much a press release can do. Press releases by themselves simply cannot replace sales, marketing, and paid advertising.**

Small organizations rarely have healthy marketing/pr/ad budgets. And while press releases can't make up all the difference, when used well, they can garner a lot of attention. Not "a lot of attention" in a headline news kind of way, maybe, but that's not necessarily what a small business or organization needs.

As PR and marketing both know, the right kind of attention, from the right audience is priceless for a small organization. (And some large organizations.)

A well-targeted press release can function as a productive cold call, generating awareness, interest and when you're lucky, leads.

Why bother with press releases in 2015? 

If you have a message to share, press releases are one way to share it. Whether or not a press release is the best, most effective way to share it...is questionable. But sometimes, under some circumstances, press releases are a perfect fit, britches and all.

~Diane Stresing

*Sadly, none that I know of are out to purely inform us minions with "all the news that's fit to print;" but that rant belongs in a different post.
**Gasp! Can we still say "advertising" in 2015? I may never run out of blog topics...

So You Think PR is Easy?

Look, PR isn't exactly rocket science, but good Public Relations execution requires knowing more the basic grammar rules and how to offer a proper handshake.

The best article I've read on the subject in several weeks, at least, comes from PRNewser's Shawn Paul Woods.

I have to admit, I am a bit surprised PRNewser didn't land on PRSSA's list of blogs every student should read. What other fountains of good advice were omitted? Your additions are welcome here, as comments or tweets.

Wondering what PR experts say on the subject?
Best Practices for B2B Public Relations (PRSA; $)
# #

^ Hey, just checking - you do know what those hashtags are for, right? 

You & Your Source: Different Interview Perspectives

PR Daily is good at asking questions, and How far should you stretch in an interview? is a good question.

In the case of this particular question, author Brad Phillips concludes that there's no right or wrong answer. I beg to differ.

As a writer, I've been on the deadline end of the wrong answer, and it stinks (to put it politely).

On Being a Good Source 

My answer to would-be sources is this: don't stretch for an interview unless you're really, r e a l l y going to stretch and actually become a good source.

Trust me, a prompt, professional response that you're not able to authoritatively address the specific aspects of the assigned topic will be appreciated.

Do you worry because you "hate to turn down a media opportunity?" Don't. Generally, a prompt, professional response of any kind will be enough to get you on the list of "people to call" for future assignments on any related topic.

As a source, the second-worst thing you can do is stretch a little. If you stretch enough to talk around the topic, but are unable to offer any real insight into the topic, you've wasted not only the writer's time but the readers' time as well.

The Worst Source

In my opinion - as a writer and a reader - the worst thing a source can do has nothing to do with stretching. It has to do with bending.

Sources who bend, twist, or turn their responses, or who stray so far from the topic that their comments are useful only to themselves and/or their brand, are the worst... when you're prepared, that is.

Sometimes - rarely, but sometimes - a "bad" source can, like a lost sheep, be worth following. The trick is knowing when.

Don't Get Lost, Get Lucky

Following a wayward source is worthwhile when you have enough time to appreciate the detour as part of the education process. Managing your work so that you can have "enough time" is a challenge every writer knows too well - and most know it depends on having a lot of discipline and even more luck.

To increase your chances (I'm talking to writers now, you source-types are free to leave) I've found it helps to identify potential sources as early as possible in your research phase. I've lucked out a few times by contacting those potential sources before I understood the topic well. In those cases, I suspect my totally honest approach improved my luck.

Contacting Sources Too Early Can Work

When contacting potential sources before I've had a chance to develop good questions, I say something like, "I'm researching X topic and would like 10-15 minutes of your time while I begin to understand how Y and Z are affecting X. Before you agree I should tell you this interview would be considered background only - in other words, no attributable quotes at this time. If you're willing to speak to me, please call..."

Obviously, when using this approach it helps to cast a wide net (or look for a lot of sheep). And it helps to have a long lead time - something almost always out of your control as a writer.

What is under your control as a writer, and what you must remember during the interview and writing process, is that you and your sources approach the interview from completely different perspectives. Put another way: as long as you understand that the question How far should you stretch in an interview? is one sources must routinely consider, it's probably unlikely that you'll be led too far astray.

~Diane Stresing

Updating Your Social Media AND Communications Skills

Here are 3 tips just as applicable to those who were waiting to see if social media would catch on (it did) as they are for those who jumped on the social media bandwagon five years ago. (As it may be time to brush up, or catch-up.)

Inspiration for this post came from an article with the ironic subhead, The last in a series about Facebook. The article was published in 2008. Insert laugh track here. The article proved (once again) that while communications vehicles change constantly, the basics of communication don't.

Whether you're just jumping into Facebook and Twitter conversations or have been participating for years, it pays to observe what's working and what's not, and to borrow liberally from folks in the first category. 

For your consideration:

• Beyond the Hype offers a good look at what worked - for the administration and the people - in the lastest State of the Union address.  

Takeaway: Keep your message on message, and remember a little humor can help get that message across. 

• Comcast shows Twitter can be a powerful business tool. 

Takeaway: In business, you are not the message; your service is.

• The tech journalists at Venture Beat remind PR professionals that lessons learned in Pitching 101 still apply. 

Takeaway: Do your homework, provide your reader(s) with some clear benefits, and be honest.

>>>>and this just in>>>> Know your niche!
R.E.M. hits all the right notes with its free, re-mixable downloads. Read, then mix it up if you want to, here:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/08/r-e-m-remix-soundcloud-garageband

-- -- -- --Full urls for hotlinks above-- -- --   

Beyond the Hype's analysis of SOTU message, 

http://blog.loispaul.com/blog/2011/01/4-things-the-state-of-the-union-tells-us-about-the-issue-of-message-control.html 

Comcast's Customer Service Twittter feed, 

http://twitter.com/comcastcares

How to pitch to Venture Beat (or anyone else),

http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/24/pitch-to-tech-bloggers

--

DOH! Catholics Deserve Better PR

Newsflash: Homer and Bart Simpson are Catholic, according to the Vatican, yesterday.

Which begs the question, so what?

Media and religion analysts have stated it's an attempt to make Catholicism more relevant. The Vatican's press release further suggested The Simpsons is good family entertainment. And from there it grew even...less relevant.

Sorry, folks (especially Catholic folks) PR should do a lot better than that. Maybe the Vatican needs a refresher course in public relations. A list of do's and don't's or better yet, a "Doh!" list.  Here's mine:

• The conversation cited as "evidence" Homer and Bart are Catholic occurred in a 2005 episode. 

Doh! Any high school journalism student knows press releases are supposed to be confused with news. (News that's five years old is called recent history.)

• Homer and Bart talked about religion in general, and broached the subject of converting to Catholicism, but didn't. 

Doh! Jumping to the conclusion that they are now Catholic, based on a single scene in a single episode is called faulty logic. Or unclear evidence. Or a weak argument. Until now I thought the Vatican was really into fact-checking. Didn't it take the Catholic powers-that-be more than a few years to come to the conclusion that yes, in fact, the Holocaust actually happened and was a really, really bad thing?

• "Few people know it and he does everything to hide it but it is true: Homer J. Simpson is Catholic," according to the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. 

Doh! Repeat after me: it's OK to lead with a quote, if it's a really good quote. IF we're going to ignore the fact this little gem is five years old, IF we're going to buy the argument that the Simpsons are Catholic, and IF we're going to accept the idea that the Simpsons being Catholic is good or that it matters at all, can we at least get a better quote? IF I were considering converting because Homer and Bart did (if they did) well, sorry L'Osservatore, you lost me at "...he does everything to hide it..."

Hey, I'm all for churches using PR. And I believe (to some extent) that "any publicity is good publicity." Unfortunately, this isn't. It's getting lots of airplay but none that really furthers the faith, good news, thoughtful dialog about religion. In other words, doh!

I'd love to see an effective PR effort  - like (pick a denomination) saying "God said meet me on Facebook!" or something even more relevant. Facebook may have had its 15 minutes...but the Simpsons,  converting to Catholicism? That's so 2005.

Recommended reading: Anything by David Ogilvy, a dead guy who's still relevant, or about him, like this:
http://www.copyblogger.com/the-david-ogilvy-playbook-for-business-blogging/