Let’s Go Fishing: PR Pitch v. Engagement

“The word pitch should be taken out of every PR pro’s vocabulary.”

Words that were uttered by a colleague of mine while we had coffee last week – and left me slightly taken aback. Why, you may ask? To me, it’s just a word. An industry standard, and one that is common jargon.

His point was that it should be “engaging” rather than pitching. At first, I couldn’t believe we were discussing words, rather than the practice. To me, PR is a multiple step process. You have the fish-bowl foundation (pitch) because they have to respond for you to engage. Think of it like a fish hook – the pitch is the bait. The engagement comes when you’re trying to reel the fish in. The execution (story) happens when you are rewarded by catching the fish. (Please note this is just an analogy.)

Since social media has become such a hot topic, people are throwing around the word “engage” like it’s nothing. What’s engagement? A two way conversation street. If you are sending out e-mails with no response, that’s not engagement. That’s you “pitching” an idea to the media. It’s up to them to engage with you, then you can provide information and they will choose whether or not to run it.

Engagement is a partnership. It takes two to tango might be a total cliche, but it’s how PR and media work together. By just blasting e-mails with no response, that’s not engagement.

We also got on the discussion of calling it a “news release” v. “press release.” Shouldn’t we be worrying more about content and the engagement we were talking about earlier?

With the inception of social media, have our priorities shifted? Are we trying to be “thought leaders” by using new jargon? What makes a thought leader? To me, it’s not the words – it’s your actions.

Dig what you read? Share with others:

Colin

I agree...It is more about actions. The role SM has played in changing the then entire PR "process" varies from industry to industry and outlet to outlet. One day I'll read a blog expressing a journalist's desire to not be "pitched". All he or she wants is the basic facts in a press release. The the next day another journalist writes about the press release being dead and that a personalized pitch is the only way to get attention. It drives me nuts (are they trying to be thought leaders?!?!). All this proves is that knowing your industry and how to engage the appropriate people is becoming more and more important all the time. Do what works, with the understanding that what works might be different for every person you come into contact with.

@ColinJP
Dave Folkens

Hey LAF,
I think it really is more about the language in this case. Inherently, there's nothing wrong with a pitch. It's essentially like saying "don't call it sales" for a salesperson but like any profession, some people wreck it for everyone else. There are some great salespeople out there who aren't like stereotypical used car salesmen but there's a perception of the word as somehow shady.

A "pitch" to some is sending off-topic garbage to a journalist and asking them to run it. Obviously that's not going to work. If we look at a "real" pitch, it'd include appropriate information in a format that is actually viable for an outlet to use. It helps frame to the journalist why this information fits the audience they serve. It's a shame that a few bad apples in the PR world have made "pitch" an evil word but, like anything else in this industry, if you focus on delivering credible content with a focus on the audience then you'll do just fine....whatever you call it.
laurenfernandez

Exactly: "A "pitch" to some is sending off-topic garbage to a journalist and asking them to run it. "

It all varies depending on who you are. Why instill what language you believe to be true, when someone is doing it better (or worse) and calling it something different? Using a "correct term" isn't going to make them a better writer or communicator. What will is the engagement and relationship building that comes with practice from pitching.

Great points all around, D.
Matt Cheuvront

Thought leadership takes time - in fact, thought leadership is a never ending process - it's not something you establish and coast on. You bring up an interesting point about pitches. Nowadays, I am pitched at least a couple times a week with folks wanting book reviews, event plugs, and so on. Most of them get ignored - the ones that don't, though, are those who have clearly taken time to engage in what I do - have read my blog, and can tell me why their product/service/whatever would be relevant to my audience. I don't want to read through your pitch and try to figure out the benefit. If you take time to engage with me and actually want to start a conversation - spend the up-front time to ensure that connection is REAL.

A little off tangent but just an observation you inspired me to share some thoughts on. Good stuff as always Lauren.

@mattChevy
laurenfernandez

Maybe its just all these words that people throw around to make themselves sound smarter - but are their actions proving thought leadership? No. True thought leaders sometimes don't even realize they are doing it.

That's the big difference in pitching - research. Many don't know how much time and effort should go into pitching. They don't even realize that its not just taking names out of a database and building a list.

I like your point about making sure a connection is real - right on target.

Thanks Matt!
Meg Roberts

Ahh, yes, PR professionals and our semantics. I agree with you, Laura - it's not the words that need to adapt and change, but our actions. Everyone has a different name for what we do - pitching, engaging, communicating, spamming - and in the end a pitch should be an introduction to yourself, your place of work, and the product or idea you are representing so that the other party can decide if it makes sense to pursue further communication with you. If this happens, then this should be the first step in a strong, mutually beneficial relationship that will lead to further engagement on both sides (like Arik said).
laurenfernandez

It's ridiculous, isn't it? Why fight over something that doesn't even matter?

You make a great point, Meg, of how the pitch is an introduction to everything - and how it's the cause of a mutually beneficial relationship, which is the effect of a good pitch.

Thanks for reading - I loved your comment.
Keith Trivitt

Here's why (IMO) "pitch" has gotten a bad name among many: Because the tactics that many people use with pitching are downright bad and in some cases, just sleazy. Granted, there are some tremendous PR pros out there, with you, and Arik Hanson (who just commented on this post) definitely being two of them. But there are also professionals who actually refer to this as the "pitching business" (I kid you not, I've heard it before) and think that to be successful in PR, you must wear down those you are trying to engage with until they just eventually get fed up enough with you that they write about your company to get you to go away.

OK, so enough with the horror stories. It's the same kind of thing with the term "hit," which is thrown around way too much in PR. A lot of times, even by the best in the business, both "pitch" and "hit" are looked at as means to an end, as in, they are both done to produce only media placements. But what I really like about your point, Lauren, is yes, we do have to pitch, but we must do that to begin an engagement process with the media, with bloggers, with our key audiences and influencers. It's not a means to an end, but really, a way to create the very beginning of what is hopefully a long, beneficial process for everyone involved.

@KeithTrivitt
laurenfernandez

You're right! I think it's easy to judge an industry by a few bad apples you might have encountered - rather than realize that we are all different. The good ones will know how to pitch, and will probably never refer to it as a pitch to the person they sent it to.

I think its up to us to educate and show the value of the content, rather than the actual wording. In the scheme of things, its not important.

Thanks for a great comment Keith.
Arik Hanson

Somewhere along the line "pitch" got a bad name, just like "PR" kinda gets a bad name. And, as many have pointed out, it's our jobs to help those folks understand that "pitching" is still an important part of the job. Sure, "engagement" is key, but as you point out, we never get to engagement without the pitch.

@arikhanson
laurenfernandez

Why are we as professionals so hung up on words? It makes no sense. Isn't the practice - and how you execute - much more important? As you pointed out, its our job to help those people understand the execution, not the superficial.

Thanks, Arik!