Just a small piece of 'PR learning' to share.
After laying out a very clear Response Source yesterday asking for a rather technical set of opinions on the use of...
... open source configuration and automation management tools (such as Puppet, Ansible, SmartFrog, Juju, OpenQRM, CFEngine & Chef)...
...I did invite the likes of IBM, EMC, HP, CA etc.. to also comment.
BUT - and here's the common mistake... (focus on point #2)
But the kids from the big boys who do not need to be named (big agency name, big client, none of the ones listed above) sent me:
1. Emails asking for an interview when I had clearly specified that I was out all afternoon and open to canned comment if it was properly written
2. Suggestions that EMC (it wasn't EMC) could talk about EMC's products when I specifically asked for opinions on Puppet, Ansible, SmartFrog, Juju, OpenQRM, CFEngine & Chef.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITY --- this was a chance for vendors to talk about the industry and gain credibility in a wider sphere, there will be plenty more stories to focus on the client itself, this IS NOT THAT TIME ... this is a chance to earn wider kudos with the readers and (if I may be so bold as to suggest) also the journalist too.
3. Questions about when my deadline was when it was clearly stated in the Response Source.
WHY WHY WHY is it that PR people are so lazy and slapdash when it comes to detail?
Is it the 'excitement' of thinking they might have a hit?
Does this cloud their ability to read the full brief?
I worked in PR for 7-years (mainly for Brodeur) and would have been shot for this kind of shoddy approach given that the PR person is spending the client's money out of what is no doubt a meaty monthly retainer.
Exasperated as always --
Adrian
----------
Adrían Bridgwater
Technology Journalist
http://twitter.com/Abridgwater
