It’s too depressing to cite examples of dreadful press releases here, but editors get them daily.

This could be because the PRs can’t write, so don’t let them on the account until they can. Look at your training programme and your time investment in this. Even the most clunky of junior writers can make great progress with some guidance and ground rules.

But if you are paying someone to do your PR and it’s obvious they can write, I think you should just let them. But sadly, that’s often not what happens.

There is another reason why editors receive such toe-curling, bland brochure-ware. It’s more common than you might think.

For the uninitiated, here’s a typical sign-off cycle in a midsize tech company:

• The PR drafts the press release for a product launch. Let’s assume it’s pretty good. It tells a story, makes a point, and does it succinctly.
• Then, the head of comms reviews it and tells you to make more of the key messages. It’s a bit more evangelical, but what can you do?
• Next, the head of product reviews it and adds a load of technical detail that probably no one will ever read because it’s boring.
• The head of sales comes to give it a quick once-over, just adding ‘world’s leading’ to the company descriptor. He’s read press releases before, and they always have them.
• Then the head of the division takes forever to review it because he is so very important. He adds some outlandish testosterone-fueled statement that says more about him than it does about the product launch.
• The company lawyer reviews it next. She removes anything remotely interesting at all, and what’s left is littered with trademark symbols.
• Only then can the PR send it out. Three weeks late and to howls of derision from the very same journalists that she rather admires and would very much like to impress…

If a journalist knows what you’re going to say before you open your mouth, why would he/she bother to rock up for the interview? I mean, seriously, what’s in it for them? If they just want the corporate spiel, they’ll check out your website. If they want to talk to you, it’s because there’s a vague hope that in and around the adaptable-scalable-innovative-flexible monologue, you might actually have a view. You might say something interesting, topical, original, or even human. And then, you might actually provide some decent copy.

Gotta love Mr Caplin

The best view to have, I think, is one that runs contra to the stream. Back in the mid-90s, when I laboured over my very first press release, I was super diligent about being fact-based and succinct (I had been trained well, forever in debt, Mr Springett). However, I wasn’t confident writing the quote for my boss. So, instead, I wrote, “Say something contentious here.” He did, and it worked a treat. Mr Caplin gotta love him; even if you don’t, he always makes excellent copy.

Occasionally, it’s OK to fess up to that slightly dodgy implementation when your record is normally great. You can demonstrate that you’ve learned from it. Or admit the recession is taking its toll on you, too. But you will haul your weary backside out of it or die trying.

You see the joy of sometimes wondering off message, which means that when you do get back on it, your audience might actually believe you. And isn’t that quite important? Besides, whoever wants to hear somebody else’s diet is going really, really well?

When I work with my PR clients, we work hard on looking at where we can, first and foremost, add some value/originality to the debate. You know, not everything that comes out of your mouth is necessarily going to be that great, and that’s where your trusted PR comes in. They can tell you what to run with and what not to bother banging on about because it is irrelevant or just actually not that interesting. Sometimes, it is all about the team singing from the same hymn sheet, but other times, you just need to know a good tune.