You work in public relations for some time. Maybe for years. Maybe you even worked in media before you started your career in public relations. So you are a good news release writer, you know all the journalism writing principles. You drink coffee with the right people, you care for good relations with media... People say that you have it. You have the sense, the “nose” for a good story. Your clients trust you and they know that you will bring them “coverage”. Yet in your lovely PR life, you are still wondering: do media and PR practitioners really agree of what is “newsworthy”?
It happens all the time. You work “by the book” - you make a research, detect the main problems in your client’s image, create a PR strategy and propose as a part a corporate or social responsibility event. The client approves, you make a charity event, you make a good use of your “nose” and write a good news release, you make all necessary “coffee chit-chats” and follow up phone calls…. You are sure that it will be a real success! After all, you have the knowledge, the skill, the experience, and the “nose” for what’s a newsworthy story! But the next day – the name of your client is not in media! What happened? Where did you go wrong?!
You think that what was newsworthy for you maybe was not newsworthy for the media… Maybe there were more important and more newsworthy events that day so the media gave priority to others than you?!… But no, it’s not it…. It must be something else…. And you start to suspect your “nose” for newsworthy stories…
So, what is the problem? Is it your “nose”? Or is YOUR concept of newsworthiness same as what MEDIA understand as newsworthy story? At the end, do the PR people and the media agree on what’s newsworthy?
This is not a new problem, and probably all the PRs have it from time to time. The problem exists even in society systems where public relations are really sophisticated and advanced professional skill.
Some are and some aren’t newsworthy?
While most of your company’s or your client’s activities are valuable, not all merit media coverage. Television, radio and print media are competitive business. Think about all the events and critical news that happen in your area. Now, think about the job of the reporter, TV assignment editor of section editor that must fill up all that information into a very limited length of time or printed space. Why would the editor publish YOUR news release? Of all annoying “junk mail” of news releases in editor’s mailbox (inbox) what will catch his eye? Of course, the newsworthy ones. What is then newsworthy though?
If you put yourself in the editor’s shoes for a second, what will you do with a news release on a corporate picnic? How about an announcement on a half-price summer sale? You would probably trash the news release. After all, editor’s job is to dig out newsworthy ideas for his audience. He’s looking for ideas that are sufficiently interesting to the general public to warrant reporting. Editors are looking for story ideas addressing significant or unusual events, trends, personal accomplishments, new services or new products. On the other hand, they’re turned off by fluff pieces filled with unsubstantiated claims and exaggerations.
Some experts believe that probably there is no such thing as real “newsworthiness” working in practice at all! Especially if you define newsworthy with “some companies are, some companies aren’t” approach. The media are constantly anointing new “darlings” even while banishing yesterday’s cover boys and cover girls to the “newsworthy graveyard”. It is no coincidence that in journalism parlance the archive of newspapers and magazine clips is called the “morgue”! If people and things were inherently newsworthy, there would be little room for newcomers and old-timers would seldom forfeit appeal to the media. This is by the way the basis of Dean Rotbart’s theory called More Than Your Fair Share (MTYFS).
Steve Salerno wrote in LA Times about what he perceives is the prevailing -- and largely damaging -- method of news judgment –one that tends to “trendify” and overemphasize stories that are in fact, just anomalies. “In its most elementary sense, after all, newsworthiness is built on a foundation of anomaly -- the classic ‘man bites dog’ paradigm.” And this results in a confusion of what is actually relevant, and ultimately, newsworthy.
The Washington Post’s Colbert I. King argues that it has much more to do with “how we decide whether one story is more worthy than another. How do we determine the merits of a case?” Which brings us back to the ambiguous nature of what is “newsworthy”: “It's an amorphous term, but editors claim to know it when they see it. Unfortunately, in my view, that decision seems to boil down to what those of us in newsrooms, and not readers, care about”, he says.And there's the problem. What draws the interest of people in the news business (what they like to read and write about) often bears little relationship to what common people care about. In that sense, what newspapers deem “newsworthy” is not actually information that is most relevant in terms of its potential effect on readers’ and viewers’ lives, but what is most out of the ordinary.
So what is newsworthy to the audience? Do people follow the news solely to learn how and what is going on in the world will affect them? Are they looking to read or watch a story that has little to do with their own lives, but is newsworthy because it is unique? The reality for most people is likely a combination of several motivations -- making the obligations of those who purvey the news that are much more complicated. But one indicator of how audiences are responding to the news judgment that was once reserved only to the conference rooms at newspapers and television networks might be the fact that more are veering toward the Internet to get news, where to a greater degree the news judgment is one’s own.
It happens all the time. You work “by the book” - you make a research, detect the main problems in your client’s image, create a PR strategy and propose as a part a corporate or social responsibility event. The client approves, you make a charity event, you make a good use of your “nose” and write a good news release, you make all necessary “coffee chit-chats” and follow up phone calls…. You are sure that it will be a real success! After all, you have the knowledge, the skill, the experience, and the “nose” for what’s a newsworthy story! But the next day – the name of your client is not in media! What happened? Where did you go wrong?!
You think that what was newsworthy for you maybe was not newsworthy for the media… Maybe there were more important and more newsworthy events that day so the media gave priority to others than you?!… But no, it’s not it…. It must be something else…. And you start to suspect your “nose” for newsworthy stories…
So, what is the problem? Is it your “nose”? Or is YOUR concept of newsworthiness same as what MEDIA understand as newsworthy story? At the end, do the PR people and the media agree on what’s newsworthy?
This is not a new problem, and probably all the PRs have it from time to time. The problem exists even in society systems where public relations are really sophisticated and advanced professional skill.
Some are and some aren’t newsworthy?
While most of your company’s or your client’s activities are valuable, not all merit media coverage. Television, radio and print media are competitive business. Think about all the events and critical news that happen in your area. Now, think about the job of the reporter, TV assignment editor of section editor that must fill up all that information into a very limited length of time or printed space. Why would the editor publish YOUR news release? Of all annoying “junk mail” of news releases in editor’s mailbox (inbox) what will catch his eye? Of course, the newsworthy ones. What is then newsworthy though?
If you put yourself in the editor’s shoes for a second, what will you do with a news release on a corporate picnic? How about an announcement on a half-price summer sale? You would probably trash the news release. After all, editor’s job is to dig out newsworthy ideas for his audience. He’s looking for ideas that are sufficiently interesting to the general public to warrant reporting. Editors are looking for story ideas addressing significant or unusual events, trends, personal accomplishments, new services or new products. On the other hand, they’re turned off by fluff pieces filled with unsubstantiated claims and exaggerations.Some experts believe that probably there is no such thing as real “newsworthiness” working in practice at all! Especially if you define newsworthy with “some companies are, some companies aren’t” approach. The media are constantly anointing new “darlings” even while banishing yesterday’s cover boys and cover girls to the “newsworthy graveyard”. It is no coincidence that in journalism parlance the archive of newspapers and magazine clips is called the “morgue”! If people and things were inherently newsworthy, there would be little room for newcomers and old-timers would seldom forfeit appeal to the media. This is by the way the basis of Dean Rotbart’s theory called More Than Your Fair Share (MTYFS).
Steve Salerno wrote in LA Times about what he perceives is the prevailing -- and largely damaging -- method of news judgment –one that tends to “trendify” and overemphasize stories that are in fact, just anomalies. “In its most elementary sense, after all, newsworthiness is built on a foundation of anomaly -- the classic ‘man bites dog’ paradigm.” And this results in a confusion of what is actually relevant, and ultimately, newsworthy.
The Washington Post’s Colbert I. King argues that it has much more to do with “how we decide whether one story is more worthy than another. How do we determine the merits of a case?” Which brings us back to the ambiguous nature of what is “newsworthy”: “It's an amorphous term, but editors claim to know it when they see it. Unfortunately, in my view, that decision seems to boil down to what those of us in newsrooms, and not readers, care about”, he says.And there's the problem. What draws the interest of people in the news business (what they like to read and write about) often bears little relationship to what common people care about. In that sense, what newspapers deem “newsworthy” is not actually information that is most relevant in terms of its potential effect on readers’ and viewers’ lives, but what is most out of the ordinary.
So what is newsworthy to the audience? Do people follow the news solely to learn how and what is going on in the world will affect them? Are they looking to read or watch a story that has little to do with their own lives, but is newsworthy because it is unique? The reality for most people is likely a combination of several motivations -- making the obligations of those who purvey the news that are much more complicated. But one indicator of how audiences are responding to the news judgment that was once reserved only to the conference rooms at newspapers and television networks might be the fact that more are veering toward the Internet to get news, where to a greater degree the news judgment is one’s own.
What about domestic media?
Well, we all agree what a newsworthy story should be. The media, the PRs, here or abroad… we all say that the story in the news release must be unique, timely, to have local angle and to be of public interest. It is known that what can also be useful is if the story is visual, unusual, involves celebrities or politicians, or some neutral “messenger”. Put like this – it seems like we don’t have a problem, if everyone do his/her part of the job, right?
Although the media claim that “newsworthiness” (as described above) and ethical standards are prevailing in their editorial policy, my experience tells me not always to agree with these claims. Especially after a recent experience when we sent a message to the press about our client’s social responsibility event. The leading newspaper published (almost) everything about it, yet completely ignoring the true organizer of the event by simply not mentioning it in the article! The author simply missed one of the 5 journalistic “W”s – the “Who”!
Since this was not the first experience of this kind in my PR career, I decided to make a small survey and examine why this happens. My colleague and I interviewed several domestic media “gate-keepers” (editors-in-chief and their deputies), asking them what is prevailing method of judgment of newsworthiness on some company’s public event (social responsibility project, humanitarian activity, etc.).
I must say that I was a bit surprised when the deputy editor-in-chief of the very same newspaper that missed one of the Ws, admitted openly that “having in mind the fact that our medium exists on commercial basis, it is important if the mentioned company is our partner and a client”. Than he continued: “The other factor is the question how this company is involved in the event, is it a subtle or a vulgar way of its advertising? So it is important to promote the company but to some fair limits.” His colleague from the same newspaper supported this practice by explaining that “generally, we try to avoid publishing articles where the open promotion is evident, or at least we give those articles different shape. For such purpose, the company can buy advertising space to present its product, campaign or service as advertorial.”
Other media and editors speak about it in a similar way - they consciously and intentionally avoid publishing news releases if they think “the company promotion is evident”. They say: “I don’t publish event of smaller significance, in which I recognize placement of ‘marketing’ under the label of ‘humanity’”. Or: “It is irritating when the name of a company very often pulls through the information and by all means the writer is trying to attract the readers’ attention. In such cases, we never publish the press release as it is, because it looks as an advertisement of the organizer.” Even this: “If the event has a humanitarian goal, the publishing depends on the size of donation, the size of the event, celebrities involved, etc. But at the end of the day, even if no journalist will admit, the decisive factor is if the company advertises in that medium or not.” Thanks my dear, you would be surprised too, but they did admit it.
The other problem with the media market in Macedonia (media themselves are very aware of it) is that the media don’t really give us, the PRs, much choice. Beside the prime time news, there are very little broadcast shows where a PR can place news on client’s social event. Except if your client is the Prime Minister himself. Which could not be said for the print media – they have pages aimed at other issues than politics, economy and sports.
However, the true problem that I see here is that these “Media gate-keepers” are “caught” in this situation of competitive media business existing on commercial foundations. In that kind of environment, the roles of the marketing manager in the media and the editor are a bit overlapping. What makes this problem even more serious is their lack of knowledge of what PR actually stands for - by placing the term “marketing” (meaning advertising) instead of journalism, story or “newsworthy”, they reverse even the meaning of the slightest PR action. Most of the media simply don’t understand what public relation is or better to say, that public relation is NOT advertising.
Still looking for “newsworthiness”?
Yes! My best advice that I would give to any PR is not to give up, even if you as a PR agent should work with media in this kind of media environment, and even your client is not the biggest advertiser in those media. Simply, when you plan you PR actions or write the news releases, let it stand on its news value alone: a unique and timely story of a public interest. For media and for the public sometimes it is also ‘newsworthy’ if a celebrity or a politician is involved, but you can also use of a neutral, outsource messenger.
Next step - forget about over-signification of your client’s role when writing the press release. When journalists say that they are irritated by the “vulgar promotion”, “bolded companies’ names”, don’t irritate them additionally. Simply – don’t write such press releases. Focus on the “newsworthiness” of your information.
Nevertheless, if you are still not sure if you search for newsworthiness in on the right line, test it. Put yourself in the journalist’s shoes: if you were him/her, what would be the headline of the article? This is your key message. Than, put yourself in the reader’s shoes. Test your key message. Is that the headline that you expect to see in the papers?
However, sometimes it is the client that insists that you should write and send a non newsworthy release. And beside your advice that it is a bad idea he still insists. And even after not finding a good different angle – he still insists. What you should probably do is to make a limited distribution of the news release, only to a selected list of media.
Understand journalists and media. It is not their fault if they don’t really understand our work. Try to understand them, and in long term – to educate them (make meetings, briefings, informal contacts) and bring them “the big picture” closer. Explain them why is public relations important, even for them. Can you imagine the world without PR for one full year? How would the news we read and watch change? How would the world change? Or would it?
That is why you must not give up your hope! Our PR efforts can give results. If you need to be encouraged, here are some optimistic facts (Houston Business Journal):
- 22% of journalists credit public relations firms with generating more than a half of their stories.
- 90% of TV stations use outside-produced video newscasts.
- The number of interviews and broadcasts taken from radio media tours increased from 31% to 35% in the last four years.
And finally, your PR tools are definitely worth the effort when your company or your client is interested in telling their stories! They can be an effective way to inform and educate the marketplace. The keys are to determine what the company has to offer and who would be interested. So, the PR agent and the editor need to agree on how to define “newsworthy”, but it is you as a PR practitioner who must agree first that the news release should stand on its news value alone.
Well, we all agree what a newsworthy story should be. The media, the PRs, here or abroad… we all say that the story in the news release must be unique, timely, to have local angle and to be of public interest. It is known that what can also be useful is if the story is visual, unusual, involves celebrities or politicians, or some neutral “messenger”. Put like this – it seems like we don’t have a problem, if everyone do his/her part of the job, right?
Although the media claim that “newsworthiness” (as described above) and ethical standards are prevailing in their editorial policy, my experience tells me not always to agree with these claims. Especially after a recent experience when we sent a message to the press about our client’s social responsibility event. The leading newspaper published (almost) everything about it, yet completely ignoring the true organizer of the event by simply not mentioning it in the article! The author simply missed one of the 5 journalistic “W”s – the “Who”!Since this was not the first experience of this kind in my PR career, I decided to make a small survey and examine why this happens. My colleague and I interviewed several domestic media “gate-keepers” (editors-in-chief and their deputies), asking them what is prevailing method of judgment of newsworthiness on some company’s public event (social responsibility project, humanitarian activity, etc.).
I must say that I was a bit surprised when the deputy editor-in-chief of the very same newspaper that missed one of the Ws, admitted openly that “having in mind the fact that our medium exists on commercial basis, it is important if the mentioned company is our partner and a client”. Than he continued: “The other factor is the question how this company is involved in the event, is it a subtle or a vulgar way of its advertising? So it is important to promote the company but to some fair limits.” His colleague from the same newspaper supported this practice by explaining that “generally, we try to avoid publishing articles where the open promotion is evident, or at least we give those articles different shape. For such purpose, the company can buy advertising space to present its product, campaign or service as advertorial.”
Other media and editors speak about it in a similar way - they consciously and intentionally avoid publishing news releases if they think “the company promotion is evident”. They say: “I don’t publish event of smaller significance, in which I recognize placement of ‘marketing’ under the label of ‘humanity’”. Or: “It is irritating when the name of a company very often pulls through the information and by all means the writer is trying to attract the readers’ attention. In such cases, we never publish the press release as it is, because it looks as an advertisement of the organizer.” Even this: “If the event has a humanitarian goal, the publishing depends on the size of donation, the size of the event, celebrities involved, etc. But at the end of the day, even if no journalist will admit, the decisive factor is if the company advertises in that medium or not.” Thanks my dear, you would be surprised too, but they did admit it.
The other problem with the media market in Macedonia (media themselves are very aware of it) is that the media don’t really give us, the PRs, much choice. Beside the prime time news, there are very little broadcast shows where a PR can place news on client’s social event. Except if your client is the Prime Minister himself. Which could not be said for the print media – they have pages aimed at other issues than politics, economy and sports.
However, the true problem that I see here is that these “Media gate-keepers” are “caught” in this situation of competitive media business existing on commercial foundations. In that kind of environment, the roles of the marketing manager in the media and the editor are a bit overlapping. What makes this problem even more serious is their lack of knowledge of what PR actually stands for - by placing the term “marketing” (meaning advertising) instead of journalism, story or “newsworthy”, they reverse even the meaning of the slightest PR action. Most of the media simply don’t understand what public relation is or better to say, that public relation is NOT advertising.
Still looking for “newsworthiness”?
Yes! My best advice that I would give to any PR is not to give up, even if you as a PR agent should work with media in this kind of media environment, and even your client is not the biggest advertiser in those media. Simply, when you plan you PR actions or write the news releases, let it stand on its news value alone: a unique and timely story of a public interest. For media and for the public sometimes it is also ‘newsworthy’ if a celebrity or a politician is involved, but you can also use of a neutral, outsource messenger.
Next step - forget about over-signification of your client’s role when writing the press release. When journalists say that they are irritated by the “vulgar promotion”, “bolded companies’ names”, don’t irritate them additionally. Simply – don’t write such press releases. Focus on the “newsworthiness” of your information.Nevertheless, if you are still not sure if you search for newsworthiness in on the right line, test it. Put yourself in the journalist’s shoes: if you were him/her, what would be the headline of the article? This is your key message. Than, put yourself in the reader’s shoes. Test your key message. Is that the headline that you expect to see in the papers?
However, sometimes it is the client that insists that you should write and send a non newsworthy release. And beside your advice that it is a bad idea he still insists. And even after not finding a good different angle – he still insists. What you should probably do is to make a limited distribution of the news release, only to a selected list of media.
Understand journalists and media. It is not their fault if they don’t really understand our work. Try to understand them, and in long term – to educate them (make meetings, briefings, informal contacts) and bring them “the big picture” closer. Explain them why is public relations important, even for them. Can you imagine the world without PR for one full year? How would the news we read and watch change? How would the world change? Or would it?
That is why you must not give up your hope! Our PR efforts can give results. If you need to be encouraged, here are some optimistic facts (Houston Business Journal):
- 22% of journalists credit public relations firms with generating more than a half of their stories.
- 90% of TV stations use outside-produced video newscasts.
- The number of interviews and broadcasts taken from radio media tours increased from 31% to 35% in the last four years.
And finally, your PR tools are definitely worth the effort when your company or your client is interested in telling their stories! They can be an effective way to inform and educate the marketplace. The keys are to determine what the company has to offer and who would be interested. So, the PR agent and the editor need to agree on how to define “newsworthy”, but it is you as a PR practitioner who must agree first that the news release should stand on its news value alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment