Yesterday, I had an interesting phone conversation with a producer in charge of a Lifetime cable TV program. I've been handling publicity for a new book titled, "The Calcium Lie," which focuses on natural health. This producer offered my client a 3-4 minute segment on her nationally broadcast show in exchange for a fee of $16,000.

The idea of paying to get on the air also came up in a recent New York Times article that described a production company that had been soliciting business from various community foundations and universities. This production company apparently offered these organizations and schools the "opportunity" to be featured in a broadcast hosted by former news anchor Hugh Downs that would air on PBS stations throughout the U.S. In exchange for this coverage, this production company was demanding more than $20,000. The article questioned whether any of the clients who actually coughed up this hefty chunk of change ever received any airtime at all, but that's not my focus here.

I've come across the concept of "coverage in exchange for money" on other occasions too. Not long ago, I spoke with a friend who works for a market research firm led by a former political pollster and consultant. My friend said another publicist had offered his firm an interesting proposal. In exchange for a fee -- approximately $2,000 to $5,000, as I recall - this publicist "guaranteed" that he could place the CEO of the market research firm on Fox News for an interview.

This raises the question, "Is it ever possible for a publicist to guarantee that he or she can place a story or interview on the air?" If we're speaking about a legitimate news broadcast, in my experience, the answer is "no." That Lifetime cable TV program doesn't hold itself out as a true "news" program, so there's no "ethical dilemma" involved there. It really is possible to place a story on that program in exchange for a hefty fee. The question then becomes, "Is it worth it?" For a handful of individuals and companies, the answer may be "yes."

I strongly advise against taking that approach, however. Perhaps it's due to the fact that I spent 20 years as a producer with news organizations including CBS News and CNN, but I'm a big believer in the value of "earned media." In other words, if a story is truly newsworthy, I'm confident that there is always a way to deliver that story to an audience without having to pay to do it.

Besides, people are savvy news consumers these days - and they can tell the difference between a truly credible, legitimate news story and an "infomercial-style" paid segment. You simply can't buy that kind of credibility. As the phrase implies, this credibility must be earned.

When it comes to connecting a story or message with an audience, a number of my clients politely say that they have a very specific audience in mind - Oprah's audience. At that point, I usually lapse into my lecture about the importance of "casting a wide net" when pitching any story. (I'll always pitch the story to the producers I know at "Oprah," of course, but this is definitely the time for me to manage my client's expectations!)

The fact that so many people seem tolerant and receptive to the idea of a "guarantee" - and frequently seem willing to pay big money to anyone offering them that kind of promise - tells me that these people underestimate the power of a truly strategic PR campaign. Having represented a wide range of clients over the years, I've found that it's almost always possible to find a newsworthy angle that will appeal to the media - even if it means creating a contest around a product, or conducting a survey that will be of interest to journalists.

The individuals tempted by "guaranteed" coverage are really underestimating their own power in the PR process. Trust me, the producers, reporters and assignment desk editors who are the "gate-keepers" when it comes to getting a story on the air are constantly looking for new content, and are naturally receptive to story ideas that fit their broadcast or publication. These journalists are grateful for any pitch that will help them inform and entertain their audience. Believe it or not, these journalists have families and some semblance of a personal life too, and they are always grateful for any good story idea that will save them from "burning the midnight oil" to come up with yet another segment idea for their next show.

Like many other tempting offers, the promise of "guaranteed" placement in the news media is almost always too good to be true - and in the cases when this kind of coverage really can be delivered, the high price is rarely worth it. In responding to an offer like this, my advice is to echo the words of former First Lady Nancy Reagan, and "just say 'no.'"

If you would like to share your thoughts on the concept of paying to get a story on the air, I'd love to hear from you!
Click Here for Full Post and to Leave a Comment...

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination winds to a close in Denver next week, and those who have been following this extraordinarily long process have seen numerous battles and unexpected twists along the way. Certainly one of the more dramatic developments within recent weeks - and one that relates only tangentially, if at all, to Barack Obama - was the public admission by former senator John Edwards that he had been having an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, who had worked with him on the campaign trail in 2006.

Regardless of the moral and ethical implications of Edwards' behavior, the way this story was covered - and more importantly, the way it was not covered - by the news media reveals a dramatic change in the way most Americans now get their news.

Personally, I think it is a tragedy that this bright and compassionate leader who had been so outspoken on issues like eradicating poverty in America and taking action against global warming could be derailed by an issue that has nothing to do with his ability to lead. Politics aside, this story is important because it reveals the way the public is now exposed to stories and information in this internet age.

Prior to Edwards' own admission of his involvement with Rielle Hunter, virtually every single "mainstream" newspaper and television news organization had decided not to report a single word of the story. Consistent with its tabloid reputation, The National Enquirer was the publication that broke the story months ago and long remained the only one to print updates.

For those of us interested in the dynamics of public relations in this new media age, what is most significant about the Edwards story is that it had become part of the national (even global) conversation months before the "old-fashioned" traditional news sources decided to break their silence. In an August 8 article, The New York Times quoted from the blog of former The San Francisco Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein, who questioned the way the traditional media leaders had maintained a "hands-off" approach to this story. Bronstein wrote that they did this in large measure simply because of the "gutter" reputation of the publication in which the Edwards story first appeared. In his blog, Bronstein asked "Does anyone really think that a story splashed in the tabs and debated on blogs like a powerful fire backdraft is somehow not part of the public discourse?"

I've found this story to be a useful reminder of how important it is - in my work representing and advising authors, public speakers, and small business owners, no clients in the political sector - to "think outside the box" these days. For the past few years, I've reminded my clients that we now live in an age in which people can "cherry-pick" the information they're most interested in - and (like it or not) we've entered an era in which a story in The National Enquirer or on the PerezHilton.com website is suddenly (shockingly?) on the same "level playing field" as a story appearing in the highly esteemed New York Times. Granted, the reporter of a story appearing in that newspaper is probably more deserving of our respect and consideration than the author of an item published in The National Enquirer, but -- as we now see with the John Edwards scandal - that doesn't make the story itself any less true.

As a publicist, I certainly won't stop working hard to place my clients' stories in a well-respected newspaper like The New York Times or on a broadcast like NBC's "Today" show. Nevertheless, the Edwards scandal is a reminder that the spectrum of sources offering us information these days has never been wider, and the vehicles for communicating those stories now include YouTube, countless blogs, and other sources (including John Stewart's late night show, when it comes to politics) that those of us in the PR field weren't even aware of just a few years ago.

If you would like to share your thoughts on the "changing media landscape," I'd love to hear from you!
Click Here for Full Post and to Leave a Comment...