Fighting Red Tape To Win The Media Relations Speed Game

Dec 10, 2019

4 min

Peter Evans

It’s a situation that happens every day in the media relations world.


A reporter calls and they need someone for an interview fast.


This is how the scenario should play out:


Step 1 - The media calls a communications officer with a simple request for information and an interview on a recently announced program.


Step 2 – The communication officer identifies a suitable spokesperson.


Step 3 – The reporter and spokesperson talk, arrange an interview -- and there is some excellent earned media and exposure for your institution.


It sounds simple enough.


But, not so fast.


In reality, things often fall apart on step 3 and the process turns into something that borderlines on a Monty Python skit.


Based on my experience and others I’ve consulted with – it often plays out something like this:


The communications officer contacts the suitable spokesperson’s Manager to ensure it is okay they can speak to the expertise and subject matter they specialize in. Then, they have to loop in that manager with a Director and CEO to inform them of the media request and the plan. And then if the Director agrees, the CEO gets on board. Or perhaps the Director agrees only after checking with the CEO and agreeing to the spokesperson.


Once that’s nailed down somehow…the CEO wonders if speaking points are required and will only proceed once the Manager and Director have signed off on them.


After the speaking points are finally approved, speaking points and the media request are sent to the identified spokesperson.


Then the communications officer (remember him or her?) responds to the media that they have found an expert and will arrange a time for interview. The communications officer has the Manager, Director, CEO and spokesperson each sign off on paper-generated Media Request Form for filing and safe records keeping.


And, then…..finally……if the media hasn’t already gone elsewhere, the reporter and the spokesperson finally speak – about 18 steps later. It’s actually more steps than it takes to assemble my daughter’s bike or the average IKEA nightstand. It’s cumbersome, ineffective and costs the organization a lot of time in person power for something that doesn’t need to be this difficult.


And the reality is … this spokesperson is a paid professional with a Master’s degree who was hired for the subject matter they specialize in. The media request was related to a media release issued by the organization. With a simple approval process and a pro-active approach to media, this could have been easier for everybody with an immediate turnaround and a positive outcome.


Think this is a joke? It’s not. In fact, there’s a Communications Officer’s support group that meets every Thursday to share similar situations (I’m being cheeky).


Media will appreciate that sensitive issues take time to respond to. In fact, a lot of media relish the thought the there are people scrambling to answer the tough questions.


What drives media crazy is having to wait hours for what should be a simple, safe and low-risk reply. They likely already know the answer, they just need the expertise to lend it credibility and verification.


(Photo courtesy: CBS Television Studios)

So does your Communications Process need an institutional intervention?

When you make it hard for media to get easy answers, they might start looking elsewhere. Odds are they will. Consider this:


Do you have a grading system for media requests?


  • Low-risk asks can be seen coming and responses pre-approved or left in the hands of your very competent staff.
  • High risk asks mean approval and oversight. People will get that. As well, it will lend a tone of seriousness to the situation.


Do you know the reporter or media outlet?


  • A strong relationship needs faith on both sides.
  • Known reporters and news outlets survive on reputation. Expect them to be professional and trust that they’ll get it right.


Trust your Communications Team – Don’t Micro Manage


  • Media relations isn’t a science – it’s an art where experience matters most.
  • Communications Officers likely know the media and most come from a media background.
  • They’ll know the angles, they scan the media and can likely predict the questions.
  • Empower them to save you time and rely on their instincts.
  • Too many Communications Officers ask “Why did you hire me?” when they aren’t trusted on the simplest of things.


Most institutions have a rigorous vetting process – so why the worry?


  • Didn’t you hire these people – rely on your staff and let them be accountable.
  • Fewer steps saves time, reduces confusion and meets the need of a low-risk ask.
  • Less micromanaging = more trust. Morale is a big deal in any workplace.


So when the media calls, here’s my advice. Take a deep breath. Assess the risk. And arrange the interview as soon as possible and with as little maintenance and anxiety as possible.


The media get the information they want, your institution gets the earned media and free exposure it wants and your Communications Team maintains a reputation as a group that can deliver content on deadline and ‘gets’ the information game.


Remember – in today’s media – it’s all about speed.


The easier you make it for media, the more the phone will ring.



Connect with:
Peter Evans

Peter Evans

Co-Founder & CEO

Recognized speaker on expertise marketing, technology and innovation

Media TrendsThought LeadershipMarketingTechnologyInnovation
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from ExpertFile

25 Years Later: How 9/11 Changed the World featured image

2 min

25 Years Later: How 9/11 Changed the World

On September 11, 2001, the world watched as nearly 3,000 people were killed in terrorist attacks that would become one of the defining moments of the 21st century. Twenty-five years later, 9/11 remains much more than a moment in history. Its consequences continue to shape the world we live in. The attacks transformed national security and intelligence, changed how people travel, reshaped airport and border security, and ushered in a new era of surveillance and counterterrorism. They also profoundly influenced American foreign policy, leading to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and decades of debate about security, military intervention and America's role in the world. The effects were cultural as well as political. September 11 changed how a generation viewed safety, terrorism and global conflict. It also sparked difficult conversations about civil liberties, immigration, religious tolerance and the balance between individual freedoms and collective security. For younger generations, 9/11 is increasingly an event learned about rather than remembered. For millions of others, memories of where they were and what they saw that day remain remarkably vivid. A quarter-century later, the anniversary offers an opportunity to remember those who were lost, recognize the first responders and countless others affected by the attacks, and examine how the decisions made in their aftermath continue to influence our world. Experts in history, political science, international relations, national security, terrorism, public policy and sociology can help provide perspective on September 11, its legacy and how the world has changed 25 years later. Connect with our experts today: View all of your experts here at www.expertfile.com

More Than a Long Weekend: Why Labor Day Still Matters in America featured image

2 min

More Than a Long Weekend: Why Labor Day Still Matters in America

For millions of Americans, Labor Day means the unofficial end of summer , a final long weekend before schools are back in full swing and the fall routine takes over. But behind the barbecues, travel and end-of-summer sales is a holiday rooted in the history of American workers and the transformation of the workplace. Observed on the first Monday in September, Labor Day recognizes the social and economic achievements of American workers. Its origins date to the labor movement of the late 19th century, with the first Labor Day celebration held in New York City on September 5, 1882. In 1894, it became a federal holiday. More than 130 years later, Labor Day remains an opportunity to look at the role work plays in American life, particularly at a time when the workplace itself is undergoing enormous change. Artificial intelligence and automation are reshaping jobs and industries. Remote and hybrid work have changed where and how millions of people work. Employers continue to navigate workforce shortages, recruitment and retention, while workers are reconsidering expectations around compensation, flexibility, benefits and work-life balance. Labor Day can also open the door to broader conversations about the American labor movement, organized labor, workplace protections, wages and the economic contribution of workers. For journalists, that makes the holiday much more than a date on the calendar. It's a timely opportunity to explore both how work in America has changed and where it is heading next. Experts across economics, business, labor relations, history, human resources, public policy and emerging technology can provide valuable perspective on Labor Day and the changing American workplace. Journalists covering Labor Day and looking for expert perspective on the history of the holiday, labor and employment, workplace trends, organized labor, artificial intelligence and the future of work can connect with experts directly through ExpertFile profiles below:

Who Owns the World Cup? featured image

2 min

Who Owns the World Cup?

A plan to sell minority stakes in the commercial business surrounding FIFA competitions has triggered a major confrontation with European soccer. UEFA and its 55 national associations have reportedly agreed to boycott FIFA competitions while the proposal remains active. The dispute touches on sports governance, private investment, legal authority, media rights and the growing commercialization of the World Cup. Writing a story around this unprecedented event?  Connect with leading experts below for insight and commentary. Matthew Robinson — University of Delaware Robinson specializes in international sports governance, sport diplomacy and global sport development. His work is particularly relevant to the power struggle between FIFA, UEFA and national associations—and what a coordinated European boycott could mean for FIFA’s authority. Thomas Smith — Emory University’s Goizueta Business School Smith studies sports economics, finance and the business of entertainment. He can provide insight into the financial thinking behind FIFA’s proposal, including the trade-off between receiving capital now and sharing future World Cup revenues. Tim Derdenger — Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business Derdenger studies sports markets, sponsorship and the commercialization of major sporting events. His research is relevant to the potential effects on broadcast value, sponsors, fan interest and the overall World Cup brand. Klaas Baks — Emory University’s Goizueta Business School Baks specializes in private equity, alternative investments, mergers and acquisitions and business valuation. His expertise can help explain how investors might value FIFA’s commercial assets and what they would typically expect from a minority investment. Andrew Brandt — Villanova University Brandt’s expertise spans sports law and sports business. That experience is relevant to questions about FIFA’s authority over its members, the legal consequences of a boycott and the potential impact on players, sponsors, broadcasters and host countries. Tim DeSchriver — University of Delaware DeSchriver researches sport finance, economics and marketing. His work can help frame the broader financial question: Is FIFA unlocking the value of its competitions, or giving up a share of long-term revenue in exchange for immediate funding? Reach out to these experts now for your next story.  All inquiries are monitored to ensure time-sensitive request and deadlines are met. For more FIFA and WorldCup information visit our World Cup Expert Hubs.

View all posts