A bribe by any other name is still…PR?
The healthcare PR world has been all a-buzz in recent weeks over
the outing of two skincare companies offering controversial
"incentives" to reporters in exchange for editorial coverage and
attendance at a conference. The first offender offered $100
for each reader who saw the printed release and signed up for a
treatment. The second
offered a $250 stipend for "attendance and insights" on the
company's brands and industry trends discussed at the
conference.
The reporters cited in these cases were appalled and disgusted.
The nerve - for sure they are not to be bought! Both ideas are
half-baked at best and wouldn't fly with firms (BG included) that
uphold a legitimate ethical standard. But if we take a hard look at
the media landscape, PR's role in the creation of news, the woes of
the shrinking newsroom and the broken print newspaper advertising
revenue model, we might ask ourselves - were they really that
far off the mark?
Every public relations professional strives for earned media.
That precious moment when a reporter who has no other incentive to
write about your client other than the sheer newsworthiness of the
story, takes your pitch or release and creates from that initial
nugget of information a compelling feature that will be read by the
masses. But we all know that the "church and state" gap between
editorial and advertising has inched ever closer over the years.
And while a company should never expect editorial coverage simply
because it is an advertiser, we'd be naïve if we said it didn't
help in many cases.
As far as I can tell the biggest problem with these initiatives
is that they were barking up the wrong tree. One smart commentator
remarked at the similarity between the $100 campaign and affiliate
marketing in the online space, which is predicated on a
pay-per-acquisition model. Perhaps newspaper sales teams should pay
attention, there could be a revenue idea here. And I would bet that
the reporter who was disgusted at the idea of a bribe to attend the
conference, would have been happy to attend if her travel expenses
were covered - a common practice. Also, let's not forget there's
been a vehicle for paid editorial content used the world over for
many years: the matte release. While not the preferred method of
securing editorial coverage, it is masked as editorial content in
the eyes of the reader and to my knowledge has never been accused
of being bribery.
So PR folks, let's try not to damage our already tenuous
relationship with reporters by insulting them with petty bribes.
But publishers, take note - there's untapped opportunity on the
other side of the editorial divide.