While an older, pending debate is on why blogs by PR agencies look and feel bad, here’s a post by Lewis PR where they got flak for sharing a piece of news on their blog.
Lewis PR’s Live blog usually features agency-related information like client wins etc. but last week, they published a piece of ‘news’ – about ‘huge loss of laptops by Ministry of Defence staff‘ in UK. It was typically newsy and something that one would expect in a newspaper or a local TV report.
Lewis’ Scott Pettet blogged about it too and explained how his RT of this news got a lot of flak about how PR agencies should stick to PR and not publish their own news. He makes some valid arguments in the same vein.
It was suggested to me that LEWIS PR should not be reporting news because we donâ??t have the public interest at heart. This is true. However, we donâ??t claim to have the public interest at heart. Weâ??re a PR agency and as such any news and information we publish will be in the direct interests of, or complimentary to the interests of our clients. Weâ??re not purporting to be a source of independent news and information.
If I were especially cynical, I might also pose the question as to whether all media truly have the public interest at heart? A piece for another time though, perhaps.
The undertones of some of the commentary also suggested that news and information issued by a PR agency must instantly be regarded as suspect. Interestingly, not one comment was made about the validity of the story in question, or its journalistic merit.
This is an interesting topic.
Traditionally, PR agencies have always used media as the intermediaries to reach their clients’ target audiences/public.
Why? Because, media offers reach. The chosen vehicle to send that piece of client-related information varied – emails, phone calls, fax etc.
And then there were news agencies/aggregators, to whom client news was sent. They published it online, giving clients some well-deserved Google-juice.
Now, I wonder, why can’t a PR agency do this by itself? Think about it.
1. A PR agency is in touch with media/journalists. It needs to disseminate news about its clients. One way to do it is ‘via’ media. The other way is to do it directly – via, a blog online or even a twitter feed.
2. Worried about bias? The agency is after all ‘retained’ (paid) by the client to spread the news – where is the neutrality, as Scott addresses in his post above? But, are all blogs/tweets online neutral and bias-free? Should they be? In this case, the agencies at least make it mighty clear that they are sharing a client’s information! How much more transparent can it get and lead the readers to ‘reader beware’…an equivalent of ‘buyer beware’?
3. The opportunities – you reach journalists too in this way, besides others. If media folks have subscribed to the agency’s news dissemination blog, they get frequent, regular updates. Non-media people can get this too since it’s simply online.
4. There is a theory online that all brands and people are their own media now, thanks to social media. That is true, of course, so you may wonder, why not the rbands themselves start posting their own news? They do, on the news section of their websites, already. But the advantage here is across 2 levels – one, a PR agency usually counsels with a client on communication messages and creates the material that needs to be communicated. And, most importantly, how many individual brand sites can media folks track? It is the same argument as the need for PR agencies itself – every brand has an in-house communications team but not necessarily the bandwidth to connect with media folks across the spectrum. So, PR agencies may act as the news sources, in the true sense – not only deliver news, but share news in its fullest form…online.
5. Next, a potential problem. Would clients agree to be featured in a PR agency’s blog? Why wouldn’t they, if it offers reach among media and public? It could also help in finding out the number of people who interact with the client’s piece of news, in the form of comments, page views, request for more ifnormation etc. More accountable, in essence.
6. Another problem! Would this impact a journalist’s ability to break news and be the first to write on their client? Of course it would, since it is being shared with the entire world, online. But again, an agency needs to decide on the best method to share news based on the news value. If it’s earth-shatteringly important, the mode would obviously be direct engagement with a Tier 1 publication – not the blog/online source.
All this would obviously mean that the agency in question needs to have the readership (among TG or relevant media), else, the effort will be pointless. Just because it’s online does not mean the world will get to know about it. So, it perhaps needs to be built, from ground-up, promoted adequately among media/journalists so that they look up to it for news updates, with consistency.
Is this newsroom service at the agency-level an opportunity? Are agencies already doing it? If yes, sorry for making you read through this – do share those examples so that I can learn too!
Scott’s blog also mentions the pick-up they got for the news they shared in the blog,
…it is worth noting that the story has had tremendous pickup in the UK by both mainstream and technology media. Furthermore, LEWIS PRâ??s Clarence Mitchell, himself a former BBC reporter for 19 years, has been interviewed on the findings.
This news was client-neutral and something of national importance. So, obviously, the pick-up was good. Would it work for client-related news as well? That would be based on the news value of the announcement itself, I suppose, like any other client communications we agencies manage.
Here are some directly/indirectly relevant links that help put my piece above in perspective.
1. Tom Foremski’s ‘The Killer Pitch? – When PR Agencies Can Do This – Look Out…‘
“But what would be wrong with a PR agency driving traffic to news stories about a client? Nothing. Agencies are hired to drive attention to a client. This is why using pageviews as a basis for setting compensation for reporters is wrong because it is open to abuse. And it can harm the reputation of reporters even if their motives are pristine.”
2. Laura Oliver – “Are PR agencies forging the new journalism?”
“Social media has given PR agencies an advantage over ad agencies in reaching the consumer, says the piece, but will PR fill the news void as traditional media continues to fragment? Or will audiences still need a third-party filter or endorsement?”
3. The Independent – “PR stunt or the new journalism?: The titans of public relations are going direct to viewers and readers” (the piece that Laura refers to, in her post, in #2, above).
“Are we seeing the emergence of a new hybrid of “journalicist” media workers, who combine editorial and public relations skills to tell a client’s stories in credible “publicitage”. Or is it just PR playing at advertising? The crux of the issue is that the popularity of social media platforms â?? and the interactivity that they offer consumers…”
As you can see, I’m not suggesting that agencies go directly to the consumers right away. There is a very valid gap that media fills and has done so, over so many years, building credibility and impact among people. That cannot be won over by agencies going direct. My approach is to let go of one-to-one communication methods to reach media + target audiences and take the one-to-many communication mode that social media enables. Media becomes one of the consumers of a client’s news – not the only one.
If our personal thoughts can go one-to-many on Twitter, why not a paid client’s news?
Photo by ‘teikjoon’ on Flickr.