I Hate PR Parrots

In my work as a journalist, I often send out queries over various services to find sources. (In some of the work I do, this is often the best way to find companies that have had particular experiences or insights that have not already been widely quoted in the media.) Some of the answers from PR people can be useful, many are either slightly or completely off topic, but there is one type of answer that has come to drive me mad: the echo.

The PR person, wanting to demonstrate how perfect his or her client is for a story I'm doing, will take entire phrases of my query and use them as the answer. Here's an example of a query I just sent:

I'm writing about the challenges companies and law firms are finding in patenting and trademarking clean-tech businesses, including strategies and approaches IP lawyers find to be working. Please, this is about the actual IP strategy and not about a firm or company telling about how it is establishing itself in this new area of technology. Some topics might be handling the often interdisciplinary nature of clean-tech or getting inventors to think beyond their own area of specialty.

Fairly to the point, I think. Now here are snippets of some answers I received, with the only changes I make being taking out identifying information:

• Would you be interested in speaking with XX of YY who is chair of ZZ practice who can discuss with you the challenges companies and law firms are finding in patenting and trademarking clean-tech businesses, including strategies and approaches IP lawyers find to be working.
• I can offer you a XX expert today to speak about the challenges facing companies and law firms re: patenting and trademarking clean tech businesses. We will address the specifics around the actual IP strategy (and the various challenges).
• Both groups are working in conjunction with the IP and Trademark groups in this area and can discuss some of the challenges and difficulties companies face in patenting and trade marking clean-tech businesses.

That list of answers and one or two others represented maybe 40 percent of what I received within a few hours of the query being emailed.

It's not that I'm categorically adverse to having something repeated back, but I do expect additional information showing the proposed source's expertise in that area and how this person might add to the discussion. That could happen in a number of ways:

• examples where the person addressed the particular problem
• a few briefly cogent points on the topic
• specifics of background that show the necessary expertise, which means not just working in an area like law, but in the specific subset that is at issue

Simply repeating my words doesn't show that someone is listening. If anything, it's almost a guarantee that the person hasn't.

An example literally happened while I was typing this. One of the above respondents mentioned a lawyer who seemed to focus on financial deals in cleantech - certainly interesting, but not useful when I need to get into nitty gritty IP issues. I answered, noting the person's expertise seemed to be in finance, not patent work. The reply? "Would you be interested in speaking with him and one of his colleagues?"

No, I wouldn't, because you're not listening and don't care what I'm trying to do or whether you potentially make your client look like a horse's ass. If he doesn't have the background to answer the question, don't reply in the first place. If he does, then say so. But don't ignore my question and act like an incompetent. Or does it not matter because you'll bill the client for the time spent on the interaction anyway?