BP’s Swimmin’ Hole: First One In is a. . .

We got a call from a young engineer who advises oil companies on deep sea drilling. What were our thoughts on holding a seminar on blowout prevention, charging press $1200 to attend — but forbidding questions?  “I’ll pay double the ticket price to see that,” I replied.

Timing: Early days of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  Our engineer didn’t want to talk about that, though, just the technologies used to stop blowouts. Press were already calling him, and he wasn’t calling back. Somehow he thought they would hold their questions if they were sitting in front of him in the same room.

Crawford receives inquiries from all manner of technology, engineering and scientific enterprises. We never charge for the initial consultation, thus often steer companies to a decision on PR before they spend a dime. In this case, we told the prospective client to forget his seminar idea.  Why:

• We’ve never seen press pay to attend an educational event.
• However, some might because the BP oil spill is hot and reporters want to know every detail on why the blowout prevention equipment failed.
• Once on-site, journalists will ignore the “no question” rule.
• If you refuse to talk, they’ll corner other attendees instead.
• Even if nobody talks, journalists will still write about the seminar.
• Their next call will be to the companies involved in the oil spill to see if you work for them.
• Get the picture?

End of seminar idea. We hung up. No charge, and no big deal — the time spent was worthwhile for both sides. The young engineer avoided a potentially embarrassing and costly mistake. We reinforced a long-held view: Brilliance in technology doesn’t necessarily translate to innate understanding of PR.

In the tech arena, we encounter companies with misguided ideas on PR fairly regularly. Most misconceptions are innocuous.  There are execs who:

• Think press releases are advertisements (granted, many read like ads).
• Believe that a meeting or call with a reporter is a guarantee of coverage.
• Are disappointed when their 30-minute interview is boiled down to two sentences — or omitted entirely — in a multi-source feature story quoting a dozen other companies.
• Dismiss reporters as “naive” or “stupid” for not knowing as much about the interviewee’s field as the interviewee.
• Express outrage when they do get coverage, don’t like their quotes and accuse the reporter of taking their remarks “out of context.”

Smart folk know when they’re out of their depth. It just takes a brief chat with the lifeguard to learn if the risk outweighs goin’ in the water.

No related posts.