Here’s another free online database of journalists, covering the UK media: journalisted.com
It’s pretty simple: just go to that page, type in as much of the name as you know, and get a set of matches. For instance, here’s a link to a search for Smith.
And here’s a page for one of the journalists on the site, Nick Parker of The Sun. They post whatever contact info they have, as well as links to recent articles and other similar journalists.
For a free resource, it’s pretty cool.
Most media directories cost money, but not this one: the Society of Professional Journalists’ online directory of freelance journalists.
The directory lists 914 professional journalists who make a living as independents, and gives their names, coverage areas and best of all, contact info [including email], right there on the web. It’s true.
The reason it’s out there for free is that the directory is intended first and foremost for media editors who are looking for freelancers to hire. But that doesn’t mean we PR folks can also scan the directory for potential journalists to pitch our stories to.
One more tip, an obvious but important one: do some homework on the freelancers you are pitching to see if they would be a good fit for your story. They usually have samples of their work posted on a web site and sheesh, you can always Google them.
Part of my media training curriculum is explaining to people that the media covers only a set group of topics — they are broad, but they are really all you will find in American mainstream media, so if you want coverage, you better figure out which buckets your story fits in.
They are:
- Novelty: things that don’t happen everyday
- Familiarity: things that DO happen every day, such as the weather, the City Council and the stock market
- Big money and winners: the ups and downs of public and private institutions are always grist for news stories; everyone loves a winner
- Risk-takers: people who put their money, reputation, health or safety at risk
- Cat-fights: want coverage? Pick a fight
- Your wallet: everyone likes to learn more about how to make money, save it or spend it
- Sex, celebrities and scandal: because they have universal appeal
The story that prompted this post is this: cute blond female twins who want to work in journalism. This story appeared in the New York Times. Seriously.
Bucket analysis of this story:
- Cute blond twins = sex
- Want to work in the media = the media’s favorite big institution, itself.
- Killing themselves to get a job = risk-takers, esp. if you are a cute blond twin
- And don’t forget novelty! They’re cute young blond girl twins! How unusual!
Here’s another story making the rounds: Rush Limbaugh’s desire to become a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams of the NFL. It has generated, for sure, the most publicity ever for someone who wants to buy a non-controlling interest in an NFL team. Limbaugh knows exactly what he’s doing — here’s an interview to that effect.
Bucket analysis:
- Limbaugh = celebrity
- NFL = familiarity and big money
- Wants to buy small piece of NFL team = catfight!
See how easy it is!
Almost all journalists say they want to be pitched by email. So guess what — they are deluged with email pitches! And to make matters worse, most of them are bloated, non-news pitches that get deleted faster than you can say, “did you get my email?”
How to avoid the trash bin? That’s easy — pitch real news, facts and figures, information that the journalist’s audience really might want to know. Skip the self-serving pseudo ads — those are the ones that get deleted FAST.
But the title of this post is 3 no-nos, so here’s a list of other no-nos:
- Using ALL CAPs in the subject line — why are ya yellin’ at me?
- Putting the words “press release” or “news release” in the subject line — yer wastin’ precious space, pardner.
- Including attachments — send links, not attachments. Repeat — send links, not attachments.
For more handy email pitching tips, tune in to PR University next Wednesday, September 16, for a lively webinar called, “Perfect Email Pitches: Master PR Scribes Reveal How to Craft Copy That Boosts Opens and Media Coverage in Today’s Shrinking News Hole.” I’m moderating, and the panelists will include:
- Harry Medved, Head of Public Relations, Fandango
- Jane Mazur, Executive Vice President/Director of Media Relations, Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
- Dan Beeson Director of Media Relations for Mother Nature Network
- Nancy Brenner, Senior Vice President/Director of Media Relations, MS&L Global Public Relations
One of the most important techniques every spokesperson should master is negotiating the “terms of the interview.” All too often, spokespeople go into interviews assuming one thing, while the journalist assumes another. Later, after the spokesperson has blabbed about your their product, bad-mouthed the competition and otherwise made a fool of himself, he blurts out, “this is all off the record, right?” Oy.
Repeat after me: agree on the terms of the interview before you start talking, not after. If you’re unsure of the terms, ask the reporter what their understanding is. And don’t say anything until you’re satisfied. That’s because you have leverage before you start talking — you have something the other person wants. Afterward, the power is reversed.
One of the fuzziest interview terms is “on background.” This term got started in Washington, and still has the most currency there. It means that someone is speaking not for attribution, and that the information can be used for background only, not reported directly. Presidents and their staffs love this technique, because it allows them more freedom to explain complex decisions without having to worry about making a “gotcha” goof.
Traditionally, the DC media has gone along with this, and I’m sure they will continue to in the future. After all, how many people can resist an invitation to sit down with a general or a cabinet secretary in a historic office building and be told important secrets?
Nevertheless, the DC media corps occasionally rouses itself to complain about this technique, basically for the purpose of trying to change the power dynamic, if only for a brief time. Last month, the press briefly fulminated about it and the story was reported on Politico.com:
After a “senior administration official” briefed reporters on a conference call about Chrysler last week, the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven circulated an e-mail among her colleagues suggesting some kind of joint action to protest the use of not-for-attribution sessions.
“We’ve been concerned about the needless use of ‘on-background’ briefings when it comes to sharing straightforward information,” AP spokesman Paul Colford told POLITICO, adding that the AP had “relayed” its views “to other news organizations in Washington” and is “eager to work with them in addressing the issue.”
But when the White House held two more background briefings this week — one on the president’s budget, the other on Pakistan and Afghanistan — AP’s reporters and all the other usual suspects were there.
Three New York Times writers/bloggers sat down for a lively panel discussion on the second day of the Media Relations Summit in NYC: Andrew Ross Sorkin of DealBook, Saul Hansell of Bits, and Tara Parker-Pope of Well. Following are notes from each:
Hansell:
Interested in: spot news, little things, debates, interactive features, news analysis and commentary, stuff that’s interesting about the business of tech that would be interesting to the general community
Parker-Pope:
Interested in: prostate cancer, thinks mens health gets short shrift. Health doesn’t happen at the doctor’s office, it’s about decisions you make everyday. Action oriented health information. All about a conversation you can have with your doctor right now.
Look at her “tag” list next to her blog to get an immediate view of what i’m thinking about (this is excellent advice for blogger relations in general).
She’s about to run her first marathon and is interested in stories about running, fitness and nutrition.
Sorkin:
“My job is to find out about your deal before you announce it.
Sorkin says he reads all the comments on DealBook because he’s “egomaniacal.” If you say something nasty or nice he might say something back. He gets good stories from comments and might even hold a moderated comment before putting it up because it’s a good story.
If I could wave a magic wand and change one thing about PR, it would be this: to make all press releases and PR pronouncements about the interests of readers, users and editors, not about the organization issuing the press release.
Think about it: aside from pronouncements from the White House, how often are news stories just verbatim press releases from an organization? Virtually never, right? Instead, all news stories are broad stories about a particular situation, with many elements, possibly including you, your boss or your organization.
Yet to this day, the vast majority of press releases are written in that stilted, third-person style (“So-and-so announced today”) as if we were contributing an article to an imaginary media outlet.
Why, just today, I surfed over to PitchEngine.com to check it out — this is a site that intends to help PR people shift from issuing stilted old media-style press releases to new style press releases that are supposedly more user-friendly for the social media environment. But they don’t apparently have editors stopping users from taking their old third-person perspective and jamming it into the SMR format.
A couple of today’s PitchEngine headlines, plucked fresh from the site:
- THE WILMA THEATER Announces Becky Shaw by Gina Gionfriddo as the final selection for its 2009-2010 Season
- Paws Unlimited Foundation Holds their Open House to Raise Awareness and Funding for their No-Kill, Ten-Acre Animal Shelter in the Greater New York Region
Do you care? Why should you?
But, there was a ray of light in this headline:
- Revenue Sharing Cuts from Governor, Legislature to Trigger More Crime, Layoffs Statewide
It’s about Michigan (should have been in the headline) and was posted by the Michigan Municipal League. But at least it’s about other people and not about them!
“Think like a journalist.” It’s one of the most important skills a PR person can have. As a former journalist, frankly, my experience in the media gives me a big leg up. For PR pros who have never pulled a paycheck in the media, it’s a never-ending quest to get inside the head of journalists to do a better job anticipating their needs.
Here’s some new help: a partly tongue-in-check, partly serious site called Stuff Journalists Like, playing off the “Stuff White People Like” phenomenon. Some of their dead-on posts:
- Free food
- Election day
- Statistics
- Reporter’s notebooks
- Swag
- Year in reviews
- Weather stories
For a flavor of their style, here’s part of their post on Anonymous Sources:
… And that’s why journalists like anonymous sources, because journalists like the truth. And one cloak and dagger call can level crooked politicians and deplorable corporations breaking the law.
Without Deep Throat, Nixon would have finished his presidency and Woodward and Bernstein would have just gone on to become two reporters among the bunch at the Post (and would probably be receiving buyout packages by now).
Anonymous sources can alter the course of history and undo injustice, which all journalists aspire to do. And the stories from anonymous sources can lead to fame and glory, which isn’t bad either.
Need to do a better job Thinking Like a Journalist? Check out this site and better yet, use it to brainstorm ways to reach out to journalists more successfully.
When you send an email pitch, do you always follow-up with a call? Or do you never follow-up? This is one of the trickiest questions in PR.
On today’s PR University audio conference with top editors of womens’ magazines, there was a definite split among the panelists regarding their receptivity to follow-up calls.
“Please don’t call me,” said Lea Goldman, Features Editor of Marie Claire. Goldman says that she religiously checks her email and reads all email, at least the subject line. If she wasn’t intrigued at the time, calling to plead your case rarely if ever helps.
Cari Dineen, Senior Editor of Redbook, and Jeanine Detz, Senior Editor of Shape, both agreed 100%.
On the other hand, Stephanie Emma Pfeffer, Senior Associate Editor of Family Circle, and Nancy Minikes, Research Editor of Women’s World, were somewhat more open to follow-up calls, but not minutes or even hours after you sent the pitch. Give them a couple of days to get back to you — remember, most editors are getting hundreds of pitches a week.
Minikes made an interesting point about customizing your pitch: if you address it directly to her by saying “Hi Nancy,” she will make a point of responding by email and telling you whether or not she’s interested. But if you just send PR spam, she will very likely ignore it and will not respond.
The bottom line for all these editors: customize your pitch! [How many times do we have to say this?] Address them by name, know their slice of the female demographic they are targeting, know the sections that they edit, and then make your pitch accordingly.
The dumb pitch that got the biggest laugh from this panel: emails that say something like, “I have a good expert or story about [fill in the blank]. Can you help me figure out whether it’s a good fit for your publication?”
So, back to follow-up calls, here’s a poll: do you make the call or not?
[polldaddy poll=1490921]
Being a spokesperson is hard — seriously. And being the spokesperson when you are also the CEO of General Motors in 2009 must be close to impossible. But hey, that’s why they get paid the big bucks, right?
GM’s CEO inadvertently used the phrase “bankruptcy…could work,” at a media breakfast with the Wall Street Journal in attendance, and they didn’t miss the opportunity to write the following:
General Motors Corp.’s chief executive, once a staunch opponent of bankruptcy as a way of reorganizing the ailing auto maker, has softened his view, suggesting the company could possibly emerge from a Chapter 11 filing.
This interpretation of Wagoner’s comments so disappointed GM that the company posted a rebuttal on its blog called “Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story.” Tom Wilkinson, GM’s Director of News Relations, takes the Journal to task for taking Wagoner’s comments out of context and making more of his reference to bankruptcy than Wilkinson says Wagoner intended.
In the blog post, Wilkinson posts the entire exchange [as transcribed from a recording of the session], and here’s what Wagoner said”
A lot of people who write about bankruptcy, I don’t think have ever been in bankruptcy. And what I have learned after studying it in detail is that it brings significant risk on… what I have learned is that it could work. And it might not work.
After vehemently complaining that the Journal was out to write a pre-conceived story and that Wagoner didn’t mean what he was quoted saying, Wilkinson ended his post with this query:
Did The Wall Street Journal ignore what Wagoner really said so it could write the headline and story it wanted? I’ll leave it to you to decide.
OK Tom, I’ll take the bait and answer your question: No. I will grant you that the Journal may have unfairly taken Wagoner’s comments out of context and written a story that GM didn’t want written and one that may prove to be inaccurate, but I’ll also say that Wagoner should never have said what he said and essentially got what he deserved for uttering the words “bankruptcy… could work.”
No one forced him to say what he said. Every media training always includes the admonition, “don’t repeat a negative.” Meaning, if the question is, “Could bankruptcy work for GM?” you DON’T say, “bankruptcy could work.” You say something like, “that’s your word, not mine. We are focused on getting GM back on solid footing, etc.”
Even if the question wasn’t as simple as the above example, it’s the job of the spokesperson to avoid using negative words. Journalists are listening for the most controversial thing you are going to say, and they are going to lead with that. Your job as a spokesman is to make those words the LEAST controversial you can.
If you’re Rick Wagoner and you’re sitting at a media breakfast, it’s no time to get informal and utter the word “bankruptcy” if you absolutely don’t want that word to ever come out of the mouth of GM’s CEO.
Another thing: I’m guessing Wagoner has had to answer some form of this question 1,000 times, and on the 1,000th time, he finally let the words “bankruptcy could work,” slip from his mouth, even though he added “it might not” afterward. I’m sure he’s tired and under incredible stress, but again, it’s not the media’s job to look the other way. It’s the spokesperson’s job to keep repeating their talking points 1,000 times if necessary, not 999 times.