What do journalists want? Oh pleeeaaassssseeeeeeeeeee

Today I received an email about a PR conference being held in May: Public Relations & Corporate Communications Summit 2007, Theme: "start a conversation"
Looking further down it lists speakers and topics and I note one of the topics is:
What do journalists really want? Michael Young, a former journalist with 30 years experience including The Times, Herald Sun and Sydney Morning Herald, reveals the secrets of the print media

The cost of attending $995 per delegate. The target market: PR consultants. So unless you're sending junior staff I would expect that topic to be completely redundant. Why? Any PR regardless, of their experience or level of seniority, should be very well aware of what the media want! And if they don't then they really should reconsider their career choice.

Futhermore, you don't need to attend a seminar to learn this, just pick up the phone and ask them! Not so easy to do when you're simply emailing them press releases as most PR consultancies do. Yes some journalists can be prickly but what's the point of sending them something they never asked for? A complete and total waste of time but dead easy.

Our policy at Convy is that no one sends info to a journalist (unless they know them well) until they have established that the info is of interest. It's a waste of time - ours and theirs! Speaking with them ensures:

- The journo having confirmed they're interested in receiving it will look out for your email and won't just hit "delete" without looking at it.
- Whilst speaking with them you can try another angle if the first isn't of interest.
- You have the opportunity of finding out exactly what they are interested in.
- You can find out what other articles they're working on.
- Your building on your relationship with the journo.
- The media won't think you're PR Twits!

I can hire monkeys to email journalists and, last time I looked, there are no monkeys in the office. However, we do have two very cute West Highland White Terriers who are working very hard!

Good Weekend - What's baby talk for Colossal Stuff Up?!

Good Weekend featured Priscilla Dunstan a Sydney Woman who claims to have established sounds made by babies and the meaning of them.

Reading this article I thought it was extra good publicity for her PR consultancy, Hill & Knowlton, who are mentioned on the first page. The article detailed PR consultant, Ryan Peal, "playing Monopoly" with Dunstan's son, Tom, in another room whilst the interview was taking place - they must be on a good retainer!!! Ryan and his colleagues would probably soon be playing Monopology with the client!

This was the main article of the issue and a cover - great awareness potential for Priscillla Dunstan and her products. So why is the Good Weekend article not listed on her website amongst all the other media coverage? The "news" section of dunstanbaby.com states the most recent media coverage as Womans' Day in February. But the babyblog gives a clue stating:
A (not so) Good Weekend
March 12th, 2007
People have asked our comments on the recent Good Weekend magazine story. What we can honestly say is that our response would be biased.

Why? Because the article ended up a debacle with Dunstan and her ex husband and business partner, George Betsis, claiming vastly different stories about revenue and her share of it. But that wasn't the worst of it.

Journalist Jane Cadzow did an excellent job of unearthing disparities in their claim of "independent studies". On the baby language booklet it's claimed "After years of independent studies - including those guided by Brown University's leading infant research centre." Yet Brown University disputes this stating in the article "Brown University faculty did not conduct this, or any, research on the Dunstan Baby Language system". Oops.

Not a small issue. The article did create enormous awareness of the wrong type.

How did this happen? Did Hill & Knowlton research all the potential issues before media was sought and potential issues identified? Did they speak with all the talent likely to speak with and/or be contacted by media? Did they conduct mock interviews with all the talent unearthing potential issues? Did they develop Q&A's and give them to the client? Or did they do all this and more but the client ignored their advice which does frequently happen.

Did they check and double check important issues such as the Brown University endorsement with the client? That may seem unnecessary but wouldn't this endorsement from such an acclaimed university be one of the clients key messages? Of course. So wouldn't they have expected the media to contact Brown? Wouldn't they also have realised that Brown would and should be included in any serious article? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I really think that the Brown University research would be a major part of the media campaign and, hence, checked.

A major misperception is that PR is just writing a press release and sending it to media. Wrong. A huge amount of work is undertaken before any media is contacted. The campaign plan is like architectural plans for a house. It details the company's situational analysis, media analysis, objectives, communications objectives, then the target audience/markets, key messages, product/service differentiation, misperceptions, issue identification and so on. It is vital that sufficient time is allowed to complete the campaign plan and ensure that any possible hiccups are addressed before anything goes to media.

We may never know. But this is an excellent example of what not to do with the media. It's also an example of what can happen when seeking media coverage - be careful of what you wish for. A good journalist (well done to Jane Cadzow) will investigate all areas so these must be identified properly beforehand. If this is not done then there will be more than just baby talk that will require translation.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!