PR: Coverage, at any cost?

They say that there is no such thing as bad PR. Are they right?

Last week was an interesting and revelatory week in PR-world. A PR company asked journalists, in writing, to guarantee that they would tweet using their clients hashtag and twitter handle in exchange for tickets to the BRITS. This raised some interesting questions about how far a PR agency should go in the hunt for coverage.

Not particularly surprisingly, the journalists did not like this approach. They leaked the email from the PR company and let loose on the Internet, filled with righteous indignation about journalistic ethics, professional integrity, and media trust. The hashtag was quickly hijacked with tweets and memes poking fun at the gaffe. Publically, journalist reactions ranged from mocking, to downright outraged.

The reaction of the PR agency was that, “the role of the PR agency is to pursue all coverage opportunities on behalf of its clients, including providing accurate brand references from the outset, for use across all platforms.”

Of course, getting coverage for clients is a key goal. But as this shows us, there is a fine line between coverage and _unwelcome coverage._ The client’s twitter handle was certainly used a lot – just perhaps not in the way that they were hoping.

From an agency standpoint, it appeared that the tactic was crossing a line from trying to influence coverage to trying to coerce coverage. It wasn’t difficult to predict that certain journalists might not take kindly to the explicit indication that they were expected to guarantee coverage in exchange for tickets.  As Sara Yirrell at CRN points out “The idea of a free press is exactly that. Free”.

In this age of social media, anyone can make anything public, and one tweet can go round the world in a matter of moments – and in doing so, occasionally having a greater impact than ten press releases.  In this environment, PR agencies need to ensure they are really considering all potential outcomes, both positive and negative.