Five-ish things for professional communicators right now…
Are We Really Still Debating the Press Release?
It seems only yesterday (almost 19 years ago!), when Tom Foremski’s blog post “Die! Press Release! Die! Die! Die!” helped sparked conversations about changing the press release format to something more useful (tagged sectional content, social media readiness, etc. etc.). This led to some useful, but often superficial, ideas such as the “social media press release,” which were great in the fact that they pushed some public relations folks to make press releases more usable by simplifying the format, but didn’t really address the real problem, which was not that press releases were bad, but that they were often misused.
Maybe the suggestions were lipstick on a pig; but some of us think pigs are delicious (and full of nutrients!) with or without the makeover.
Which brings me to the most recent discussion of the press release. The Axios Communicators newsletter recently published feedback from readers with varying opinions on the press release and its utility. I recommend reading it here (and signing up for the newsletter).
A fundamental flaw in the argument for killing the press release is that it is often needed for regulatory disclosure. It is part of the business record, and in many cases non-negotiable. I never understood the urge to murder it rather than using it strategically where it is warranted.
Another regular misconception is that press releases should die because they are not great PR pitches. That’s an easy one- nobody should be using them as the pitches. If your basic PR pitch is more than three lines with links to more info )including the release), you are doing it wrong anyway.
A familiar argument is that many releases contain too much fluff: quotes with airy superlatives, self-congratulatory executive spouting, and the like. I agree. Does it matter? Again, smart PR people don’t pitch the press release itself, so I stopped worrying too much about that years ago. Also, maintaining good relations with executives who want the fluff in there is probably more valuable than fighting for cosmetic language (again, the pig is delicious with or without cosmetics). Pick your damn battles.
Some people have suggested replacing press releases with other more useful content- blog posts, fact sheets, etc. These are arguably more useful, but why replace the press release when that can be a useful conduit for the best of everything this other content provides? Why not have it all?
One more thing; there was an argument that removing press release distribution would kill impression metrics. All that means is you are measuring wrong. I have always been careful to filter out press release postings (or account for them separately) to make sure I am measuring meaningful data. That said, the wire service posts are not meaningless; don’t discount them completely.
Stop saying the press release is dead and solve real problems.
OK, one more “one more thing”: some readers brought up artificial intelligence:
“If AI can draft a perfectly acceptable press release, is this tactic really moving the needle or is it simply checking a box?”
If AI generated your press release, and you were happy with the result without significant edits, go to your room.
Soccer Team Fumbles Branding Launch, but the Name Isn’t the Problem
When the new Boston franchise in the National Women’s Soccer League launched its new name and branding campaign, people lost their minds. I won’t pile on the misguided “Too Many Balls” campaign except to say that sort of, erm, cheekiness from a brand is better earned over time where a company can establish its persona with its audience (see brands like Wendy’s and Steak-umm for examples of brands being edgy, in their cases on social media, and knowing where the line is).
As for the team’s name itself, I’m not a big fan of “Bos Nation,” but so what? That wasn’t the problem, especially in a world where the NBA thought “Miami Heat” was a great team name, and the same league decades ago moved the Lakers and Jazz to cities that have no lakes and jazz, respectively. I suspect Bos Nation (if they keep that same) team could have survived the name choice with a better thought-out campaign, but that’s just me.
Earned Branding Means You Get to Take Chances
I mentioned the likes of Wendy’s and Steak-umm as brands that have earned the ability to be edgy online without facing (much) backlash, but individuals can do that as well. I have relied for years on being snarky but without really picking fights, which I would call “safe sniping.” I don’t take it much farther than that.
There are individuals who feel they can and should go further; such people who have cultivated a combative and critical persona can get away with taking a big swipe at, say, LinkedIn’s unaddressed inability to prevent fraud and outright lying on the platform. Matt Charney (a one-time client of mine) is one such person, who has long taken nibbles at the hands feeding him; he posted this interesting tidbit this past week:
This is a great example of using an established personal brand persona to ask an important question in an entertaining way. What is LinkedIn’s answer here? Also, how would Hulu fare under Matt’s stewardship? I’m ok with it as long as he doesn’t cancel Only Murders in the Building.
Yup, that’s three things in this post. Close enough.