An article in O’Dwyer’s this week caught my attenion: Why Newsjacking Rarely Works, by ERPR Group Founder & CEO Renee Sieli. (For the uninitiated, this is the practice of watching for headlines that have some relevance to your brand, product or service; then, offering commentary to journalists, with the hopes that they’ll include your quote in a related article).
It jumped out because the title was at odds with what I know. Newsjacking has been a staple in PR since I have been in the business (over two decades). If you are an unknown brand, newsjacking is one of the few ways to earn coverage in all kinds of media, including top tier (who aren’t interested in press releases from unknown companies).
But I read her piece and agree Renee made some excellent points citing the many challenges; e,g,, journalists inboxes are flooded with pitches, and this comment amongst others:
…most reactive pitches aren’t unique or insightful. Instead, they offer generic commentary, speculative analysis or a vague tie-in to the topic at hand. This contributes to the oversaturation of the journalist’s inbox and does little to distinguish the spokesperson or the brand.
Renee Sieli
That said, I’ll add another challenge that she did not address: Trump. The big, orange buffoon in the room has had a chilling effect on public discourse, including (and especially) via media.
Newsjacking in the Trump Era
What I am talking about is a reluctance to newsjack stories; or pulling punches, as I see it. There’s been a distinct mood change since Trump took office and began his Jihad against many US institutions, including the media.
He’s also sucked the oxyen from news as Trump wants to own the news cycle and continually drive the narrative.
In theory, his many moves and their implications, and all the media coverage of said – whether it’s about tariffs, immigration, education, defense, security, crypto, etc. – should provide ample fodder for newsjacking.
But I’ve oberved that most execs want to keep their heads low, not attract attention. Often, the defense is “we don’t want to get political,” or just an awkward silence at the suggestion.
This could be for good reasons: e.g. protecting business interests, avoiding the heat, guarding federal contracts and work. I fully understand that fiduciary responsibility, safeguarding employees, shareholders, customers, etc. all come first, ahead of PR opportunism.
That said, the collective ostriching, playing it safe, has an opportunity cost, too.
Also, I have a gut reaction against being cowed by government overreach. Yes, I know it is PR, not as noble as other causes may be. But in general, we should not be afraid to speak out.
I point out to clients that you can you have your cake and eat it too, i.e. play it safe and still get into that story.
It’s about tapping opportunities stemming from politics without getting overtly political.
E.g. there are all kinds of implications for the action that is cutting the legs from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you are a company in financial anti-crime, you might want to newsjack a related headline to interject opinions about impact on fraud. There’s no need to slam the administration in your commentary.
