Back to basics

In Dan Gillmor's "We the media," the author writes extensively about the future of corporations that use technology -- blogs, SMS messaging and RSS, among others. Gillmor implores corporations to let its executives (and underlings) blog more frequently and responsibly. But what really stands out is how he begs public relations professionals to embrace technology, specifically RSS feeds, to more effectively do their jobs and help journalists.

I don't disagree with Gillmor altogether. I think that it would certainly be easier to receive press releases in an RSS feed than in my inbox; oftentimes I find myself wading through pressers to get my real, urgent e-mail. But, such as is the case in journalism almost as often as in public relations, the people Gillmor wats to embrace new concepts have not mastered the old. Too often do ineffective PR people block information from getting to journalists and, consequently, news is just a shell of what it should be.

Getting a press release in an RSS feed doesn't make the quality of the information any better, just easier to access. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I've compiled a (small) list of PR improvements I'd like to see... and none of them touch technology.

1. If you’re writing a press release about a person who is paid with public dollars, include his or her salary. Readers have a right to know, and good reporters will only call to ask for it later.
2. If you are the contact person on a press release, be prepared to answer questions. If you aren’t an expert on the subject matter, put the journalist in contact with someone who is. It’s inefficient to let the journalist ask questions and for you to ask the expert and relay those answers back.
3. Don’t make promises you cannot fulfill. Do not say you can get a sit down interview for the journalist with the company’s CEO and then never call back.
4. Be willing to talk to the reporter. Yes, talk… as in with your mouth. E-mail is an OK way to follow up, but no good reporter will settle for strictly e-mail communication because the interview can never be candid and it leaves little opportunity for immediate follow-up.

I’m sure with a lot of thinking – and probably very little asking of other reporters – the list could be longer, but these are just a few things I think PR people can do better. What do you all think?