How to get your comments used in a media bun fight
In my former life as a Fleet Street hack I would often bemoan PRs who cluttered my inbox with anodyne drab comments reacting to the latest Supreme Court judgment. Now firmly ensconced on the other side of the fence as poacher turned gamekeeper, I can see why so many quotes that are sent to journalists will never be used. Some lawyers and legal PRs simply don’t know what reporters want or how to get their comments used during a media bun fight.
The recent Supreme Court judgment into mis-sold car finance was a case in point. My colleague Neil Rose, who is co-founder of Black Letter but also editor of Legal Futures, received dozens of comments from law firms reacting to the news that the Supreme Court had overturned the High Court’s decision in favour of lenders.
This was a perfect example of how a huge number (a record number of comments received according to Neil) of lawyers and law firms are, understandably but often poorly, trying to get exposure through reacting to the news agenda. The trouble is that some firms just aren’t saying anything very interesting, so are wasting their time. Add to that you are competing with multiple law firms when only three or four quotes will be used, some comments will simply never see the light of day.
While getting cut through in such a crowded marketplace can be difficult there are several things that can be done to maximise your chances. When I draft a quote for a lawyer I always think ‘what would I have wanted when I was a journalist?’ So what is that?
A reporter is looking for quotes that add to their story or move it on. What does the judgment mean? What will happen next? What is the impact going to be on consumers or businesses? Will they still be able to claim compensation? Will they face a huge compensation bill? By offering analysis lawyers can add depth to stories and show they are experts in their field.
One thing that never fails to amaze me is lawyers’ love of repeating the story in a quote. ‘Today the Supreme Court found in favour of….’ Stop. Don’t do this. The reporter will have already reported what happened in the story, they are looking for quotes that explain or add to it, not repeat what they have already written
As well as adding analysis, the language you use is critical. You don’t need to go all tabloid – something I may have been accused of in the past – but you do need to provide a quote that is interesting to read and makes you react. Punchy, pithy sound bites are best. Your quote needs to jump off the page. Quotes that start ‘we welcome’ make me lose the will to live. I’m sorry to say, nobody cares that you welcome something, they want to know what the judgment means.
Another fundamentally important point to consider is timing. Reporters need immediate reaction to a breaking news story. A useful rule of thumb is to get your quote out within an hour of the story breaking. The reason for this is that once the story has been filed online most publications are unlikely to add your quote unless you are directly relevant to the story, such as a comment from a victim or from a lawyer representing one of the parties following a judgment.
Which brings me to my next point: relevance. I know it sounds obvious, but to have any chance of being quoted you need to be relevant to the story. If you act for the participants in a case then you are hugely relevant, and if you have clients who have suffered the same fate then you are likely to be taken seriously. If you are commenting on an issue in your practice area then you have some skin in the game but don’t assume that reporters will care what you have to say unless you add something. It’s a crowded marketplace when jumping on the news agenda, so don’t waste your time sending out a vanilla quote as it will only end in disappointment.
