Sometimes. This post from Owen Thomas at Business 2.0's blog is interesting. He points to a minor news release boilerplate edit of all things to declare the start of the iPod era.
"When did the iPod era begin? Well, you could point to the 2001 launch of the first iPod. But for those who are really into reading corporate tea leaves, we nominate July 7, 2004. That's when Apple changed the boilerplate description of the company you'll find at the bottom of every press release to include a mention of the iPod."
Google the "news release is dead" meme for a recap, but here's proof that the media read some news releases. In extreme cases, they are even reading the boilerplate (surprisingly).
Uber anal retentive clients scrutinizing the nuance of every last buzzword in a boiler plate, through several rounds of edits, might feel vindicated by this. But to me it underscores that a boilerplate should be concise, clear, updated regularly and, most importantly, SHORT.
Before some of you beat this dead horse with your keyboards, there are plenty of alternatives to a news release. Just remember that, much like blogs, news releases are a tool. We use specific tools for specific jobs.
Content vs. Format
It is the content quality of a news release, and not its format, that is truly important. Bad news releases are deleted/tossed and are usually only published in some form to punish their creators. This is not the case for blogs.
Bad blog content is published at whim in a highly-networked format that is linked, tracked back to, tagged, pushed out via RSS, aggregated by automated sites and catalogued by search engines. This is one reason why MSM metrics do not work on blogs and why it only takes one person to impact the health of your brand.
tags | public relations | media relations | news release | blog | PR
photo credit: iPod, iPod and iPod originally uploaded by Geeeeeeeeeenta
Interesting stuff.
Re: boilerplates, I hesitate to tell this anecdote but what the hell:
I actually worked somewhere where the boilerplate was so sacred to the CEO that he did not approve a substantive change to it during my entire tenure there.
Handcuffs, anyone?
Posted by: scott | 01/14/2006 at 11:27 AM
I just wrote a press release for a new client yesterday and included a draft boilerplate (they didn't have ANYTHING before). When I sent the release to the client for review and feedback, he called and asked about "the disclaimer" at the bottom of the release.
Hahaha.
Truer words may have never before been spoken in this dark art we call "PR."
And, oh yeah Kevin, you're gettin' blogged for this one.
Regards,
Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station
Posted by: Mike Bawden | 01/14/2006 at 05:34 PM
It always amazes me the amount of time spent agonizing over such a small piece of content placed at the very end of a document. My favorites are the long-winded, "kitchen sink" boilerplates that are so lengthy, every release is automatically two pages long. Companies should consider it their elevator speech--concise, substantive and engaging. Points added for being free of buzzwords.
Posted by: Kevin Dugan | 01/15/2006 at 02:08 AM
It’s certainly needed, and brief is good. Every few years our boilerplates get so big that we wake up and realize we have to trim them!
Posted by: Jack Yan | 01/16/2006 at 05:25 AM
That is a thought, to think Ipod got all that press from changing their boilerplate. I am a student in public relations, and as a senior, I would have thought I would know what a boilerplate was in a news release by now. Sadly, I have not learned that so I googled it. Funny thing is, I am in a program called UPC, we bring all entertainment to campus, and I write all the press releases for events. There is a blurb i must include about our program at the end of each one. . ., hmm, a boilerplate! Good to know that they need to be short and to the point but having all needed information. And props to Apple for including the Ipod in theirs and getting more press. And good to know that media does actually read news releases. . . sometimes.
Posted by: carolyn | 01/16/2006 at 03:56 PM
Owen is always a fun read, and even more fun to work with. He has an interesting point though, that when Apple included the iPod in the boilerplate, it really had a significant impact on the business.
As for boilerplates, my favorites are those that are tag-fests, mostly from the dotcom era. Let's try to put in every company possible that we worked with and worked at, to get pickup!!
Posted by: Jeremy Pepper | 01/17/2006 at 12:09 AM
Ah yes, ticker spam. Good times. Good times.
Posted by: Kevin Dugan | 01/17/2006 at 12:26 AM
Yes, boilerplates should be reviewed and changed as needed. But, it's not awful if they are rarely changed.
Isn't the main purpose of that paragraph (one, please!) to give a *brief* summary of the company. It's intended for those media outlets who are not familar with that company. I bet most reporters don't even read them.
-- Mike
Posted by: Mike Driehorst | 01/17/2006 at 08:53 AM
I’m with you, Mike: I only read it if I don’t know the company. Otherwise, I ignore it.
Posted by: Jack Yan | 02/11/2006 at 01:14 AM