By Sahana Jayaraman, PepperDigital
As the media market dwindles, reporters are on the move, jumping jobs, changing beats and increasingly strapped for time and resources to do their due diligence when reporting. Moreover, there is stronger emphasis on speed versus accuracy. In fact, if you remember, Wall Street Journal’s managing editor issued a memo to staff in March saying that given revenue reality, all the Journal’s reporters will be judged by speed first, then everything else.
The result: sloppy journalism. - typos, misquotes, misattributes, and imbalanced reporting. With reporters focusing on being the first to report, the attitude is post now and adjust in real time as news unfolds. There is always time for getting the facts straight later, right? I’d say wrong, especially when a company’s reputation is involved.
So how do you hold journalists accountable, and how do clients who are misrepresented recover?
The Silicon Alley Insider wrote a story a couple weeks ago with a solution that caught my eye, “New PR: Beating Back Bad Press with Google AdWords.” The article talks about a PR practitioner that combats bad press from the New York Times in a non-traditional way - using Google Ad Words.
Traditionally, when a company is the subject of a critical or unfavorable news story, we recommend a more strategic approach to mitigate damage. Typically, this involves writing a letter to the editor, issuing a press release, or maybe even demanding a correction when warranted. In some cases, using social media to address the issue head on with activists is appropriate. At the end of the day though, none of these tactics are guaranteed.
One of these instances involves a New York Times front page story about hoki, a fish best known as the primary ingredient in the Filet-O-Fish, being at risk of depletion. Needless to say New Zealand companies that farm hoki weren’t pleased by the article because it implied irresponsible overfishing.
When the Times refused to run a correction, the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council took a less diplomatic and non-traditional approach by buying Google ads for keywords like “new Zealand hoki “ and “hoki new york times” in hope of clearing the air.
According to the article, “The ads sought to target people discussing or searching for more information about the story. They each linked to a page that purports to set the record straight about hoki fishing and includes emails exchanged with Times science editor Laura Chang.” The Silicon Alley Insider calls this move “Genius”!
Also, reported is that “Because the council’s hoki page was originally a straightforward description of the fish and its uses, the Times had linked to it in the third paragraph of the article, and 78,000 people clicked though, according to Sarah Crysell, a spokeswoman for the council. Taking advantage of that incoming traffic, the group transformed its hoki page into a rebuttal of the Times story.”
The PR firm involved coins this strategy “media accountability” – which I love. He claims it is his way of “holding the media accountable for their deliberate falsehoods” and dealing with “arrogant reporters who have a one-sided agenda.”
The Silicon Alley Insider says the firm is representing their client’s interests like any other PR agency should and would. And, doing it with Google AdWords is just a more novel and clever way of shedding like on the editor’s reprehensible behavior.
It’s hard to argue the effectiveness of this “hoki” tactic in terms of guerilla marketing within an overall communications strategy, however I do question its legitimacy as a stand-alone PR practice given that it’s no longer “earned media” but rather a “sponsored ad”. It’s like assuming the public perception of an advertorial and an article bylined by a reporter are the same. It’s a rapid fire and easy to execute band aid to a problem, but not a long-term solution. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council needs a more sustainable marketing approach to help them address this and other issues with those constituents that are central to their business. Tell us what you think.
