
According to holdthefrontpage.co.uk, journalists consider less than 10% of the PR material they receive to be relevant to them:
Most PR material ‘irrelevant’ say journalists
Two thirds of journalists want to receive less material from the commercial PR sector according to the preliminary results of an online survey.
[...] Early results have shown that half the respondents consider less than 10pc of the content delivered to them by the commercial PR sector is relevant and that two-thirds of them want to receive less such material.
When I read the report, my first thought was that the findings themselves are a little weak in the PR stakes – a great headline but not much content. There’s little information in the report about a) the number of respondents and b) how broadly representative that sample is of journalists in general. So, ironically, the piece may be guilty of exactly what makes so much PR just hot air: a lack of credible numbers to back it up.
Of course, it’s now relatively easy to set oneself up as a PR professional, buy access to a media database and start churning out releases in all directions. Spam exists in every industry – why should PR be any different? They say spam accounts for some 90-95% of all emails sent, so it’s not really surprising that journalists are being targeted.
The real issue is this: are experienced PR professionals who should know better putting out hardly relevant and barely interesting information en masse? Well yes, some are. Do they make up the majority? Actually, I think not.
Remember, a PR person’s job is to get coverage. Very few, if any, of us are being paid simply to spew out information. It has to find a voice in a media that is then heard by the client’s target audience. Spam won’t achieve that, so I find it hard to believe it’s a practice that’s dominating mainstream PR activity.
Of course, I can see why a journalist on the receiving end of hundreds of time-wasting emails and calls per day would think differently.













