By Brian Muys
Associate Vice President, Public Relations, American Public University System
Working with the press is as much of an art, as it is a science. For starters, as I’ve noted in prior posts, this means that a good public relations practitioner is ultimately only as successful as the media relationships he or she carefully establishes, cultivates and maintains in support of their organization’s key business and strategic objectives.
A common goal is securing high-value earned media coverage with key press outlets. Such coverage typically features your primary spokespersons or subject matter experts impactfully discussing your organizational mission, vision, product, service or whatever qualities or messages best embody your so-called “value proposition.” One associated trap that often snares less-experienced practitioners is the misguided belief that “any coverage is good coverage.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
There are often instances when you may encounter a “hostile” reporter or publication or a negative story that may potentially tarnish your organization’s hard-earned industry reputation. Simply ignoring such a media request for comment is usually ill-advised, since it indirectly suggests that you may have something to hide, or are unwilling to set the record straight. A factual response is the best option; one which clarifies or rebuts any flawed editorial premise on the part of the reporter, but which avoids any more risky commentary that may paint your organization in a more defensive, unflattering light.
If you play your cards right, by being responsive to the reporter’s inquiry without providing any more than the requested factual information, your organization may often be included in a more objective context than other cited competitors. Better-yet, by not offering the reporter any fodder to support what may often be a negative storyline, you may even find that your organization is actually excluded from the story altogether, or becomes a secondary focus relative to other competitors.
To take this full-circle, here’s where media relationships come fully into play. By establishing an ongoing commitment to trust, honesty and responsiveness in engaging reporters they will, more often than not, reciprocate in kind. Let me cite two great examples. In the first case, a major public television station was developing a story largely critical of my industry, for-profit education. I facilitated an interview with our founder, and promptly responded to all subsequent factual inquiries. Ultimately, the program production was significantly delayed, and my organization was not included in the negative, rather slanted commentary in any context.
More recently, my president participated on an industry panel attended by a senior reporter with whom we have a particularly long-standing and positive relationship. In his subsequent story, he quoted the president in a factual, though incomplete, context, prompting criticism of the president’s candor by a well-known industry skeptic. The reporter proactively advised us of the response, requesting clarification that he had accurately reported on the passing remarks. We offered to reply directly via reader comment to the inquiry, but ultimately resolved that doing so would benefit neither us nor the reporter.
The key takeaway here, as in many related instances, is that credibility and accessibility are truly king when it comes to maximizing your media relationships. The reporter certainly didn’t have to contact us with a courtesy “heads-up,” but the strength of that historical relationship effectively made it a foregone conclusion. If you follow these few basic principles, you’ll also likely find that they quickly bear fruit in enhancing the quality, and quantify, of your press coverage.
About the Author
Comments are closed.