<em>"And that doesn’t mean an interview where a spokesperson endlessly repeats key messages – that’s a loss."</em>

Can I quote you on that? Only half-joking here, as the "key messages" thing is foremost on the minds of the vast majority of interviewees I deal with.

Doesn't matter that I point out they don't make sense as answers to fairly standard questions.

Whew! Thanks for the explanation! For a minute there, it looked like that enormous memo was about a particular reporter's individual psychology and was attempting massive denial that "tension" could exist within Microsoft. But now it's so clear that it was all about the "great interview" that is everyone's goal in the benign universe of corporate marketing. Things are so much more simpler in this blog format, where there's no knowledgeable reporters "digging for dirt" and otherwise confusing the crystal clarity of things. I dunno, though--your opening statement seems very passive-aggressive...No, can't be! Just another illusion!

Don't sack anyone. People make mistakes.

"Seriously, in this case, the interests of a journalist and PR are totally aligned – a great interview is always the best possible outcome."

I don't see where the interests should ever be aligned.  One is reporting (public service) and the other is propaganda (corporate service).

The best interviews  IMHO are when something interesting/surprising happens.  And that usually happens when a question that the spokesperson isn't ready for get answered honestly and without talking points from PR.

Frank, if I could offer you a word of advice - please don't use those little smiley things if you're communicating with other adults. It's distracting and sort of weird.

"I don't see where the interests should ever be aligned.  One is reporting (public service) and the other is propaganda (corporate service)."

Easy, NA.  To the degree a company's message is perceived as "propaganda," that company loses customer confidence (and thus sales), and shareholder confidence (and thus stock price).

It is in the company's best interest to be as honest as possible.

That so many companies *ignore* that rule, against their own best interests, speaks volumes about how little American businesses actually care about money (as opposed to stroking the egos of their senior management).

Great post Frank.  I've given my account too on my blog at http://www.jeffsandquist.com/WiredMagazineArticleOnChannel9.aspx

Dude, somebody needs to wipe that candy-ass :) off your lyin' face!

The sad part of this business is that PR guys like you have sold your soul to the man, and are too smart by half.

You lie for a living. In the old days, that meant you would burn in hell for eternity. Now it just means that you can take home a fat paycheck.

You look in the mirror & what do you see? That :). Yuck.

This is all totally fascinating. FrankShaw, congratulations on the successful story management... That's major-league work right there. Question: Leaving aside dishonesty and incompetence, what tendencies in journalists worry you the most? From a tactical standpoint, I mean? For instance, in this case, Vogelstein's instinct to search out tension, or fault lines between individuals or divisions, seemed to draw the most attention.

this is completely embarrassing!

Great interviews? So much micromanagement and spin make for dishwater interviews. No wonder it takes two weeks to get an interview with anyone at MS. You guys are sitting around trying to figure out the questions and make up the answers. I wonder how much good PR companies miss out on because of the roadblocks thrown in front of reporters?

blah blah blah typical PR bullshit blah blah blah

You realize how INFURIATING it is when the President of the United States trots people out to stonewall and essentially lie on his behalf, right? And how equally corrosive to democracy it is to hear almost all other politicians dissemble, make false comparisons, and try to spin their way out of every conceivable question, right?

Then why would it be any less infuriating for you to provide these same services for corporate executives, whose salaries by the way are a function of the publicly-traded stocks that provide their capitalization? The sense of entitlement that both politicians and corporate execs have when it comes to being straightforward would be amusing if it weren't so corrosive to the public good.

I imagine that you weren't taught as a child to write talking points and manage spin when you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar or talked back to your teacher or broke the neighbor's window. Why do you think that obfuscation is a higher value as an adult? How about you encourage people just to answer the damn questions and if they don't want to, say "no comment"?

Frank, if these briefings are not confidential, does that mean you will release them to all reporters going forward? And if not, how are you defining "confidential?"

Could I get any briefings associated with my Microsoft coverage, on which I dealt with WagEd extensively, in 2000-2002?

What a spin! You won the PR bullshit of the year award.

Shame on you!

If you look at Volgalstien's blog there's a Vista banner at the top.  Frank...you just don't stop do you?

This is pure comedy.

It would be foolish for anyone on an interview to not know their interviewer - that point is agreed.   But, let us be honest here, the public is the mob - they want to see the gladiator do battle alone and they don't want it to feel coached. (Hence the popularity of RealityTV?)  Anyhow, the story of how the email ended up in the wrong hands is worth at least a couple pitchers of beer.

"PR people who lie or encourage their clients to lie don't last long. The "R" in PR stands for relations, if you lie to people you work with, you don't have very good relationships, or credibility, and shortly after that you don't have clients."

Is that what went wrong with the PR on getting Microsoft Office Open XML slipped through ISO? If so, who got sacked?

What's funny, is that people find it so easy to forget that a magazine is a commercial enterprise. My favourite, and one of the top 5 most naive comments above is that reporting = public service. I didn't realize Wired was supported by tax dollars.

The irony is that the next comment that public service guy made is that propaganda = corporate service. (insert tongue in cheek)That would surely explain why every grocery store and news stand in America is clogged with stacks of People magazine, US Weekly and all of those rags that are arguably a public dis-service. They exist because the media makes money from controversy and propaganda. Why else would wired have made the decision to post the Microsoft briefing? It was surely not driven by increasing sales...nawww

What would be great balance to this whole story, would be for Wired to disclose the briefings and/or conversations that the editorial board had with the reporter prepping to write this or any other story that that matter.

The media's pre-determined agenda for what they are going to cover and how they are going to cover it is designed to do one thing, make money.

If you think big business manipulates the media, you are right, it’s called ad revenue, and they get it from publishing stories that sell...if you don't believe me, run a search on Wired's site for Paris Hilton...now that is quality tech journalism. http://www.wired.com/search?query=paris+hilton  

I actually don't have a huge problem with the existence of the file, nor does it seem that Vogelstein does. He admits that he figured such a file existed. But I have a real problem with this line:

"Now, let’s talk about the briefing mail now online  and the mention in the article of a 'confidential dossier of 5,500 words.' Not true – someone is confusing a briefing with a dossier and 'confidential' with 'not sent to me.'"

Ryan Tate raises an excellent point. If such documents are not going to be made available to the reporters, then how are they not "confidential"? The trite comment you cite from Techcrunch attacks a strawman. Nobody is contending that the document was assembled in secret. Again, Vogelstein was aware that such a file previously existed. But there is no denying that the information in the file was passed to the interview subjects in confidence. That's what makes it confidential.

As far as "confusing a briefing with a dossier," this doesn't pass the laugh test. A dossier is a detailed background file on a person or a topic. The document inadvertently sent to Fred Vogelstein easily meets that definition.

Nobody is "confusing" anything. Don't impugn Vogelstein's intelligence or motives simply because he didn't use the words you would have chosen.

Contrary to some of the other commenters, I think a PR firm has every right (and an obligation to its clients) to do this type of research and prepare for high-profile interviews. But your gratuitous, double-speaking dig at the "confused" Vogelstein damages your credibility. I think less of WE after reading this post than I did before.

C'mon guys, at least find some better made up names, uh, John Galt, especially when you're going to pander and spread more spin on the blog line itself, on behalf of the employer you're covering ass for.  (yes, even when that employer is you).

Really, no one cares about your little spin-drift and the lame 'controversy' is so typical of incompetence, capped off by more lame spin doctoring; at best it's a sideshow to the entire opportunistic vulturing of blogs themselves and your ossified atempts at monetizing them by crossing media, uh, Mr Softie. (no confusion with the ice-cream truck driving serial killer, that was himself shot multiple times in New Jersey).

Unfortunately, what you have crossed is a futile attempt at the telling of a simple story, a story of an attempt at truthfulness in times of mistruth, the corruption of that aim as it is unmasked to be the same old untruth, and the usual suspects of finger-pointing and internecine battling shoved at the police lineup of commentary accross media designed by the less than insightful to be distracting and covering of very missed steps.

Bad PR at it's worst is explaining, so is bad reporting. But we all know this already, so what was the actual price paid? MSFT is a public corp, isn't Sarbanes Oxley applicable here too?  Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Oh, here's the best part : "WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules."

Which set of rules would that be exactly, the secret, or the merely private?

Frank,

Its too bad you have received some flak over this deal.  I found the document and your post to be great reads.  The document is a great example of formally applying critical thinking and analysis to a problem.  

This country could use more of both.  And less shock and awe when they see them used.  Cripes.

To not prepare for an interview would be wasting one's chance to provide input to a story.  Nobody's forcing the interviewer to use the provided information.  There's always going to be bias on both sides, and it's both parties responsibility to work with that. And yeah, the reporter will have definitely done his homework, and will have his own angles.  

So, all in all, I think this is just good business.  And I appreciated the insights and methodologies shared, even if inadvertently.

You guys are on the ball.

Frank,  

A vote of support from another PR guy.

Looked like the kind of briefing materials that are prepared for executives in companies pretty much everywhere.  Welcome to the inside of the sausage factory.

The simple truth is that editors are human.  They have quirks, pet peeves, and sometimes just decide that there has to be some smoking gun lying around somewhere... and then decide that since your tenth denial of the same question got a little testy, they must be right.

Managing the interview process from both sides yields better results for everyone, despite the contention that we PR people are somehow hiding the truth.  But if you lie to an editor, guess what?  They won't call you again, they won't write about you again, and they'll tell everybody else that you are a liar.   Any PR person who has done the job for more than a few days has this one figured out.     It just doesn't pay.

Lastly, I wouldn't call it a confidential dossier either, though I'm sure the editor's ego was stroked by using such language and everybody looking for a fun smoking gun is just going to take such a statement as more proof of the vast conspiracy.

Tin foil hat anyone?

I did not see an encouragement t lie in that document. "He's digging for tension where there is none" and "stick to the talking points" doesn't sound like deceitfulness.

"Or, we can hope that the writer will post his interview notes from all the people he talked to, but I don't think that is likely to happen."

Very true. As a journalist I have notes on my subjects that are private, but not secret, too.

If I sent an e-mail to my wife and told her that I was hoping to be home by 7:00, as long as my client meeting didn't run too late (and that one of the clients wasn't his usual long-winded self.) would that be a secret e-mail? No.

Would she be breaking a confidence if she sent it on to a friend to tell them that I hoped to be home by 7:00 and that they should arrive by around 7:30 to go to the movies? No.

Would it be oncomfortable if that e-mail ended up in my client's in-box? Yes. That doesn't make it a secret or even confidential e-mail.

I think we all have e-mails trails that we participate in, forward, circulate etc. that we would hope don't fall into the "wrong hands" but that doesn't make them evil or underhanded.

If this exact exchange had taken place between a supplier (Wagged/Microsoft) and a customer (Wired) we wouldn't be having this thread. The type of briefing "dossier" is completely common in advance of customer meetings. You always want to point out to the person leading the negotiations or meeting what pitfalls there might be, or where teh pressure points might be ("don't let him lead you into a discussion on price, keep focused on the end-user benefits and our competitive advantage", "the VP of sales used to be at our competitor, so don't slag them off", "the marketing director isn't very technical, so you may have to dumb it down when talking to him").

That's my .0002

Frank,

In the 25 years before I became a recovering publicist, I considered the briefing sheet among the most valuable documents an agency could provide a client.  The benefit was not just for the client, but for the reporter as well.  The PR objective is to facilitate a conversation, one in which the two key parties understands what the other one expects to get. It was a good briefing sheet and did the job.

Now, about the email. Who among us has not sent mail to the wrong person at one point or another? Rarely, the result is embarrassing.  Even more rarely it is damaging. All things considered, email is extremely efficient for business communications and are worth the longterm risk of screwing up every 10 years or so.

Frank,

Fair enough. I appreciate your even-handed explanation, and while I still think Vogelstein's use of the word "confidential" was acceptable, I can also see where you're justified in believing the word was chosen for the sake of innuendo rather than accuracy. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Wow, what a spin.  I find it particularly intriguing to see how many supportive responses you are getting.

How much did those cost you?

Frank, I guess a larger question for you guys at the firm is  whether this MO of 5,500 words briefing documents is in MSFT's best interest and accomplishes whatever goals the company is asking you to meet as its PR counsel.

My concern, if I was at MSFT, is that this level of preparation is a little over the top and does not leave much left in the way of being authentic when addressing the reporter. This often will leave people with an impression that MSFT is unfeeling, cold, calculating and not truly honest.... does this narrative sound familiar?

Frank, then the file is confidential, I fail to see how the reporter was wrong to call it so and you should consider a correction.

Frank, you realize Webster defines "confidential" as "private", right?

http://m-w.com/dictionary/confidential

Since you yourself called the dossier private, and will not release it to the subjects of the dossiers, it is by definition confidential.

And yet you had to rudely "correct" Fred on this point.  

Also, I disagree strongly that Fred "chose the most loaded term possible" as you say.

What about "clandestine?" "top secret?" "Classified?" "surreptitious?" "CIA-style eyes-only intelligence memo?" "Stalkeresque slam book?" "Organizationally self-destructing Mission Impossible-style black ops brief?"

This is just off the top of my head. (I blog, as you can probably tell.)

I've seen more detailed 'dossiers' in the teacher comments section of an elementary school report card.

This entire story is a perfect reminder that the so-called 'new media' has more than its fair share of Anna Nicole Smith news stories.

A Wired writer does a piece on MSFT, then his editor uncovers the shocking details...in the course of reporting, it was accidentally discovered that MSFT was actively seeking to shape the media's impressions of the company.

Live from the scene of the hurricane, Fred Vogelstein blogs about how he feels now that he has read his very own secret dossier...the journalistic windfall of a lifetime.  Fred will never be the same now that he knows that MSFT is attempting to influence what he writes...and more disturbingly, that his own personal secret dossier contains the gut wrenching allegation that he "tends to sensationalize things."

Comments feature the usual posts...PR is the Devil, a vague reference to the President, and plenty of anti-Microsoft, anti-Corporate rabble.

Ladies and gentlemen, new media has officially jumped the shark.

hey frank.

I want to see my dossier. My file, whatever you want to call it. I am serious. I'm a tech journalist with 20+ years' experience writing for pc world, infoworld, cnet, pc mag --  most of the major consumer tech mags. and I've interviewed folks from Microsoft at least two dozen times in that space, so I know I've got one. I also know that I got on wqgged's  'trouble journalist' list at least once, because I started getting special treatment one day after I wrote something negative about MSN in one of my columns.

Do I need to file a freedom of information act request, or the wagged equivalent? because I will. just tell me what to do.

- dan tynan

Frank:

thanks for the response. but didn't this all start as a conversation about "transparency"? isn't that what microsoft wanted to show off via its blogging initiative, what they manipulated Wired into covering (as made clear by the wagged memo in question), and what you're allegedly trying to do here with your blog? why not show me my file?

as for amazon, when I buy something from them they have my payment information and my purchasing history. they also have a history of other items I have looked at. they don't have notes about my motives in shopping, or how to manipulate me to purchase other items. they don't actively involve themselves in how I present my experience with amazon to others or attempt to control the process. and all the information they have about me, I also have.

fred knows what's in his profile, because somebody at wagged f**d up and emailed it to him. but I don't know what's in mine. in the spirit of "transparency," why don't you email me a copy? you can send it to my gmail address - dan dot tynan at gmail dot com.

I look forward to reading it.

dt

Fascinating... but your use of smileys in all your writing is really annoying.

Kevin, et al.

PR is not the devil, as Shel Israel practices it. (<i>Naked Conversations</i> is a great book, by the way) But Public Relations has, in these times of uneasy transition from Mass Communication to Networked Communication, become something of an anachronism. As for New Media, well, that term was stale the minute it was coined. Rest assured, however, that social media or new media, or whatever you want to call it has not even begun to reach its potential, and even now wields the power to lay waste to entire companies. Just Google "kryptonite Bic pen" and try to tell me with a straight face that blogging is just some fad. Your ignorance of the dynamics at play and your wish to whitewash the valid (if a bit hostile) complaints about this situation with Wired shows me that you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder. I tend to scrutinize people with chips on their shoulders, and they ususally come up lacking substance.

Mr. Shaw, I respect you coming out about this, but my question is why even keep files on journalists? This is a disaster any way you frame it, and us "rabble" will have the story spread far and wide that <i>you are manipulating reporters.</i> However subtle the manipulation, you are still trying to control them. That's what this is about, and that is the source of all the vitriol. This case is very benign, sure, but in the age of Radical Transparency the worst is quickly assumed when such practices are uncovered.

I know, I know, Ivy Lee would be pleased, and you're trying to facilitate conversation and make good copy and all that pleasant stuff. But we don't see it that way. We see it as you, a paid functionary whose interests are most likely not our interests, trying to control what is being said and, more importantly, trying to coach people in the art of obstruction. This kind of command and control thinking is obsolete, pure and simple. You can't obstruct anymore. The people you're hiding from will get at the good stuff anyway, and then they'll hate you for daring to keep it from them.

I find it particularly funny that Robert Scoble (who did more for Microsoft during his time there than any conventional PR agency could ever hope to achieve-Business 2.0 says his departure was more significant than Bill Gates leaving the company) talks about the conflict between management and bloggers quite candidly in <i>Naked Conversations</i>, which he co-authored along with Mr. Israel. It did exist and was well documented. It took the success of Channel 9 before everyone was on board with blogging, and you can hear about the process straight from the mouths of the people who made it happen. No functionary needed. So why, Mr. Shaw, did you brief everyone to avoid talking about this? Why did you label Mr. Vogelstein as someone looking for controversy and coach his interviewees to essentially gloss over the rocky beginnings of transparency at Microsoft? The only answer I can think of, and it isn't a flattering one, is that you wanted to spin an article on radical transparency (radical transparency!) to make your client look like they have this social media thing under control. Stakeholders like hearing things like that, I'm sure.

Now, I can't fault you for wanting to portray such a valuable client in the best light possible. But do you see the blinding irony? And think about this: if I, with no resources other than a popular book on blogging and some spare time, can point out the flaws in your strategy, not to mention your outright spin and obfuscation, how do you expect to keep media outlets (with jaded staff and piles of advertiser cash) in line? You can't, and it's foolish to try. Throw the files out, read the Cluetrain Manifesto, and meet your publics in the open with honesty and humanity. You've made a great first step with this blog, but you can't make it all better with spin anymore like you're trying to do here. The genie is out of the bottle, and your business and future depend on dealing with new realities. The best thing you can do for your practice and your clients is to let go of the need to put everything in the best possible light and instead worry about making relationships as strong as they can possibly be. It is public <i>relations</i>, after all.

I just don't get what the big deal is.

I'm in PR and I have always kept info on the press that I deal with. Sometimes it is a note in my calendar reminding me when it's their birthday, sometimes it is a note in my contact management database that tells me what type of stories he is interested in or if he has any particular beefs. When I am preparing a client for an interview I often pull out info from my notes and relay them ("don't use cliches, he hates them" or "he hates our company and loves our competition. don't let him drag you into a debate about us vs them, you won't win him over in a 10 minute phone call, instead focus on the benefits of our new product).

As someone said up above, this is exactly the same type of info that many business people keep on their customers and key contacts.

To the journalist who is demanding to see his "dossier" in the spirit of transparency, Get a Life! You shouldn't see it, it's not meant for you. "In the spirit of transparency" perhaps you should provide a list of all of the swag that you have ever been given by companies. Doesn't the fact that you have received a free flashing pen, or accepted a dinner mean that you are on the take?

PR is not evil people, get over it.

charlie:

actually, I already have a life, thanks.

I didn't actually expect frank or wagged to turn over my dossier (though I do still want it). my point was to get them to say they wouldn't.

this whole notion of "radical transparency" is a sham. you could just as easily call it "selective transparency," which translates into "we share all information about ourselves and/or our client, just so long as it puts us in a good light." which is to say, it's the same old PR bs with a fancy new name.

I don't know who wagged/msoft think they're fooling. it's not reporters like me or anyone I know.

as for swag, well, you can have it. please. send me your address and fedex number and I will happily ship it all to you. because all it's doing is cluttering my office.

cheers,

dt

Wait. A journalist is surprised that a PR agency and a corporate marketing arm has compiled information about that person before conducting interviews with them? He's a professional journalist and he's that naive? Are we to believe that Wired doesn't have a "dossier" (or whatever, splitting hairs here) of information that their journalists can refer to before conducting real reporting or interviews?

Plus, it seems a little like sour grapes that the accidental leak of the briefing materials was barely mentioned in the (admittedly good) story but then he had the gall to go ahead and print the PDF. The story wasn't about the briefing material, it was about Channel 9, so why did he publish the briefing material? "Oooh, now I can get them."

Get over yourselves.

Not sure why the reporters are so steamed up. Any time you ask them how one could succeed in interesting them in something-they say "learn more about me, read my articles understand my style and area of interest". They say they hate pitches from folks who have not taken the time to figure them out personally.

Now they are annoyed because a firm did exactly that?  I suppose Fred would have preferred an interview where the MSOFT exec came on line and talked about VISTA or his last vacation as opposed to the topic Fred was working on??

Note to all you PR posters: The whole point was the irony of a company's badly stagemanaged handling of a story about their newly-found 'openness'.

We seem to keep drifting away from this one. It's not so much about 'confidential' vs 'private' - as someone said, that's just semantics.

And is it really so hard to admit that snr mgmt was initially 'tense' over the whole Channel 9 affair? C'mon! And this fact wasn't stirred up into a frothy bit of shock journalism; it was merely pointed out that, as pleased as they are now, MS brass were initially rather worried.

And to various other posters: The journo concerned is neither naive nor stupid, and (as has been pointed out already) was well aware there would be a dossier / briefing on file for him; he also wrote a good, reasonably pro-MS piece. He was merely tickled somewhat by the abovementioned irony, and (who wouldn't be) slightly discombobulated upon reading his own file.

Blimey! Why discredit a perfectly good piece (and its author) like this? We all know how it works on both sides of the PR 'fence', and this was simply a hugely entertaining piece.

John - why even keep files on journalists? Because, as a journalist I want MS to know that I'm technical enough to talk to the architects rather than just the marketing managers; I want them to know I'll tend to ask about tablet PCs and OneNote rather than Microsoft Dynamics so that I get to talk to the right people (with a limited amount of time in my diary, I don't want to spend my interview time on someone who can't talk at the right level). It's a courtesy to me as well as a warning that if I meet the Outlook team I'll ask about timezones (Frank - you can update my profile to say if I meet the OneNote team I'll ask about spell checking and autocorrection instead, now that I have timezones fixed!).

In the UK tech journalists find the idea of briefing notes rather amusing - go back and Google for The Register quoting Intel on 'UK journalists are cyncial in the extreme and anything you say will be examined for quotability, in or out of context'.

I find it hard to believe that I have read all the way down to here and actually have to propose the idea myself.  

To praise the PR protocol, it’s not spin doctoring in this case, its unified messaging.

What would be worth a pitcher or two of beer to hear would be John S describing how he got MS to agree to send the briefing to Fred.

If you weren’t in on the decision, then forgive me.  I can’t see how it was anything but successful.  

We don’t believe contrived events.  This one may have started out that way, but somewhere in the process somebody may have said “…you know, they’re not going to buy it.  If we’re going to be promoting transparency, we’ll need to show them some truth.  Then they’ll believe us.”  - Or something to that effect.  

Web 2.0 is about communities identifying their unique similarities.  And now, MS has a few more polygons in its human rendering.  

I was really surprised that journalists had absolutely no idea that we do briefing sheets. I knew journalists were getting more arrogant and less intelligent, but I had no idea they were getting absolutely ridiculous. Such a shame. It's like they can't ask questions as simple as "How did this PR person get my number?" or "Does this executive know how I write or conduct interviews?" I thought reporters were supposed to have critical thinking skills.

The guys at Wired also seem to be incredible drama queens. Got to get that traffic to the old Wired blog somehow, huh? Vogelstein has to milk his five minutes doesn't he? Never mind that milbloggers are being persecuted or people are being denied their human rights on a daily basis all over the world. Heaven help someone take time to analyze Vogelstein's journalism style.

Ridiculous.

Frank,

In the spirit of transparency and our mutual goal of a productive interview, would your agency agree to send journalists the briefing sheets beforehand then? I'm not so jaded that I think any communication out of a corporation is necessarily untrue or skewed. But I would like know which things a source says are his personal opinions, and which are the company’s key messages.

What particularly irked me in that dossier were your canned-yet-conversational quotes. I know talking points exist, but things like "Of course, there was a little something in the back of my head…just a question asking is this the right thing?" -- basically a made-up thought for the source's brain -- that I found really disingenuous.  

very nice comennets

This post was intensely disappointing.

I understand the difference between private (not intended to be publicly disseminated) and confidential (not allowed to be publicly disseminated); by claiming that your briefing book was private but not confidential, you seem to argue that it was permissible to have sent the file to Fred Vogelstein. I am sure WE employee who sent it has by now been told otherwise.

Given a chance to be candid, you seem to have proven yourself incapable of candor. Candor begins with acknowledging that my interests as an executive and any publicists I may hire are not aligned with those of a journalist; this acknowledgment is the basis of my respect for what the journalist is trying to do.

Most publicists have never worked as journalists and don't respect their craft, and yet feel disrespected themselves. We could have a more fruitful conversation in which we all felt respected if we were truthful about what each of us is trying to do.

you are a corporate flack. you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am a national newspaper journalist in the UK. To understand why the PR agency prepared such a long and detailed briefing note, we have to remember the modus operandi or PR agencies: to retain clients and get paid.

PR people keep themselves alive by tapping into that age old human failing which causes people who do not need something give money to people who have nothing to sell: fear. As the beauty industry has persuaded women to fear 'cellulite' and hand over £100 for small jars of unguent, so the PR industry has successfully persuaded corporations the media is a scary 'problem' and PR is the expensive 'solution'.

Back to that briefing note.

PRs have no real service to offer their clients. So they sell themselves by creating a false fear of journalists and promising greedy corporations they can get them free advertising.

Some executives fear talking to the press. PR agencies therefore create the impression journalists are scary. They tell their clients to be wary of us. They produce detailed briefing notes identifying how we may 'attack' the client. They attempt to police all our meetings to 'protect' the interviewee. End result - they get paid.

How briefing notes are put together:

PR agencies spend most of their days profiling journalists. I am telephoned constantly with lunch requests and sometimes attend the meetings. The PR always asks two categories of questions.

The first questionining volley aims to clarify your likes, dislikes, political views, sexual persuasion and social class. These tend to be: where do you live, do you own or do you rent, do you live with a partner, what do they do? This is to establish whether they should put you in front of the senior management of their client, or whether there will be too much of a culture clash (eg the CEO is gay and the reporter is homophobic, or vice versa).

By the time the main course arrives the PR moves to the next level of questioning, which aims to find out who the journalists's sources may be, which companies they may have a vendetta against or a favoritism towards, and how they perceive the client organisation.

Who are your favourite companies in the sector

Which industry figures do you talk to a lot and who do you admire

Who do you know within my client's organisation already (looking for internal leaks)

Which industry consultants/bankers/PRs do you deal with the most

Is there anyone or any company in the industry you dislike?

Of course, most seasoned journalists are aware all these questions are coming as PR people are generally unimaginative and ask them all in the same way. So we never answer them fully. My favourite tactic is to always give different answers to each question to PRs working for the same agency, so their internal briefing notes become thoroughly confused and eventually useless!

But anyway, after the journalist lunch, the PR goes back and prepares a briefing note, circulates it to clients and asks for money. For some reason, they get paid.

I am a national newspaper journalist in the UK. To understand why the PR agency prepared such a long and detailed briefing note, we have to remember the modus operandi or PR agencies: to retain clients and get paid.

PR people keep themselves alive by tapping into that age old human failing which causes people who do not need something give money to people who have nothing to sell: fear. As the beauty industry has persuaded women to fear 'cellulite' and hand over £100 for small jars of unguent, so the PR industry has successfully persuaded corporations the media is a scary 'problem' and PR is the expensive 'solution'.

Back to that briefing note.

PRs have no real service to offer their clients. So they sell themselves by creating a false fear of journalists and promising greedy corporations they can get them free advertising.

Some executives fear talking to the press. PR agencies therefore create the impression journalists are scary. They tell their clients to be wary of us. They produce detailed briefing notes identifying how we may 'attack' the client. They attempt to police all our meetings to 'protect' the interviewee. End result - they get paid.

How briefing notes are put together:

PR agencies spend most of their days profiling journalists. I am telephoned constantly with lunch requests and sometimes attend the meetings. The PR always asks two categories of questions.

The first questionining volley aims to clarify your likes, dislikes, political views, sexual persuasion and social class. These tend to be: where do you live, do you own or do you rent, do you live with a partner, what do they do? This is to establish whether they should put you in front of the senior management of their client, or whether there will be too much of a culture clash (eg the CEO is gay and the reporter is homophobic, or vice versa).

By the time the main course arrives the PR moves to the next level of questioning, which aims to find out who the journalists's sources may be, which companies they may have a vendetta against or a favoritism towards, and how they perceive the client organisation.

Who are your favourite companies in the sector

Which industry figures do you talk to a lot and who do you admire

Who do you know within my client's organisation already (looking for internal leaks)

Which industry consultants/bankers/PRs do you deal with the most

Is there anyone or any company in the industry you dislike?

Of course, most seasoned journalists are aware all these questions are coming as PR people are generally unimaginative and ask them all in the same way. So we never answer them fully. My favourite tactic is to always give different answers to each question to PRs working for the same agency, so their internal briefing notes become thoroughly confused and eventually useless!

But anyway, after the journalist lunch, the PR goes back and prepares a briefing note, circulates it to clients and asks for money. For some reason, they get paid.

I am a public relations exec and, while I wouldn’t have ever made reports on journalists, I do give briefings to clients advising them on the impending interview.  As previously stated in the original blog, they need to be familiar with the writing style and interest of the journalists for an effective meeting as you do any business meeting, but that’s not to say they won’t stray from their preparations or refuse to answer questions the interviewer asks.  There should be transparency and us ‘PR people’ aren’t trying to veer the journo off the path they are on – it’s ridiculous to think you could get away with this with any competent journalist.  That said, there are some industries where journalists expect to be brought out, flown to exotic locations and attend every media junket available to them (ask any motoring or fashion journalist!) – they are biased about certain brands and companies because the last media trip was in St Lucia or Barbados) and the public would never need know – this is hardly journalism from the edge but some wouldn’t think to question the media.

And PR isn’t all about the media, media relations is one small part of public relations and not always required.  

It’s easy for people to sit back and complain about all elements of marketing from advertising to public relations but the aim of a truly successful marketing campaign is to communicate with the right people in the right manner and at the right time, otherwise you just end up getting negative reputation by annoying the public and stakeholders. Admittedly this happens, but it would be ignorant to assume that the whole area of marketing is out to get every cent they can from everyone they communicate with or warp the minds of the masses lulling them into buying everything the organisation manufactures. Every organisation and every one of us has a reputation whether we like it or not, it’s up to us how we manage it lawfully, truthfully and in a timely manner.

You are also forgetting that it’s not just the ‘big bad corporations’ who use public relations – how do charities get their message across? They can hardly afford to get a full front page advert on every publication, continuous 45-second ad spots on TV, interviews on Oprah, a website that appeals to everyone and billboards worldwide in every language known to man.  Even if they could, it wouldn’t be worth the money it spent.  So they need to make their budget stretch so that the highest percentage of money that charity does have can go to the cause.  The media may overlook them, the public may not find out the good they do and their message can get lost among what is now a competitive environment.

As it happens, I work for charity organisations, I also work pro bono on many charity accounts that are personal to me, so before you criticise my chosen career, think about the last time you decided to help a charity, how did you do it and how did you know about the work it does…?

a good read.