Why Media Coverage Usually Covers More than You

When The Wall Street Journal does a front page story about eyelash products, I pay attention, especially when I've just seen a "Today Show" segment on eyelash enhancers a few weeks before. But it's not because my thin, light lashes need help. It's because I know that one of the brands featured in the publicity has got a good campaign rolling and I'm wondering which one is the machine behind the excellent national media exposure. It's hard to tell because each of these pieces uses multiple sources and features competitive products.

And it wouldn't surprise me if one of the marketing executives at the company funding the campaign is disappointed in this exceptional exposure because it is not all about his product.

Anyone pitching the media on a new trend/product/service needs to understand that 9 times out of 10, it will not be about you and only you. When it's only about you, it's an advertisement, not an article, and publicity is about the news side of the business, not the advertising side. This is important because it's one of the biggest issues I see among those who are not informed about how the publicity process works. Their expectations are unrealistic (and nobody has taken the time to educate them and manage expectations).

Tip: When pitching a story or segment on your new product/service/trend, do the legwork for the journalist -- identify others they should interview to get a complete and well-rounded story, provide industry statistics, offer to help acquire appropriate illustrations or graphics.

Even when a media outlet profiles you, it's not always just about you -- the writer will often talk to co-workers, competitors, or friends to round out the story.

Back to the eyelash enhancers: Kudos to the team using the media to bring these products to our attention. You're doing a good job of it. And if one of your clients is complaining that the news coverage also puts the spotlight on competitors, show him this piece.

How Not to Pitch

Because I write on small business topics frequently for newsstand and custom magazines, I received a pitch letter with this opener:

“I have a great new client that i am trying to get some buzz on for a piece, can you please take a look at the pitch below?”

What’s wrong with this opener?

From my perspective…

• It uses an approach that is too casual for a first-time communication with a stranger.
• It’s grammatically incorrect.
• To some of us, “get a buzz on” means getting drunk so this language is distracting.
• The “i” flags the publicist as young, which equates with inexperienced.

The opener was followed by an article idea and signed with the publicist's initials. Just. His. Initials. No name. No phone number. No nothing else.

I am older than 23, so it’s not a good idea to be this casual when communicating with me for the first time. My assumption – right or wrong – is that this publicist will be a pain in the neck to work with should I decide to interview his client because he comes across as careless. Careless publicists make my job harder, not easier.

If you want to secure publicity:

• Focus on what the journalist will get from the encounter, not what you will get from it. Do I care that he wants to “get some good buzz” out of this? Not at all.
• Be professional and act mature -- even if you aren't -- when contacting a journalist. Use complete sentences. Use proper capitalization and punctuation. Avoid slang.
• Include complete contact information.
• If you have a PR firm working for you, require them to copy you on pitches so you can identify patterns like this and stop them.

What’s the worst publicist mistake you’ve seen (or done)?

Use Easy-to-Digest Facts to Make Your Case with the Media

Want to create a compelling case for your story? Captivate the media with statistics that are easy for the average viewer or reader to digest or absorb.

The Natural Resources Defense Council did a good job of that this morning on a Today Show report (video: kids helping to save trees) about how to ask companies to stop sending you catalogs. During an interview promoting the NRDC's catalog-opt-out site, CatalogChoice, spokesperson Kate Sinding not only offered impressive numbers, she put them in context for viewers:

• The 19 billion catalogs printed annually use 53 million trees. CONTEXT: That's like clear-cutting 2,000 Central Parks each year.
• The CatalogChoice.org site has helped 500,000 users opt out of 5 million catalogs. CONTEXT: Those catalogs would fill 225 Olympic-sized swimming pools. They equal the energy used to power 3,500 homes annually or the global warming impact of taking 600,000 cars off the road.

I don't even need to understand what reducing the number of catalogs by 5 million has to do with power generation for those 3,500 homes. As a viewer, I'm stuck on the impressive numbers and how they are translated into mental pictures.

How does this example help the rest of us? If you've got a great story to tell but you're having trouble getting the media interested, it could be in your presentation. In the right situation -- where statistics are available and meaningful -- you can use numbers to help make your case and communicate key information.

Nice job, Kate Sinding!