I’ve noticed that increasingly comms teams at major companies want to “check out” reporters by meeting them in advance, before allowing them to get in front of senior execs for an on-the-record interview.
This has always happened, especially at CEO level, but seems more prevalent now. What determines whether this strategy is advisable for a company really depends on its objectives and the power dynamic between reporter/outlet and company. Nobody is going to be interviewing Tim Cook or Jane Fraser without their comms team knowing the reporter in some detail, and probably with multiple other ground rules having been negotiated with the outlet.
On the other hand, smaller companies need to grab any (well most) opportunity for a major media interview, and an elaborate PR pre-check can often use up goodwill if it simply shows the reporter there is not much of interest to see. The challenge is particularly in the broader middle of large but underreported publicly traded companies.
The backdrop is that reporters have less time and patience with comms people of any stripe. And probably tech and financial services companies may be the most cautious in seeking such pre checking.
What are comms teams trying to achieve with “checking out”?
Fundamentally – and reasonably – comms teams want to derisk, as far as possible, any future interviews with their execs and the reporter. This comes from an understanding that interview risk is asymmetrical: good interviews get praised internally, but the downside on bad interviews is much greater.
They want to get a sense of how informed the reporter is and how aggressive they might be with their CEO. Exceptionally well informed reporters (with multiple other sources inside a bank perhaps) are a tricky category, as are extremely green reporters, who CEOs tend not to like. Probably those in the middle in terms of knowledge of a company are preferred.
The comms people also want to understand a reporter’s beat, seriousness and gravitas. Age and dress can be a factor – though working for the FT or the Journal provides instant gravitas.
Often a comms team is checking out a reporter because they know they may have substantial news coming up that could be of interest.
Comms teams are also, candidly, derisking their own role. Senior executives tend to assume that their PR people know reporters extremely well. With ten PR people for every reporter and with a high turnover of reporter beats, this is not so easy to achieve as those executives might think. Hybrid working has not helped. Some cities like DC are more face to face, but getting quality time with reporters is harder for PRs than ever, whether inhouse or agency.
What is reasonable “checking out” for a mid-sized company?
If your company has never been in the Wall Street Journal and you do not have assigned beat reporters there or at the FT, it’s harder. At worst, a background comms “check out” can use up your one shot with a prestigious publication, rather than getting your executive saying something quotable.
If you can point to a string of coverage in an outlet over the years, it’s much easier to persuade a new or different reporter there to sit down for a pre-meeting. It’s also easier if you are a public company to explain that CEOs on the record needs some careful preplanning.
A softly-softly approach to checking out
Needless to say, time-poor reporters don’t as a rule like this process. They see it as time wasting and controlling by PRs. They play along if it’s important enough. There are a few ways in which comms teams can make this checking out appear less of a pain, and therefore more likely to accept such meetings.
- Firstly – if you as a comms person can go to the outlet and do it face to face, this is much more likely to get a useful result. Coffee chats over zoom tend not to appeal.
- New reporters are hugely more likely to agree to this, particularly of course when they specifically cover your company. Grizzled veterans who have been covering asset management for decades tend to take some persuasion.
- Do your homework (FT job specs are public) so you can get fast to the nub of what you want to find out from the reporter.
- Bring expertise on the topic areas about your company and industry – to interest the reporter and convince them they are not just wasting time with an underinformed gatekeeper. But balance questions and careful listening with selling.
The downsides of “checking out”
The challenge with these checking out meetings is that they occur in a vacuum. They may tell you useful stuff about a reporter’s interests, approach to exclusives, interest in third party comment etc. But reporters don’t act the same way when they are just chatting off the record to PR people. It’s not an actual interview. It tells you nothing about whether they would scoop you on something negative (they would – see Lionel Barber’s memoirs on scoops on his friends).
Conclusion
Checking out isn’t going to go away. The media arguably matters less than before to the biggest companies, and these meetings are part of their media relations tools. Some reporters will always push back a bit, and it then becomes about who wants a story more. There are some simple ways for a comms person to make this due diligence feel more light touch and useful for reporters. And less prominent companies that do not appear in major media that often should judge carefully when they really need to do this.
Andrew Marshall is Cognito’s MD Americas and vice chairman
