|
Most working journalists have to deal with hundreds, if not thousands, of press releases that cross the transom every year. That's more than they're going to read, of course. And of the ones they "read," all but a few are destined to receive a half-hearted skimming, followed by a click of the delete button.
In the world of Web 2.0, some PR agencies have tried to address this issue with newfangled formats. But ultimately it's not about the format, it's about the content. And I can tell you from experience as both a reporter and a public relations consultant, there are eight ways I can usually tell that a press release is bullshit.
1. Vague claims. Are you a "leading" provider of this, that or the other? So's everybody else. Is your product the "first ever" of its kind? That's strange -- so's Larry's product, Moe's product and Curly's product.
Be specific. Provide details. Quantify. Source your data. Where appropriate, include a quote from a third party to verify your claims.
I can say I have a Great Dane named Ginger who weighs 130 pounds, as measured by the Corner Pet Clinic. Or, I can say I have a really big dog. Go with the former -- or I'll probably assume your release is bullshit.
2. Industry jargon abuse. Some press releases overuse technical jargon. This communicates that what you're announcing is so inside-baseball that only about three reporters on the entire planet could possibly care about it. So why did you send it to 2,000?
Other press releases misuse jargon. This generally means that the junior PR person who wrote the release doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and the company didn't bother to run it by the technical people who do.
Can you hear that? It's the sound of a thousand delete buttons being pressed at once.
3. Business nonsense talk. Paradigm shift. Scalable. Best of breed. End to end. Mission-critical. World-class. Targeted completion date. Long tail. Crowdsourcing. Any of the words in this company description.
OK, pick two -- because if you use any more than two of these cliches and buzzwords in a release, I'll probably call bullshit.
4. Silly superlatives. If what you were announcing were really "revolutionary," you wouldn't need to put out a press release, Holmes. Tone it down.
5. Bait and switch. When the release promises something in the lead that is inconsistent with the rest of the release, it's DOA. In fact, it just might backfire by raising a reporter's investigative hackles.
For example, if you send me a release hailing your company's "strategic restructuring" (see No. 3 above) in the first paragraph, then bury the layoff of 1,000 people in the sixth paragraph, I probably won't care to hear anything you have to tell me. But I just might decide to contact some employees to get the real story on the layoff.
6. Tortured topicality. If your company is so bereft of actual news that you have to hang your press releases on obscure ties to holidays and current events, I probably won't get past the headline. Don't bother.
7. Off-brand wire distribution. PR Newswire and Business Wire are the gold standard when it comes to news release distribution (with PRWeb coming on strong as a Web visibility tool). If I see one of their names at the top of the release, I know you've spent a few bucks to get out your news. That means you're probably a real company and just might have real news.
If, on the other hand, I come across your release via a free service -- where any schmoe can put out a release -- I'll probably assume it's bullshit. You get what you pay for.
8. Clumsy e-mail distribution. If I receive your release in my inbox twice -- or, say, 11 times -- I question how carefully I've been targeted as a recipient. If you don't even bother to put my name on the correspondence, I know I haven't been targeted at all. Delete, delete.
So do yourself a favor and keep your press releases straightforward in structure, clear in language, and supported by facts. Practice this consistently, and reporters will be less likely to give your announcements a one-way ticket to the recycle bin.
|
Comments
As a former reporter and editor, most press releases are BS, and you list some of the reasons why.
However, in today's online world, I don't have to worry so much about what newspaper editors want, as I can bypass them by using online (paid) services to reach my clients' audience directly. In addition to posting the releases online, I post them on my clients' web sites and send them out to my clients' opt-in e-mail distribution lists.
Yes, I still send them to a select few newspapers and magazines, but my clients get more than their money's worth, whether the publications pick them up or don't.
If I can, I want to add one additional point to your list, and I would put it first: newsworthiness. If a press release isn't newsworthy to the specific audience served by a publication, nothing else matters. It won't get picked up.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 04.25.07
Lewis,
I agree with your points. I would add that I left the direct-to-consumer element of press releases out of the equation in this post. The one bad thing about direct-to-consumer is that it encourages the use of even more fluffy marketing language, so if the same release is sent to a reporter (as in usually the case), it's even more likely to be tossed.
Posted by: Scott Baradell | 04.25.07
I think this is a great article. I've seen more corporate babble in the last six months than I ever hoped to see in my entire life. And the company I'm forming hasn't even opened a store yet. Our press releases come from our parent company and while they serve our purpose, they don't always serve anyone else's.
Great article, I'm sending it on to 20 people in the form of a press release.
Posted by: Evan | 04.25.07
Scott,
Great post. As a marketing person, nothing sends me up a wall faster than your point #3. Gibberish, aka business expressions meant to impress rather than plain, down to earth talk is my big beef. I believe it is for Lewis Green, as well, based on his past comments. What's wrong with sending out a press release if there really is news worthy of one, and making it short, to the point, and writing it in plain English?
Posted by: Claire Ratushny | 04.25.07
If a pro is doing his/her job correctly, the heavy lifting will have been done early and the release will only serve as an obit.
Posted by: Mike | 04.25.07
As a longtime public relations agency person, I must sadly admit that you are right, Scott. Too many p.r. "professionals" are not very professional because they've learned from hacks.
I am lucky that my first two jobs out of B-school were with small agencies led by former journalists who cared about what went out of their shops. I learned how to write and think like a reporter, so I wouldn't be sending junk out that's totally off-base for what the reporter covers. And I don't use superlatives unless I can back them up.
When I worked as a senior manager at two large agencies before starting my own shop, I was horrified at the sloppiness of the work. The big agencies are too caught up with billable hours, and most don't devote the time to properly train their junior people. Also, too many mid-size agencies are run by people who do p.r. just the way you're criticizing, and the young people who work for them learn really bad habits.
I sometimes suffer from being painted with the same brush as the hacks. But I'd say most media people I've dealt with see that I try to do it right, and they appreciate it and are then open to future pitches from me. There are many others in this field who are professional. There just needs to be even more.
Posted by: David Reich | 04.25.07
Good advice, Scott. It sounds as if you've gotten a few too many press releases in your day. :)
Without a doubt, Web 2.0 is creating a revolutionary paradigm shift that is causing leading companies to change their end-to-end communications strategies. ;)
Posted by: Cam Beck | 04.25.07
A couple I'd add that make most releases into press releases from hell:
- release is more than 250 words long. If I need more info, I will ask you for it.
- your headline doesn't tell the story. And so your release won't get read.
- contact information is not included
- there is no link to a website with additional information, photos, etc.
- release sent as email attachment. You're nuts if you think anyone will open an unsolicited email attachment
Posted by: B.L. Ochman | 04.25.07
Ever try and read every release a particular company puts out? As an investor in Ericson (ERIC), I get at LEAST 5 per day! What does this mean? I dont bother reading any! Give me someting that really is new and meaningful.
Posted by: Bill Booth | 04.25.07
This post should be required reading for clients. They are ones who try to sneak the BS into a press release.
Posted by: Sherrilynne Starkie | 04.26.07
Scott - Great post. I'm going to nail it to my wall and look at it every time I'm tempted to start doing "marketing by press release," i.e., cave-in and send something completely non-newsworthy out there just because it's cheap and we haven't had anything on our release list for 6 months.
Posted by: Maureen Rogers | 04.26.07
Thanks, Maureen. I should clarify that "marketing by press release" CAN be OK -- if it's a release that's purely being sent out for direct-to-consumer or search-engine marketing purposes.
For these releases, however, I ONLY use PR Web (never Business Wire or PR Newswire) and I don't send them to ANY media on the client's distribution list.
Actually, that's probably a good topic for a future post.
Posted by: Scott Baradell | 04.27.07
Great to-the-point guide. I'll need to give this the "Management" who thinks press releases are the only way to say something to the outside world.
Posted by: yvonne | 04.28.07
Sensible, much-needed article. Our site handles law-related news and although we deal daily with press releases from a variety of sources, we also find increasing 'bumpf' in the releases, particularly when they relate to largely self-promoting events, awards, partnerships etc.
Posted by: John Bowie | 04.30.07
Content is still king. Proven, facts, strong writing and a good story win the day. This opinion comes from the leading paradigm disruptor of end-to-end holistic PR-related thoughts.
Posted by: Mark O'Toole | 05.09.07