My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Morgan McLintic on PR

    Bookmark and Share

    « Blog buzz over breakfast | Main | TV is really getting worse and worse »

    February 06, 2006

    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Neil Michael

    What an interesting article, in some respects and what a very well designed and laid out site in every sense.

    In the past ten years of working in both regional and national papers, I can safely say that I've chucked in the bin more than 90 per cent of the press releases I've ever read.

    I've just rarely ever managed to get a publishable news story from a press release.

    It's nothing to do with how they are written. It's everything to do with the fact that the content is invariably dull and littered with endless mentions of faceless CEOs who feel good about seeing their names spammed all over the press release.

    Sadly what the heads, deputy heads etc of most big companies always fail to realise - unless they are a company like Virgin with a colourful and interesting/news worthy person like Richard Branson - is that the average punter on the street couldn't care less what they have to say, let alone that they even exist. Thanks for the product, but that's about it - unless you do a Ratner. Now that IS interesting! (Although that didn't exactly come from a press release)

    If only 50 per cent of Austrian journalists research their own stories, I think that says more about the pressures journalists in Austria are under to fill the rear end of their papers than the various merits of the PRs who punt press releases out.

    I deal with a core of about 20 PRs and they have never once sent me a press release and only about 7 of them have ever given me a stand-alone story. But what I like about all of them is that they are 1. Honest and 2. They generally give me what I want.

    Tellingly - almost all of them are former journalists.

    Lars Reppesgaard

    It is an interesting story indeed. I do absolute no agree though with the conclusion of Mr. Wittermann. It is wishful thinking to asume that PR quality has gone up to the extent that the agencies produce printable material. this, as Neil is posting, has of course to do with factors like ego-boosted ceos, dullness and the endless mentioning of brand names.
    there is another point, however: pr information is biased. and my interest as a journalist is to inform the reader, not to help a pr company to manipulate his reception. it is happing through various mechanims too much already, and if journalism has a chance to survive than it only will be in a role comparable to an honest information broker without an agenda.
    PR does alwas have an agenda, thus pr an journalism can work with each other and share information and perspectives, but one can and should never replace the other.
    it is sad enough that parts of newspapers like supplements, consumer information, some economy pages, stock reports etc... are not worth reading nowadays, because they are littered with pr material. let us not hope this spreads throughout all the pages. societies form decisions based on information and a lot of people still think newspapers are a reliable ressource. and even though a can unterstand wittermanns enthusiams about the success of pr - this is a terrible news, not a good one, even with the twist Wittermann tries to give the story.

    andreswittermann

    I am excited to see that when I write something controversial people really respond to it. (Sorry, just got excited someone actually reads what I am writing).

    I don't want to judge if it's good news that Austrian newspapers get the majority of their stories from agencies. I just state a fact.

    When I started in PR in 1990 many journalists didn't see the value of PR agencies for their work. From my recent discussions with journalists (that we also invited to tell of their experiences at our agency offices) I have heard though that at least some of them see PR agencies as their partners.

    But now to something that really surprised me to read: Lars says he does not want to help PR agencies to manipulate the reader's reception. I would think that every article, every publication manipulates their readers' reception somehow.

    I am not sure you need a PR agency to do that. The agency just tries to communicate their version of a story - which a journalist usually uses as a starting point for research. But do you want to say the journalist is there to tell THE TRUTH? Do you want to say you HAVE THE TRUTH?

    I thought the pope holds the monopoly on that.

    air jordan 11

    When I started in PR in 1990 many journalists didn't see the value of PR agencies for their work. From my recent discussions with journalists (that we also invited to tell of their experiences at our agency offices) I have heard though that at least some of them see PR agencies as their partners.

    The comments to this entry are closed.