Should you talk to journalists straight away?

There’s no real choice here – talk to journo’s straight away or not at all.

Well of course I’m bound to be biased towards the journo’s point of view, but it’s been a while since I worked in daily news. There’s probably a balance to be met, but PRs dealing with daily and weekly news journalists need to know that speed is of the essence. If you don’t get what you want in time, you’ll simply get it somewhere else and be less inclined to go back to them next time. Simple as that.

It entirely depends of the journalist’s query and the company’s level of preparedness.

In reality most companies can provide an immediate response to most media questions. For example, asking a confectionary company about the fat content of a particular chocolate bar would be a no-brainer and could be answered quickly by the PR representative. They have been asked this question a million times before and have all the information at hand.

However the same PR person would need much more time to respond to a more left-field question. Maybe like: “What in hell were you thinking when you butchered a perfectly good monkey-suit-man-playing-drums ad by dubbing it with a song from a washed-up mullet-wearing tossbag?”

Getting this answer would obviously take a little more digging around. The PR person would have to get the right information from the now-outgoing marketing manager/ad company; draft a response; ensure that the response was consistent with the company’s line/tone; and, locate the new, replacement marketing manager for approval.

Getting the information to a journalist quickly is obviously important but getting the right information to the journalist is much more important. Maybe not as important as not messing with the legacy of a monkey-suit-drumming-wunderkind, but important nonetheless.

Tim,

Sorry but the posting is based is a flawed premise – you’re talking about two different things.

You’re talking about calling a PR to get the number of someone who can give a quote.

Catriona is talking about a media spokesperson taking the call directly.

Even if you were both talking about the same thing, you both agree on the process – you say what you want and by when and its then up to the PR (or spokesperson) to deliver on time (as she states must happen).

The only point of difference is she’s saying take stock before answering – which is undeniably sage advice. Even if you’ve got 20mins til deadline, the spokesperson can say ‘What’s it about? What do you need from me and by when? I’m caught up in something right now – can I call you back in 2mins?’ and then think through exactly what they want to say.

That way, you’re happy and, having followed Catriona’s advice, they are happy.

So, in summary, if both sides are doing their job properly, then everyone gets what they need.

Cheers
Steve

Interesting and opposing points of view – and I believe there is merit is all of them.

As Jen initially mentioned, building relationships is an important factor when dealing with journalists, so being able to respond quickly to a request puts the business in a good light. Equally, should the question/s be a little curly, it’s understandable that the client may need more time.

At the end of the day, I suppose the responsibility lies with the PR firm, to an extent, to ensure their client is well-briefed and comfortable in dealing with the media – or at least have provided the client with the knowledge to know when answer on the spot, when to ask for more time and how to tell the difference.

I think Roger probably hit the nail on the head.

Speaking as a journalist, I never assume someone will talk to me on the spot. That’s just arrogant. I’m always polite and pleased when someone answers my questions promptly or gives me the info I need, because there are so many rude and dismissive PR people out there.

But at the same time, I am always explicit about when my story is being published. If they haven’t got back to me by then, I write in the story, “We contacted X for comment, but they didn’t reply before deadline.” Let the reader make of that what they will.

Tim – your clarification was somewhat different to your original quote 🙂 it said “If you won’t let me call your boss directly – and let me have their mobile number; then that’s tough”… you’re now saying you’re calling the person directly.

But even if we’ are now talking about calling the person directly, then we’re all still in broad agreement. So long as the journo is clear in what they want and by when, then its up to the person to deliver. If they don’t, then by all means, accept they might not be called upon again.

The only point of difference is whether that person should talk immediately or take some time to consider their response. As Roger said, in an ideal world, that person would have enough knowledge of the subject and feel confident enough to speak immediately. However, even if they are, then there is no harm in them asking for a couple of mins (still well within your 20mins window) to collect their thoughts. Much as a spur of the moment ill-thought through clanger might give the journo a great headline, you’d hope that a responsible journo was actually after a considered response, rather than a gotcha moment.

I agree with Mel – as long as you get what you need by the time you need, then allowing the interviewee a few moments to collect their thoughts is only reasonable and polite. expecting, or demanding, they answer you there and then is arrogant.

I hate to say it, but this post is a bit of a non-starter – we all agree 🙂

The ideal as a journalist is that your contacts are grown up enough and sharp enough to respond to a journalist on the spot if needed, without missing a beat.

The reader will get the story faster, and without any spin.. Better content all round. Higher standards, less bulls**t. Better copy.

ah, well… there you go.

then you definitely are talking about something quite different to catriona – she’s advising the interviewee him/herself taking a moment to take stock. nowt to do with a PR getting in the way.

either which way, even more glorious than a journo misquoting themselves, is the concept of a PR boss having to be shielded by a junior PR!

as a news radio journo, i deal with many spokespeople who are able to give me on-the-spot interviews when called for one at 6.30am.
talking heads are easy to come by (unless we’re talking about the head of a company that’s in the headlines for a less-than-flattering reason) so if you want to get on-air, you’ve got to be prepared to give your comment on the run.
the best ones know this, and are already across the day’s news by 6,30am, ready for our call.
the ones who just don’t get it are the ones who don’t return our calls until well after 11am, by which time we’ve either found an alternative, or have moved on to a different story of the day.

obviously the situation is different for online, print, and tv, and the importance of each media to each company/publicst/client is going to be different.

as a former publicist myself, i find the worst journos to deal with are the ones who consider the journo-publicst relationship to be an us-vs-them one.
likewise, as a current journo, i find the best publicists are the ones who have worked as journos previously.

There are as many different answers as there are PR people. As a journalist I deal with some PR types with good relationships with both journos and clients who can be trusted to get answers as and when required.
However, if I am dealing with a PR person who I do not trust I tend to work around them and try to build a good relationship direct with someone, anyone in the company. They may be useful when the shit hits the fan and will understand my needs.
There some really obstructive types who will get the stories about their client they deserve and hopefully lose the contract and let a real professional do the job. It is all about communication and relationships, refuse to talk?

I think both comments are essentially correct. A PR agency which has an ongoing relationship with a client will have informed that client that journalists will be phoning. PR and client may discuss how to handle that call, but the client theoretically should be prepared. All of this is because the PR practitioners know that journalists are on deadline, want the answer now and would rather not wait, plus the PR person wants the client’s name in that article.

There is a caveat, however – and that is during an issue or crisis. Because that sort of situation is fluid, the client should in fact ask the question Catriona outlines, to ensure all information imparted is correct, detailed, answers the journalist’s question and doesn’t transgress any potential legal barriers.

I think if you call some clients directly for a quote they just go back to their pr and ask why the journo went direct to them and also don’t see the urgency of getting back to the journo, especially if they haven’t heard of the publication before. Depends on the company and if you have previously dealt with them before.

Thank goodness dnee is a radio journo – otherwise we’d have chip in to buy them a Caps Lock key.

Both arguments are valid here as it’s really dependent on the media in question and the dynamic. It would be entirely conceivable for the head of a major ad agency to take a call from Tim directly and provide unscripted, impromptu comments. But, who in their right mind would front a door-knock from ACA/TT without prior warning as to what the hell it was about? You’d have to be mad…

I agree with Roger’s comments. It’s up to the PR agency to ensure their clients are briefed and media savvy, as its essential they respond to journalists immediately – particularly around an announcement they’ve just made or something that’s happening in their industry.

There are always going to be times when this just isn’t possible for many reasons (most of them aren’t personal), so I don’t see the purpose of a journalist severing all ties just because they’ve been unsuccessful getting a comment this time. Seems a bit childish to me.

I would be inclined to go with Tim’s approach – You can anticipate and prepare for issues in advance, and hopefully your relationship with the journalist and the client is secure enough for a quick turnaround.

I appreciate that there are times when this is called for (crisis, beat-up potential) but in these circumstances a polite ‘no comment, we will contact you directly at first opportunity’ is enough to maintain bridges between both sides.

From experience, PR operators who work purely on the ‘gatekeeper’ basis are actually not facilitating communication at all. Being overprotective just demonstrates the poor client-practitioner relationship and the simplistic work some agencies are charging for.

The first sentence about not answering questions is just plain daft.

We will always answer questions to the best of our knowledge and would NEVER make a journalist wait for a call back if we had the answers within the agency.

In order to ensure this happens, agencies need to make sure every staffer knows who is working on what account, and that everyone knows exactly what information they are able to share on their accounts.

When we have live campaigns we also make sure we know where our spokespeople are at any time so we can ensure a phone interview or quote can be actioned very quickly.

We are doing PR not working for MI5.

Anon … it’s now after 3pm and I’m still laughing about your 1.10pm post. What a corker!