Right people, right time, right writer
PR agency Access will have been delighted with the excellent coverage they received in yesterday’s Small Business Solutions section of the SMH. The agency was first of four agencies featured in the piece.
Principal Andrea Kerekes tells the paper it’s about delivering messages “to the right people at the right time”. Which seems appropriate – the piece was written by Maria Nguyen. See if you can guess where she’s previously worked.
Hi Tim,
I think the key word here is “previously”.
I no longer work for Access PR, formerly Open Dialogue – it would be akin to me disclosing that I used to own Telstra shares if I now wrote a piece about Telstra.
Access PR is a reputable and respected agency with experience in doing PR for small- to medium-sized businesses – which was exactly what the story was about.
The fact you awarded the co-founders B&T agency of the year would attest to their reputation. Given all this, why wouldn’t I seek comment from them for my story?
Am I never allowed to write about, and quote, a company for which I used to work?
Just becasue I led with a quote from Andrea Kerekes from Access PR I’m now being accused of bias, even though her quote was an appropriate fit for the lead and structure of my story?
I think you’ll notice my article carried comments and direct quotes from four different PR agencies and Access PR did not get the biggest share of voice.
Tim, there was no bias – your implication that it was, is totally uncalled for.
Maria Nguyen
Former online editor, B&T
Former journalist B&T
User ID not verified.
Hmmm … Read the article. I think it’s a clear case of a good journo recognising and using the most appropriate and reputable sources for a story. No more. No less. Given Access PR’s rise and rise, it would probably have been remiss of a journo not to include the agency-with-a-bullet. Well done, Maria, for your story and rebuttal. Slow news week, Mumbrella?
User ID not verified.
So if I’m reading this right, somebody’s written a glowing piece about their former employer.
Not necessarily Maria’s fault for accepting the commission, but it’s a clear conflict of interest. Whoever commissioned her to write this was foolish.
For journalists it’s not enough to be above board, you’ve got to appear to be above baord too. How can you possibly write something balanced in this situation?
User ID not verified.
Hi Anon,
Actually, it wasn’t a “glowing piece” at all. I don’t think even Tim said that.
It was an advice article for small businesses regarding the usefulness of PR – the story involved speaking to top PR agencies with experience in servicing the SME market.
I rang and emailed several top PR agencies. Four of them, including Access PR, got back to me before deadline. The story was to get their advice for small businesses regarding the use of PR and why PR is still useful during the downturn.
Nowhere in the story did I write about Access PR itself or “glow” about them – or any of the other PR agencies for that matter.
That’s because the article was not about PR agencies at all – it was about how businesses can make the most of PR and all four PR agencies were asked to comment / give advice to small business operators specifically on this issue.
A conflict of interest would arise if I was still working for them or if I was somehow still associated with them. I am not. At all. In any way.
Given they are considered in the industry as a reputable and fast-growing agency, it would have been biased of me to have deliberately excluded Access PR from my story just because I did work for them for a few months back in 2007.
And Tim, C’mon. Love what you’re doing with Mumbrella, but if you suspected my professionalism, experience, ethics and integrity at all, you and B&T would not have continued to use my freelance writing services after I had left B&T and even after I had left Open Dialogue / Access PR.
Cheers,
Maria
User ID not verified.
Tim – no more references to B&T for you then !
User ID not verified.
Hi Maria,
Thanks for your comments. Sorry for coming back to this one a bit slowly.
You clearly take a different view, but it’s about perception, not reality. If I was a commissioning editor looking for a balanced piece on, for the sake of argument, the state of newspapers, I wouldn’t ask David Kirk to write it. (although I’m sure it would make for a great opinion piece.)
Naturally, because you know this (yes, very good) agency, you’re bound to approach them, and they’re going to come back to you with comment – they’re professional like that.
So of the several dozens of SME-serving PR agencies, Access were always likely to end up being written about from the moment you were commissioned because they’re the people you know. While it’s an honest process on your part, I’m sure there are people out there who would feel they deserved to be invited to speak and weren’t becasue you didn’t happen to have worked for them.
For what it’s worth, if I was to write a piece weighing up the difference between, say, AdNews and B&T, I probably would mention where I used to work. You see, like you, I know in my mind that I’d be scrupulously fair, but I’d want to make sure I got my disclosure out of the way too.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Tim,
So, if I was writing about the state of telco shares today, are you saying I need to disclose that I once owned Telstra shares but sold them a few months later?
Having read my article, I think you (and anyone else reading it would) know it is not a story weighing up this PR agency versus another PR agency, so your B&T / Ad News analogy is disingenuous.
Again, the story, if you read it, isn’t about the state of PR agencies or even about profiling any of the PR agencies. There was no conflict of interest or disclosure issues.
As a journo, I have worked with and have good relations with many PR agencies.
I did contact, by phone and email, several PR agencies with a tight deadline (as per my previous post).
Some of these agencies I had dealt with before, some I hadn’t. But they all got a fair chance to respond by deadline.
Those agencies I quoted in the story were included because they got back to me in time and because they had appropriate comments to make.
Your accusation that other PR agencies weren’t included because I hadn’t worked for them was stated as fact. Please back this up with some evidence Tim. Otherwise, it is simply mud slinging and not worthy of you.
I guess your perception is a little bit different to mine.
All the best,
Maria
User ID not verified.
Maria’s not the only one who end up doing this.
Marketing journalists are a bit lazy / short of time (delete as you prefer).
Andrea and Rochelle at Access have got things nicely stitched up as far as doing PR for media and marketing companies goes. I get about four press releases a day from them.
So when you write about PR, who do you think of? Them of course.
They wouldn’t have half the profile they do, if all their clients were in fashion or tech or something because the marketing journalists wouldn’t have a clue who they were.
But most of the journalists who write about media and marketing have got no idea about the PR scene, so they keep going to the few people they know. That’s why they’re in every bloody feature.
By the way, Andrea and Rochelle are fine, and deserve their success. But they’re not the biggest agency in Australia, and I bet they’ve had more PR from the trade press and papers than anyone else.
User ID not verified.
Hi Maria,
I’m not sure that share ownership is exactly the same thing as writing about the people you’ve spent eight hours a day with for several months.
So rather than shares, let’s say it was working there. And rather than a monolith like Telstra, let’s stick with the telco example and say it was an airtime reseller you’d been doing the PR for.
If you were asked to write a piece about airtime resellers, do you think people might be curious if you led the piece on your old employer, even if they were brilliant and you did it for the best of reasons?
Shouldn’t the person commissioning the piece see a potential issue there and deal with it beforehand?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Tim,
Telstra shares.
I invest thosusands of dollars in them two years ago.
I might not have worked there but I depend on them to do well and give me a good return and support my livelihood.
I have a vested interest in them doing well so long as I have invested in their shares.
Sell shares a few months later = couldn’t care less how they perform anymore or how they perform against other shares = no conflict of interest.
Ditto the PR agency.
Cheers,
Maria
User ID not verified.
Fair enough – but remind me not to ask you to write a piece on the pros and cons of holding or selling your Telstra shares. I think you might argue for selling. I’d imagine that the Telstra investor relations people might feel a bit hard done by at that stage…