Pity about the PR Pests?
July 2nd, 2007 posted by Dan BrennanAn editorial from a trade publication recently crossed my desk. It was headlined, “Another great show, pity about the PR pests.” Naturally, it caught my eye.
This particular editor criticized the PR profession for the overzealous tactics of a few. In advance of an important trade show, the editor received what he deemed excessive amounts of e-mails, faxes and pitches aimed at arranging booth interviews. He likened the experience to “being stalked.” Now that’s a problem, and I’m sure most PR professionals understand that they cannot cross the line, whether unwittingly, or worse, purposely.
The editor — while careful not to “paint the entire PR industry with the same brush” — asked why companies employ PR agencies. “Some big companies need to look at why they employ PR,” he wrote. “If it is just to pick up the phone and invite a journalist to come and visit them, wouldn’t that be better coming from the company direct?”
Of course, his logic is flawed. Regardless of where the message originates — from the PR agency or the company itself — it will not change the amount of messages he receives. He then went on to mention that the majority of arranged interviews at this particular show turned out to be wasted time. The companies, he said, had nothing new to say.
That is a bigger problem, which clearly indicates the PR effort and marketing program of the specific companies were not working together. As a result, the people staffing the booth didn’t know what to tell a key industry editor. Worse, that editor felt it was a waste of time, reflecting a negative image on the company. That is exactly the kind of result a PR professional works hard to avoid.
Is the editor wrong? I don’t think so. But he does share some of the responsibility for the wasted time. Did he ask appropriate questions? Does he know the company and the people he is meeting? Did he offer to simply meet a company representative and not promise an interview? Did he do his homework? With a few simple questions, the editor could have reduced the number of lame interview sessions and, instead, spent more time at booths that warranted the attention. His efforts would have negated the PR professional’s own lack of preparedness. In the end, he would have had a more enjoyable experience, and the overzealous PR professionals would not have been rewarded for their actions.
But the editor also has to keep in mind what he took away from those interviews — contacts. Someday, maybe down the road a while, or maybe tomorrow, he will need one of those contacts. And then he’ll have to rethink the effectiveness of the tradeshow PR effort.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
This is another example of booth staff and marketing/PR managers not being prepared for trade shows. It baffles me with the lack of preparation that many companies employ. I’ve found that if you prepare to educate a dumb, ignorant and often arrogant audience then you will be ready for the press, just don’t treat them as such. The press relies on you to make their job easier and if you make it too hard they will just move on. Thanks for this post!
Evan D. Owen
President
A Smash Hit! Trade Show Displays
http://www.smashhitdisplays.com
July 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
This editor’s beef with interview invites is exactly why companies need competent agency PR support. A good PR firm will help the client determine what is newsworthy and how to carefully position and pitch this message when inviting the media to their booth space. Often the client who has retained PR services expects media at their booth regardless if they have anything newsworthy to share. A strong PR firm would not sacrifice editor relationships or their agency integrity simply to fullfill an unrealistic client expectation, especially since client churn tends to be more frequent than editor changes at credible publications.