Travelblather

NB: Clarification from Ash Communications follows this post (comment number 3)

Gah! Time for an anti-PR rant. I've already blathered about it... but I have to do it again. Today I received 2 press releases from Ash communications (take your place in my hall of shame - the PR Waffle catergory) splattered with useless percentages.

Take this fine piece or meaningless waffle created for their client Skiingholidays.com

Confidence is returning to the ski industry with 80 per cent of skiers who did not
ski last year planning to return to the slopes this season. Skiers are
becoming savvier in finding ways to cut costs to stay on the slopes, with
40 per cent of holidaymakers looking to book late, a third choosing to
build their own skiing holidays using low cost flights, and 75 per cent
of independent skiers investigating car hire as a cheaper alternative
to often expensive transfers.

How many was your sample size? Who were you asking? How did you conduct your survey? Was there any sort of control group?

There was no detail whatsoever about where these percentages came from. RIDICULOUS.

What do you think we are? Stupid?? For goodness sake people...  you
are communicating with journalists here. Most of us have an obligation
to check the veracity of facts before we publish things.

Is the one remaining difference between PR and journalism that
journalists have a true obligation to their audience - not to some client
that they commit to pump out meaningless tripe for once a week in
return for cash?

And then there was this story on Travelmole (it's password protected - so here's an extract too)

The use of micro blogging site Twitter is gaining rapid penetration within the travel industry, according to a new study. It
revealed that more than half of users (52%) tweeted between four and 10
times a day, with over a quarter sending more than 10 Twitter updates
daily....

The survey of 90 Twitter users who tweet
on travel matters was conducted by Andy Jarosz, writer and owner of
travel blog 501 Places.

I am sure this piece was lifted straight from a press release - it certainly feels like it.

We actually got a sample size here. It was 90 people. 90 people for heaven's sake! That's about as statistically valid as asking my mum and the postman! 

So... there you go... PR people writing tosh backed up by pseudo science and journalists who should know better printing it verbatim. No wonder the media industry is in crisis!

Shall we go for comments/examples of the stupidest press release you ever received? Feel free - if you can be bothered...

As a journalist I get a lot of Press Releases bunging up my in-tray. To be fair my email address has found its way onto quite a few databases over the years - despite the steps I've taken to try and avoid this.

I often get the feeling that PR execs sit at their desks and pump out releases totally focussed on THEIR CLIENT and completely forgetting the people they are sending them to. It's not dissimilar to a company churning out its products and not giving thought to what their customers really want. Companies that get too self-obsessed like this usually go to the wall (unless they are Banks or large US automobile concerns and then they get bailed out - which is in my opinion pretty criminal.) Just look at the hole GM is in now.

I've been receiving almost daily releases from a company called rel="nofollow" a href="http://www.topposition.co.uk/"
target="_blank">Top Position. What's interesting is that the company has its foundation in Search Engine Optimisation. The releases actually come from the 'SEO department'. They are stuffed full of hyperlinks to their client's website. They are ALWAYS MARKED URGENT. Yesterday I got one that started: I rang newsdesk and was asked to send this over to
you.

1) I HATE being sent emails with the High Importance marker on them if they aren't.Who are you to judge if it's urgent? I emailed the sender and asked to be taken off their mailing list. Even her reply was marked High Importance. I mean how VAIN!

2) SEO experts maybe - but PR experts too? Well if they were they wouldn't draw such attention to the fact that they are pumping out their releases for SEO purposes by  marking them from the SEO dept. Presumably this also means they are only interested in on-line media outlets. 

3) PR isn't just about hiring a bunch of 'journalists' (their word not mine) and buying a few lists of media outlets - and hey presto pumping out releases. Despite my inherent dislike of PR I accept that those agencies that are experts in their field can do a good job. But they take time to understand the editors and writers they are communicating with and try to offer stories and ideas that will not just benefit their client, but also work for the media outlet they are approaching. And to do this well you almost need to craft a different idea for each individual newspaper, magazine or website.

4) The email starting 'I rang newsdesk and was asked to send this over to you...' is completely dishonest. And to send this kind of email to all and sundry regardless of whether you have had prior contact is fraud. Maybe I should contact the Direct Marketing Assocation or the ASA?

5) Despite several emails and a phone call (during which I was assured I would be taken off the email list) I am still receiving their emails.

So.. question.

What is Top Position trying to do? I'd suggest just keep a client paying their bills - as clearly the company doesn't give the slightest bit of care and thought to the media outlets they are bombarding.

And if that's PR in the 21st century, can you see why journalists like me are beginning to hate it.

(I thought long and hard about linking to the Top Position website. Last thing I want to do is give them a nice link from here, but in the spirit of openness in blogging I decided I would. I plan to leave it there for a week and then disable it.)

I am going to post a stack of stuff about WTM soon... I promise. But I HAD to just stick this up.

Regular readers (all two of you) will know I have little time for PR agencies. I resent the way they pump meaningless waffle at me dressed up as news just to keep their clients coughing up the cash. Ironically one I received today from Siren PR for their client Canvas Holidays was actually genuinely interesting. (Shock horror.) The France specialist now offers quirky Gypsy Caravans (in French Roulottes de Campagne)to stay in on several of the camp sites it features. The full release isn't available on the Canvas Holidays site, but as soon as it is I will add a link here... that's assuming it still carries this howler of an error...

The call to action at the bottom of the release is as follows:

Yes try the link... it goes to Royal Caribbean Cruises... Oops.

Another great example of PR flannel in action. I've started a
separate category for these. 

It's titled: Press info: Strewth! Drivers Down Under risk huge excess charges on car
hire damage from kangaroo crash hazard, warns Insurance4carhire.com

"Holidaymakers hiring a car Down Under are
presented with the biggest excess charges for car hire compared to anywhere
else in the world, according to independent excess cover provider Insurance4carhire.com.
A recent underwriter’s claims report reveals that motorists in Australia incur
the highest excess charges in the event of damage to their vehicle, with sums
reaching almost £2,000."

... begins the release. It's backed up with some decent stats showing
average excess claims figures in other parts of the world are £558 in the UK, £605
in Ireland and more. All well and good.

  Table of average excess claim amounts by I4CH customers

      Source: Insurance4carhire.com Dec 2007 - May
2008

I can see the PR 'consultants' at their desks now. Excess
claims, insurance – all rather dull stuff. We need to sprinkle this with
creative PR juice to make those lazy journos wake up! We need an 'angle'! Hmmm.
Australia.?... Of course! KANGAROOS!

Here comes the rest of the release:

"Whilst motorists driving rented cars in European countries
such as France and Italy are likely to have more minor scrapes and bumps, the
hazards of driving in the Antipodes are on a somewhat bigger scale. It may
sound like a stereotypical joke but the risk of colliding with a kangaroo whilst
driving in Australia is actually quite common and this can cause a great deal
of damage to the vehicle. However unlikely you think it is that this will
happen to you, the chances of hitting an animal on the road are very real and
the cost of repairing the damage can be enormously expensive."  (underlining is mine)

And the statistic to back this up?

Recent figures from Australian motoring authority NRMA
show that of 9,000 claims for animal–related collisions in 2007 in the state of
New South Wales, 7,000 of them involved kangaroos.

How does this statistic show that the likelihood of
colliding with a kangaroo whilst driving in  Australia is 'quite common'? All it tells me
is that IF I hit an animal it's highly likely to be kangaroo. The figures are
completely out of context. For them to mean anything I need to know how likely
it is that I will hit an animal in the first place – what proportion of insurance
claims in NSW in 2007 involved collision with an animal?

I've not been able to find out. But NSW is one of Australia's most built-up states. I've driven around it quite a bit and I didn’t
see many kangaroos. (If you were in the Northern Territory with its miles and
miles of unfenced roads in the bush, maybe you'd see a few more). NSW is Australia's most populous state with a population of nearly 7 million so there
will be literally millions of car journeys taking place there each year. And
there were 7000 collisions with kangaroos in NSW in 2007. I'd say that's not a huge number
at all. Is it really that likely that if you drive a hire car in NSW you
will be involved in a collision with a kangaroo?

In my opinion… NO

I do wonder sometimes if people in PR think of this kind of
stuff as a bit of a game. Have some fun pushing a product at the journalist
community; dress up dry stats to make them more palatable… But this is a
serious issue. It happens far too much in my opinion, plucking a statistic from
nowhere to illustrate the point you want to make rather than providing proper,
contextualised data. It's also an indictment on journalists for being lazy
enough to publish this kind of stuff in the first place. PRs wouldn't do it if
each time they did, they got a follow up call asking them to justify their
numbers. I called the PR consultancy concerned and they couldn't provide supporting
information. I wonder if they'll offer some in the comments to this post?