why accountants should be nice to journalists

or else you’ll turn into a pumpkin – or something.

by bruce marcus
professional services marketing 3.0

editor’s note: 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 was privileged to have a long relationship with bruce w. marcus, who was ahead of his time in his thinking and practice in marketing for accounting. we are publishing some of the late expert’s evergreen work, which retains wisdom for the present.

your mother raised you to be nice to everyone, and you’ve always been taught to be nice to journalists. answer their questions. tell them everything. stop what you’re doing and cooperate. be polite.

that’s the conventional wisdom. you’ve even read that in the marcus letter. but are there ever times to tell the press to bug off, and leave you alone? maybe.

more: when there’s a leak in your firm | creating the perfect ad | how hard do you work to keep your clients? | when clients think they know marketing | how to put target marketing into context | everyone in your firm is marketing | accountants vs. lawyers: who wins the marketing battle? | professional services marketing requires flexibility | how to set marketing objectives | how marketing in accounting has evolved | accountants don’t sell soap.
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.

on the face of it, the media seems to have all the power. they speak to a lot more people than you do, and they do it with what the general public accepts, usually unquestioningly and with little reason, as objectivity.

trade lore abounds with stories of a journalist spurned. back in the days of the famous columnist walter winchell, any celebrity – or press agent – who didn’t cooperate with him might have done well to buy a grocery store for a new career. one press agent who promised him an exclusive, only to find that another columnist had inadvertently submitted the same story, was driven from her otherwise successful career.

virtually every company, and every marketing or public relations executive, has a story of being trashed by the press – sometimes despite following all the rules and cooperating extensively.

but then, there are stories of companies that refused to deal with segments of the press, and are still around. mobil – now exxon/mobil – refused to talk to wall street journal reporters for years. there is no empty crater where mobil once was; they still thrive.

there may indeed be times, then, when being cooperative with the press is not the best thing you can do for your firm.

if you’re dealing with a hostile journalist or publication, and believe you’re in a no-win situation, you may have more to gain than to lose by refusing to cooperate.

if you’re dealing with a publication whose editor thinks it’s more important than it really is, and you know you’re not going to get a fair shake anyway, why waste your time?

if you’re asked to comment about a competitor, or about a situation in your industry to which you’re ancillary, and there’s any chance that your comment may be misinterpreted or even misreported, “no comment” is a great response.

there are many comparable situations, but they all add up to one thing – blind obedience to all rules, particularly the rules of marketing, doesn’t always make sense.

the rules of media relations aside, the governing factor should be the well-being of your firm. there are values to public relations, obviously, and there are times when, despite the negative aspect of the story, you have an obligation to tell your side. but not always, and not universally.

frequently, the press will trash a company. a few years ago, a major public relations firm took a beating on the front page of a major newspaper. conventional wisdom at the time was that because of the story and the place in which it appeared, the firm was through. it didn’t happen that way.

after a flurry of trade discussion, and possibly the loss of a potential client or two (no current clients were lost), the firm continued to thrive. why? because one story, positive or negative, doesn’t have much effect. only an ongoing campaign, positive or negative, has sustaining results.

so if you know that you’re going to take a beating no matter what you say or do, or if you know that the reporter is unlettered or unknowledgeable in the subject and is only passing through the beat, or if you know that commenting is going to get you involved in something that may turn out to be flat, stale and unprofitable to you, then tell the media to bug off.

if you know that a reporter is misrepresenting to you what he’s writing, in order to get your participation in a story that you might otherwise be reticent about, or if that reporter has done that to you in the past, you’re perfectly right to decline.

in fact, participating in a roundup story should be done cautiously anyway, with you asking the reporter as many questions as he or she asks you. and if you do consider participating, take notes of what you’re being told about the nature of the story. you may want to complain later.

the press has an inalienable right to pursue. they don’t have an inalienable right to catch. there’s a difference between being firm and declining and being rude. rudeness is somebody else’s game. declining firmly and politely may very well be the way for you to win your game.

your mother, then, may have been right. but not always.

posted on march 15, 2024