OK, that response is definitely weird and makes no sense, but I have to think it is coming from someone who has limited PR experience and who has a boss with equally limited experience. I can see why they ask if something is a paid opportunity or not - there are plenty of awards and lists out there where you have to pay an entry fee or it is P2P - but passing on a purely editorial piece like this makes no sense. I think a lot of brand folks don't really understand that being included in a roundup article with their competitors isn't necessarily a bad thing. They often want to be the only one in the story, and that somehow it is bad if their competitors are listed too. I've definitely had to have the conversation explaining that that's not how it works in PR/editorial and that there is still great value in roundups, especially if the article points out some of their unique features or selling points.
Yep, I totally agree. But, I think their omission from this article will be very obvious (as the brand leader).... so now they look like they AREN'T a good option. Funny enough, they probably would have been in the "best overall" slot ... oh well!
I came here to say what Kathy has already explained so well. I worked with a client with such vicious animosity toward her competitors she would have refused inclusion in a roundup with them. I did my best to break down her resistance but it never happened. She would also leave a networking lunch if they showed up (think Chambers, Rotary, etc.).
Wow, that's ... intense! I just can't imagine living my life with such a scarcity mindset and so much negativity! What you guys have to deal with on the client end always blows my mind!
I can understand inquiring about the type of story, if there is a cost associated and the overall tone and approach. I think that them declining is a loss indeed. There are some clients who just don't want to be in articles or roundups with competitors, and personally and professionally, I think that's a loss. Anything that points to your brands best assets is something to take advantage of. This is from Caren Begun (caren.begun@tmstrat.com).
I’ve worked with category-leader brands over the years and I was often baffled by the opportunities they turned down. Sometimes individuals felt the big brand had earned the right to own all editorial opportunities and not participate in multi-brand articles and roundups. Sometimes it was due to the in-house team being misinformed about the value of a particular outlet, or believing the demo/readership was not aligned with their consumer base - or their *desired* consumer even. Without knowing the category or specific brand here, could they be one trying to shift their image and excite a new audience? I’ve also come across brands that just don’t like the design/layout of online scrolling roundups with all the elements needed for SEO these days and have declined for that reason alone.
The paid question is definitely something I’ve asked before because so many publications will reach out and ask to maybe interview your CEO or ask if you would be interested in inclusion and you end up having to pay. It’s getting tough to tell which are real requests. Saying no to the roundup inclusion is strange for sure. But some brands will not participate if there is even a slight chance their brand won’t be spoke about positively. It’s pretty strange from a journalists perspective for sure. I used to work in TV news so definitely see both sides of it.
Yep, given what I keep hearing lately, the paid question was completely legit. As the market leader in the space, I think this brand being omitted from the article will speak VOLUMES to readers. It just seems like such a missed opportunity. But regardless of whether editorial coverage is a traditional article or a roundup, they never get to control the narrative ... there's always the chance they won't like what's said, right? So I don't see how this is different, really.
I agree with Kathy, and you, their behavior is odd. You assured them they would be featured with the best in their field. The opportunity to be showcased with a prominent publication (and writer) is priceless, with many opportunities for recycling it into social media and advertising coverage. You never know what doors and opportunities open for you after being covered. I would have said yes.
OK, that response is definitely weird and makes no sense, but I have to think it is coming from someone who has limited PR experience and who has a boss with equally limited experience. I can see why they ask if something is a paid opportunity or not - there are plenty of awards and lists out there where you have to pay an entry fee or it is P2P - but passing on a purely editorial piece like this makes no sense. I think a lot of brand folks don't really understand that being included in a roundup article with their competitors isn't necessarily a bad thing. They often want to be the only one in the story, and that somehow it is bad if their competitors are listed too. I've definitely had to have the conversation explaining that that's not how it works in PR/editorial and that there is still great value in roundups, especially if the article points out some of their unique features or selling points.
Yep, I totally agree. But, I think their omission from this article will be very obvious (as the brand leader).... so now they look like they AREN'T a good option. Funny enough, they probably would have been in the "best overall" slot ... oh well!
That's so weird!
I came here to say what Kathy has already explained so well. I worked with a client with such vicious animosity toward her competitors she would have refused inclusion in a roundup with them. I did my best to break down her resistance but it never happened. She would also leave a networking lunch if they showed up (think Chambers, Rotary, etc.).
Wow, that's ... intense! I just can't imagine living my life with such a scarcity mindset and so much negativity! What you guys have to deal with on the client end always blows my mind!
Right? Unsurprisingly I ended up firing her as a client. Far too much drama from her.
Good. Sounds awful.
I can understand inquiring about the type of story, if there is a cost associated and the overall tone and approach. I think that them declining is a loss indeed. There are some clients who just don't want to be in articles or roundups with competitors, and personally and professionally, I think that's a loss. Anything that points to your brands best assets is something to take advantage of. This is from Caren Begun (caren.begun@tmstrat.com).
I’ve worked with category-leader brands over the years and I was often baffled by the opportunities they turned down. Sometimes individuals felt the big brand had earned the right to own all editorial opportunities and not participate in multi-brand articles and roundups. Sometimes it was due to the in-house team being misinformed about the value of a particular outlet, or believing the demo/readership was not aligned with their consumer base - or their *desired* consumer even. Without knowing the category or specific brand here, could they be one trying to shift their image and excite a new audience? I’ve also come across brands that just don’t like the design/layout of online scrolling roundups with all the elements needed for SEO these days and have declined for that reason alone.
Yeah, it's hard to say ... wish they had given me more insights! But thanks for sharing these thoughts, Erin!
The paid question is definitely something I’ve asked before because so many publications will reach out and ask to maybe interview your CEO or ask if you would be interested in inclusion and you end up having to pay. It’s getting tough to tell which are real requests. Saying no to the roundup inclusion is strange for sure. But some brands will not participate if there is even a slight chance their brand won’t be spoke about positively. It’s pretty strange from a journalists perspective for sure. I used to work in TV news so definitely see both sides of it.
Yep, given what I keep hearing lately, the paid question was completely legit. As the market leader in the space, I think this brand being omitted from the article will speak VOLUMES to readers. It just seems like such a missed opportunity. But regardless of whether editorial coverage is a traditional article or a roundup, they never get to control the narrative ... there's always the chance they won't like what's said, right? So I don't see how this is different, really.
Absolutely. Especially since it sounds like a sizable brand. For any brand BHG is the goal. It’s top tier. Don’t understand why anyone would say no.
Yep, that's why I was so baffled!
Hi Jill,
I agree with Kathy, and you, their behavior is odd. You assured them they would be featured with the best in their field. The opportunity to be showcased with a prominent publication (and writer) is priceless, with many opportunities for recycling it into social media and advertising coverage. You never know what doors and opportunities open for you after being covered. I would have said yes.
Totally agree ... just seems so short-sighted. Now they won't be mentioned at all, and readers will notice that omission for sure. Eeeek!