Once you’ve got a compelling story idea, an expert source at the ready, and a particular journalist in mind, it’s time to write that pitch. How well this is done can be the difference between an interview and an express route to the trash bin.  Consider following these simple steps for maximum likelihood of success.

Keep it Short

The journalist you’re contacting is likely under a current deadline. Chances are also excellent that they constantly receive unprompted story suggestions, some of which are only marginally relevant to their beat. They don’t have time to read a novel, so you’d better get to the point quickly.

Don’t beat around the bush. Use the subject line to quickly summarize why you’re writing. Tell them what the story is, your source’s credentials, and what they can offer. A general rule of thumb to follow is three paragraphs maximum – and by paragraphs, I mean 2-4 sentences per paragraph.

Keep it Interesting

This is a no-brainer that can also be difficult to get right. I generally try not to get too cute when pitching journalists, but I don’t want to be overly vanilla either. Strive for punchy, concise copy that tells the reporter exactly how you envision the story, and your source’s compelling role within that story.

Keep it Custom

Whenever possible, tailor the pitch for the journalist that’s receiving it. Mention the publication. Talk about an upcoming issue for which this story would be a perfect fit. Make sure they know that you wrote this pitch with them specifically in mind.

And whatever you do, don’t use the salutations “Dear Sir or Madam”, “Hello”, or another generic greeting that basically screams “You’re on a mass media list and every one of them got this exact pitch.”

Part 4 of The Art of the Pitch will be posted next week, in which we’ll discuss “Sending the Pitch”.

Know the Subject

In order to create an effective media pitch, a PR practitioner should know the industry well enough to know why this particular pitch is relevant.

“This could have a major impact on the industry” by itself is probably the biggest cop-out you can have in a media pitch. It suggests that the PR person hasn’t done enough research to know what impact, if any, there might actually be. Show, don’t tell, is a common theme used by journalists, and it should apply just as well for PR practitioners. Does the story you’re suggesting change legal precedent? Make us safer? Provide a new or better service to society? Improve upon an existing product in a meaningful way? General platitudes about “impact,” “shakeup”, and “trends”, without explanation or elaboration, will get you nowhere.

Know the Media

It’s not enough to know the industry – you’ve got to know the media that covers that industry. What outlets have covered this subject before? Which ones have done the best job? Is there a specific beat reporter, or should you go through an assignment editor?

Some publications allow contributed articles; some do not. Some have daily deadlines; others plan stories for weeks or more. Has the story you’re pitching been covered to death already? These are highly relevant details that should help shape your outreach.

Know the Journalist

Part of the PR professional’s job is to put him or herself in the shoes of the journalist. Make sure you’ve got the right contact before firing off that email. Try to avoid the “shotgun” approach in which you simply replace the name at the top and blast out a pitch to 100 people. Have they covered this issue or service before?

Customize. Empathize. Humanize. This approach may take longer, but it will likely yield better results.

Part 3 of The Art of the Pitch will be posted next week, in which we’ll discuss “Crafting the Pitch”.

Just as advertisers try to “pitch” consumers a message they hope will resonate, public relations professionals pitch journalists with suggestions for stories, on behalf of their clients. But not all pitches are created equal, and it helps to understand what circumstances create the most favorable conditions for eventual media exposure.

For our purposes, let’s assume you’ve got a fully-prepared spokesperson ready and available to do an interview . All you need to do is secure and arrange the opportunity.

#1 – Business Relevance

The most vital step in any media relations program is to consider what kinds of coverage make the most sense from a business perspective. Coverage in the Baltimore Sun likely won’t do much good for a business that operates solely in Seattle, for example, nor will coverage in a consumer interest publication for a B-to-B manufacturer. If you want to sell more widgets, focus on the media whose audience may be interested in those widgets.

#2 – Current Events

News, by definition, is the reporting of a recent event.  Journalists need sources to comment on these events, so the more you can match the needs of your source to the needs of the journalist, the better it is for everyone.

General, how-to stories work well enough, but the most successful pitches address a current event and provide a source for commentary.

#3 – Source Expertise

This one may seem obvious, but it’s worth considering for a moment whether the topic you’re pitching aligns with the expertise of your spokesperson. Sometimes PR people get a little trigger-happy with the media relations before doing due diligence with the source, and that’s a mistake. For example, with our law firm clients we are careful to check that a certain case or court ruling is something they’ve been following, and could speak about with authority.

The last thing you want is to secure an interview with a journalist, only to have the source decline because they’re not familiar with the subject.

#4 – Timeliness

The world of public relations revolves rapidly. What’s hot today is old news by tomorrow. Media deadlines are short, so timely outreach is vital. PR departments (and their agencies) need to pay close attention to what’s making news (or better yet, what’s likely to be making news in the near future). Make sure that your spokespeople are available and not, say, taking a cross-country flight in the next few hours after pitching an interview. Journalists won’t wait.

This is a bird’s-eye view of four critical elements that make for an ideal media pitch. Part 2 of The Art of the Pitch will be posted next week, in which we’ll discuss “Doing Your Pitch Homework”.

Find your niche. And no, your practice area doesn’t count. It is a starting point. For example, for every attorney that focuses on United States patent law, there are thousands with the same qualifications. By narrowing the scope of your media relations efforts, you winnow the field, qualify your story prospects and better your chances of responding in a timely and helpful fashion to specific media opportunities. Go beyond “patent law” and find areas that match your background on which to focus. The human genome. Business method patents. Semiconductors. Major litigation. Something, anything, that creates a more specific public relations agenda will do wonders for your efforts.

But wait, what’s this? Dozens of comments attached to this very article? Well, how flattering. Let’s just click these and see what the kind readers have to say…

Uh-oh. You’ve just entered the Danger Zone of online media – the comments section. These anonymous, thinly-moderated forums attached to most articles can be mocking, misinformed, off-topic and downright nasty. Do you respond? Complain to the editor? Ignore them? Tell your PR firm to begin an Astroturf campaign to drown out the nay-sayers? (I am kidding about this last one.)

Here are a few suggestions for dealing with the comments section.  Keep in mind that each situation is unique and appropriate responses may vary.

Keep an eye on the comments, but don’t overreact. People will make disparaging remarks. Welcome to the Internet. The vocal minority has the megaphone, and they are not afraid to use it. Don’t mistake a few negative responses for general public opinion.  Except for extreme situations, plan on letting much of this stuff slide.

If some comments offer legitimate, specific points of criticism, respond using your full name and title, and remain emotionally neutral. This can be a powerful rejoinder, serving to diffuse hostility and bring some light to the situation. People, even anonymous ones, appreciate companies that are willing to engage at a personal level. In this situation it also helps to have social media channels at the ready. If you’ve felt the need to respond via comments, chances are you should also make a statement via Twitter, Facebook and the company blog.

Notify the journalist or website moderator. Sometimes online discussions can turn downright hateful. Some media police for this sort of thing, but it’s not unreasonable to pick up the phone to alert them of something that’s attached to your story that needs removal. Hate speech, racism and profanity would fall into this category. But be careful to only use this option when necessary; calling to complain about all the negative comments in your story, frustrating as they may be, will probably get you nowhere while also irritating the journalist that wrote the story. Choose your battles carefully.

Comment sections are the Wild West of online media. By proactively monitoring and responding to each case as appropriate, companies can keep tabs on what is being said, offer direct responses when appropriate, and help keep the worst offenders at bay.

This incredible generosity has created the need for volunteers to help prepare these bikes to give away, an event which will happen on December 10 at 21 locations around the metro area.  No technical skills are necessary to volunteer, so if you want to be part of a great organization that brings joy to local Twin Cities families this holiday season, please visit www.fb4k.com and click on ‘Volunteer!’

Here’s a fun anecdote to this story: Art Engstrom, the retired owner and founder of one of the first and largest Schwinn dealerships in America, has donated his warehouse space to Free Bikes 4 Kidz to use for repairing bikes this year. This is the same location where his bike shop was functioning 30 years ago. Last Saturday Art came to the site to volunteer to work on bikes, only to find that there were several bikes in the pile that had stickers proving they were purchased at his store, that very location, 30 years earlier. So Art was now repairing a bike that he sold 30 years prior, and preparing that bike to have a second life – given away to a child in need – from the same premises. What goes around, comes around!

Today is picture day at my daughter’s daycare. In my unbiased opinion, she will be the most photogenic and adorable child present, partly due to genetics, but also partly due to the outfit my wife picked out for her last weekend at Ridgedale Mall.

I was along for the ride during this mission, and when I wasn’t checking my phone for fantasy football updates, I was giving nods of approval for the various outfits my wife considered. We were in some sort of chic designer clothing store catered to parents of infants and toddlers, so pretty much every outfit looked to be picture-day ready. We aren’t normally the type of parents to shop in such stores, but again: picture day. Out-of-state grandparents demand satisfaction.

When the decision was made, I had a conversation with the cashier that made me think about direct marketing, and how the quest for personal data seems to have become a never-ending struggle between retailers and consumers.

Cashier: Is that all for you today?

Me: Yes, thank you.

Cashier: OK, what is your email address?

Me: No, thank you.

Cashier: No problem. What is your phone number?

Me: No, thank you.

Cashier: OK. Are you a member of our rewards program?

Me: No, thank you.

And so on. Eventually I was able to hand over a credit card, take my item and leave the store. But the whole experience just left me slightly irritated. It’s not that I haven’t been through that song and dance before – indeed, nearly every retailer these days requests the same personal data if you so much as pop in for a pack of gum.

Now, I work in marketing and public relations. I get it. Customer loyalty programs are great for generating repeat business and showing appreciation for reliable patrons. Phone numbers lead to addresses which lead to direct mail offers. These campaigns can be successful, else they wouldn’t be so prevalent (more so all the time, it seems). But we don’t even have a land line. Our cell numbers won’t provide an address, and we certainly don’t want to receive offers via text message. Is there a risk that eventually there will be pushback from consumers? A polite “no, thank you” isn’t a big deal, but three or four for a single transaction, times many transactions over time add up and, if you’re like me, it sours the experience. Customers want to get in, out and on with their busy lives. The personal nature of the requests can be off-putting. Customer lists are sometimes sold to third parties leading to a greater supply of junk mail.

Retailers generally have to market to survive, and I’m not advocating they stop doing so. What I would suggest is smarter, more personal marketing that avoids holding up, or even badgering, every customer at the point-of-purchase. Also, a little employee communications coaching can go a long way. Instead of “What is your email address”, opt for a softer approach. “Would you like to provide an email so we can send you exclusive offers?” It’s more courteous, it’s transparent, and it becomes a two-way opt-in process.

Point-of-purchase data mining isn’t likely to go away any time soon. A few tweaks to the way retailers go about handling the process though could result in a better response rates, higher levels of trust, and in my case, less annoyed customers.

Regardless, I still can’t wait to see how the pictures turn out.

Engagement Overload

You’re on Facebook. Probably a majority of the people you know are on Facebook. The site has over 750 million users, many of whom check the site constantly. LinkedIn continues to gain influence. Not to mention Twitter, Tumblr, FourSquare and countless other social platforms that integrate these big hitters into their sharing options (Xbox LIVE, for example). How many people do you think are eager to manage yet another online profile? Especially when everyone that’s on Google+ is already on Facebook. Eventually, social media saturation is reached and choices must be made.

In addition, participation within these networks generally involves posting detailed personal information: birth date, email, phone number, political views, location, etc. At what point will users shy away from giving this information to yet another corporation?

You’re Already Hooked

Business blogger and fellow skeptic Mark Schafer points out on his blog {grow} that, “…Facebook may be entrenched as the king of social networking sites for a long time because the emotional and psychological cost of switching to something else is too high.”

Exactly. Those that check in and update their Facebook profile regularly have built up tremendous loyalty to the service, whether they realize it or not. It’s not uncommon for today’s college students and recent grads to have over 1,000 friends on Facebook. Many have dozens of photo albums. Starting over would be no simple task. On the flip side, the older generation is still cautiously dipping its toes in the Facebook waters. To many of them, Google+ remains foreign altogether. Consider this invitation to Google+ I posted recently:

My Facebook friend is not exactly an early adopter. Now we expect Grandpa to begin using Circles and Sparks?

Social Segmentation

Speaking of Circles, this feature is a key differentiator. Essentially it takes one’s “friends list” a step further, allowing the user to segregate contacts into specific groups, then interact with each group as they please. It’s a feature that many have requested of Facebook as friend lists have evolved to include more coworkers and family members. And certainly having more control over one’s message is a positive thing. But it also has potential drawbacks, like requiring more effort to manage, the potential for user mistakes and the knowledge that you could be in someone’s circle titled “Jerks I Ignore”. (One does not have the ability to see what others have named their circles, or who is in them.)

No Third-Party Support

At least, not yet. Facebook embraced third-party development, which brought a new level of interactivity and innovation to the site. Farmville and Mafia Wars are just two hugely popular examples of what third-party support can bring.

From Math to Social Science

Can a company that knows algorithms and search technology also strike gold with social networking? It’s the same question many asked at the launch of Google Wave (and what a debacle that turned out to be!)

Paul Adams is a former Google employee that joined Facebook shortly before the launch of Google+. He recently felt the need to clarify a few things about his departure from Google, and described his frustrations this way: “Google is an engineering company, and as a researcher or designer, it’s very difficult to have your voice heard at a strategic level. Ultimately I felt that although my research formed a cornerstone of the Google social strategy, and I had correctly predicted how other products in the market would play out, I wasn’t being listened to when it came to executing that strategy. My peers listened intently, but persuading the leadership was a losing battle. Google values technology, not social science.” [emphasis added]

On the Plus Side

Still, despite a plethora of obstacles, it’s foolish to count Google out entirely over the long term. The company is flush with cash, employs many brilliant minds, and is already one of the world’s best-known brands. Millions of people use the company’s variety of products such as Gmail, YouTube, Picasa, Maps and of course the search engine itself.

Google+ does have some very good things going for it, too. “Hangouts” are video web chats that allow up to ten participants at once. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, one can edit their posts after publishing. And simply by not being Facebook, a certain segment will be eager to give it a try.

Google execs are referring to Google+ as a “project,” not a product. Eventually it will be open to everyone, not just those who have received an invitation. Currently the network does not support advertising, although we can expect that to change at some point. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, Facebook doesn’t have much reason to be worried.

It doesn’t help that Sony waited until six days after the breach to warn that customer banking information may have been compromised. That’s an eternity, both in terms of credit theft and crisis communications.

The key to effective crisis communications is to have a plan in place that allows for swift communication in the event of an incident, even while the damage is still being surveyed. Otherwise the public impression is that the company is dragging its feet (regardless of whether scores of employees are working 80 hours per week to fix the problem). Communicating before the extent of the damage is fully understood is difficult and uncomfortable. But it’s still better than remaining silent while hoping the IT team doesn’t turn up anything else.

A pre-developed crisis communications plan identifies spokespeople, key publics and preferred mediums. It allows for swift, centralized responses that minimize rumors and address key concerns. Perhaps most importantly, it anticipates various crises and the best response methods for each. Naturally, some details have to be filled in later because every crisis is unique, but in the age of social media every hour saved is crucial.

The Sony communications team deserves some credit for its handling of the situation so far – the PlayStation blog has posted numerous updates and alerts over the past week. The company posted a formal statement detailing actions being taken. But by delaying its admission of the most damaging details (that user credit card data may have been compromised) for nearly a week, Sony made a bad situation even worse.

Last week, a video surfaced of Congressman Patrick Duffy making some ill-advised comments about his $174,000 salary and his “struggles” to pay the bills. During the meeting, a member of the audience asked Duffy what he was paid, and whether Duffy would be willing to take a pay cut. Duffy’s response has received a fair bit of criticism online and, of course, by the opposition party:

After acknowledging his $174,000 annual salary, Duffy went on to say,

“I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I’m living high on the hog, I’ve got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I’m not living high on the hog.”

According to Census data, $174,000 is three times the median salary in Polk County, Wisconsin, which the Congressman represents. You can see why this comment is causing a bit of controversy and finger-wagging.

Unfortunately, the Polk County Republican Party came to the conclusion that it would be best for the video to just disappear from the Internet (not exactly an easy task). It began by removing the video from its own blog page and YouTube channel. Then it upped the ante by serving a takedown notice to the website TalkingPointsMemo, which was also hosting the video.

Two reasons this is bad strategy:
a) It’s ineffective. A quick YouTube search now brings up multiple copies of the video. See the Streisand Effect.
b) It’s bad PR. What was a one-day story has turned into a multi-day story. What was seen by a localized group of people is now being seen by a much more widespread audience. Attempts to scrub the Internet and liberal-leaning news websites only send the message that you’ve got something to hide. This in turn generates more interest in the original story, more media scrutiny, and more viral distribution of the remarks.

The Congressman probably wishes he could take back his original comments. But the best strategy now would be to clarify his remarks to the best of his ability, forget about trying to make the video disappear, and move on.