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 companies and PR agencies over the course of a week to one editor at a major technology publication.

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 (e.g., customers, analysts, third party experts) to back up their claims.
• 23 personalized their pitches for this editor yet only 4 answered basic questions like: "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 yet only 7 of them were relevant to this particular editor. This may be because newswires often distribute news based on a “profile” or “personal beat.”

As part of this exercise, I went in and 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 etc. In my opinion, the subject area choices are far too broad and cannot be more narrowly focused. Just imagine how much irrelevant stuff would be sent to you by simply checking “computer.” This appears to have occurred as only 2 of the 12 releases sent via PRWeb were relevant.

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 indeed it was "top-tier content" it likely went unnoticed. I did review the two (out of 12) relevant releases sent via PRWeb and I 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 actually relevant and the abstracts failed to give an editor/reporter any reason to read further.

Discussion

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 are being sent to the media each week and not generating much value. Interestingly, PRWeek/PRNewswire just 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%) say zero to 25%.”

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% cite personal contacts as "extremely" or "very" important in finding experts for stories.”

This point is interesting because it suggests the potential value in using a quality-based news distribution model like Newsvetter. If reporters/bloggers/editors associate your work with quality and relevance you may be able distinguish yourself from the competition (noise?) and increase your chances of becoming part of their personal network.

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 two reasons:

1. It's good business. According to a Fortune article last year, press releases represented a $2.2 billion market.
2. With the exception of Chris Anderson's public humiliation of PR people last November, the media just aren't publicly demanding a new approach from the PR industry (although anecdotally they really want one).

Until this happens, I fear it will be business as usual. This is where Newsvetter will be focusing it's efforts in coming months: getting the media to be more vocal about their needs from PR people.

Methodology

This editor forwarded emails from PR people, companies/organizations, and newswire services over the course of one week. Emails were sorted based on relevance/irrelevance and relevant pitches/press releases were evaluated on quality, news value and whether or not the editor used the emails to generate news coverage. Observation and discussion points are purely my opinion and do not necessarily represent those of the editor or publication.