Not necessarily, in many instances one does not know which journalist to contact, unless a journalist has contacted you or one has been assigned. Larger publications have section editors. We send all of ours to the editors, seems to work fine.

No, I don't work for a municipal government.

Any competent PR person/firm has a list of journalists (constantly updated) so they know exactly who to contact in each media organization.

If, for example, I am pitching something to the Toronto Star I am not pitching it to an editor, I am pitching it to the journalist who I want to write the story (say Rosie DiManno, just to pick a name and only hers because I just finished reading one of her columns so she is top of mind right now).

If I am pitching to a TV show such as Breakfast Television then I pitch directly to a producer.

If I am pitching to a radio station such as TSN 1050 (I only used them as an example because I am listening to their Leafs Lunch program as I type this), then I pitch to either the host of the show or the producer of the show - and usually to the producer.




And it might work better if your pitches were targeted more directly. PR firms have to provide their clients with service that is better than 'fine'.

What does that mean? Some folks actually believe advertorials! Infomercials I understand, but advertorials? Any examples?

It means that stories, etc. often originate with PR firms/PR practitioners and that the vast majority of people have no idea how common it is. Sure, some advertorials are incredibly obvious (the Toronto Sun is full of those) but a lot aren't nearly as obvious and the average person won't realize it.

Magazines are the worst for this. I forget the exact percentage at the moment (I could easily look it up if I can find the right books in the mess that is my bookshelf) but something like 70%, or more, of what appears in magazines originates with PR firms/PR professionals. And I am not talking about stupid celebrity magazines or the like, I am talking about more legitimate publications such as Macleans, etc.

Do they not need to labelled "advertorial" or is that just in Britain?

Not labelled except, of course, for the ones that are clearly ads but are disguised as news stories/editorial content (you should be able to picture the ones I am referring to, they are regularly published in the Toronto Sun).

I haven't read the print versions of the Toronto Star or the Toronto Sun today but, when I do, I will be able to pick out those stories that originated with PR firms/PR professionals with a high degree of accuracy. The average person won't be able to do the same though because they lack training in the field. Once one has that training, they are usually very easy to spot.

Just to provide a really quick example, take a look at the link below that takes you to the travel section in The Star. Underneath the story about Hong Kong, you will see a section called "Travel Australia". Everything in there will have been pitched by PR people working for Australia's tourism ministry, an airline, an Australian hotel association, or something similar (and by 'working for' I mean either internal PR/Communications people or an external PR firm hired by the tourism ministry, an airline, or whatever). To me it is incredibly obvious where those articles originated but the average person might think that the paper is simply doing a feature on Australia.

Travel | Vacations, Destinations & Reviews | Toronto Star


Or take a look at the link below from the food section of The Star. The average person might think that the reporter is simply doing a story on a community event that will be of interest to a significant number of people in the GTA, but I guarantee you that that article originated from a PR person pitching that event.

Audience picks between mushy and burnt biryanis at lighthearted Halal Food Fest showdown | Toronto Star

Maybe the average moron would not realise that these are biased/sponsored stories, but I think the average person would. Not only that, they are incredibly poorly written, but that may just be to keep in line with Toronto Star house style.

Nonetheless, thanks for providing the examples.

Those were just a couple of quick examples that it took me two seconds to find, there are plenty of others that won't be anywhere near as obvious.

As for the average person realizing what they are, I think you give the average person too much credit.


Here is another example from the front page of The Star's webpage:

Pluto’s moons in ‘cosmic dance with chaotic rhythm’ | Toronto Star

That story originated with a press release from NASA that was pitched to science writers.


Today's news story about the changes that are coming to Ontario's electoral ridings is a good example. The average person would assume that political reporters dug up the info, interviewed someone who told them about it, were tipped off, or simply attended a press conference but the info was originally put out there as a press release by Elections Ontario. And if you read both you will see that the story in The Star directly lifts a few lines from the press release - the average person would think that the reporter spoke to the CEO but the truth is that they simply lifted the comments from the Elections Ontario press release.

The story in the newspaper:

Ontario to add 15 MPPs, move 2018 election date ahead | Toronto Star

The original press release:

Elections Ontario | Ontario takes action on four of Elections Ontario's recommendations to improve the electoral process


Or take the story linked below about off leash dogs. The average person might think the city hall reporter dug up this info, interviewed someone about it, or whatever but if you look at the second link you will see that the story originated from a City of Toronto press release from one of their internal communications people (yes, there is an obvious link to the press release in the online version of the story but that link wouldn't exist in the hard copy edition of the paper which would make it far less obvious to the average person that this originated from some PR/communications person).

Toronto cracking down on off-leash dogs | Toronto Star


News item - Detail - Newsroom - Accessing City Hall | City of Toronto


Then there is the story about Mulcair linked below. I guarantee you that the NDP's communications people targeted Hume (because of what he writes about) and pitched him the info about Mulclair's appearance that led to the column.

NDP’s Thomas Mulcair stakes his party’s claim to the urban agenda: Hume | Toronto Star



If you are at all interested (you seem to be), here is a link to Canada Newswire and you can scroll through a lot of press releases and can figure out how they might end up as stories in the media that the average person wouldn't realize had originated with a press release or a directed pitch.

CNW Group

Well I'm not questioning that PR takes place or indeed that organisations pay a PR company to get their message out. Those examples appear to fall within that category. The original point of contention was advertorials, and whether people are duped by them. If it's simple regurgitating of science/political facts or findings, there is no real bias issue to be concerned about.

There is bias in everything. Even the choice of what to publish in the paper involves bias. There is no getting away from it.

As for advertorials, as I said some are incredibly obvious while others aren't nearly as obvious (and the lines are often blurred) - but they exist everywhere.

Here is a column on advertorials:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/10/ne...n_can_co.shtml


Here is something with Canadian content:

Is this article trying to sell you something? (Or, the role of advertorials) | J-Source

There is a huge difference between pitching a story at a journalist or producer, and paying for advertorial space in which to insert one's own copy.

News-gathering organizations, and publications that carry longer feature articles, simply wouldn't function without PR folks pitching content. Sure, PR-driven surveys are a very effective way of getting column inches in news stories for the firms that use them, especially if the news cycle is otherwise a bit slow that day. And it is perfectly legitimate for PRs to talk to commissioning editors or editorial assistants, find out which journos have been commissioned to write which features (most of the trade press publish editorial calendars well in advance for exactly this purpose) and pitch their execs or clients to the journalist for commentary and quotes. This is how the media works.

But all of that is a world away from "advertising features" or "advertorials." Those, too, have their place - it's the advertising dollars that make the publication feasible in the first place, after all. But to lump all of PR in the same bucket shows, for somebody who works in the business, a fairly poor understanding of the difference between above-the-line and below-the-line marketing expenditures.