The leaking of an e-mail chain about Wired magazine contributing editor Fred Vogelstein to Vogelstein has made for some interesting blogging and water-cooler talk since the snafu surfaced publicly on Wired’s blog last week. Microsoft’s PR agency inadvertently forwarded the confidential e-mail, which revealed the time and human capital some companies will invest in shaping a story.
Every other week, it seems, my Inbox is the recipient of an e-mail that wasn’t meant for me but was mistakenly sent by a friend or colleague. Instant-messaging users can easily fall victim to the same carelessness. The Microsoft leak, however, is noteworthy because it spawned a blog post by the reporter on one of the most oft-read blogs in techland (and a post by the offending agency’s president, and a separate post by another Wired editor).
What probably took most readers by surprise is the quality of work that the agency produced, as reflected in the e-mail chain. IMO, too many agencies are guilty of the “smile and dial” approach to media relations, where the practitioner sets up and moderates interviews but gives little [useful] what-to-say advice that demonstrates an understanding of what’s important to the client. Though its anyone’s guess as to how many billable hours were spent producing the material Vogelstein ultimately got his hands on, I think it shows some great senior-level messaging counsel on the agency’s end, and is exactly the type of work good agencies get paid to do.
But what can the practitioners in New Professionals learn from the incident? 1) Continue to be suspicious of that “Forward” button. Double-check addresses, etc. This is extraordinarily easy to screw up. 2) Know that some stories can be a slow burn. Notoriously tough-to-crack Wired took Microsoft’s agency six months. 3) After the reporter agrees to the interview, your work has not ended, it’s begun. Anticipate questions, and think about what talking points will be most interesting to the reporter.
Several small ironies: Microsoft’s Outlook e-mail program, with its predictive-text feature that automatically fills in an e-mail address based on the first few letters, is probably responsible for the leak. And, the mistakenly forwarded e-mail chain was concerning Vogelstein’s story on transparency. I’m not suggesting the incident was intentional, but it definitely enhanced Vogelstein’s article.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You're right on, Andrew. Good piece. I like the little bit at the end about the "small ironies." I hadn't thought of that.
Say hi to Scotty, Jeremy and Sarah for me.
Post a Comment