Questions clients always ask us – part two of two
April 2, 2019
The second part in our series of answers to questions that we are frequently asked by clients. If you missed it, here’s the first part.
Do we need all this history or these extra facts?
Generally speaking, the more information, the better. If you’ve got a well-written release then the more you can give to a journalist the better. It helps to create a story with more depth and can focus the reader in on more salient facts, which means that they are more likely to want to get to the reasons behind the story – namely your brand. After all who isn’t fascinated by this…
What’s a robust sample? Is that enough people?
We find that anything around between 1,500 and 2,000 general respondents is solid and will be accepted by the media as a meaningful reflection of the population. When it comes to more specific panels – eg, mothers of primary school aged kids, or people who work in offices, we reduce the respondent rate as it’s a harder to target demographic. That said we will still ensure those smaller populations are reflected in the most robust way, that could mean reducing the respondent rate to 150 (taxi drivers) or 1,000 (working parents) for example.
How long will the results take to come back?
We can usually turn things around within days, sometimes it takes a little longer depending on the specifics of the panel, but it’s always within a working week.
What feedback have you got from the news desks?
Most of the time, newsdesks are very busy and don’t have a lot of time to tell us their opinions and we don’t really want to keep pestering them for obvious reasons. However we will catch the odd shout, exclamation or grumble here and there, which we will pass on.
Can we go out with this again for the Sundays?
Yes, unless – and this is a big unless – it has made in the week. There’s nothing more that editors hate than being served up a story which someone else has run a few days earlier. While the Sundays are definitely a target – and one that PRs can often overlook, we need to be sure that we don’t pester the editors with stuff they’re not going to want to run.