Lameflix: Netflix Hires Actors To Give Interviews Pretending To Be Excited About Canadian Netflix Launch

from the eh? dept

We've talked in the past about how Netflix has done a lot right over the years, but that doesn't preclude them from making a wrong step. Apparently, with the company's launch in Canada, it decided to hire actors to pretend they were really excited at the launch event (found via Mathew Ingram). Not only that, but many of the paid "actors" were then made available to journalists to interviews about how excited they were... without revealing that they were being paid by Netflix. They were apparently given the following instructions:

"Extras are to behave as members of the public, out and about enjoying their day-to-day life, who happen upon a street event for Netflix and stop by to check it out," reads an information sheet handed out to extras.

"Extras are to look really excited, particularly if asked by media to do any interviews about the prospect of Netflix in Canada."

Netflix has since apologized, and claimed that the "script" wasn't supposed to be given to the "extras," but was merely to get the permit for the launch event, which they had described as a "documentary." Either way, the fact that no one saw a problem with this before it got this far is pretty damning.

Filed Under: canada, pr, shills
Companies: netflix

How Much Of That All Important Journalism Is Really PR?

from the more-than-half,-apparently dept

We get pitched stories from PR people all the time, and probably 99.9% of them end up getting ignored and trashed -- mostly because they're not even close to relevant, but often because we have no interest in being someone's free promotional team. What's amusing, however, is that invariably, days after we get pitched on certain stories, I end up seeing them appear in all sorts of mainstream publications, including some of the biggest and "most trusted" names in journalism.

And yet we keep getting told that we need to "support" this all important newspaper industry so they can carry on with the important democracy-saving task of journalism?

Last year, we noted that some attempts to count how many stories a newspaper actually reported on each day showed that the numbers were woefully low -- just a handful per day, with the rest all filled in with fluff and wire service copy. But it gets even more ridiculous once you realize that many of the "stories" that reporters worked on were really little more than gussied up press releases turned into "articles."

Boing Boing points us to a recent study in Australia that looked at a week's worth of newspaper stories, and found that more than half were placed by PR people, though there was definitely a pretty wide range depending on the newspaper.

This seems like a pretty important finding to be included in any debate about "saving" newspapers -- especially when the government is talking about stepping in to tax others to prop up newspapers. If all they're really doing is propping up efforts to run wire copy and run thinly veiled advertisements-as-news, is that really what the government should be supporting? It seems we have this mental "ideal" of journalism, represented by Woodward and Bernstein, holding politicians accountable for their actions -- but that rarely happens in practice. Instead, too much of traditional journalism has become notetaking -- writing down what politicians and PR people say and repeating it back to an audience that could find that information themselves if they wanted it.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, pr

Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open

from the so-please-use-them dept

One of the points we've tried to make around here regularly is that this blog is not a traditional journalism effort. I am not a "reporter." I do not go out seeking stories to report on. I write about what I find interesting and I give my opinion on it -- and I do so in a way where I expect a discussion to happen in our comments from which we can all learn. I find that to be a lot better of an experience for everyone involved than to go out talking to a bunch of people behind closed doors and then writing up a "one true report" on the matter that probably leaves out half of the interesting stuff. Instead, I post what seems interesting and the comments are then very much a part of the story.

I've written many times before that we get more than enough stories sent to us by readers -- and I find plenty of interesting stories myself. I can't think of a single case where a PR person has turned me onto a PR story that I've cared about and hadn't already seen elsewhere. But PR people still fill my inbox daily with stories about all sorts of stuff we'd never write about, because they clearly don't read the site. They assume that any tech story is automatically relevant, so they spam me and probably 100 other sites. Perhaps some of them care and find the emails useful, though I doubt it.

In the last year or two, there's been a growing number of PR people who have moved on to a new tactic. Since actually getting press to cover the company you're representing is difficult, they now send around emails to writers about certain news stories, saying that so-and-so exec at such-and-such company, which has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand, is "available for comment" on this story. So, for example, if two big companies announce a partnership, a PR person will send an email saying that some startup CEO in a market impacted by that partnership (barely), is "available for comment" about that partnership. It's basically a desperate PR person's attempt to get some press for a client where none is warranted.

Except, of course, we never quote people for posts here. We're not reporters. We're not looking for sources. We write about our opinions on stories and that's it. We'll quote another article, in order to comment on it, but we're not looking for sources at all. If you read Techdirt, you'd know that.

I recently put a message on Twitter about this, saying that, for all the PR people who had someone "available for comment" on stories, the comments on Techdirt are enabled and open for them to comment on any story they feel is relevant. It got a really good response on Twitter, so I figured I'd expand on it into a post. If you are a PR person, and you represent someone who has "a comment" on a particular story, please point them to the site where they are free to comment away, along with everyone else, as a part of a conversation, not some PR effort. And, please don't be offended if I just emailed you a link to this post in response to your offer to have some random exec "comment" on some unrelated story.

Filed Under: comments, conversation, journalism, pr

PR Response Via Adwords?

from the that's-one-tactic dept

I vaguely recall a similar story a couple years ago, though now I can't find it, but the Nieman Journalism Lab has an article about how PR folks are starting to use targeted Google AdWords buys to respond to negative press coverage. It doesn't seem like this sort of thing would really be all that effective, but the article discusses a PR guy who bought up AdWords on a variety of related keywords for the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, after the NY Times came out with a negative story about overfishing. Of course, it looks like the guy also went over the line, claiming in one ad that the NY Times "apologizes for story," when the truth is that it just apologized for its use of a photograph it didn't have the rights to -- not the story itself. Amusingly, the guy also buys the reporters' own names as keywords in running his ads. I could see how that might intimidate the journalists (if they're particularly thin-skinned) but it's not really clear how that actually helps get the "other side" out.

What was potentially more interesting is that the NY Times (unlike many other newspaper websites) actually linked to the Council's website within the story, and the Council changed the page that clickers ended up on to a rebuttal to the NY Times story, whereas before it had just been a page about the type of fish in question. That seems like a smart move by the Fish Council, though it makes you realize why some publications might be skeptical about linking out, especially when whoever operates the site being linked to has the opportunity to change the site.

Filed Under: adwords, pr

Could PR People Replace Journalists?

from the oh,-the-horrors dept

One of the most common complaints about the trouble facing newspapers today is the woeful cry "but who will do investigative journalism?" Of course, that's silly. There are plenty of new entities springing up everyday online that do investigative journalism -- and do it well. On top of that, we noted that especially in the political realm, where partisans had tremendous interest in digging up dirt on opponents, we had little fear that investigations would take place. And while the initial investigations could be biased, getting the info out there would allow more non-biased parties to sort through the details and figure out what is and what is not true.

Romenesko points us to a column by Tim Cavanaugh taking this concept one step further: suggesting that a subset of PR people may end up taking on the role of investigative journalists. Now, I'm sure plenty of journalists are cringing at the concept -- and certainly, as someone who gets bombarded daily with idiotic story pitches that are spun to such ridiculous levels I can only laugh at them (as I hit delete), it makes me cringe a bit. But some of his points are worth thinking about. First, he notes that the number of PR jobs has been growing rapidly -- and that, fundamentally, there are a lot of similarities between the two jobs (in fact, many people go from one to the other), in that a key role is putting together a good "story."

And though it's considered wise to believe the contrary, these communications types are not constructing all these news items entirely (or even mostly) by lying. Flackery requires putting together credible narratives from pools of verifiable data. This activity is not categorically different from journalism. Nor is the teaching value that flackery provides entirely different from that of journalism: Most of the content you hear senators and congressmen reading on C-SPAN is stuff flacks provided to staffers....

But the idea of public relations (and its many fancy permutations, from "image management" to "oppo research" to "crisis") replacing objective journalism becomes less scary when you reflect that, pace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the cast of High School Musical 3, we are not all in this together. Communications is a highly competitive environment, and it is becoming more competitive. Frequently the most valuable information comes out just because somebody wants to make somebody else look bad.

No, it's certainly not the perfect solution (but what is?). But the main point is that there are other ways to get investigations done and get information out there... and then there's still lots of room for others to pour through the info to see what's real and what's not. I don't think that PR people will replace investigative journalism by any stretch of the imagination, but it's worth thinking about how they certainly may pick up the slack in some areas.

Filed Under: investigative journalism, journalism, newspapers, pr

Verizon's Claims That Its Info-Sharing Plans Are Harmless Ring Hollow

from the that-which-is-made-not-immediately-full-of-clarity dept

Over the weekend, David Weinberger, one of the co-authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto wrote that he'd gotten a 45-page pamphlet of legalese from Verizon Wireless saying he could opt out of letting the company share "Customer Proprietary Network Information" with other groups. The rather broadly worded statement, which said the company could give info like call records to "affiliates, agents and parent companies," kicked up some fuss online. GigaOM says that this is the same issue that popped up in late 2007, when Verizon sent a similar notice to its customers. Verizon's PR bloggers say that now, just like in 2007, there's nothing to worry about -- in fact, the PR person went so far as to merely cut and paste his comments on the issue from two years ago. He says that Verizon won't sell customer's info to third parties; it just needs their consent to share it among the Verizon group of companies so it can offer people bundled services.

Given the way the company is communicating the issue -- a bill insert few people will likely pay attention to, written in a format that's pretty difficult, if not impossible, for most average people to divine any real meaning from -- it's hard to accept the explanation at face value. This is representative of the lack of transparency telcos and ISPs often take on privacy issues. Instead of clearly explaining themselves and what they're doing with customer data, they shroud their efforts in secrecy and legalese, then just say "there's nothing to worry about, just move along." If there really is nothing to worry about, why can't they do a better job of making that clear to the public? Their method of communication, and the way they explain themselves, simply increases consumers' skepticism and makes it look like they've got something to hide. In addition, making the system opt-out, rather than opt-in, doesn't help either.

Filed Under: cpni, information sharing, pr
Companies: verizon

PR Guy Says Bloggers Should Shut Up And Take Press Releases

from the well,-then dept

When we first started Techdirt, one of the things I said clearly on the site was not to send us press releases, as we had no interest in writing about them. Yet, so many PR people clearly chose not to read the site and they send them anyway. They don't read the fact that we don't want press releases -- and in most cases they clearly don't read the site because the press releases obviously are about stuff we never write about. And it just gets worse and worse. These days, my inbox is filled with more press releases than regular email -- and I don't post any of them. You would think that PR people would eventually recognize how inefficient it is to send these press releases -- but since it's so easy to just cc every email address in a press list, they never even think about it. This leads me to write posts trashing PR people. But, of course, that does no good, because (as already established) the PR people who send us press releases obviously don't actually read the site.

While there are some PR people who understand this, and with whom I have a good relationship, the vast majority don't seem to care at all. And, now, some seem to be going in the opposite direction. Romenesko points us to a marketing/PR guy who claims that bloggers with large audiences have a responsibility to just accept these press releases -- even if they have no intention of writing about them:

In my view, a popular, well-read blog de facto takes on some of the public trust that the mainstream media have always assumed.... Why shouldn't I send you a press release? If you've got 2,000 readers, you're like a small newspaper. Newspapers don't complain when we send them press releases. They may throw the release away, but they don't write articles ridiculing the person who had the audacity to send it, as some bloggers do when they get an unwanted release.

Well, we've got a lot more than 2,000 readers, and if we have any sort of de facto "public trust" with our readers, it's to write about what we think they'll find interesting -- and they've made it clear they don't care about press release "fake news." And if we ridicule PR people -- it's not simply for sending us a press release. It's for clearly not reading the site where we ask them not to send us press releases and for not understanding what we want to write about.

We do want story ideas. We have always asked our readers for story ideas. But press releases aren't story ideas. They're attempts to spin a story in a positive manner with a bunch of unwanted and useless information that actually makes our job harder.

The fact is, in a very short time, you've become a key cog in our society's communication machine. You're part of something that's destroying the old model; at the same time, you're being given the opportunity to help create something worthwhile to take its place.

Yes, and part of that "something worthwhile" is getting rid of simply parroting spin from a company PR person. It's about having a real conversation. Spamming people with press releases is part of that "old model" that isn't working. Why do you think it's okay that journalism is changing, but it's just hunky dory that PR people do the same old thing?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that you have an obligation to actually write about what's in press releases. The world will go on whether you tell your readers about XYZ Widgets or not. But understand that you have an audience and people are going to want your ear. Accept that as a compliment, and don't be indignant when it happens.

No. You've got it wrong. We know that we have an audience and people are going to want our ear. And that's why we make it clear how to get our ear. You're the one choosing to ignore the very clear terms of engagement that we've laid out -- and thus, you shouldn't get upset when we point out that you weren't paying attention. Since you seem to think our "ear" is so valuable, isn't it up to you to at least understand how to get that ear to pay attention? If you want to be lazy and not understand, that's not our fault.

Finally, the biggest problem with press releases is simple: they're not actually about getting the ear of the blogger. They're about using the blogger as a one-way path to that blogger's audience. It's missing the point of why many (though certainly not all) bloggers do what they do. They blog to be a part of the conversation -- which is more than a one-way path. It's a multi-directional conversation where everyone gets something out of it. If you stop looking at the blogger as a one-way road to an audience, and realize that the blogger, the readers and the company you represent should all be part of a larger conversation, you might realize just how ineffective press releases are for that purpose.

Filed Under: bloggers, pr, press releases

Creative Labs Backs Down After PR Mess

from the not-happily-though dept

Following the brouhaha that erupted earlier this week after Creative Labs took down forum posts from a driver modder, the company has given in and restored the posts, recognizing that it needed to do so for PR reasons. However, the statement that it released to The Register (at the link) basically says that everyone misunderstood Creative's position. Creative claims it was only worried about other company's IP being infringed, which could potentially put everyone in legal hot water. That could be true, but it still handled the whole thing rather awkwardly.

Filed Under: drivers, modders, pr
Companies: creative labs

PR Firm Says Video Games Should Be Regulated... After Video Game Lobby Picks Different Vendor

from the don't-mess-with-hill-&-knowlton dept

It's a competitive business world out there and sometimes you don't get the clients that you want. But, should you take revenge on companies that opt not to use your services? Apparently that's what PR firm Hill & Knowlton did (though the firm denies it). The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the lobbying group for the video game industry, went searching for a PR firm recently. H&K had competed for the business, and as a part of that, conducted a survey about video games to aid in its presentation. The ESA chose to go with a different firm... and H&K then released parts of the study that painted the video game industry in a negative light in what certainly looks like retribution. The firm put out a press release announcing "60% of respondents agree that the government should regulate the sale of video games," which is exactly the opposite message the ESA wants out there, of course. The actual study had some other conclusions that fit more with the ESA's message, but H&K chose to highlight the exact message that the ESA has been fighting against. In fact, the whole press release pushes the idea that the industry should be regulated, completely skipping over the other parts of the study.

Filed Under: pr, studies, video games

The Most Boring PR People In The World

from the spice-it-up-a-little,-please dept

Like many bloggers, we get inundated with ridiculous press releases about stuff we'd absolutely never write about. While we won't go to the level of Chris Anderson's decision to publicly shame and block every emailer who spams him, sometimes we do try to give some advice -- such as the time we tried to remind PR people that we don't want press releases. Seriously. Don't send them. Ever.

Of course, the real problem is that the annoying PR people don't read the site, so not only do they have no clue what we write about, they also don't see the messages trying to tell them how to better communicate with us. But, still, sometimes it does help to get PR people talking about these things, and if we have to do it, we might as well try to do it constructively. I'd been meaning to post a note about "the most boring PR pitch in the world," but kept letting it slip. However, I'm reminded of it after seeing the bizarre situation (from the same firm) between Valleywag and MWW, a PR shop. Apparently, one of the folks at MWW sent a PR spam to Valleywag, but left in all the edits showing that it was a copied template. Amusing, but not too surprising. However, in response, the PR person who sent the email is now threatening legal action (over what, we have no clue). More interesting, though, is that Valleywag (in that same post) highlights an email that got sent around MWW about how to pitch bloggers, including things like "Don't pitch, talk" and "Be brief."

Well, it appears that some of the folks at MWW take that second one a bit too seriously. For a few months now, the folks at MWW send me a regular stream of PR spam that often has a totally unintelligible subject line, such as the model number of a new mobile phone that I don't recognize and don't care about. It's also just sent from a general email, rather than a person's name. Then, the crux of the message itself is to not tell me why I should possibly care:

Greetings,

We have posted recent news to our media site. Below is the link and abstract for the announcement. Please go to our site if you would like to learn more or to download images or specs.

Best,
MWW Group -- Dallas

Click here to view article.

The "click here to view article" is the entire "abstract." I have no idea what this pitch is about or why I should care. The messages from MWW all appear this way, though sometimes it will actually include a one sentence snippet from the press release as the "abstract" way at the bottom while others just ask us to click for no good reason. Now, to its credit, MWW isn't technically sending us a press release. However, if you are going to try to engage with bloggers (or real reporters, for that matter), what's wrong with actually (1) appearing human and (2) giving the person a reason to read what you've got to say? "We have posted recent news to our media site, click here" without any reason why I should care at all is hardly a compelling pitch. We're getting spammed all day long with pitches we already don't care about. To not even tell us what you're actually pitching seems beyond ridiculous. So, again, do not send us press releases, but if you must communicate with us, at least give us a reason to care.

Filed Under: pr
Companies: mww