‘Cut out the PR middleman’ – please don't...and this is why.

Like a lot of fellow PRs, I was baffled recently by the announcement from Portsmouth daily newspaper, The News, that they were ‘selling editorial’, reported on Hold The Front Page.

They’ve’ launched a “Business Bounceback scheme” offering local businesses the opportunity to feature in the paper at a 75% discount on their normal advertising rates.

You just send your news, however big or small, bad or good, story or not, into the business team, they’ll turn it into an article and publish it for a reduced fee.

I’ve got a few problems with it, and what they’ve said about the scheme in their launch.

My main problem, is that editorial is editorial and advertising is advertising. Editorial that is paid for is an advertorial - and the two should be kept very separate.

They said:

They will “help people identify what their business needs are to shout about in order to get it noticed” and “produce an engaging and eye-catching article”.

I say: This is marketing, not editorial.

They said: “We’ve decided to do our bit to help by offering a new way for them to market themselves – and at a much lower cost.”

I say: This is marketing, not editorial.

They said: “Traditionally the cost of advertising starts at hundreds of pounds. Hiring a PR agency can also be a pricey gamble as it’s not guaranteed that their work will ever see the light of day.”

I say: That’s because the story isn’t paid for – which guarantees it being used. PR is a gamble, yes, – no PR will ever promise you editorial coverage; what they will guarantee you is a well-written topical and interesting piece that they know will stand a good chance of being published because they would know what the publication wants and will publish. PR isn’t just about sending a story; there’s research to do and relationships with journalists to build!

They said: "Hundreds of press releases reach our newsdesk every day and often end up unused.”

I say: And that’s usually because there is no story in them – if it looks like advertising, the editorial team send it to advertising to see if they can get a paid-for ad out of the sender of the non-story!

In years in the newsroom, if I didn’t know what the story was by the end of a quick skim read, it was binned! If it was a plug or puff, it was deleted. If it made wild claims, it was gone. News eds don’t have time to work out what the story is or send off endless replies asking for clarification. Copy from a PR usually arrives clear and well-written, so the news desk can see what it’s about and if it’s right for their publication.

They said: “Hiring a marketing executive as a permanent role is also a massive commitment. So why not cut out the middlemen?”

I say: Because if you cut out the ‘marketing middleman’ you will end up sending in stories that are really, just advertising; paid to be there – see the point above.

They said: “As the pandemic ends, there’s never been a better time to promote your business and make it stand out. So we’ve launched this as a way for people to have direct access to our expertise and audience.”

I say: So what will they do? Turn the non-stories into stories just because they’ve been paid for? Again, that’s advertising!

They said: “Whether it’s a new product, an expansion to your team, an award win, or even just simply a change of opening hours, there are many reasons that a business would need to shine a light on itself.”

I say: None of these are stories. If their newsdesk got sent anything like this they wouldn’t run it! They’d more than likely send it to the ad reps!

Unless of course, I have indeed missed their front page story ‘Hairdresser opens for one hour longer on a Saturday’.

They said: (Business editor Kimberley Barber): “I’m excited to help businesses find their ‘top line’. Writing interesting and attractive articles is what we do day in, day out, so this is a great opportunity for businesses to have direct access to the professionals.”

I say: You won’t be able to write an interesting article if the top line is ‘a new product, an expansion to your team, an award win, or even just simply a change of opening hours…’

Here are my reservations on the scheme:

1. Paid for content is not PR or editorial

Any content that appears in exchange for a fee, whether in print, online, or on broadcast media, is advertising.

This means the message has been largely controlled by the company paying for its placement, so is written with bias and without fact checks (the complete opposite to editorials) and represents their opinion of themselves – so an advert!

The type of article that The News is offering is what’s known as an advertorial – an article created in the style of the title’s editorial but, as it is paid for, it would need to be clearly marked ‘advertising feature’ or ‘paid for content’.

Papers and magazines have run them for years – it’s nothing new, but badging paid-for content up as editorial is, and as far as I know, against advertising guidelines!

PR, on the other hand, is often referred to as ‘earned’ media. When a journalist writes an article off the back of a press release or information they’ve received from a PR, it is unbiased and represents their opinion. It cannot be bought and therefore is far more credible.

Think about it – what do you trust more, an ad claiming “This chocolate is the best in the world” or the same opinion in a review from a food writer?

Of course, none of this is to say that advertising doesn’t have its place in a comms campaign – marketing, PR and advertising should all work hand in hand.

But The News’ offer demonstrates a misunderstanding of PR, potentially creating confusion amongst the small businesses it seeks to help. As such, its dismissal of PRs is wholly uncalled for. Which leads me onto my next point…

2. It denigrates the PR industry

PRs are not simply ‘middlemen’ (or middlewomen, thank you very much!).

It takes real skill to create a story or piece of news for a client and present it in a compelling way that piques a journalist’s interests. A strong relationship between a journalist and PR pays dividends – the publication gets timely, interesting articles, as well as access to spokespeople and experts for future stories or research, plus in return, the PR achieves great coverage for their clients.

Furthermore, having worked as a journalist for many years myself, I’ve seen the result when the job of PR has been passed to an inexperienced member of staff in a business – and it’s often a long, rambling press release that doesn’t get read beyond the first few lines…and usually for the same reason; because it’s not a story! Nothing in it would be of any interest to the readers as a story – an advert, maybe (shop opening, discount on something etc) but not editorial.

This not only does a disservice to the client but it’s a constant source of frustration to journalists – repeat offenders are quickly blacklisted and ignored!

Or ‘spiked’ as many of us know it as, and you’re showing your age if you do!

A PR acts as a filter – counselling the client on identifying a real story, pushing back where needed to reject non-stories and ensuring that what ends up in a journalist’s inbox is a relevant, topical piece that’s stands a chance of making it to their pages.

3. It compromises the editorial team

A journalist’s job is to create newsworthy, interesting articles that their audience wants to read – good or bad.

A negative article will be printed regardless of whether the brand it criticises is running advertising in the title. 

This often creates friction between the editorial and advertising team but there simply cannot be any bias in favour of a paying customer. To do so would hugely damage the title’s integrity – and I don’t know any journalist who hasn’t had a barney with an ad rep because their client was about to receive some negative press. I know I did!

But I would question how The News’ offer affects the paper’s editorial policy when clearly, advertising is becoming an increasingly important source of revenue. What will the ratio be between paid for content and editorial? Will reporters be under pressure to scrap disparaging stories about particular brands with a high spend?

And how will it affect the tone and credibility of the publication? We’re seeing more and more titles increase their ad space to generate extra income but when the balance shifts too far in favour of ads, readers are turned off; because the integrity is gone – the real stories aren’t there, just advertising.

4. PRs are often small businesses too!

I applaud The News’ motives.

But implying that an entire industry – PR – is unnecessary or redundant, somewhat undermines their attempts to help small businesses.

Indeed, some of their stories will have come via PRs in the past – and in the future!

Maybe they won’t get local PRs sending them anything if they really do want to cut out the PR middleman!

Many PR consultancies are small teams or individual sole traders themselves. How many potential clients will be discouraged from appointing a PR under the misguided opinion that they are not needed?

Small businesses, the media and the communications industries have all struggled over the past 18 months. So, while this is certainly the time to consider how we can work differently and make the most of new opportunities, we also need to pull together rather than adopt an ‘us vs them’ approach.

When we clearly understand the role each has to play, work together and support each other, the results can be beneficial for all, and the line between editorial and advertising will be clearly drawn!