I’ve been avoiding writing about ‘the news release.’ It’s something about which think I have a lot to say – as I note in this blog’s ‘About’ page, having had the good fortune of working in and around just about every kind of print and digital media platform I can imagine, I’ve been on the receiving and sending end of more press releases and story pitches than most sane individuals might ever care to admit.
So far, I’ve been avoiding taking the plunge into writing in depth about the news release, because every time I begin I find the thoughts just keep tumbling out and this could easily – easily – be a ten-part series on everything I have to share about this seemingly mundane, and inherently humble communications vehicle. Hint: it probably will be a multi-part series and in the not-distant future.
For now, let me briefly address what I feel to be one of the shortcomings of p.r. and media relations professionals in crafting news releases by paraphrasing part of a comment I posted recently to Michael Sommermeyer’s excellent blog at wordymouth.com. Michael’s a pro and a former longtime journalist … and I can tell he “gets it” when it comes to media relations, since he’s concerned that a news release really help journalists find the information they need en route to reporting a story. Specifically, he was examining the efficacy of the new “Social Media News Release” format in this regard and posted some interesting insights and comments from readers.
My bottom line in communications is that you should always try to match ‘form to function,’ i.e. select the precise vehicle for communicating the information to the function you want it to perform. If your target audience is a community of professional editors and reporters, then you had better first thoroughly understand the mindset and professional parameters of that community – and if the journalists you’re working with are primarily with print media, that absolutely includes understanding how the practice of their profession is impacted by the daily pressures of staff cuts, work overload, changing definitions of ‘newsworthiness’ that are increasingly driven by competition with faster, digital news delivery platforms, etc.
Within that context, we are well advised to thoroughly look at how we communicate with the media to make sure we are helping the journalists and bloggers “get the story” and not making them clear additional hurdles to quickly obtain the information, process it and accurately report it to their reading public.
In the past, the traditional news release has done a remarkable job in serving that purpose, largely because the modern news release was developed within a template that conformed to the physical parameters of print media – headline size, column width, available news hole, etc. I know that most young p.r. and media professionals have no idea of the functional history of the news releases they are required to churn out — picas, column inches, leading, letting … “What’s up with that?”
It stands to reason that the news release of our time should adapt to the parameters of new digital media. The “Social Media News Release” template may well be the adequate response to the changing reality. But, the shortcoming I referred to above is that I sense a real “group think” occurring when it comes to the SMNR, with many p.r. and media relations pros so dazzled by all its technological capabilities that they fail to closely examine the received thinking that this is the “new wave” for media relations practice.
Again, it may be … but I think we would do well to follow Michael Sommermeyer’s lead in more closely scrutinizing whether and when and to what extent the SMNR adequately serves what should be our ultimate purpose of helping the journalists and bloggers efficiently obtain, easily process and accurately report — under real-world deadlines and conditions — the information we’re trying relay to them on behalf of our clients.
Add to New PR
E-mail this
Save to del.icio.us
Digg This!
18 April, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Your point about form and function is well taken – and one I intend to bring up next month as I moderate a panel for Social Media Club Austin on the issue of the social media press release. Just because we can put all the different components into an SMPR doesn’t mean we should — and I doubt that was Todd Defren’s intent when he created the template.
I think Michael Sommermeyer has it right when he says (paraphrasing here) that we need to break it in gradually, adding the components that will be helpful to the particular recipient. And that means knowing something about who you’re tossing off that press release to, doesn’t it?
Would love to have input from you and your readers on questions to ask our panel: a major newswire exec, a social media news service CEO, and a journalist/blogger.
19 April, 2007 at 12:24 pm
[...] Posted in Public Relations, Education by Heather Yaxley on the April 19th, 2007 Michael Tangeman reflects on the news release – and particularly the concept of the social media release. But [...]
19 April, 2007 at 12:31 pm
[...] [Link to Wordymouth from Media Mindshare] [...]
19 April, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Heather, Can’t find anything I really disagree with in what you’ve said (in your post, ‘Please release me from the ubiquitous press release’) … I do think we’re on the same page, or nearly so.
But, there is one thing … I actually feel a bit ‘cheated’ when a journalist simply reproduces a press release. Strange? I know there are those p.r. practitioners who sit back and chortle, “Can’t get any better than that …” when they see a near-verbatim reproduction of a release they’ve written, the headline almost exactly their wording; I’ve heard it, more than once in my few years in the media relations end of the news biz.
But, I’m looking for added value to what I write in a release. I want to engage the mind of the journalist, to spark some interest and thought, to get them excited about what I’m trying to convey. I feel very much more validated if the journalist takes the ideas from the release and really runs with it, develops their own story. I want some “buy in” from the journalist, not just regurgitation, or I feel I haven’t really done my job for the client.
I think you’d agree that how best to achieve that goal is what’s at issue. Can a tool or a format for a release do this on its own? Probably not … Can it help? I would think so and finding appropriate formats or templates for today’s media is what these discussions are all about. Ultimately, however, the ‘news’ has got to be in a news release, whatever the template, and the information has got to be communicated not only concisely, but in a way that makes the key message stick in the journalist’s mind … and prompts them to take it and make it their own.
What do you think?
20 April, 2007 at 2:25 am
Good thoughts here Michael. The industry needs more like you.
Truth is that we all need to think about who we’re trying to convince regardless of the tools we use to reach or engage them. I believe now more than ever, that most of the PR industry should have nothing to do with social media. It will only hurt their credibility and the brand of the company they represent.
The main problem is that every PR person will read that statement and nod, saying, “Yep. PR people need to get it.” When in fact, they’re part of the problem.
20 April, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi all -
I am supposed to be getting ready for a big meeting but wanted to take a second to weigh in…I say this only to excuse the brevity…
1) Our SMNR template was just that – a template. By design it was intended to show what’s possible, not necessarily what’s right. And by what’s possible, yea, I mean, “use what works, discard what doesn’t.” A SMNR is supposed to make the journalists’ (or bloggers’) job easier. I keep pointing back to this post: http://snipurl.com/14fp9 for a reminder of basic principles.
2) I kinda disagree, to a point, with my friend Brian. I don’t think most PR should have nothing to do with Social Media. They should jump headfirst into the pool in terms of their own exploration of the tech, tools, communities and conversations. They should read blogs, start blogs, sign up for Twitter, etc., etc. – but first & foremost for their own sake, not necessarily on behalf of clients (which is I think where Brian was headed). The ones who “get it” thru their own explorations will find savvy ways to help their clients with Social Media strategies.
3. Lastly, I agree with you, Michael, that I feel cheated when a journalist cuts-and-pastes from a release (for all the reasons you describe). That was one reason we opted for bulleted news items in the SMNR. (But again, if the client misses the narrative style, they can still issue an SMNR without a problem!) I like the SMNRs that Belkin puts out; here’s my post on their work, with salient links: http://snipurl.com/1hc1f.
Gotta run … but, this wasn’t so brief after all!
Todd
20 April, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Thanks, Brian. I’m actually surprised at your comment that ‘most of the PR industry should have nothing to do with social media.’
I’m not a priori so disposed, but I know you have come to that conclusion after LOTS of deliberation on the SMNR. Think I’ll go back and read your more recent posts on the subject so that I understand where you’re coming from …
21 April, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Hey Todd, you’re exactly right. I guess I left that part, so thanks for capturing it for me, “They should jump headfirst into the pool in terms of their own exploration …but first & foremost for their own sake, not necessarily on behalf of clients….”
This is the key ingredient missing from most of the PR industry. I take this angle now because I’m tired of defending social media against those in PR. I’ve learned that PR folks seem to respond more to jolts…
Social Media aside, here’s an excerpt from a recent post that I wrote that helps them start from basics:
What if PR people just took the time to read the publications or the blogs they pitch?
What if PR actually used and believed in the products or services they represented?
What if PR could be compelling without its reliance on hyperbole?
What if PR understood the dynamics and interworkings of the Web?
If this was the case, perhaps it wouldn’t be traditional PR any longer..well at least not as we know it today.
23 April, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hi Michael,
Back from my week-away, and I see that I’m late to this conversation. But I heartily nod in agreement to all the points made by Brian and Todd above.
The most recent comment by Brian reminds us that, when we remove the technological equation, nothing has changed. True-blue PR principles remain timeless.
The problem comes when we are overtly fascinated by the sparkles of “new media” and mistake “tools” for “strategy” – i.e. when we think that a corporate blog is a “strategy” or a “tactic”; when it’s actually a “tool”.
But back to the SMPR – I must say, I personally like the concept behind it. It’s all about taking the relevant bits of information; reorganising it around the way we think journalists will best appreciate it (bullet points to cater to shorter attention-spans; delicious and Digg links to make it easy for them to check on third-party sources; links to multimedia……). In fact, years ago, I pitched stories with a PowerPoint slide – main news points in bullet points in a box, speech bubbles for quotes and images and video on the same slide – and it worked pretty well. I was only constrained by less adventurous clients.
We have an uphill task in changing the way information is presented because, not only are most PR professionals trained to write in press release format; but journalists have been are long-conditioned to receive information in that format; and most clients/upper management (the entire system as a whole) just don’t know how to react to a drastic overnight change in a document template as sacred as the press release!
But the next generation of media and communications professionals grow up living and breathing social media; and they’ll take to information forms like the SMPR like fish to water.
So, “Form to Function” is hitting the nail on the head; but I’d just add “…all within the context of the audience”.
I sense my thoughts drifting to another topic here, but might I say that “Conversational Marketing” existed WAY BEFORE the term was invented? It’s called PR. I call a journalist with a quick pitch – he responds – I choose the best bit of information for him – he thinks; asks questions – I answer them – we repeat the process. If that’s not a conversation, I don’t know what is.
I’m fascinated with the way people think that we’re doing something terribly new, when in truth; it’s all about old, timeless principles.
Only tools have changed; and we need experienced PR hands to pick up these tools fast, before the ill-equipped make a mess of things!
24 April, 2007 at 5:43 am
Well this certainly opened up a nice thread and as usual I’m a bit late to the table. I’m glad I set out the right sliver though.
I find many non-technical journalists cringe when you attempt to change things. They like meat and potatoes. Whereas, a tuned-in journalists wants to just see the bulletpoints. Quite a few, on the television side certainly, like to just obtain the release electronically so they can pop it into the prompter.
I’ve worked with all of them and must admit that for the most part it comes down to simple communication. I learn what works for them and then adapt my pitch. So I write long press releases for some, email others, and just phone the rest.
My thoughts on the SMNR stemmed from the idea of seeking feedback, and I realized that some of these new media releases would end up posted to a blog in total, without the element of feedback and comment. So I think my suggestion to add feedback was an attempt to further the discussion and contemplate how a practitioner might develop a conversation with a stranger. Because quite literally, a press release shot out to a blogger without any context or thought about the placement, is no different from a blastfax of the past. And we all know many naive PRs are still doing that to the determent of their message.
Since I wrote my post a few other journalists have commented on the SMNR form, and they were quite happy with it. They would like a larger font, but those are simple things to address.
I think it comes down to the pitch, the journalist and the implementation. Melvin is right when he says new media is nothing new; although the tools and the methods may change, we’re all just communicating.
24 April, 2007 at 11:38 am
Great points, Michael … and especially your distinction when it comes to broadcast media. Something that’s always nagged at me (and about which I’ve been gathering my thoughts for a post) is how woefully inadequate for broadcast media is the traditional “press” release, designed as it was for print media and the wire-services that grew up in the service of print media. There should have been a template developed decades ago for the BMNR (“Broadcast Media News Release”), but that’s never really happened … with the exception, perhaps, of the “Media Alert,” which seems to have been designed to get TV news assignment editors to send out a camera crew. Now, with the digital age upon us, it’s become clear that the traditional “press” release is a niche instrument that should very specifically target newspapers and other print media, where it continues to work well.
24 April, 2007 at 5:12 pm
That idea for a BMNR might need to be revisited, especially with the advent of YouTube and embedding of clips. I’ve seen quite a bit of new media making the airwaves recently, so it stands to reason an enterprising PR might make a placement by including video clips in an electronic news release. I may have to give that a try.