What frustrates me the most about journalists covering PR is they think they know how to do PR because they are on the receiving end of pitches. That's like thinking you know how to fly a plane because you are a frequent flyer.

Most journalists look at PR as spin, when for the most part with start ups it's trying to explain how your client solves problems.

It's funny, whenever I talk shop with a journalist, they understand how much our jobs are alike, but whenever I read story about PR by a journalist, they never seem to talk to the right people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_courtesy

Take a read through some of the links and come on back with why you disagree with Chris in a useful way instead of just being rude.

The bottom line is that I think the PR industry is one that everyone loves to hate – we’re the middle (wo)men, after all. But we’re still middle men with brains and strategic insights that deserve respect. And ironically, as much as people complain, everyone wants PR – and everyone seems to think they know how to do it better than everyone else (especially with the advent of social media).

I particularly appreciated Tony’s analogies above and his quote, “Most journalists look at PR as spin, when for the most part with start ups, it’s trying to explain how your client solves problems.”

I think the article could have portrayed more of that thinking – or that the follow-on analysis of it could have given Ms. Hammerling more credit for her decisions.

Thanks for reading and engaging.

Christine
@missusP

I saw two really interesting facets in the Times article that I had not seen before: PR helping a “concern” (not a “company”) properly position itself to set the right expectations, and a client measuring success on terms other than media coverage.

The small word choices can make a big difference, especially at launch when you might end up 100 steps down the path before realizing you need to backtrack. It has been called spin, but taking care to use language wisely transcends parlor tricks and huskstering. When attention is precious (it always is), and judgment is swift (it always is), leaving your future to what pops into your head the second a mic is placed in front of you is a really bad decision.

Speaking of that mic, it takes a confident entrepreneur to measure success based on the the audiences that really matter to the long term health of the business.

Given a choice, the microphone hooked up to a thousand small amps sitting next to the thousand people that can make your business is the right one to speak into, but most would still rather speak to the one held by the Wall Street Journal — regardless of the company’s relevance to Wall Street.

I don’t blame them. VC’s, partners, customers and prospects still like to see that masthead. Yet, here is a company (and a reporter) that understands the “P” in PR stands for “public.” With the public in ever easier reach and companies starting to understand how to earn and hold people’s trust, the value chain is completely different. Yes, we have to provide value to journalist by providing a better story than available anywhere else — journalists still carry the biggest megaphones in most cases — but more clients understand the value of building direct, strong, bilateral and (importantly) public relationships with people who care about their business.

Until now, the measurement tools common to PR have included features, briefs, mentions, circulation (as if everyone who read Sunday’s New York Times cares about PR), and possibly key message delivery or other contributing factors. Those who care understand that it all measures an intermediate step in the process. These factors imply an outcome, but to actually measure the important outcome (impact on the people who really matter) is too hard or too expensive. The proxy of counting coverage is both convenient and expected.

Now that we can easily and accurately measure the impact of direct communication to *some* of the public, the proxies of the past can take their first steps into the sunset, and take with them the undue weight given to certain publications.

What frustrates me the most about journalists covering PR is they think they know how to do PR because they are on the receiving end of pitches. That’s like thinking you know how to fly a plane because you are a frequent flyer.

Most journalists look at PR as spin, when for the most part with start ups it’s trying to explain how your client solves problems.

It’s funny, whenever I talk shop with a journalist, they understand how much our jobs are alike, but whenever I read story about PR by a journalist, they never seem to talk to the right people.