The NY Times’ Saul Hansell dropped us a line about bad pitches recently. Of course we had to share:----My biggest problem with pitches is that at least half the ones I get, I can't understand what the company does or what the pitch is about. Often, the pitch is so wound up trying to define some sort of cute trend the company fits into that they don't actually give the who-what-where-when. And too many pitches use such obscure jargon, that they are impenetrable.
Allow me to vent on this for one second, with the first paragraph of a pitch I got yesterday:
"Hope you're well. I'd like to introduce you to xxxx, a new, place-based out-of-home digital network that delivers relevant, localized media within the rhythm of consumers' daily rituals, like afternoon coffee or sandwiches at lunch."
It turns out that the company puts video billboards in delis. My hope is that if people realize a reporter is much more likely to search for "video billboard" than "place-based out-of-home digital network" this may be an incentive for PR people to brush up on their English a bit.
Feel free to quote, paraphrase, dispute, forward or ignore any of the above. It is in my interest to find a way to help PR people tell me about their clients in a way I can use.----
Searching for the Right Word?Hansell (a veteran of The Times tech section for umpteen years) says we really need to consider word choice. The best words are those we use naturally and, therefore, probably plug into a search engine.
Search Engine Optimization is important. Some would argue it’s critical. After all, your search results are someone's first impression of a brand. SEO should not, however, simply be a process you do after the article has been written. Reverse engineering keywords into your content is sure to create problems.
It gets back to knowing your client, their industry, the news and the topic at hand. The Bad Pitch blog recommends that SEO is something that should be done organically—and not in a Whole Foods sort of way.
tags | public relations | PR | media relations | media | good pitch | bad pitch | bad pitch blog
As a newbie in the pr world, I have been taught that it is important to get as many of the W's in the first line as possible. I wish I had read this blog prior to my first few attempts at news releases, while I have not tried to glorify my client or product, I wasn't incorporating key words that were easily searchable. The statistic I hear constantly from my professors is that 98 percent of news releases are tossed. From what I have gathered from classes and various blogs is the way to a reporters heart is to keep things simple, get to the point and do not try to sell your product.
ReplyDeleteRichard.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this to your audience. It's great that you highlight the issue of clarity in pitches, which I mentioned.
My note to you also had what I think might be a helpful thought on how to write pitches thinking about storage on systems like Gmail.
I posted the full note here: http://saulhansell.blogspot.com/2008/11/for-pr-pitches-think-about-gmail-seo.html
It may be interesting to you readers.
Best
Saul Hansell
I posted similarly on Saul's blog, but I think it is important to note that much of this flowery language gets inserted by marketing people and others in the approval process. I am planning to use SEO as an argument for sticking to plain language and common terminology.
ReplyDeleteThanks for following up Saul.
ReplyDeleteHolly, you're right. Sometimes people are too close to their product, story, news etc to realize how bad the flowery language is.
My favorite experience was when a client asked me to note that a certain technology they were offering came from "client's vaunted treasure chest of..."
vaunted treasure chest?!
I pulled it. He asked why. I told him in a very nice way that a reporter would consider the wording to be b.s. He was the product manager. My ultimate client thanked me for stepping in.
VAUNTED TREASE CHEST!
I was glad to read this on the even of a pitch tomorrow. Great advice about the search-able words. I think there is a lot of value in what you said about PR people brushing up on English. I'm assuming you mean, that the need to be more direct and stop beating around the bush to sound fancy. I completely agree and I strive in all my PR language to not only sound brilliant and engaging, but first and foremost to sound CLEAR and DIRECT. Good post. Thanks!
ReplyDelete