Blanket PR Approaches Never Work

We've found that a combination of "new" and "old" approaches works the best. Social media is a wonderful thing, but you can't beat picking up the phone and making that personal connection. Like you said, the approach has to be customized for the people you're working with. Thanks for a great post, Lauren!

Great post Laura (as always!). So many PR folks (young and old alike) think they can subscribe to a media contact database and then just blast out releases. While that's technically true, when discussing BurrellesLuce MediaContacts and doing demos, I always stress the importance of research and that the database is just a starting point.

But then (to your and Keith's convo) I worked in corporate communications, had a stint with a PR agency and *then* came to do what I do now; and, I'm sure that makes a difference in how I view these things! :-)

I'm glad you brought up databases. :-) I research through the internet to figure out beats as well - you can't just blast out pitches. It doesn't work.

Well said! The important thing is to make sure the reporter is receiving information the way they want it, that's a vital part of the "relations" part of public relations, knowing what someone likes and delivering that makes any relationship easier (without comprimising yourself, of course).

In a few interviews I've been asked the question, "what do you do when someone in the company comes to you with a piece of news they want in a press release that you know just isn't newsworthy?" That's the same as a boss who may not know that a fixation on one form of pitching isn't going to have as much reach as the integration of new ways. It's a matter of strategic explanation and results.

Erica - How would you answer that question? To me, it's such a delicate situation, that my answer would depend on the type of person, their thoughts, etc. I think you're right in the fact that you have to be able to explain it strategically and show results.

It does depend on the person and you are right, it must be handled delicately, but it must be done. Finding a different angle for that piece of information or telling that person that while the information they are wanting to get coverage on is indeed important, it may be more strategic (read: more coverage) to wait until it can be coupled with other newsworthy company information.
It's definitely something that needs to be handled on a situation by situation basis.
But does that apply to a boss who doesn't want to foray into other pitching tactics? Do you attempt to explain it all at once so that you can shift your strategy in one fell swoop or do you do it little by little, using each pitching opportunity individually?

So what do you do if the boss is stubborn and keeps pushing and pushing? If you're entry level, at what point do you just say ok? Do you ever concede?

LAF -

Yes, I agree with your points here. Other commenters have done a terrific job.

But they are all forgetting the REAL highlight here is the Earl and Baby Sinclair photo from the EPIC early 1990s show "Dinosaurs" as part of ABC's classic TGIF line-up (which featured favorites such as Full House, Step by Step, Family Matters and my favorite, Perfect Strangers).

Do yourself a favor and watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

There, isn't your Monday a little bit better now?

haha. I was actually kinda scared of that show but totally watched it anyway for fear of being deemed "uncool" if I didn't

Thanks for sharing the video!! My Monday=MUCH better now! :)

KT - We are so alike, it's scary. Probably why you're a contributor on LAF.

Best. Video. Ever.

I know some people who have a tremendous recency effect. Whatever the last new idea or technology they came across was, that's the solution for everything. Yes, there is value in new technologies, but you can't expect each new technology to solve all of your problems. It's important for us to realize that not every project or problem can be approached the same way so we need to stay on our toes and develop a diversified set of tools with which we can use. As to how we can prevent them from doing this, I'd love to hear what people think because with me it's usually just wait it out until the current shiny object loses its luster, which clearly isn't the best option.

Shiny! Shiny! seems to be the mentality of many. Also, just because it works for one doesn't mean it works for another.

I usually point to case studies of where a traditional approach worked. True stories tend to get people to pay attention. In this case, I don't know if ROI would have any effect on the mentality. What do you think?

You know if it wasn't their idea it was probably never a good idea in the first place :) But I definitely think case studies would help catch their attention. Also, I've found that if you approach them with a new plan of action already laid out for them so that they really just have to execute it, then it is more effective than just saying their shiny object plan won't work.

I like that. Having a plan of action shows that you care, pay attention and have thought it through. It's a great approach.

As always, great stuff. While I contend in my most recent post reporters prefer e-mail to other methods of contact 20-to-1, it doesn't hurt to pick up the phone (or other means) to plant the seed, following up with something they can print off and keep.

You're spot on in your last paragraph. Soliciting feedback to confirm preferred means (and times) of outreach is often the start of a PR/reporter relationship. It sends the message: "I'll be working with you in the future."

It's vital to be accommodating to each outlet: quality pitching > quantity pitching.

I tend to lean toward those methods as well at first - but I have had a lot of success in the past year with hard copy press kits. I think it's easy to forget with the new methods that have success as well, but many reporters need the old methods. Just like we are ingrained in our pitching ways, they are ingrained in how they want to get information.

Love this ~> Quality pitching > quantity pitching.

I love this post for a couple reasons: (1) you quote an Office episode & (2) this strikes a personal cord for me.

Here are a couple beliefs that I have around this issue:

HABIT & FEAR: I believe so many PR "pros" don't like media relations and as a result get into their pitching habits, are often afraid of confrontation - hence avoid direct contact with those in the media (i.e., depend heavily on email).

FLAWED AGENCY MODEL: Another part of this issue is the template of a traditional PR firm handing off the reputations of their clients to the most junior (inexperienced) staff. They are then told to get results yet don't understand this integrated approach you have suggested.

PITCHING = LISTENING: To your final point in the post...it is all about listening to the media needs (isn't this the case in business and life in general?!). Too often we are wrapped up in the client's needs and "pitching" instead of taking care of and "serving" your #1 client - the media who is your client's mouthpiece to their targeted audiences.

So how do you prove this? Just keep on delivering results and those PR folks who are successfully integrating will keep busy while others will die off.

Stubborn boss? Results are so important...ask for forgiveness vs. permission and take an approach that you think is in the client's (and media) best interest.

Too many examples of these to share in this already long post:) I think the best thing we can do is continue to crank out the results and case studies through integrating our traditional & social media relations efforts...they'll catch on eventually but for now lets CRUSH IT (thanks @GaryVee)!

Matt - I really like all your reasons, and think you hit on a lot of issues. I couldn't have said it better.

I think a big part on the flawed agency model is that many are not willing to teach why pitching is important - and how to do it well - so we are stuck in this cycle. I think this type of thinking will hopefully help to break it.

Perhaps you've hit on a business idea...training agencies to learn how to integrate their pitching style. Unfortunately, they are so close-minded and "my sh$# doesn't stink" oriented that they may not see the value:). Certainly worth additional conversation...

Thanks again for the great conversation starter!

As usual, the community makes it much better and helps me to think outside the box.

But how can we get them out of that mentality? I don't see why they wouldn't be open to new ideas - isn't the whole point to put your brand first?

Laura - This is a question that I'm sure every young - and old - PR practitioner asks themselves from time to time. Actually, I would imagine that people in almost every business ask themselves: What is the best way to do one of the core functions of our job? I think, ultimately, this comes down to the part that you always talk about, Lauren, that we have to take a stand for what we believe is right and what the feedback from the reporter/blogger has told us. If you're getting feedback that is telling you that your approach maybe isn't working the way you want, then I would hope that a conscientious/intelligent professional would find a way to change their approach to best suit the task at hand.

For me, it's about finding what is best for all parties involved: You, your client/organization and the reporter/blogger that you are working with. It's a delicate balance at times, and yes, sometimes a change in approach works, and other times, it may be best to leave your approach as is, and find other avenues of accomplishing your goals.

@KeithTrivitt

We need to do what's best for the brand, though, right? I think by trying several approaches in a campaign - mixing calls w/ e-mail, hard copy press kits, etc.) you are reaching your audience even more. You need to utilize all platforms to get the message across - some approaches make one bite when another doesn't.

I truly believe you have to be willing to admit when something doesn't work, and try something new. It just might be a bad strategy. Not everything will work.

I definitely agree on feedback, because you need to use it and utilize it. A big part of building relationships is understanding the give and take.

True, we do need to do what is best for the brand. By the same token, though, we have to realize that what is best for the brand at that moment is not what is always best for the reporter/blogger we are working with, and that, I think, is the crux and difficulty of this situation. As PR pros, we are often caught in a unique world where we are trying to balance the demands of numerous parties, both internal and external. And personally, I think we have an obligation to keep all parties' best interests in mind. That's a difficult task, sure, but one I don't think we should forget.

So going off that, absolutely, we need to be willing to admit that our initial approach isn't working, and work hard to find a new one. And I think this backs up what you are saying even more, that we need to be willing to adjust, and realize that our initial tactic/approach may not be working best, and while our brand may be pushing us for one approach, we often have to use our best judgment, in order to find the approach that works for all parties, and like you said, builds relationships and keeps them intact.

I love our conversations, because you always make me think. I totally agree with you - but how can we balance it?

Now, you've asked the tough question of me! I'll be honest: I think that balance is the most difficult part of our jobs. And after working on the corporate side for several years, and now doing my best on the agency side, I'm telling you, it's as tough as nails some days. And it doesn't always work out as well as I make it seem above. It's that constant give-and-take, and it's tough, no doubt about it. But for me, it's a challenge I love, and it's a challenge I firmly believe is absolutely necessary for the good of the companies we represent.

I think one fact that we are leaving out of this discussion is counseling. The fact that much of our role as PR practitioners is to act as media and public outreach counselors for the brands we represent. And sometimes, that we means we have to get a little tough with people to help them realize that the approach they are pushing may not be the best, so let's try this out for a period of time, and see what results we get.

To answer your question of how we balance all of this: Well ... we don't always. But we keep trying, in the hopes and goal that we continue to work to become better and more rounded at what we do - both professionally and personally.

See, we had the reverse experience. I was in the agency world for 2.5 years, then switched to corporate. I wonder if that also defines how you view things - your experience, your successes and your failures.

I wonder if counselor is the best word - what about advocate?

Thanks for the conversation.

I tend to like the word "counselor," particularly when you move from working with the client to working with the media. I know there are journalists out there who will smell you "advocating" through the internet. While it is a good attitude, great attitude, to have while working with clients, I think we must leave advocating the client at the door when we enter conversations with the media. When we work with the media, we need to work for the media. When we work with our clients we need to work for our clients. Maybe it sounds a little harsh to clients, but to do the best job for them, there has to be significant cooperation with the journos.

Thanks Laura and Keith!

Monica - What if you work in corporate? Does it change? I think in any situation, your brand comes before you, and in the media atmosphere, you have to balance brand with media needs. We can't let the brand slip - or think that it's ever about us.

Thanks for reading - I really enjoyed your comment!

Laura - You hit the nail right on the head: With some clients, you are more of a counselor, particularly if they have had negative media experiences in the past, and they need some really strong, expert advice to guide them in the right direction. With others, you are more of an advocate, and you really get behind what the work you do for them, as well as your outreach to the media, their key audiences and influencers.

Having said that, I definitely agree with Monica that when we are working with the media, we actually work for them (I come from media relations roles before, and yes, we definitely DO work for the media), and in that case, we are more of counselors. We counsel our clients on realistic expectations of media coverage, and we counsel the media on how we believe our clients, their work/products/services would benefit that reporters'/bloggers' readership.

Why can't we work WITH the media? I have lots of journalists friends, and many say that 80-90 percent of their stories come from PR folks. Why can't it be a give and take relationship?

(You are always making me think! I love it.)

Lauren--I agree the brand can never slip. You give up a lot if you don't keep the brand number one, no matter if you are corporate or agency. I don't want to suggest we play to the media without maintaining a firm grip on what is good for the brand. But I think much is lost without cooperation--what Keith is talking about re: making sure the client understands the media landscape.

Let's all work together! give and take and understand and respect!

I definitely agree that it has to be give and take. Sometimes, the client just won't get the landscape. That's what we are there for - to teach, educate. Maybe I just don't like the word counselor - it can be considered negative to some. :)

I think the dynamics of whether you work in the corporate or agency side absolutely shape how you view issues like the one you have addressed, and frankly, probably every single issue in the PR world. It's all about the context of environment that you are currently in.

I like advocate, but from a different perspective: advocate as in your outreach and communications with an outside audience. But for an internal audience, and particularly the execs that you are directly working with on a certain strategy/campaign, I really think counselor is the best, due to the fact that advocate implies that you have tremendous enthusiasm, knowledge of and zeal for a certain idea or strategy, and are not really willing to go against the grain (at least from my own experience).

Counselor, however, means that you take a more objective approach to a situation, and you look at all possible angles, regardless of which one the company ultimately thinks is best for its own good. You are there to provide counsel - to advise, rather than advocate, about tactics and strategies that will lead to the most long-term benefits. I certainly think advocacy has its place with internal PR work and communications (I'm talkking about the kind to the executives, not to a company's internal audience), but for the most part, I tend to view much of our work with clients and organizations from the internal perspective as that of a counselor.

I wonder if you wear a different hat for different approaches? ie. advocate for one project, switch to counselor for another - all depends on the audience. I think that's the key takeaway.

I think counselor is in line with 'brand loyalist.' I'm really big on branding and the brand coming first - it's not all about you type mentality. :)