3 ms·

What does a good pr person do when hired by a company that journalists wouldn't ordinarily want to hear from? Do they simply refuse to do business with said co

What does a good pr person do when hired by a company that journalists wouldn't ordinarily want to hear from? Do they simply refuse to do business with said company or do they try to spin the company into something more interesting than it is? I think I'm confused as to how the interests of a pr person (to promote the companies that pay them) and a journalist (to write interesting, newsworthy stories) align.

filmgirlcw 12y ago
They spin or they offer something interesting. If you're good at what you do, you can almost always make a story interesting if you're pitching the right person. Case in point, I got pitched this morning from a big publicly traded company that isn't generally that "hot" for an anniversary of something or another. The pitch from the PR person wasn't that great -- if I'm honest -- but talking about it with my managing editor, I found an angle in it that is actually interesting for me. Now, the approach and angle I take may not align with what the PR person/company intended (in fact, they might not love the final article I write), but there was certainly something interesting there if spun correctly. If I were in the PR person's shoes, I would have pitched people like me the angle I'm going to go with, rather than the more generic party line. And then there is also the unspoken, but part of the game, quid pro quo. Which basically means, "I have this shitty client, I'll tell you it's shitty but if you'll give it a chance, I'll give you better/early access to my better clients in the future." There are some journalists and publications that will claim they don't follow this sort of arrangement, because it's one of he unseemly aspects of how stuff works, but everyone does it to some degree. Anyone (or publication) that claims otherwise is either lying or is inconsequential in size and influence. That doesn't mean every journalist will write up something they don't like or care about because it will get them access to something better, but if a PR firm has a good history of access and offering good stuff and they say, "look, will you talk to X" - you might have a conversation when you otherwise wouldn't strictly on the strength of that relationship. And yes, the best PR places simply refuse to take on shitty clients. And as journalists, we learn what PR people to ignore and which ones consistently bring us good stuff. There's always a line. It all comes down to relationships. Which is why blanket pitches and idiotic "services" like pressfarm are so misguided. You might get the attention of the D-List or C-List journalist that way (and we all start out at the bottom so that's not even a dig -- there are founders and PR people I still talk to to this day because of relationship building that started when I was a nobody), but if you want to get A-list coverage, good luck. And luck does actually play a big role too. I often write stuff up I randomly come across that was never pitched to me. In fact, I'd say at least half the time when I write about smaller apps or companies, it's something I discovered myself and then reached out to them for more information.

filmgirlcw 12y ago

They spin or they offer something interesting. If you're good at what you do, you can almost always make a story interesting if you're pitching the right person. Case in point, I got pitched this morning from a big publicly traded company that isn't generally that "hot" for an anniversary of something or another. The pitch from the PR person wasn't that great -- if I'm honest -- but talking about it with my managing editor, I found an angle in it that is actually interesting for me. Now, the approach and angle I take may not align with what the PR person/company intended (in fact, they might not love the final article I write), but there was certainly something interesting there if spun correctly. If I were in the PR person's shoes, I would have pitched people like me the angle I'm going to go with, rather than the more generic party line. And then there is also the unspoken, but part of the game, quid pro quo. Which basically means, "I have this shitty client, I'll tell you it's shitty but if you'll give it a chance, I'll give you better/early access to my better clients in the future." There are some journalists and publications that will claim they don't follow this sort of arrangement, because it's one of he unseemly aspects of how stuff works, but everyone does it to some degree. Anyone (or publication) that claims otherwise is either lying or is inconsequential in size and influence. That doesn't mean every journalist will write up something they don't like or care about because it will get them access to something better, but if a PR firm has a good history of access and offering good stuff and they say, "look, will you talk to X" - you might have a conversation when you otherwise wouldn't strictly on the strength of that relationship. And yes, the best PR places simply refuse to take on shitty clients. And as journalists, we learn what PR people to ignore and which ones consistently bring us good stuff. There's always a line. It all comes down to relationships. Which is why blanket pitches and idiotic "services" like pressfarm are so misguided. You might get the attention of the D-List or C-List journalist that way (and we all start out at the bottom so that's not even a dig -- there are founders and PR people I still talk to to this day because of relationship building that started when I was a nobody), but if you want to get A-list coverage, good luck. And luck does actually play a big role too. I often write stuff up I randomly come across that was never pitched to me. In fact, I'd say at least half the time when I write about smaller apps or companies, it's something I discovered myself and then reached out to them for more information.