Farr on PR: tweaking quotes and how journalists hate it
I used to do pretty much all that my stakeholders asked of me. As a young PR cub, I thought these bankers knew of what they spoke, and that I, wet behind the ears, should watch and learn.
I would walk confidently out of grandiose offices with an agreed plan of action on how to tackle a particular situation, only to realise when staring at my now intimidating desk phone that actually I hadn’t thought it through properly.
I would of course eventually muster up the courage to make the required call, usually to a journalist, and humiliate myself with some outrageous request. Only the wiser, kinder journalists understood.
Many just thought I was an idiot.
So, when I had my ear chewed off recently by a bunch of venting journalists on the subject of quotes, specifically bankers trying to modify quotes before publication but after the fact, I blushed.
For those not in on this open secret, it is a semi-accepted norm of much financial journalism that reporters will send banks, often via PRs, the quotes they plan to use from an on-the-record interview. The fig leaf is that journos insist the quotes are being checked purely for accuracy, but this practice also provides the bank with a level of control over what actually gets published.
For instance, if a banker decides she or he doesn’t like the quotes, it might withdraw “permission” for a quote to be used – and essentially dare the journo to print it knowing it may impact their access to senior managers.
Many titles say checking quotes is against policy, but their journalists recognise the need for ongoing dialogue with their sources so ignore the rule. They don’t want to burn bridges.
The approach I prefer is “off record, check quotes”. That is, an interview billed as off record but with room, after a discussion, to consider some quotes being published. Again, many titles say they don’t do this. The benefit is that bankers feel they can speak more freely than perhaps they otherwise would, knowing there is some insurance should they get carried away.
Chatting with the group of reporters, the subject of on-record quotes came up when a journalist moaned that a PR was trying to tweak some already agreed language. Memories came flooding back of me trying to do the same. Often.
I am blushing again as I write this. Bankers were forever trying to edit their own comments and, in the early days, to my shame, I rarely pushed back.
It is a trick bankers clearly continue to pull today. I was not prepared though for the torrent of vitriol when I asked the group how irritating this practice is.
Turns out – very.
Quotes are a quasi-currency. They hold a value, capable of strengthening or validating an article. As I say, they can be withdrawn in extremis, if parties fall out. And, like currencies, a quote’s value varies. For a journalist, a Jamie Dimon quote, for example, is worth a whole lot more than that from a middle-ranking FX trader in Hong Kong.
So when a banker says something pithy, colourful and interesting and it is on the record, it is a joyous moment for a journo, especially if it is a one-on-one meeting, which means no one else has the same great quote.
In this happy spirit, some (but not all) financial journalists share with bank PRs the quotes they intend to use to check they recorded precisely what was said. This is when happiness can end, and the trouble starts.
I am checking for accuracy only – nothing else must be changed, the journo will say. To be honest, I think fair enough. After all, an on-the-record interview is exactly what it says on the tin.
I too insist when liaising with my internal stakeholders, the bankers, that they can’t change the quotes unless there is a factual error. The picture gets murky when a banker reverts to their PR claiming the language of a quote might be correct but is taken out of context.
In practice, quotes are rarely out of context. To claim they are is a lazy tactic used when bankers have changed their mind. After seeing a quote in stark black and white they decide that what they said might be a little bit too racy. It could upset the delicate stomachs of regulators, or worry a particular client demographic (because we all know how clients hang on to every word bankers say). So they want the quotes tweaked.
Here we PRs find ourselves again in no-man’s land. We sympathise with the journalists who believe they have a top quote, but we are also sensitive to our colleagues who wish to tone down something they said. Ideally, PRs can convince the banker to relax and not be such a wuss. But sometimes a bit of compromise is needed.
Which brings us neatly back to our hot, cross journalists. Because what can appear at the end of this process are quotes stripped of colour or interest that are dry and hollow, safe and uncontroversial. Quotes journalists hate. Plus, it wastes a heap of the journalist’s time, what with the to-ing and fro-ing as quotes are negotiated (but it was on the record!) and re-sculptured (I know, but they don’t want to offend anyone …).
If a banker wants to be heard, they should say something that helps the story and the journalist and not lose their nerve mid-process. A good article is interesting, thought-provoking and accurate, supported by punchy quotes that ram home the message. That is the kind of story that I as a PR want my stakeholders to be associated with. Even if it isn’t a positive one.
So I say to bankers – be bold, be courageous. Provide rich quotes and don’t try to worm your way out later. Even better, think about what you want to say ahead of the interview. Liaise with your PRs and rehearse the language. Interviews are not linear but hopefully you will get one or two juicy quotes across. The journalists will like it, the readers will like it, and who knows, even your bosses might too.
Importantly, you might save a hapless PR from phone humiliation, which is always a worthy cause.
Jezz Farr has been a senior communications adviser to major international banks for more than 25 years