It’s easy to criticise, and journalists are particularly good at focusing on the negative – it usually makes for a better story. So when PRmoment asked leading business writers what winds them up about PROs, they wasted no time in letting rip. If you are feeling able to take some (occasionally constructive) criticism, then read on. Although you might like to brace yourself. On a positive note, most journalists mentioned how they appreciate the work that good PROs do, and even went out of their way to describe some of the PR practices they find most welcome.

The badThe most commonly voiced complaint concerned PROs who don’t make the effort to find out anything about the journalist or the publication they are contacting. Richenda Wilson, freelance writer specialising in marketing, management and the environment, gives an example of how PROs would call her when she was working at Marketing Week and ask her how often it came out and what subject it covered, when a glance at the title was all that was needed. Louise Jack, features writer at Marketing Week, also complains about PROs who fail to even “vaguely” familiarise themselves with the publication. She says “I used to frequently get chummy emails proposing so-and-so as a candidate for a profile. At that point we never did profiles”. This leads Jack to advise: “Try reading the magazine!”

Another example of not bothering to grasp even a basic understanding of a title is given by Pete Roythorne, editor in chief at web channel www.meetingsreview.com. He complains that he received an email from one PRO asking whether their client had been included in a feature. He says: “The email went something along the lines of: ‘Did you use our comment in your Event publication, the name of which escapes me right now…’ Had the PRO bothered to scroll down their own email they would have seen the name of my publication in my sign-off. I didn't bother quoting their client.”

Laziness doesn’t just extend to not finding out about the person/publication being called, it also reveals itself in ignorance about the subject being marketed. Caroline Parry, acting head of news at Screen International and www.screendaily.com, says that in her opinion “there is nothing worse than a PRO who has failed to do their research – either about your publication or the product that they are PR-ing.” This is echoed by Alicia Clegg, regular freelance contributor to the Financial Times, who adds that the most annoying PROs have: “little or no understanding of their client’s business, still less of the wider industry and are incapable of seeing beyond the angle that they've been given to push.”

PROs can also end up damaging their clients‘ reputations by preventing a journalist getting access to information. Parry says, “obstructive PROs – those who you go to with a story (most often out of courtesy), but who refuse to help, or just say: ‘We aren't ready to release that yet’ without going to the client, have to be the worst“. She adds, “surely once a story is out there (and whether you like it or not) the best approach is to make sure a publication has all the right facts?” Marketing Week’s Jack says that it's not just the refusing to co-operate that is annoying, but the fact that the PRO will then turn round and complain about what gets written. She says, “If I tell you I am writing a story about your client and you refuse to help or organise a contribution, don't come crying to me when you don't like what's been written. You had your chance.”

PR people are renowned for being a lot less grumpy than journalists, but even their unerring cheeriness can be a source of ire. Clegg says that the most dangerous PROs are the unfailingly upbeat and seemingly knowledgeable ones, as these “lull you into a false sense of security“. She explains: “They answer every question about whether their client meets a particular criterion by saying ‘absolutely‘. When you actually get to talk to the client, of course, they ‘absolutely’ don't'.”

As journalists are constantly looking for reliable sources to make their jobs easier, it is particularly grating when a PRO not only fails to provide information, but ends up wasting the writer’s time. David Benady, freelance journalist and writer for Haymarket publications, says that one thing that gets his goat is “PR people insisting that you email over a list of questions, details of the publication date, and who else you are talking to before they can get a comment. Then they come back and say ‘no comment‘.“ He goes on, “Indeed the question ‘who else are you talking to for the article?’ is barefaced cheek, as is the ensuing statement ‘so why are you picking on us?’”

Another classic time-wasting PRO tactic is to try and force their own agendas onto a journalist, or to fob writers off with junior spokespeople, while restricting access to the real decision-makers in an organisation. Freelance business writer Jo-Anne Flack says that this can be down to the PRO’s own lack of confidence, as they are too frightened to ask for top-level clearance. Junior PROs’ lack of proper training and support from their agency also shows in other ways, as Flack explains: “Nothing is more annoying than getting a phone call from an inexperienced junior PR executive who has been told by their boss to either sell you a story idea or try and get their clients onto your radar.”

The goodJournalism is not the most fawning profession, but when PROs do their jobs well, writers are happy to admit that they feel indebted to them. Marketing Week’s Jack says; “When a PR person contacts me with an idea that is actually relevant to my publication and appropriate for one of the slots, then I will love them forever and work with them endlessly.”

As well as being people who do background research and listen to their clients and contacts, good PROs have empathy and diplomacy. Screen International’s Parry says that the PROs who strike the balance between helping journalists do their job and making sure they get the coverage that their client requires, tend to be those who, “understand the pressures on reporters looking to please their news editors, but have also briefed their clients that not everything will go their way.”

Another quality that good PROs have is that they are fantastic networkers. Financial Times’ Clegg, who is particularly keen to emphasise how much she appreciates the help of PROs, claims that she has often been helped out with useful contacts at extremely short notice. MEETINGS:review’s Roythorne agrees with Clegg and adds that a good PRO is a journalist's best friend: “They can open doors and make sure you get what you want when you want it. Having written in the marcomms sector for the past six years, I know most of the PROs that operate in this industry and have developed strong friendships and working relationships with many of them.”

Awful PROs:
1. Use incorrect job titles (unforgivable)
2. Use lazy English and journalise in press releases and emails
3. Call just after they have sent an email or press release
4. Don’t understand their clients, or their clients' industries
5. Insist on listening i