△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

The marginalization of Rolodex PR

Shel HoltzI was interviewing for a job about 15 years ago, a PR position with a high-tech startup. It only took the person interviewing me—he was the president or the CEO, if memory serves—to ask about my Rolodex.

For the uninitiated, I wasn’t being asked about the rotary card index loaded with removable cards where I kept contact information. (I still have a paper Rolodex which, in addition to my digital contact lists, I use frequently.) I was being asked specifically about how many industry media contacts I had. Truth be told, I didn’t have too many contacts, and the interview ended shortly afterward. No matter how much I tried to explain that good PR isn’t about quantity of contacts, this company wasn’t interested in anything but.

They’re hardly alone. In another job, I was constantly asked to “get out your Rolodex” and had to remind the boss that I didn’t practice Rolodex PR.

Good PR is not, in fact, about the number of relationships you have developed with media contacts. It never has been and, as we navigate our way through the shifting media seas, it is less important than it ever was. Getting people to tell your story is not about the relationships you have with reporters. It’s about the quality of the story and how well it aligns with the reporter’s beat and interests.

I tried explaining this to the startup exec: If I have a great story to tell, I can get it placed without having ever spoken to any given reporter. On the other hand, if the story sucks no amount of time invested in building a close relationship will get a reporter to cover it.

Getting a great story placed also requires finding the reporters who have reported on similar subjects in the past. Fifteen or 20 years ago, Lexis-Nexis was an ideal tool for finding reporters who have shown interest in your topic. (It was also a great way to check the work of reporters calling you to find out to learn how they have covered companies like the ones you represent.)

Media relations-focused PR professionals who practiced Rolodex PR are finding even less value in their connections today. The composition of a publication’s editorial staff has always been fluid—particularly on smaller papers and trade publications—but the shakeout in the journalism business means a lot of those well-established contactds aren’t working in the business at all any more.

The changing nature of journalism, including the rise of blogging and citizen journalism, has even further marginalized the value of the Rolodex. In a post on Rebooting the News, Dave Winer suggests that journalism training could become part of everybody’s education, not just those who enroll in journalism school:

In the future everyone can be a journalist, and the people who will be most valuable are those who are experts in areas outside journalism. That means, to me, that everyone should get a basic journalism education, in the same way it???s a good idea for us to take a semester of math, English lit, chemistry or physics.

My own recent experience speaking with a journalism department faculty proved (to me, at least) that the future of journalism is up in the air. Hundreds of models are being proposed and experimented with. But Dave’s view (that everyone can be a journalist, not necessarily that universities will embrace journalism-as-core-curriculum) should serve as a shake-up call for PR practitioners who have relied on the Rolodex.

First of all, I have experience with journalists who become experts in other fields. A good friend with whom I attended journalism school decided he wanted to cover law, so he went to law school in order to improve his depth of knowledge. He grew so close to the field that he could no longer report effectively to people who didn’t have his own level of understanding. (He eventually gave up journalism and has been a public defender for the better part of 30 years.)

One of the goals of journalism training is helping reporters learn to translate complex topics so lay readers can understand them. As experts in their field become journalists in an everyone-can-publish world, PR can help them make their messages understandable to outsiders…that is, we can help them tell their stories.

But more important is finding those journalists—professional or citizen—who would be genuinely interested in telling our companies’ or clients’ stories. And when everyone is conceivably a reporter, you’d either need the world’s biggest Rolodex, and more relationships than any one person can possibly maintain, or a different approach to getting your story out.

Practitioners who have always found the right outlet and pitched a great story have a leg up in this environment over those who build relationships with a diminishing pool of professional journalists. And assuming Dave’s vision is accurate, we’ll also help our clients—the experts in their fields—be their own journalists.

As with all things, this isn’t an either/or proposition. Some solid relationships with important journalists will always be important. (Having that relationship with Walt Mossberg or David Pogue, for example, would be invaluable when representing tech clients.) That is, I’m not about to fall into the trap of proclaiming Rolodex PR dead. In general, though, Rolodex PR is fast becoming a niche activity rather than a core PR practice.

12/06/09 | 11 Comments | The marginalization of Rolodex PR

Comments

  • 1.Shel,

    Thanks for this-=- i have been fighting the notion of Rolodex PR for a while now, mostly from the impression that many companies hire agencies based on their contacts. Show me a PR practitioner who makes their bones bragging about their Rolodex, and I'll show you a liar.

    what does knowing someone get you? Ten seconds on the phone instead of five, and maybe your email actually gets opened. So, if you don;t have the right pitch, it's easy to destroy that relationship in seconds.

    We do have to reconcile that with the fact that bloggers (and many journalists) prefer "relationship" model with PR folks, but as you say, one would need the world's biggest Rolodex.

    I prefer to think of it this way-- these are relationships, we're just forging new ones every day.

    Doug Haslam | December 2009 | Boston, MA

  • 2.Absolutely right. I had a boss once who would throw a prospect out of the office if he/she asked about her Rolodex.

    Most times when they want you for your contacts, they have an inversely proportional interest in your advice.

    letterhead | December 2009

  • 3.On point and to the point. My Rolodex is gathering dust, not because contacts aren't valuable, but now they are all in the digital Rolodex.

    I, too, have had clients ask who I know--and answered the same--it's not who, but what. The quality of the story trumps all else.

    As a liberal arts educated individual, I acknowledge the power of a curious mind and questioning attitude. It makes for good results in more than PR.

    Cheryl Smithem | December 2009 | Charleston, SC

  • 4.Shel ? a timely, well-considered piece. I have made successful transitions from industry to industry in media relations. Each time, I had to get acquainted with new groups of journalists and analysts, but that never took long.

    In my experience, media relations is more about process than contacts. Once you know how to do it well, you can do it anywhere. Always, the story is what matters. Recognizing the real story is the first step, followed by telling it in a compelling way.

    When I am asked about contacts, my response is usually something such as, ?Who would you like me to get to know??

    Jim Bowman ? The PR Doc?

    Jim Bowman | December 2009 | Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

  • 5.Great post Shel. The only time I think that my Rolodex really matters is when key reporters are working on stories that I wouldn't have known about had they not contacted me. I am fortunate enough to have a few reporters who come to me routinely in search of sources for stories that I'm not pitching, but would still like my clients to be apart of.

    Amy Dean | December 2009 | Outside Chicago

  • 6.Shel,

    You make a valid point about the news value of your story for reporters trumping how well you know them. However, speaking from experience on both sides of the reporter's notebook, PR isn't just about getting a story placed.

    I have valued my relationships with reporters over the years for much more than getting a certain news story out there. I valued that relationship because sometimes the job in PR is to get a story killed, minimized or at least written in such a way that your side is more fairly and more vigorously represented.

    Having the ability to pick up the phone or email a reporter and actually have them listen to your side is invaluable. Being able to chat with a reporter off the record because you've each built up a level of trust is truly precious. And having the ability to just talk to a reporter or PR person one-on-one over coffee to hash out story ideas because you believe in each other's judgment is priceless.

    Public relations and media relations are all about relationships at the core. I wish more people would remember that as this new bulk e-mail, database driven PR industry continues to wrestle with its future.

    Ari B. Adler | December 2009 | Okemos, MI

  • 7.Now that many PR practitioners are no longer behind the scene, partially due to their online presences, don't we also have to factor in their reputations among those very people they're hoping will help tell their story? Unlike journalists, these millions of citizens have not been trained -- or badgered over the years -- to tell a PR practitioner's story even if they don't like the person. How much goodwill you've built up matters more than ever, which is unfortunate for those PR practitioners who once could focus on crafting a good story -- instead of networking like their more relationship-minded colleagues.

    Jeff Hardison | December 2009

  • 8.Perfectly stated.

    I've had similar experiences in a the past, and several conversations about it with recruiters who insisted their candidates produce a Rolodex accounting before arranging an interview for a few colleagues of mine.

    Perhaps something can be said about order of things. A suitable "Rolodex" of relationships for a specific company nowadays is the outcome of finding and telling the right story to the right people, or, in some cases, asking them to tell their stories. But even more than that, Rolodex PR might be dead given how many people are changing positions and industries nowadays.

    Hmmm ... your post might have even inspired a follow up using a recent local change in the media. Dozens of senior reporters were recently let go, thereby diminishing the value of some PR firms' Rolodexes, I imagine.

    All my best,
    Rich

    Richard Becker | December 2009 | Las Vegas

  • 9.Thank you for writing this post. I have always been under the impression that Rolodex PR was PR. But it is encouraging to know that the "who-you-know" is possibly taking a backseat to "what-you-know", or "the story." This is also welcome news to talented PR professionals who want to broaden their experience and venture into new industries, but have been told that they don't have the right contacts for the job. Now we have a little more ammunition to take with us in the interview process. Thanks again.

    Alyson | December 2009 | Los Angeles

  • 10.Great post Shel. The only time I think that my Rolodex really matters is when key reporters are working on stories that I wouldn?t have known about had they not contacted me. I am fortunate enough to have a few reporters who come to me routinely in search of sources for stories that I?m not pitching, but would still like my clients to be apart of.

    chat | January 2010 | england

Comment Form

« Back