The irrelevancy of press releases

I've been working with a number of reporters/editors/bloggers to take a closer look at what has been landing in their inboxes. The following is a brief analysis of 340 pitches and press releases sent by various PR agencies and companies over the course of a week to one editor at a major technology publication. Emails were sorted based on relevance/irrelevance and relevant pitches/press releases were evaluated on quality, news value, and whether the editor used the emails to generate news coverage.

Overall Quality

• Of the 340 press releases/pitches I reviewed, only 52 were relevant to this editor and his publication.
• Looking closer at those 52, only 13 answered the basic question of why their news was significant or unique and only 3 used third parties (customers, analysts, third party experts) to back up their claims.
• 23 personalized their pitches for this editor yet only 4 answered basic questions such as: "Why are you sending this to me (reporter/editor) and why should my publication care?" This is where most reporters often make their decision to either read further or delete.
• 4 received coverage in the publication, but they were all from well-known companies.

Newswires

• 109 of the releases/pitches were delivered via the newswires, but only 7 were relevant to this particular editor. This may be because newswires often distribute news based on a pre-determined "profile" or "personal beat."

As part of this exercise, I looked at the profiles filled out by this editor for PRWeb and Marketwire. The profile options are similar: A user is provided with a checklist of subject areas, regions, languages, and other criteria. In my opinion, the choices are far too broad; just imagine how much irrelevant stuff would be sent to you by simply checking "computer," for example. That seems to have been the case with PRWeb, as only 2 of its 12 releases were relevant for this editor.

PRWeb even has a "quality" filter ranging from 1-5. This editor had set the filter to 4. When asked about the filter, PRWeb responded:

"All of our press releases are graded on a 5-point scale by our editorial staff. The grade takes into account the newsworthiness of the release, editorial quality of the release, etc. If you select a 3 or above you will ensure that the news releases that are delivered to you are top-tier content."

In this case, and based on what I know about this editor and his publication, most of what was sent through PRWeb was irrelevant. Therefore, I would question the usefulness of a "quality" filter that doesn’t take "relevance" into account. If i was indeed "top-tier content," it likely went unnoticed. I did review the 2 (out of 12) relevant releases sent via PRWeb and found them lacking in both news value and quality.

Marketwire sent this editor an email compilation of 71 press releases or "abstracts" based on the general term "technology." Again, based on this editor's focus, only 2 were truly relevant, and the abstracts failed to give any journalist a reason to read further.

Let me start by saying that this was not a fun exercise (although I would recommend it for all PR professionals, preferably early in their careers). I had an ulterior motive for doing this analysis, to further document how large volumes of poor quality pitches and press releases constantly bombard the media yet do not generate much value or coverage. Interestingly, PRWeek/PRNewswire last year released the results from a survey of 1,232 journalists that further bear this out. From the report:

"The survey…indicates that journalists have mixed feelings about dealing with PR pros. When asked what percentage of pitches they receive is related to the subject they cover, the highest number (48.7 percent) say zero to 25 percent."

Another interesting point raised in the PRWeek/PRNewswire survey was the percentage of journalists who rely on personal contacts for stories:

"According to the survey, 86.2 percent cite personal contacts as 'extremely' or 'very' important in finding experts for stories."

This point is interesting because it suggests that the potential value in using a quality-based news distribution model such as the one we use here at Newsvetter. If reporters/bloggers/editors associate your work with quality and relevance, you may be able separate yourself from the noise and increase your chances of becoming part of their personal networks.

On a final note, if the mass distribution/low quality model is so ineffective in influencing coverage, why does it continue to be used? In my opinion, there are three reasons:

1. It's good business. According to a Fortune article in 2007, press releases represented a $2.2 billion market. This does not include the amount it costs companies to have their PR people write them, which is considerable.
2. Search engine optimization. With so many SEO tools and strategies being applied to press releases, PR people can game the system and bypass the editorial process entirely, keeping the floodgates open at all cost.
3. Free PR tools that don't vet the user nor the content.

(Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on the old Newsvetter blog last year.)