Bad PR Days
by Paul McGoldrick
Things have actually improved for technology editors in recent years; I, for one, no longer receive 5 or 6 pounds of daily mail plus a stack of Fed Ex envelopes. That doesn't mean that the input is reduced: I see probably an average of 50 press releases a day and, unfortunately, most of them are still not relevant to my areas of coverage. But at least the trees are less threatened and it is easier to dispose of unwanted inputs using the delete key.
We do seem to be entering a new era of personalized contact, or at least a cover of personalization with my name at the top of the page -- even though its is fairly obvious that the material is going to multiple destinations. But there are still some curious habits in dealing with the press.
There was the product manager, and not the first, who told me that although he had enjoyed discussing his new product he really didn't want any publicity over it because "we don't have the additional capacity." Or the PR manager who suggested before a meeting that a line manager "shouldn't be taken too seriously." Or the PR Person who suggested that the product wasn't "exactly vaporware, you know, more sort of 'provisional' in its status." Or the agency who asked for a 'confidential' report, if I didn't mind, on how honest I thought the client was.
One thing that has not changed over the years has been the follow-up process of the less experienced agency employees. It used to be, "we hope that you received our overnight package, and wondered if you had any questions or would like to set up an interview." To the "hack" (me), that says I don't know how to track a package on Fed Ex and I'm thinking that the package of information is incomplete. If it doesn't mean that, then there is something wrong with the approach. Now, of course, these messages come by e-mail instead of the telephone, but they're still framed the same sort of way.
In my opinion a product is only a product when it has a data sheet, a price and a delivery date. Sampling is OK as long as the part has been characterized fully for a data sheet to be completed. Perhaps once a week I get sent a colorful "product brief" instead of the data sheet that I have requested. These statements of hopefulness about a product are sometimes remarkable in what they don't say, in addition to what they pray will occur in the real product. But I still see these stories being picked up by the trade journals and reported as fact, and that bugs the heck out of me.
Journalism is a fairly non-respected profession by many people. If the
journalist stops to ask the right questions, is honest about what the answers
mean, and prints or does not print in response, then the reader is being
served as honestly as can be. And the reader will have been offered a huge
added value in the filtering that has taken place. The willy-nilly reproduction
of stories by the trades in the form of rehashing a press release, chosen
to satisfy the editorial-to-advertising ratio determined by the publisher,
is of no service to anyone -- certainly not the readers, the advertisers
or the companies (in the end) who promulgate nonsense.