October 23, 2009
One story, one journalist, no exceptions
One thing I have noticed since chefs started using email and social media on a regular basis is that media and chefs now talk to one another directly. Journalists love the unfettered access, chefs fluff up their peacock feathers when the media shines a light their way. Win-win.
Actually, win-win-win because of course I appreciate not having to forward emails back and forth betweeen parties all day long.
But one thing that chefs need to understand is a key ingredient to successful relations with the media: They like exclusivity. What that means is: They like to be the only person writing a certain angle of a story.
What's an angle? Well, if you have a media person hauling out to a farm with you to investigate a new crop of Iroquois corn that you will be using in a fantastic new polenta, that is an angle. Don't bring other journalists to the farm, no matter how tempting. I would say don't even chat about your new polenta corn with them or your relationship with the farm with any other journalists until after the story is written.
Be aware and safe and you'll have long-term relationships that pay dividends. Or I guess you can just go ahead and be sorry, get your one pop in the media in several publications and then NEVER BE TRUSTED AGAIN. And by trusted, I mean written about.
Still don't understand? Let's break it down this way: Lots of chefs make chicken. Lots make fried chicken. No chef wants his fried chicken copied directly and served exactly the same way at another restaurant. And no chef would ever want to serve someone else's exact fried chicken preparation at their restaurant. None of that requires any explanation to you. So, really, you already get it.
This is really rotten advice to give anyone in 2009. New media revolves around conversation, not exclusivity. Sitting around and waiting for that one food columnist's feature to show up in one print publication for one day wastes time that restauranteurs could be using to develop multi-media conversations on multiple, simultaneous fronts. At this stage of the game, most reporters are too grateful to have jobs at all to be threatening to blackball news sources for having the alleged audacity to feel they have a right to talk to whomever they want to about their stories. Your advice shows you had a really good understanding of how news media worked in the days before Web 2.0. In today's media world, exclusives offer a benefit solely to the print publications demanding them and do real damage to what could--and in 2009, should--be dynamic, conversation-based marketing campaigns. You do have a calendar, right?
Thanks for posting, Mike.Just want to point out that you have a great instinct here, but please note: I was suggesting that journalists need exclusive "angles" of a story, not exclusives to a whole story.So, for the opening of Big Star, everyone is gonna write about it, but I would then dole out unique twists to the story to different journalists.One writer would get to go on late night taco runs around Chicago with Paul, another would go to a boutique whiskey distiller with Peter, another would talk Bucktown/Wicker Park then and now with Terry, and maybe a fourth would do a salsa verde/rojo/negra tasting with Justin.Sorry if the initial post caused some confusion on that point. Hopefully listing out these examples clarifies my thought for you. And yes, I do have a calendar, though if you are thinking of getting me one anyway for 2010, I would love a wall one with some food porn, no cats with funny hats or anything like that.
And BTW...I have never in all my years had any reporter or blogger talk about blackballing.The writer who most recently asked me if I was distributing a story through another channel was super nice, just asked and in a world that needs some civility, I worked with him to ensure his unique angle (not the whole story, the angle) was respected.