When did a PR ‘exclusive’ stop being exclusive?
Last week saw yet another embarrassing media mixup as both The Sunday Project and Sunrise claimed to have dibs on an ‘exclusive’ interview with Kim Kardashian, ahead of the reality star’s turn as an Uber Eats spokesperson. Pure Public Relations’ Phoebe Netto wonders when ‘exclusive’ stopped meaning ‘exclusive’ in PR.
Late last week, The Sunday Project host Lisa Wilkinson announced to her Instagram followers that she had secured Australia’s only TV interview with the one and only Kim Kardashian. The interview, which aired on Ten on the weekend, was also touted as an exclusive in The Sunday Project’s marketing material leading up to the program.
I’m curious, are there any repercussions for doing something like this?
Or does it just leave a bad taste in the medias mouth, potentially jeopardizing future relationships?
Hi Stella,
Yes, it burns media relationships and can also cost you coverage. They might pull a story or reduce its prominence once realising it isn’t as exclusive as they expected, and understandably not want to hear from you again (costing you future coverage too). Plus, news of this spreads, affecting your reputation amongst other media.
Bad news all round.
Cheers,
Phoebe
Excellent article Pheobe. My life is so much better without any of the personalities you mention.
Point 4. *Face palm*
Who is this Kardashian person ?
and nobody outside of journos cares if it was exclusive or not
I think you’re missing the point…
Terrible explanation and so out of touch!
I have observed this issue myself (the differing interpretations of what should be a straightforward concept: the ‘exclusive’), so was interested to read Phoebe’s perspective. I thought she explained it well.
I wouldn’t have bothered commenting, but was surprised enough by this comment Nancy to Google you and see why you might have taken issue with such a solid piece. I don’t know either of you, but it looks like you may be competitors? If so, poor form.
If you really do think this is ‘so out of touch’, maybe you could explain why or offer an alternative point of view? Perhpas even one as well considered and set-out as Phoebe’s. You could maybe even build on Phoebe’s points and make this a more constructive discussion. Otherwise you just come off looking like a sniping rival.
care to get off the grassy knoll and elaborate Nancy?
Let me guess … you’re a competitor PR?
Interesting topic and nicely explained but I can’t really see how people in PR can guarantee ‘no other media outlet gets the story’ once it’s in the public domain. Once it’s public the reality is all bets are off. All the original outlet can do is promote it as an exclusive prior and then make a fuss about the fact they broke it. So exclusive access to a story angle or talent in almost all cases really amounts to ‘first bite of the cherry’
Agree. And just to illustrate the point, we have the Daily Mail, who are almost guaranteed to rewrite any “exclusive” from any medium.
And let’s not forget category No. 5: Producers who tell you that anything you come to them with is an ‘assumed exclusive’ because of the ‘pedigree’ of their show. And when questioned on this (as never was the word exclusive uttered anywhere, ever) they say it’s just ‘known knowledge’ (like after each today there will be a tomorrow apparently) and they threatened to blacklist your agency if you don’t ditch every other outlet you’ve openly secured along the way. What a fun (and funny) time!