Even Industrious Editors May Prefer to be Lazy

Editors are "lazy", even the industrious, hardworking ones. They seldom dig beyond the materials you (and we) present them. They seldom give a release a second reading to see if there's some meaty prey hiding in the thicket. And they seldom bother to research a new technology (or whatever) to learn why they should pay more attention to your news.

Laying it all out.

These things, they say, are your (and our) responsibility. It's important to be as complete as possible - while at once as Spartan as possible - with the materials that reach them. It's important to build into these materials a sense of the context against which the announcement is important, why it's important, and to whom. If there's some technical twist, it's our job to present it in an interesting and understandable manner - which is to say, explain it in clear language, but not in a patronizing style.

Meeting quotas.

An editor, it turns out, is not so much a hunter as a poacher. The romantic notion of a dedicated journalist stalking a story - except for an exceptional few - is a myth. Today's national trade magazine beat reporter is thrown into a forest of stories on the hoof, and can snare the limit (and beyond) by standing in one place and grabbing the easy catches that inevitably wander by. Perhaps a better metaphor is the speed cop with so many tickets to issue per day; a reporter must file so many column inches, or so many news stories, per issue. The daily mails and phone calls readily provide many times this quota.

The easy way out.

So between two stories, if all other news value considerations are equal, the story that runs is the story that's easiest to report. In a pinch, the one that's quickest to throw together is the one that saves his or her bacon at deadline.

Other factors.

But all other news value considerations are seldom equal. What then? With the ease of reporting at parity, what makes one story more attractive than another? Some factors: audience impact, context, beat targeting, news rank, reporter's comprehension, issue valence, enterprise and novelty.

Audience impact. How much of the publication's readership will be affected by the story? How immediate and how telling an effect will there be? How much does the news alter the competitive environment for readers? The more readers it affects and the greater the effect it has, the more the audience impact of the story.

Context. Since no story happens in a vacuum, it's important to consider the nature of previous coverage that relates to your announcement and its topic, and it's important to consider what the "big" news of the week is likely to be. If there has been a great deal of coverage of stories like yours, has it died down? If so, today's announcement may nonetheless be "old news" to the editor. Is the topic still "hot"? If so, we may gain more prestigious positioning than usual. Are there a lot of companies making similar announcements right now? If so, you may appear as just another company in a gang-coverage story. The thirtieth guy to announce household fluorescent lighting umpteen years ago didn't get nearly the coverage of the first, second or maybe third (if any).

Beat targeting. Even news that's right on target for a given publication's audience may miss the mark if it reaches the wrong reporter, and the target is moving. If you have a new gizmo that lets you call an electronic bulletin board from your boat or your car using a built-in cellular telephone, whose beat covers the story? Automotive? Computer? Telephone? Boating? Office at home? Productivity tools? The only right answer is the particular publication's answer at the moment. If every beat thinks it goes on another beat, you get beat out of coverage. If every beat covers it (unless it's a huge story for the industry and a major, major solution for readers), the publication will either kill a lot of the coverage or be embarrassed by the duplication. Every product crosses beat lines to some extent, and the targeting is always a challenge.

News rank. Editors use the term "high news" for those really big announcements that make it onto front pages; they call simple product announcements (no breakthrough, just a new participant in an existing category) "low news". There's a lot of room in between, and they tend to rank or prioritize stories for the issue according to a number of factors. Are any industry leaders involved? How big a ripple will it make on the industry? On sellers? On buyers and users? Is it a major breakthrough in technology or performance or price? Does it change the state of the art? Does it alter the competitive environment in some permanent way? Just because every announcement isn't high news, that's no reason to withhold the announcement - there's plenty of room for all kinds of news. During slow news times, there's more room because fewer stories compete. During major trade show times, even high news may get squeezed.

Reporter's comprehension. How many times have you gone through the special publications you were sure would run your story, only to not find it - again. You may ask yourself, "Don't these guys realize how big a story this is?" In fact, they may not. For that matter (though we don't like to think of the possibility), we may not. Is there something about the announcement the editor might miss? Would a few words of explanation help a reporter understand why it's really a big thing? An editor's comprehension of the context in which your announcement is especially important may not equal your own knowledge of the field. Perhaps it isn't clear just why a new feature brings an important benefit to users, and what that benefit is. Explanation and illustration are the only - and obvious - answers. You'd be surprised how many releases (not ours, we hope) assume an editor's expertise and skip the contextual backgrounding. It can make all the difference.

Issue valence. Whenever there are two or more opposing viewpoints on a topic, or mutually exclusive alternative solutions to a problem, the market is left with decisions to make. The themes of these decisions are called issues, and publications devote a significant amount of coverage to issues. Some are bigger than others, using the usual yardstick of the proportion of the readership that will be affected, and how big the effect will be. Announcements that relate to current issues receive more attention than those that don't. And the bigger the issue, the more attention the announcement will get.

Enterprise. Like many aggressive young professionals, reporters are concerned about earning recognition and advancement, and turning in assignments usually isn't enough to get them to where they want to be. Reporters' reputations soar as they, on individual initiative, recognize and report good stories, especially if their coverage is earlier or bigger or more on-the-money than their peers. If your announcement happens to tickle a reporter's fancy this way, you'll find an enterprising ally on the other end of the wire. For many companies, this may never happen; when it does, it can have a major effect on how that publication regards your newsworthiness.

Novelty. Of course, "Man Bites Dog" is a timeless metaphor for irresistible novelty stories. If there's some special, fun twist to your news, it can cut through a lot of clutter and get coverage galore. It works for the guy who makes yearly announcements of chocolate diskettes. One tongue-twisting headline we've done got cited on Page 1 of The Wall Street Journal (the headline was all that appeared, but it did name our client). We're not suggesting silliness, just a little willingness to see your news in a slightly different light.