Would you add your name to a crap press release?

Here is a theoretical situation:

You've just written a press release. You send it to the client for their approval. They come back with a lot of changes, most of which are awful. The quote has clearly been written by a machine, they've inserted lots of acronyms, even more plenty of hyperbole and it just doesn't read well. In short, it's been butchered and no journalist in their right mind would touch it.

Naturally you contact your client to advise that in your experience journalists prefer more factual information with a specific angle in their niche, and they want quotes which wouldn't sound out of place in a normal conversation. However, the client is insistent they want the one their legal department has already approved.

Typically, this isn't really a major problem. Your client pays the bills and if they want a rubbish press release and disregard your advice, that's their problem. So you begin distributing it via e-mail, newswires and free distribution sites. Any interested press can contact you on the details listed in the release.

So what happens when you're applying for a job and your future employer does a quick Google check on you. Perhaps ["Your name" and "agency"] or [Your Name + Press Release] - everyone should try that last one. It's easy to see where this is going. That press release could haunt you for every single job you apply for, ever. I think this could be a bigger problem than any drunken MySpace/Facebook photos.

Anyone have a good solution to this problem? Do you tell the client you're not going to put your name on it? What would be the ramifications of that?

I think this could be a bigger problem than it is. I'm still worried by some of my earliest press releases.

A freelance writer once told me it's common to look back on what you wrote five years ago and cringe, it's a bigger problem if you don't. I'm not so sure that's true in the internet age.

Comments

[Sally Whittle]

Hi Richard

It's an interesting post - as a writer I have, on occasion used an alternate byline on articles I'm not comfortable having my name attached to, for whatever reason. I've also asked features to be run without a byline on the very odd occasion, too.

As a PR, I suspect it's less of an issue - anyone looking to hire you one, five or even ten years down the line for a PR or writing role will well understand that press releases are only ever as a good as the client allows them to be, surely?

[Richard Millington]

Do you think so? How are they supposed to know the difference between what the client allowed and what is just plain bad writing?

I think also it depends on the job role, the number of applicants and a whole host of other unworldly factors.

I've generally seen two types of press releases. The straight out factual one written in a very news style designed to be cut/lifted straight into the newspaper/magazine etc, and one a bit more fluffy (i'm not a fan) which aims to convince journalists this client is worth writing about.

[sally whittle]

Yes, I really think so. Most PR execs know what makes a good press release, and can produce one. Where problems generally occur is that clients have a rather different idea, and insist on sending out releases for no good reason, or changing quotes so they're less controversial etc etc.

Here's what I figure:

Crap grammmar, poor spelling = lack of proofing, PR's fault.

Bad structure, bad writing = PR's fault, almost never happens, though, as releases are so formulaic.

Stupid headline, boring quotes, lack of news angle = corporate stupidity, client's fault.

[Richard Millington]

That's a pretty good point actually.

But if that's true then why has their been so great a discussion in PR blogs about how creating decent news angles and using headlines rather than how to improve the relationships with clients?

[Sally Whittle]

Because good headlines and good angles DO improve coverage.

You just have to hope the client doesn't sabotage them along the way, I suppose.

But you're right that improving the relationship with the client is the best solution - just quite hard I think (although, what would I know, I'm a hack)

One of the tips we give at the 101 PR training courses is based on something a senior Microsoft marketing bod gave me: the client will always want to approve the press release, but they don't see the email pitch you send with it. So if you focus on good pitches, you can overcome crap releases.

[Richard Millington]

Frankly, i'd love to beat every potential client on the head with a reality stick to alter their perceptions of PR.

There's nothing more annoying than a client with cash to spend on a perceptions of PR based on the 80s.

You're last point is great though. I have to admit that I sometimes sent out a few pitches based on press releases, rather than the press releases themselves. This way I coudl tell the client that the journalist wants to use this angle of YOUR press release.

They usually went for that.

[Vince]

I thank the Lord for giving us the gift of brilliant preachers!h

[Vince]

The site\'\'s very professional! Keep up the good work! Oh yes, one extra comment - maybe you could add more pictures too! So, good luck to your team!

[Vince]

I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!a