Occasionally yelled at and hung up on by journalists
on deadline, PR professionals know there are right and wrong ways to persist in
pursuit of a news reporter’s attention.
Most mentors tell you to read several of a reporter’s
previous articles before making contact. But they rarely tell you what, in
particular, to look for while reading.
I suggest you ask these questions while doing your research.
(1) How many sources did the reporter use?
(2) What’s in motion?
(3) What remains to be seen?
(4) What kinds of words did the reporter choose?
1. How many sources did
the reporter use?
This question helps you determine whether
the reporter poured his (or her) heart into a story. If not, don’t spend a lot
of time studying it. Reporters quickly tap out some stories just to get them
out of the way. Signs of this:
- cites just one or two sources (compared to six or so for a good
story)
- lists but doesn't interpret statistics
- fails to add colorful or emotive language, instead offering facts
without anecdote or narrative
Advice: Pay less attention to
stories that the reporter himself paid less attention to.
2. What's in motion?
Look for words like "on
the rise," “becoming _____er” and “shifting.” Look for depictions of
anything that is changing character, shape or approach, or getting bigger or
smaller.
For example, an article on phishing (luring Internet
users to bogus websites where they will give up passwords) noted that big banks
have long been top targets, but lately smaller banks are being
targeted, too. Another article said phishers were becoming harder to
detect. Another said the approach was shifting from scattershot to
precisely targeted.
Advice: Pay closer attention to whatever is changing –
the topics that are in motion – than to static factoids. Change is inherently more newsy and likely to remain of interest in the future.
3. What remains to be
seen? (This is the really
important one.)
Pay extra attention to where
the reporter has raised questions, identified obstacles or said something like
“only time will tell,” “no one knows if …” or “it remains to be seen whether …”
Look for the edge of the
cliff, so to speak, the place where the reporter can no longer acquire more
knowledge because there isn’t any, or so he thinks.
For example, one article said
IM and peer-to-peer networks might supplant
email as the next major vehicles
for phishers. Another said efforts to fold phishing security into spam security
might not work because spam
filters mostly look for previously blacklisted URLs, and phishers
dismantle bogus sites within hours or days of putting them up.
When these articles
were published (a while ago, I confess), the
reporter didn’t know for sure whether there’d be an explosion of phishing
via IM and peer-to-peer networks – that remained to be seen. The reporter didn’t know whether new security efforts
would work.
What happens next remains unclear. Some of the industry's top bankers, executives and analysts are puzzling over Mr. Ergen's next move. Dish said Tuesday it will "consider its strategic options and the optimal approach to put this spectrum to use.
Mr. Ergen's next move will be closely watched by the reporters who wrote this story. This is the edge of their cliff. They don't know what will happen next, but the moment they do, they will write about it.
Similarly, keep your eye out
for what is anecdotally becoming evident
but is not yet backed by a body of
supporting statistics or expert confirmation. Look for what's still fuzzy.
Does your client have anything
that could help a reporter connect these
fuzzy dots?
For example, if your client is an authority on digital
signatures and if the "how" behind that technology is an answer
to the security shortcomings of simply blacklisting URLs (as in the previous example above), then these details might be a good hook for the first line of your pitch.
Advice: Start your
conversation in the middle. The first line of your pitch can pick up where the
reporter left off.
4. What kinds of words
did the reporter choose?
Look for discretionary
vocabulary that reveals the writer's "ear," or literary and
syntactic preferences. Jot down examples and listen to how they sound.
For example, one reporter liked bogus, dump, lure
and dupe. He could just as easily have written false or counterfeit
instead of bogus, jettison or dispose in place of dump, attract or entice in
place of lure, or mislead or deceive instead of dupe. But he didn’t
-- this writer liked the style and sound of the first list.
Listing these preferred words when you notice them
helps you see similarities and patterns that can help you adopt a comparable
voice.
Caveat: It's
always best to be yourself and write in a style you can consistently maintain
throughout your dialogue. Genuine is better than clever, but if you can be
both, go for it.
Advice: Notice how his words sound and, when sensible,
use words with a similar tone.
What next? How to use
what you discovered
The first question (“number
of sources/poured heart out”) helps you filter out stories less helpful to your
research on a particular reporter. Skip over those.
The second and third
questions (“motion” and “unknown”) show you the reporter’s own agenda, the
places where he may appreciate your client’s help moving a story forward. Start your email abruptly with those
specifics. No need for background or chit-chat. Hook him first with data or
observations you retrieved from what he thought was the gulf beyond the edge of
the cliff.
The fourth question helps you
in the final stage of polishing your email and, to a lesser degree, in the
early draft phase. Appealing to a reporter’s own ear may help put him at ease,
leaving him slightly more receptive to your thoughtful assistance.
You still need to meet all
the usual criteria for a good pitch. But you’re more likely to entice a
reporter if you’ve mapped yourself to his agenda, rather than dumped
information helter-skelter onto his desk in hopes he will sift through and recognize
something of value.
