Navigating the complex relationship between journalism and public relations can be a challenging task. Make a startup, break a startup? The truth is the truth. This article sheds light on a personal experience, providing insight into how PR professionals should engage with journalists, especially when faced with potentially negative coverage.
The incident
One thing I cannot recommend to PR professionals is to skip directly contacting a journalist or publication and instead immediately resort to legal threats. Here’s why.
A while ago, I covered a new service for TechAcute. I signed up, paid for a plan, and tried it out for a few days. Realizing it was not as advertised, I attempted to cancel the service and get a refund, just like any regular user.
Also interesting: The Truth Lies in the Data
What I discovered was quite different from their marketing promises. Therefore, I wrote an honest piece about it, detailing how the service fell short of its claims. The article ranked well on search engines, attracting readers who appreciated the candor. Many reached out, thanking me for helping them avoid a potential loss.
The reaction
Instead of addressing the concerns raised in my article, the company chose to send a lawyer after me. This move was not only unnecessary but also unproductive. They could have contacted me directly to discuss their perceived inaccuracies, and we could have had a constructive conversation.
However, they opted for legal action, which did not result in any changes to the article because there was nothing incorrect in my reporting. After some time, the law firm ceased contact, possibly realizing the futility of their actions.
The aftermath
Later, an SEO broker approached us, offering money to modify the article to portray the service positively. While we are usually open to discussions, this offer felt unethical, given the circumstances and how far this went already in the wrong direction for too long. Accepting it would mean promoting a service we knew was misleading.
Read more: The Essence of Professions Defined by Their Core Questions
Sticking to the truth might not always be the most profitable choice, but it is the right choice. If the company had approached us directly, we would have gladly provided feedback on improving their service. What did you want to prove by siccing lawyers on reporters? Did you want them to write that as a follow-up to the article that you are now pressing charges despite it being the truth?
Advice for PR professionals
For my PR friends, here’s my advice:
-
First contact
Always contact the journalist or publication directly before considering legal action. Open communication can often resolve misunderstandings and foster a better relationship.
-
Be transparent
If your product or service has shortcomings, acknowledge them honestly and work towards improvement. Transparency builds trust.
-
Constructive feedback
Engage in a dialogue where you can provide your perspective and understand the journalist’s viewpoint. This can lead to positive outcomes for both parties.
Beyond that, I want to make clear that I have no issues with professional lawyers. They play a very important role in our society.
The reality of journalism
Understanding that every word written can elicit various reactions, from legal threats to personal endangerment, is crucial. Journalism can be risky, but maintaining integrity and truthfulness is paramount. Happy weekend, and remember—always stand by the truth.
Photo credit: The feature image has been done by Christopher Isak for TechAcute. The image in the body of the article is symbolic and was created with generative AI.
