Dennis Byrne

Write an incomprehensible press release for starters. Then send it to journalists who don’t understand it or realize its importance.

Here’s an example. Perhaps the worst lead in a press release I’ve ever read:

Aqua Comms and Epsilon Partner to Bring European Route Diversity and On-Demand Connectivity to NJFX’s Colocation Campus 

WALL, NJ – May 15, 2017 – NJFX, the first and only colocation campus to sit at a cable landing station and offer Tier 3, carrier neutral data center capabilities, announces the addition of Aqua Comms DAC (“Aqua Comms”), the operator of Ireland’s first dedicated subsea fibre-optic network interconnecting New York, Dublin and London, and Epsilon Telecommunications, a privately owned global communications service provider, to its ever-growing connectivity ecosystem. With the introduction of Aqua Comms, NJFX customers can strategically diversify their connectivity options to key European hubs, bypassing legacy chokepoints within the U.S.

Aqua Comms has deployed a Point of Presence (PoP) within NJFX’s colocation campus, allowing NJFX customers to directly access the carrier’s suite of services without incurring cross connect fees. Epsilon and Aqua Comms have partnered to deploy Infiny by Epsilon – an on-demand connectivity platform – within the NJFX facility, and Aqua Comms will use the Cloud Link eXchange (CloudLX) module of Infiny to rapidly interconnect….

You get the idea. It goes on and on like this. This might be big news in IT circles, but for no one else who might be interested in the story that lies behind the news. I usually get my share of press releases in my in-box, but I can’t figure for the life of me why anyone thought that I would be interested. Nothing I’ve published in my columns or elsewhere comes close to the level of detail or puzzlement.

While I was a PR director at a high-tech company that, among other things, developed, patented and leased petrochemical refining processes, I had the same problem. One of the petroleum engineers would write a press release about a big sale or a new process, but no one but petroleum engineers could understand it. My job was to make this company known to a wider group of people, e.g. investors, as I tried to explain the originator of the press release. His response was that we’d look silly explaining stuff that “everyone” already knew. My solution was to do a couple of different press releases—one for his engineering buddies, and one for the general media that fully explained what the hell it all meant.

The Chicago Tribune did a solid job of reporting about an important issue in “Plan for 20,000-hog facility sparks revolt in western Illinois” on Dec. 28, 2016. The 1,800-word article details the damage that Professional Swine Management’s plan to build the Runway Ridge Farms hog farm will do to the environment, the quality of life and the local infrastructure.

It’s a harmful list that undoubtedly persuaded a lot of readers to oppose the hog farm not just in Fulton County a few miles southwest of Peoria but hog farms everywhere.

So what did Professional Swine Management have to say to respond to the article and its damaging assertions and facts?

No comment.

As the Tribune article noted: “Company officials declined interview requests and said they would not comment on their Fulton County plans or any aspects of their business. ‘I think at this point we don’t have any comment on any of these items,’ said Julie Totten, chief financial officer.”

In other words: Screw you. The public be damned. It’s our business so get out of the way. No, that’s not what the company actually said, but that’s how many people will read it. The damage to the company and the industry as a whole is incalculable.

Having worked as a PR director for a publicly held, Fortune 50 company, I fully understand the urge, predisposition and even the need to remain silent. Lawyers, whose standard response is to shut the hell up, almost always have the last word in touchy PR situations like this. And in the short run, that might be the right policy.

But the company has set in motion larger forces in the political and public policy spheres that will rebound against it. Many people will figure that “swine” is an appropriate name for the company. As the article notes, it’s just a small number of people who showed up for a meeting to carry on the fight against the swine farm, but now they’ve got many allies throughout the state. With public opinion on the side of the neighbors objecting to the swine farm, it will be a lot tougher to steamroll the project through.

Furthermore, the article quotes people who make the case for stricter regulation of the swine industry. Expect to see the Illinois Legislature to consider bills to impose tougher environmental rules and give regulators more power to enforce those rules. Fines would be increased. Perhaps even the Feds will get involved. The entire industry will be hurt by the apparent arrogance of Professional Swine Management.

Because of the nature of its business, the company shouldn’t be surprised by the negative reaction. Instead of a damaging “no comment,” the company should have been prepared to make its case if it emerged as a public issue. As the article hints (in a relatively small way), the industry does take steps to protect the environment and quality of life of neighbors. The company should have had a pro-active package of responses all set to go even before it knew that the project would be getting major media attention. So the company’s silence has missed an opportunity to make its case with facts and figures.

Moreover, it must be prepared to respond simultaneously with the first newspaper article or media presentation. Waiting to respond later automatically puts the company on the defensive. Coverage of the response probably won’t be as timely or intense as the first disclosure. Sometimes, there’s no tomorrow as some editors and producers will take the attitude (as wrong as it is) that “you’ve already had your chance to respond and you blew it.”

The company’s non-response feeds the belief that it is “hiding something.” It supports the inclination in some newsrooms (as wrong as it is) that big swine farm companies, like oil and other large companies, have only their self-interest in mind.  And nuts to everyone else.

Maybe it’s true.

Lots of people try to get a meeting with an editorial board to win the newspaper’s endorsement. Lots of people fail because they don’t understand how an editorial board works.

• A business facing a crisis because a toxic cloud escaped from your plant and you want to let everyone know how you plan to fix the problem.
• A civic group proposing a viable economic development plan for the city.
• A grass roots organization fighting for an ordinance that will help protect your neighborhood from gangs.
• A congregation that is fighting to keep its historic church out of the clutches of a demolition crew.
• A legitimate candidate for public or elective office.
• The new head of a local, troubled university that has plans for substantial change.
• A volunteer group that’s doing something unique to help the hungry. (Keep in mind that you’re not the only group that’s doing it.)

• You are a business that plans an expansion in your city. And you want to be congratulated. That’s nice, but it’s most likely a news story, unless your expansion will have an important impact on the city. Likewise, if you are unveiling a new product.
• Your squabble with some person, institution or business is too parochial. Unless, of course, there is a major question of justice or some other matter of public interest.
• Some editorial boards are reluctant to tell someone how to run his business. Whether, for example, a local sports team should have more appearances on free commercial TV channels.