A letter to the truth fairy

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Enjoyed reading this analysis of that Bill of Rights – it's a nice idea but you highlight the impracticality pretty well.

    Proposed a whole different solution to the problem here http://j.mp/prspam, puts the impetus more on the journalist because Bad PRs will never go away. Be interested in your thoughts.

  2. John says:

    Good post – although I am all for the Bill of Rights – even if it only acts to as a way to draw highlight areas that need to be worked on by all in the PR industry.

    One comment which I thought was a bit unrealistic:

    “Maybe the PR industry should up the quality threshold when dealing with journos.”

    Wow. Some of the bad qualities you listed I have experienced with some of the most high profile journalists in the country. I would like to see any PRO decide to knock them of their press list and then explain to the client why they are not approaching these guys anymore. I'm sorry but we don't really have a choice here.

    If a client's target publication is Piss Poor PR World and the editor decides not to 'ask probing questions' during an interview, I kind of doubt you can afford the luxury to place him on your ever growing hack scrapheap.

    You either have to ensure that all of your clients are some form of public interest deity or grin and bear it.

  3. Adam Parker says:

    Hi Sean

    Thanks for getting involved in the debate and for taking the time to give your commentary on the campaign and the bill of rights.

    Firstly on the language, irony etc point this is obviously (as you have realised) to get the debate started, but it the substance of the issue, or lack of as you suggest (?), that we want to debate.

    Your critique is exactly what we are seeking. The 10 rights were purely for discussion as it says and we definitely didn't expect them to be agreed to 100 per cent by everybody or even anybody! But they are based on things that the journalist/blogger community have said – hence we have linked to examples. The end game here could be we thrash things out all of us – PRs, service providers, clients, journos, bloggers – and conclude that all or some of this isn't needed. But at least we would then have an agreed basis to work on.

    On your specific points: Point 1 the rights are meant to cover all recipients of press releases not just journalists e.g. bloggers, where such implied permission does not (arguably) exist.

    Point 6 not convinced crystal balls are necessarily needed, though a (unrealistic?) degree of effort maybe. If I have read your articles and seen that you never cover a new appointment or office opening is it a big stretch to conclude that you won't be interested in releases about such topics? (as the research suggests)

    Point 7 The campaign was also about wasting time, but perhaps this one is the least relevant in the list? 🙂

    Point 8 fair play on “define succinct” but if you agree with the point in general terms perhaps you could suggest a better form of words?

    Finally agree that change would require a lot of cooperation and investment and maybe we are on a hiding to nothing, but is that a reason not to try?

    Thanks again for taking so much time to comment and very happy to talk more if you would like.


  4. You speak much sense Sean, and I think your views are probably held by the majority. This is why previously I have never entered this debate.

    However, what I thought was most interesting abouy Adam's campaign was the research that revealed that PRs don't actually have to be much more precise to achieved greater satisfaction among journalists. That made me think the debate was worth having.

  5. The thing about the followup call is that it can sound so much like a moan or a nag. I always advise people to have something to say – 'about that press release, we now have a customer/more stats/review kit'…

    Then the journalist's objection to a simple follow-up is effectively neutralised.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *