HackFlack Hits a Century

I noticed I've been sat on 99 posts for a few weeks, so decided to break the century.

A lot has happened since I launched this blog 18 months ago, and not all of it has been posted - for one reason or another.

I was reminded just how much I've learned today when a colleague asked me, a propos very little indeed, whether PR had been all I expected when I first switched codes three years ago.

I wanted to say that, broadly speaking, it has been; partly because I tried my best to come into the industry without the assumption that I feared many journalists bring with them - that we know it all and could do this job blindfold. To what extent I succeeded or not is for others to judge, not me, but I tried.

The real answer, however, is that I had no idea just how much work there was to do that isn't visible to journalists - the graft behind the scenes which journalists or the public don't see, and of course the work which isn't about media relations at all.

Anyway, the other area this blog has tracked is my learning curve as I got involved in the social media space. From the first post when I lacked the confidence to put my real name to posts, to today when you can find me very easily by Googling my name, and when you can subscribe to my blog posts, my Shared Items, my Flickr stream, my Nike+ runs, del.icio.us links, my Tweets, Plurks, identi.ca, my FriendFeed - the list grows on and on.

What I have learned so far is nothing, however, compared with what I still have left to learn in both areas. Hopefully, I'll chalk up the next 100 posts a little quicker than did the first, but either way, I'm sure I'll look back at this little milestone and feel that its author was a very different person from the one who writes up Post No 200.

Relations - not blacklists - solve problems between hacks and flacks

The issue of PR Blacklists has been hot for months now. First, Chris Anderson at The Long Tail published his list of PR professionals who had 'spammed' him. More recently, Gina Trapani, editor of Lifehacker, was behind a PR Spam Wiki, where the blacklist could be added to seemingly by anybody and at will.

The result has been a lot of coverage in the blogosphere as to what is PR spam, whether Chris and Gina were right in their approaches, and if not, how best bloggers and journalists can combat the issue.

Which is why I was delighted to see an alternative approach being taken by freelance journalist David Thame last week, when he decided to email a few pointers to some of his PR contacts. David does a lot of work for the Manchester Evening News, Estates Gazette, Retail Week, and the Insider titles in both the North West and Midlands. Needless to say, when he writes direct to PRs with a problem, they'd do well to listen.

The problem on this occasion wasn't inappropriate or irrelevant pitches, but another ancient bugbear for journalists - attachments.

David wrote:

Morning all

Don't know what its like for you, but it's turning into one of those days here....

Just an appeal that, if you could, please put the text of press information - releases, whatever - simply in the body of email messages? I know lovely-looking word documents smothered in logos are the form - a hangover from the days of real paper press releases - but they really slow things down at this end. Many contain (though I don't think many realise this) all your addings and deletings, some of it quite amusing; they're also very slow to open and, I'm ashamed to admit it, if you can't quickly see what's in a document called - normally "PR7063" or "Thing&Co info" - or equivalents - then the temptation is not to open the attachment, the story simply gets deleted, binned, forgotten because there are dozens more to choose from. But if the text is in the message you know straight away what its all about - result, higher chance of it being used.

Hope for a good weekend?

As ever

d

No mention of who the offenders are, no email addresses, no public 'outing' on his website and no frustrated ranting. Instead, a few constructive tips, an explanation of why this is a problem and - for those who deserve it - the knowledge that they were the targets of his criticism. All delivered in a tone which doesn't presuppose that just because he has received a pitch, he could automatically do a better job himself.

I hope his approach earns him some success.

Liverpool Daily Post opens up with liveblog of working day

Many of the people who read this blog are already well aware of this, but just in case, I couldn't let this pass. If you have any interest in the future of journalism and newspapers, I think this will be worth looking at.

The Liverpool Daily Post today opened up and invited the world to watch as a newspaper was put together.

From the Editor to the reporters, it liveblogged its working day, letting readers know how they go about doing what they do, asking for feedback on editorial decisions, even inviting the cameras into afternoon conference and a features planning meeting and streaming them live via the likes of Qik.

I've managed to keep up with the liveblog, and watched some of the live streaming, but haven't watched the full three episodes of Conference on YouTube just yet.

At one point, it even looked like we might get a small PR case study as reporters began to get frustrated at the apparent lack of access they were getting to the big story of the day - that of a fire in one of the city's oldest buildings, just weeks after it reopened after an extensive refurbishment. Fortunately, it looks like they got the interview they needed in the end

In short, it was fascinating to watch.

Now, however, the interesting stuff begins. There'll be a review of how the experiment went in tomorrow's paper, but I expect more conversations from the likes of deputy editor and social media evangelist, Alison Gow, as she and others take stock of what they learned and gained from today's experience. I hope to come back and update here when they do.

Sharing the joy

It's that time of the week when I share some of what I've been reading over the last seven days:

Making up the rules as we go along
Last week's Economist had an interesting piece on the etiquette of telecoms, and how we have been making it up as we go along for a century. This post is Neville Hobson's take on it.

Social media newsrooms - it’s time to stand up and be counted
Chris Norton at Wolfstar on the Social Media Newsroom.

Quotes of the year
My favourite item this week, Media Guardian's summary of 2007's best quotes. I particularly liked how my non media friends thought Rebekah Wade's email was shocking, while journos thought it was tame.

Talking etiquette with the stalkerazzi
Roy Greenslade's take on a feature by Decca Aitkenhead on the paparazzi - followed by a lengthy and interesting conversation in comments.

Does the government really want to hear what you think about climate change?
A great round-up by Neville Hobson on Government blogs, their qualities or otherwise.

Merry Christmas War Is Over (er, except it isn't)
A seasonal reminder from Shaun Milne that for many thousands of our troops, Christmas will be spent in deserts without a Santa hat in sight. One is a friend of Shaun's, another is a member of my extended family. My thoughts are with all of them.

Crain's Manchester is in business
I spent two days meaning to blog about Crain's, but when Rob over at Artisan beat me to it, sharing his post seemed easier.

Reader and Talk are Friends!
I blogged about this too. Google is rapidly becoming a social network in its own right.

This week's shared items

One of the features of Google Reader I love is the fact I can quickly and easily share posts I like through my link blog. Here are the posts which made it this week:

PR people, journalists, bloggers: How they stack up in high-mindedness and credibility
Keith McArthur’s take on journalists, communications professionals and bloggers.

Exclusive: Technorati Relaunches To Focus On Core Blogging Audience
Techcrunch’s review of the all new, shiny Technorati.

Spouse 2.0 Day: For Those That Give To Your Other Startup
Soon to be referred to as the post which gave birth to the term Twitter Widows. Mrs Marritt knows how that feels! (Put me right in comments if I’m late to this phrase)

Track the changing communication landscape with Media Bullseye
Neville’s reaction to Chip Griffin’s latest venture – a site too beautiful for RSS feeds alone.

Trust is essential for social networks
Excellent post on the importance of Trust in Society 2.0 – and not the first suggestion that Facebook has hit its peak.

Off the record?

While stressing that it is always safer to remain 'on record' all the time, I still encourage colleagues not to be afraid of using an off-record briefing where appropriate.

But when they do, the most important point I think I can ever make is to set the parameters, and be absolutely clear about those parameters with the journalist. That is where I see most room for error, and therefore, risk.

An unfortunate example of where that has gone wrong comes from the Lancashire Telegraph in Blackburn, in which a worker at Burnley Mortuary gave a journalist a story on condition of anonymity.

No discussion took place between source and journalist as to how the man would be referred to, and thus the anonymity he got was being described in the newspaper as a "mortuary worker".

Nothing so bad so far.

Until you find out there are only two "mortuary workers" and that the other is the source's boss.

The source soon found himself dismissed for gross misconduct and complained to the PCC, which censured the newspaper.

Roy Greenslade has more detail here, and strikes the very important, and very difficult, balance in terms of mixed sympathies for the parties involved.

But this is is as instructive for PRs as it is for journalists.

While in this case the PCC decided the onus was on the newspaper to establish the right form or words to describe the source, I'm not sure it would have taken the same view if that source was in fact an experienced PR professional.

Hacks vs Flacks

Well, hasn't it been a great two weeks for Media Relations?

I can't say anything on the kerfuffle prompted by Chris Anderson's post, Sorry PR people, you're blocked, which hasn't already been said already by far more learned scribes than me.

But, thanks to David Jones and one of his new colleagues, Brendan Hodgson, it was this tale which caught my eye.

The story comes from Bulldog Reporter, and in particular, its latest awards brochure, which reads:

"Who better to assess the work of PR professionals than the most important
audience for your work? Our 20 journalist judges are tough but enthusiastic
supporters of media relations excellence."

The first point I take issue with is that this implies that a PR professionals entire existence can - and should - be judged based on the part of media relations which journalists get to see on a daily basis.

I'm not denying that media relations is a huge part of the PR professional's job. Almost every client I have worked for has used PR primarily to help them achieve a goal via the media coverage I have helped generate.

It does not, however, represent all of a PR professional's responsibilities.

But my second point is this: Why on earth are journalists "the most important audience" for our work, even simply as far as media relations are concerned?

Let me make clear straight away that it is not the quality of the Bulldog's panel which concerns me: while I don't know them, those named in the brochure appear better qualified than many who comment on standards in PR.

What I take issue with is the common assumption, implicit in Bulldog's marketing, that all journalists automatically know everything there is to know about our industry.

As I said earlier, clients' goals are achieved via media coverage. The coverage itself is not the goal, and therefore the journalists are not the ultimate target audience.

Secondly, most journalists are no more qualified to judge the work of a good PR than I am to judge World Footballer of the Year. In fact, the overwhelming majority are less so. For at least as a match-going fan, I come away knowing the result (8-0 or 3pts, in case you were wondering).

My point is that the result doesn't tell the whole story. The finer footballing tactics which go into securing the result pass me by. I don't much care. Furthermore, I don't see the team train all week, the preparation and work which has either paid off, or not, and nor do I want to.

Similarly, journalists do not see the rest of what we PRs do. Moreover, I think it is fair to say that few know or even care about the final score as we see it - the effect that their coverage has had on our clients' businesses. There's no reason they should, and plenty why they shouldn't.

Don't get me wrong. I, of all people, am always going to argue that journalists are vitally important to our jobs, and that we can always learn a great deal from them.

But having made the jump, and learnt huge amounts every day since, I recognise how little I knew about PR when I was a journalist - and how scarcely qualified I would have been to pass serious comment on the work that a PR professional does.

If we don't treat ourselves with respect, and seek to be judged by our peers, then we are never going to command the respect of others.

As Brendan puts it:

"If we as an industry continue to believe in and support the notion that PR
is synonymous with media relations (and that the journalist is the "most
important" audience) at the expense of everything else we could and should be
doing, then the battle for future legitimacy will be lost without a
shot being fired."

Ten Tips for Hacks and Flacks

I know, I know - nothing for three months, and then three in 12 hours.

Richard Bailey over at the PR Studies blog brought my attention to this (after Strive Notes brought it to his):

Sunday Times travel writer Mark Hodson has put a Top Tips for PRs on his website. Interesting, but not unique. What is unusual is that he has given "two leading PRs" an immediate right to reply, with their Top Tips for Travel Writers.

Both lists are well worth reading, as are some of the comments on the latter.

The Green, Green Grass of Home

Journalists making the leap into PR is nothing new.

Just look at my current employer: Beattie Communications was set up 21 years ago by a journalist - Gordon Beattie - who decided he wanted to sample life on this side of the fence - and he's gone about hiring a large proportion of other ex-hacks who have made similar jumps ever since.

So rather than simply recount my experiences, I thought I would catch up with a few other like-minded souls who have - at least temporarily - traded journalism for PR.

First on my list was Ian Green.

Ian, a Scouser by birth just like myself, spent 15 years as a journalist, working for titles ranging from the Liverpool Daily Post to Best Magazine, taking in Marketing, Marketing Week, Precision Marketing, The Observer, The Independent, the Northern Echo, Yorkshire Post, Insider, Real Business, Real Deals, Accountancy, Finance, Financial Times, Venturedome and countless freelance commissions along the way.

Now the Director of Media at Green Communications in Wakefield, author of The Green Gathering blog and contributor to GREENblog, I asked him what he expected life as a PR to be like before he made the leap.

"I didn't really make a leap," says Ian. "It was more like a transition. I left Venturedome - a dotcom start up I was involved in during the boom-and-bust of the late 90s and the end of 2001. When I say left, my fellow directors decided that an Editorial Director was something they didn't really need when cash was so tight so I left with a hefty pay off and headed off to Italy with my family to re-group and re-think what I wanted to do.

"When I returned to the UK I started doing freelance journalism for the likes of Real Deals, Financial Times, Insider, The Observer, etc.

"Then out of the blue I got a call from Andy Green, an old mate, as Green Communications had lost some staff and he needed some help so I started doing two days a week consultancy. From that it evolved into full-time involvement to the point where I became a shareholder and partner."

What were your first impressions after a month or so on this side of the fence?

"Green was a good business and they had some good operators like Emma Lupton but at the time I felt they didn't really understand what journalists needed.

"Today we write 'journalist-proof press releases' based on good old-fashioned news values. We also talk to journalists to understand what they want. We don't try to polish a turd anymore - and tell clients we only deal in real news."

But for Ian, as for myself, the change in perceptions wasn't all one-way:

"However, I also realised how much journos depend on PR nowadays, as they have so much pressure on them to deliver, have no time to get out of the office and don't dig out stories like we used to.

"I think I also re-assessed my own career as a journalist and how dismissive I was of PRs - usually from London who didn't have clue about what my newspaper was about.

"However, in reality in the regions the PRs are not spinning stories - a lot of them have very genuine stories to sell into the newspapers. That's how we try to work at Green.

"I also realised that many young PR professionals are terrified of talking to journalists! I insist they phone them up now and do not depend on email."

So what has surprised you most about life as a PR?

"I suppose it was how craven PR professionals are to the client.

"Many clients think they can get national coverage because they have launched a new manifold pump and many PROs promise to do what they can to meet that requirement.

"Instead it is better to tell the client how the media works, what makes news, what interests journalists and offer advice and guidance. Too often I don't think PR companies are prepared to do this because they fear they will upset the client and lose the account. My mantra is that you 'can't polish a turd' - if you tell it straight most clients accept it.

"In Yorkshire they prefer straight talking. Looking at other agencies I am surprised they don't turn down business because it is often more trouble than it's worth and always prefaced with the criticism 'Well, it hasn't increased sales'. It's a generalisation but owner-managed businesses are the worse because at the end of the day the fee comes out of the owner's pocket!"

It's no surprise then, that given that, one of the most difficult lessons Ian has had to learn has been to bite his tongue and occasionally butter up 'certain clients'. The difficulty is in finding the right balance:

"When they say they are looking for a full page in the Telegraph because they have a crappy new air conditioning system on the market you have to be quite brutal."

"My reputation with the journalists is also almost as important as the client's so quite often I have to upset the client and refuse to sell in a dud story because I know my media contacts will think I have gone mad by selling in a non-story."

So having learned these lessons, what does Ian know now that he wishes he'd known back then?

"Nothing.

"What a lot of PR people and journalists forget is that what they both do is not that far removed from each other. After all, a press release or phone call from a PRO is not that far removed from a news story or an interview by a journalist. And, very often running a PR company is not that different from running a news room - except without the bad language."

Do you miss journalism - if so, when and why?

"Yes.

"When the big events are happening and the thrill of the chase after a story - and also the craic. Journalists are nutters and very often going to work was like going to a grown-up's play pen without the sand and plenty of beer."

Any regrets?

"Honestly? No - and you never know. If the right job came up as editor of a good solid weekly I might consider it as a nice way to work out my days to retirement. The Craven Herald would be brilliant!"

Of course, that's not the first time Ian's expressed an interest in that particular job.

So, finally, what advice would you give to other journalists looking to make the change?

"Don't believe it is all long lunches and Ab Fab cocaine fests. It's hard graft. You also need to learn management skills and understand that once you are no longer writing copy for a tabloid or broadsheet people don't give a toss about your views.

"Learn a bit of humility, empathy and understand that you now start earning your crust based on results."

So, while far from being the same experience that I've had - either before or after the move (or "transition" in Ian's case) - I can't say I disagree with a single word. But from all our conversation, two points really struck a chord.

Firstly, yes I do miss journalism from time to time. I think we all do. But secondly, it's the fact that I'm not sure I'll ever be needing or wanting that FlackHack blog - certainly no time soon. While perceptions change, I hope the journalistic instinct remains in some form all along:

"Does this make me sound like an Old Fart?" asks Ian at one point. "Probably. But I am still secretly smiling when a good journo catches a client out with the right question and bit of digging around that was always par for the course."

UnSpin: The New Spin at Westminster

Unspin, it appears, is the new Spin in Westminster.

A great comment piece from Tim Hames in today's Times summarises the changes in the political spin machine since Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister.

At first, I thought the author had missed the point - his intro suggesting that Spin had died - but in fact, he has grasped the change in emphasis perfectly.

In short, Westminster is no longer briefing the Lobby on key ministerial speeches, forcing journalists to - shock, horror - turn up and listen!

The surface impression is that while the Blair era was characterised by spin, Brown won't play ball.

The reality is somewhat different, however.

His tactics may be different, but his aim is clearly the same: Brown is using the media machine to underline his strengths, and it is working.

I'm no political commentator, but it seems to me that Blair's message was about being 'of the people' and was therefore tied up with presentation rather than/more than substance. Appearances and first impressions were crucial - and, therefore, so was Spin.

Brown, however, wants to appear more serious; a parliamentarian and a man with gravitas. What he needs, it follows, is UnSpin.

Key announcements will always be covered by the press as they are newsworthy without needing the helping hand of an embargo, a steer or an exclusive leak to further them up the newslist.

What Brown gets by addressing the Commons before Fleet Street is the same stories about the announcement, but also comment pieces like today's commending him for being a much straighter kind of guy than Blair.

Hames also points out that in doing so, Brown has not only looked "every inch the Prime Minister" but also consigned David Cameron - with his Blair-like presentation skills - as yesterday's man.

The irony - as Hames presents it - is that as Brown wins the PR battle, Cameron resorts - like a PR in a corner faced with a journalist sensing blood - to bellowing "it's not new" (or "it's not a story").

It will be interesting to see how the new era of UnSpin unravels.

Journalism and PR, continued

Fellow Hack-turned-Flack Ian Green has decided to heap some deserved attention on the journos who have no idea what PR and PRs are about. The Response Source examples are hilarious, but are just the tip of the iceberg.


Before Ian set his targets, I had been thinking of doing something similar, albeit for slightly different reasons.


Daft requests aside, in the past month or two, I seem to have come more than the usual number of examples which prove that journalists really don't understand what PRs do. Things like:

• Journalists who think they could/will become good PRs overnight, by virtue of their journalistic experience. To those who make the jump: Welcome to a very steep learning curve.


• Journalists who insist that because "there's no such thing as bad publicity" PRs should be outrageous, just to get coverage;


• Those who think expect you to drop everything, just because they work for Publication X - without thinking either of what coverage your client may get in return, or what it might achieve by getting that coverage. After all, this is a two way street, isn't it?

But while these might be minor irritations, or cause for occasional amusement, they should never really annoy a decent PR.

And I'm not just saying that because I'm a former hack wanting to forgive journos for anything - far from it.

As I have said previously, a good PR should be highly conscious of how what s/he does is perceived by journalists. It's part of what makes them good PRs.

A good journalist, however, can be a good journalist without giving a second thought to the job of a PR, or even the aims of PR.

And after all, if they choose not to understand what role PRs play in their life, where's the problem? Most publications (yes, even the Mail) usually have another journo a few desks down who does.

Maybe they'll just have to be the ones to get the good exclusives (or the free holidays), as and when they come along.

Another Hack turns Flack - and a blogger breaks the story

Just a quick post as time is tight, but I wanted to welcome the news that another Hack has gone straight.

Andy Coulson, editor until recently of the News of the World and widely commended as a formidable journalist, has crossed the fence to become Director of Communications for the Conservative Party - the UK's main opposition party.

And which part of the mainstream media was first to break the story? Part of the News International empire (owner of NotW), perhaps?

Nope

None other than Conservative blogger Iain Dale.

Congratulations all round.

News readers - another landmark on the journey from Hack to Flack

No, I'm not talking about aggregators or any other web tools, I mean readers of news. People.

This whole blog is meant to chart my journey from Hack to Flack, and over the course of this very newsy weekend, I realised that I have passed another landmark on that journey.

I was a news reporter. Hard, general news was what I worked on, and what drove me. I could never switch off. News24 or Five Live were often on in my house, in the background at least.

When I picked up the papers, I started on Page 1 and read the newspaper front to back- or at least front to middle, where the features start - , often reading some or all of every (news) story. At the weekend, feature sections and magazines were only ever read later, if at all.

Today, while awaiting news on missing British toddler Madeleine McCann, I stopped what I was doing to listen to a business piece about private equity firms' interest in buying garden centres (based loosely on this story from a few weeks back). Given that today is a bank holiday, I can only assume this package was put together days ago as a holding story.

That's when I noticed that that issue-led story had grabbed my interest more than some of the updates from the Algarve (Headline: Still No News).

When I thought about it, I also recalled how I picked up both the Times and FT on Saturday, and flicked straight to the pull-outs, leaving the News sections until last. I have being doing this for a few months now.

Am I subconsciously looking for platforms to target? Issues to bend in my clients' direction? Are those slower, softer pieces more similar to what I spend most of my time working on? The answer to all these is: probably.

Whether or not it is a step on a journey, it is an broadening of horizons and therefore not a change in emphasis which I regret.

Zell's latest challenge: Make money from newspapers

A single quote stood out - to me - from the profile in Saturday's Financial Times of Sam Zell, the new owner of the Chicago Tribune:

"If you are relevant, people are going to buy the newspaper."

Mr Zell was responding to the question of how you make a success of a newspaper in an internet era.

The self-made billionaire, as the article goes on to point out, is not "playing saviour" to his "ailing local newspaper" (as it says Jack Welch and David Geffen may be considering with the Boston Globe and LA Times respectively); he has bought a viable business and is determined to make a success of it.

EXCLUSIVE: Hackflack says How Do to Nick Jaspan

Further to my post earlier this month, How Do officially launched today.

The site is the brain child of Nick Jaspan (pictured), the publisher who founded Newsco, publishers of the North West Business Insider, and more recently the (now late) North West Enquirer.

Despite me saying that I only expected to log on once and never again, Nick was good enough to comment on my last post and today, on launch day, I was able to catch up with with him in Liverpool.

Future plans

During our conversation - details of which Nick has allowed me to use on this blog - he told of us of some of the plans for How Do.

First and foremost, it appears Nick sees this very much as a web 2.0 venture:

"It's not the job of the site to simply promote the media industry," said Nick. Instead, How-Do will be the online hub for a thriving community across the North West.

Whether it is through the news (updated throughout the day) or the features (expect a few new articles every three to four days), whatever is written on the site is intended as a starting point to a conversation.

There are plenty of rss feeds, and there will be regular short interviews (the first being with Time Out founder Tony Elliott) cross-posted on the site's YouTube channel.

As tipped ten days ago, there is also a growing directory of North West based media industry blogs (including a link to this one).

Obviously, therefore, the success will depend on its ability (or otherwise) to create a community (not least for the display and job adverts on the site).

But How-Do will be more than simply online, and more than simply Manchester-centric, Nick told me today.

"I'm very keen that it's not just Manchester," Nick told me. "Here I am in Liverpool on the day we are going live. There is lots of stuff happening here, in Preston and Blackpool."

More to the point, providing the project goes to plan, How-Do will step offline too, hosting events and seminars (and may I suggest tempting Stuart Bruce over the Pennines to lead one?) in due course, and - you never know - even its own awards, providing there is a market for them further down the line.

First impressions

Personally, the site is better than I expected. It's already full of news and keeping this feeling fresh will be a challenge.

New features can be expected every "three to four days," according to Nick, and if they are as good as the launch offering, that is good news too. I wonder whether people still prefer to read features on regular uploading days - as with magazines - but we'll see.

I also hope that news of appointments and job moves are done well, and presented more like PR Week's Contact Book piece (a piece of PR Week which I always read) rather than the usually dull puff columns that fill most local newspaper business sections.

This is a competitive market for Nick Jaspan to step into. I already read similar - albeit national/international - content on Media Guardian, Press Gazette and holdthefrontpage, and via blogs such as the excellent Roy Greenslade's and (if the gossip section takes off) ...theworld'sleading....

But with its regional focus, How Do promises to bring something different to the table.

If it does, and the community adopts it, I'll come back and eat my words in full.

The relationship between journalists and PRs

I've just listened - for the second time - to the excellent interview on Inside PR between Ottawa-based PR blogger Bob LeDrew (author of the Flacklife blog) and Ira Basen, the host of a series on CBC Radio called “Spin Cycles".

I can't say I knew of either before listening, but I'm sure to check both out now.

It's 30 minutes long, and is full of fascinating conversation, but a one part really jumped out to me as I drove home from work.

The main one was addressing the age-old issue surrounding the relationship between journalists and PR professionals.

Ira suggests that the professions are co-dependant, which I think most people agree on. But he goes further and even suggests that, through their credibility, journalists have more to lose from the relationship breaking down than PR does. Hmmm.

More importantly, he goes on to make the point (as I've said before) that the widest gulf between the two professions is the way in which they think of each other. I love the way Ira summarises this:

The problem is that we are in this together and we don't really understand
[each other].

One of the things I admire about PR people is how much time they spend
talking and thinking about journalists, how journalism works and how we do our
job, because you have to do in order for your job to be effective.

Journalists spend absolutely no time talking or thinking about PR people.

And that's right. Absolutely no time.

In fact, I'd go a little further.

I would suggest that many PR professionals seek to understand how journalists and journalism works, but humbly accept that they don't really know (which is odd, considering the number of people with a far weaker understanding of the media who phone a newspaper and tell them how to do their job ... but I digress).

Many journalists, however, assume they could do a PR's job with their eyes closed, without a thought as to what that entails, and despite having absolutely no experience in that arena.

Neither Ira nor I have any great solution for this, and I suspect there isn't one. I'm not even sure I want one.

As Ira points out, PRs need journalists' credibility, but journalists need it more. If the balance shifts too far in favour of either party, the game's up for both of us.

Am I generalising a little too much, or is this fair?

North West Enquirer publisher goes online

Nick Jaspan, the publisher who launched - and subsequently folded - the North West Enquirer, is to launch an online venture.

Cringe-makingly named "How Do," the site will be (it's not launched yet) a portal for media and creative types in the North West of England, carrying industry news and acting as a gateway to hundreds of individual blogs (ie, it will have a blogroll).

I'll be very interested to see how this develops. From what I read on MediaGuardian, my gut feeling is that I'll log on once and never again (which would be not unlike my experience with the Enquirer).

Let's hope that, this time, Mr Jaspan proves me wrong.

What next for the Independent?

Today's Media Guardian has a good interview with Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent.

I've liked the Indie for many years (I even have a copy of the edition no 1 from 1986 upstairs in my collection of newspapers), and instantly loved the compact when it was launched.

Those who said the move was a desperate final throw of the dice were wrong.

Or so I argued at the time.

Anyway, I've been particularly interested to follow the paper's progress recently as its rivals plough money into online.

As I watch, I have been forming the view the compact was the last big innovation to affect newspapers in their printed form. Everything since (and I suspect during the coming years as well) has been focused on online.

On one hand, I am encouraged by the fact he still feels there is life in the printed newspaper:

"I completely reject the idea that newspapers are on some sort of slippery
slope. I feel a little bit like a lone voice, but talk about turkeys voting
for Christmas! The way that people in newspapers are writing this industry
off is scandalous."

I want to agree. Newspapers do have a future, though I'm not sure a print-only, or even a print-first, newspaper brand does.

Furthermore, I think Kelner gets it wrong when he says: "I've never met any9one who ever listens to podcasts." I'm not suggesting he has met these people, but we exist. I may listen to very few newspaper-brand podcasts, but I, and plenty more like me, think that the podcast - and other web-driven innovations - are an incredibly useful way to receive content.

Kelner says independent.co.uk is profitable, while those of his rivals aren't. But surely this is because they are pioneers in this respect, investing and building for the future.

My fear is that, while the Indy pioneered the compact, its big idea was immediately copied and (in my opinion) developed by The Times.

Similarly, The Guardian and Telegraph have pioneered online (for my money), but again The Times has been quick to react and is keeping pace with a very good, accessible site.

In contrast, the Indy has stood still since it won all its awards.

It's compact advantage lost, its viewspaper concept yet to blaze a trail, what happens when guardian.co.uk, TimesOnline and Telegraph.co.uk start to be profitable? Where will the Indy be then?

It didn't look like it when the sales went up, but maybe those who said the compact was Kelner's last throw of the dice may, in the long run, prove to be right.

How not to sell in a press release

Media relations is far too often summarised as being "all about the pitch".

Every day, I hear both those inside and outside the industry refer to PRs ability to "sell in" a story to the desired media, at the expense of talking about the stories - suggesting that the phone call or email to the journalist is all that matters.

Without wanting to get lots of people up in arms, that seems to me to be absolute tosh.

And I was reminded of this by a mention in Thursday's For Immediate Release, the Hobson and Holtz Report (Podcast #215 - which was not necessarily hefty, but which was good).

In it, Shel referred to both The Bad Pitch Blog (does what it says on the tin) and a pitch he received by email - a product pitch rather than a story pitch, but bear with me.

The pitch wired to Shel should be, he said, up for inclusion on the The Bad Pitch Blog as he had received it twice, with only very slight amends, exposing the fact that it was insincere and careless.

Despite this, Shel persisted and read the pitch, and in the end, signed up for the product. A bad pitch had won.

We've all been there, including journalists, which is why they will often read releases through to their bitter end in the hope that the story is buried in the editor's notes.

But Shel's tale also reminded me that just as bad pitches can win, good pitches can lose - or kind of.

This is how the tale goes:

PR phones up with a tremendously enthusiastic pitch, flagging up a good story about some interesting research which has been done, etc. and offering comprehensive information and a good talker for quotes.

Journalist is convinced it's a story worth running, so asks for the press release to get started.

On first reflection, the pitch was good - it provided the journo with a story they were interested in, in a way that would interest them, and could back up its promises with useful information.

However, on this occasion, when the press release arrived, it lacked some of the detail the journo had been after. By this time, said hack's news ed knows they are pursuing a decent story for tomorrow's paper, so wants to give time to it.

When the reporter phones back asking for more information, excuses are made and the full report is not available ("confidential" or "not for publication" I can't remember which).

Unsurprisingly, the story is dropped altogether. Worryingly, rather than being a near success, this has the potential to damage the journalist's perception of the PR/client indefinitely.

So can a good pitch lose? Despite this true story, I don't think it can. By virtue of the overpromising, this was a very bad pitch.

Equally, whereas Shel's example sounded like a bad pitch, it did give him enough information to catch his interest, and had a call to action which led him to signing up. Was it a good pitch, just because it was successful, in his case? Or a bad pitch just because the people sending it didn't coordinate? No.

What, therefore, defines whether a pitch is good or bad? Ultimate success? Whether you engage the target, and get a foot in the door?

There are probably scores of factors which influence whether a pitch is good or not, including luck, but here's a few of my notes, as relating to media relations:

• The most important ingredient of any successful pitch is a good story.
• A good story can often be 'sold' by a bad pitch. A bad story can only occasionally be sold by a good pitch. Bad stories can never be sold with bad pitches.
• Success demands a good product and a good pitch - but also good planning, good contacts, good fortune and a wealth of other minor factors.

What do other people think about this?

Unholy row breaks out among London freesheets

I've been meaning to post about this all morning, but every time I do, it moves on.

First we had Associated Newspapers, the owners of London Lite, rubbishing rival thelondonpaper in a new newspapers ad for stablemate the Evening Standard.

Then, Associated really went on the offensive, issuing a missive branding a decision by thelondonpaper's owners, News International, to increase its print run as "totally irresponsible".

The demand was not there for a further 100,000 copies of thelondonpaper, Associated argued, and therefore all the move did was increase litter. This is a serious issue in London, so Associated clearly wanted to get in there fast to claim any available moral high ground.

Now (and it's still only lunchtime!) thelondonpaper has fought back by welcoming Associated's invitation to compare its freesheet with the paid-for Standard, which appears to be losing the battle for afternoon readers in the capital.

Before I make any comment, I confess that Associated were once my paymasters, but that was when I was a reporter for the Daily Mail, and not the Standard. (I used to get annoyed when working for PA when my bylines were replaced by the phrase "by Standard Reporter" - talk about damned by faint praise! Though I guess it was better than being a Sub-Standard Reporter).

Anyway, what does this tell us about the freesheet market in London?

That it's competitive? Certainly, but that's in the industry's DNA.

That Associated (which also owns Metro) is worried by thelondonpaper's move? Certainly.

That Associated wants to be first to be seen to take action over the problem of litter (it's talking to councils), possibly.

What I always find most interesting about anything to do with the free market, is what it says about the future of newspapers in general.

Shane Richmond at the Telegraph, in his blog, refers to a quote from an anonymous teacher on the Reuters newswire:

Students do not relate to newspapers at all, any more than they would to
vinyl record.

I disagree. And if not students, in particular, certainly young people in general. Just as news is now free on demand via the internet, those under the age of 30 now largely expect news to be free in print form too.

Whether it is purely because they needn't pay for something they can get online once they reach the office/home, I'm not sure. I think there is a degree to which people now understand that newspapers are full of messages which marketers (as a crude generalisation) want them to read. In which case, why should they pay to do so?

My hope is that the freesheet generation will, at some point, demand incisive, investigative reporting and quality comment as well as froth and shift to paid-fors, but that is not certain.

What are the alternatives? Paid fors migrating to free (as has been trialled in the regions, and particularly where I spend my time in Manchester and Liverpool)? Paid fors migrating to online?

Whatever the answer, and while I respect the job thre freesheets do in attracting new readers (unlike the writer of this letter to the FT, via Greenslade), I hope the future newspaper still has the time and resources for "what somebody, somewhere wants to suppress".