(This week, PR News editors Phil Hall and Courtney Barnes debate the value of media outlets that reprint press releases verbatim and pretend they are original
articles.)
PHIL: Here's something every PR professional will relate to: Opening a newspaper (usually a trade journal) and discovering your press release was printed verbatim as a
news story, complete with a journalist's byline attached to the coverage. The good news, of course, is that the press release is getting ink (often with complete contact data for
the client). The bad news comes from my journalist's perspective and the ethical bother of seeing someone snatching your words and taking credit for them. But perhaps there is a
PR issue here, too: What is the value of the publication rerunning press releases and pretending they are articles? After all, would anyone put value in a publication that
"borrows" press releases and pretends the words are original to their pages?
COURTNEY: It certainly calls for scrutiny in terms of editorial integrity, but for PR managers, the practice of publishing press releases means one thing: They have to
be good. The first battle has been won - the reporter took interest in the release - but now the public will have the opportunity to read the release, for better or for worse. If
a press release is reprinted word for word, the PR exec does not relinquish control to a reporter's interpretation, but he or she does need to take preemptive action in making it
as marketable as possible. So, it must appeal to the consumer and convey the company's message as succinctly - and creatively - as possible. And, for all the grammar aficionados
of the world, it must be edited - and re-edited - to prevent errors from escaping into the marketplace.
PHIL: I can't disagree with those points, but this ol' malcontent still cannot justify the value of bothering with publications that happily rerun press releases
without changing a comma. It will build quantity in the PR activity report, but where's the quality? I am also wondering if the corporate powers that be (for the in-house PR
managers) or the clients (for our friends in the agency sphere) also look askew at this kind of coverage. Does the C-suite want these "easy" hits, or will they look on unimpressed
that they are getting generous coverage from lazy media?
COURTNEY: At this point, I think the C-suite is still relying on their junior counterparts to find, evaluate and measure media hits. Do they even read the coverage
that comes across their desk? In this particular situation, would you say that - aside from the ethical slips on the part of journalists - the coverage is as positive as possible
because it is 100% controlled by the PR practitioner? When you measure a media hit in this sense, a la the Delahaye Corporate Index, it's going to be highly favorable -
unless, of course, the PR exec is disseminating a negative message. Unlikely.
PHIL: Your points are cogent, yet I am still bothered by the quality of this so-called coverage (especially if it is basically a rerun of the press release). But
perhaps my concerns are mistaken (that happens, on occasion). Anyone in the PR community who'd like to join the discussion should e-mail us here at PR News - we'd love to
hear what you have to say on this matter.