#11

PRats

This blog results from a review I submitted to one of the sites I write for, to avoid embarrassment and possible legal action, certain bands, people and companies shall remain nameless. First of all let’s take a look at the review:

“Beware bands and artists: PR companies might jeopardize how your music comes across to the listener. ***PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***, the name listed on the bottom of this piece of paper I am currently holding, this neatly folded sheet of A4, if it was you who put together such a generic presentation of a band then you should be ashamed. See I'm not afraid to point the finger. Some of my other fellow critics might even choose to replicate the full contents of this sheet, but I'm not going to play that game. You really don't know how to wet the appetite ***First name of PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***, I feel as though I'm reading aloud the contents of a Little Chef menu.

However, after listening to ***Single Title***, it suddenly dawned on me that maybe ***First name of PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***, or whoever wrote this PR blurb, were helpless in representing a band that are indeed utterly boring, a complete lost cause, and that actually ***Band that I can’t name for legal reasons***, are indeed deserving of nothing more than false flattery; only worth the generic taglines of "getting played on XFM", or "being a Jeff Buckley forward slash Editors crossover". It fits this turgid, sterile, wooden spoon of a single.

I'm making an about turn from my initial opening statement and would like to apologize to ***PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***, and the good people at***PR Company that I can’t name for legal reasons***. Sometimes PR companies have to literally sell turds. And as we all know, it is pretty damn hard to dress up a turd.”

Yeah, a little shoddy, not exactly the greatest piece I’ve written. I admit that. But I’m curious about the reaction that came from the PR person:

“Hi ***Editor I’m not going to name***, just seen this review:

***Defunct web link for review***,

I’m pretty shocked and appalled that you’ve decided to publish a review personally attacking me and our company, particularly considering the number and variety of acts we have worked with you on over the years.

I see this reviewer has recently given ***Another band signed with the PR Company***, 5/5 and given a good review to***another band***, both of whom are my acts. He has also covered a number of other acts we work with as a company, so wonder why, when he’s given a record he doesn’t like he thinks it’s ok to publicly slate our taste and seek to damage our reputation.

I don’t have any problem with him giving an honest opinion of the record, but am seriously unhappy that he thought it suitable to review our company and make it personal, rather than give his thoughts on the contents of the CD. It just seems massively unprofessional and we’re unsure as to whether ***PR Company that I can’t name for legal reasons***, wish to continue working with ***Name of the site I contributed the review to***.

Would like to know your thoughts…

***PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***”

First of all I contacted the editor and made no apology for the review. The editor in question even understood my stance on PR companies, and how certain companies are badly representing their artists by producing ham fisted blurbs. See my review wasn’t a personal attack against ***PR person who I can’t name for legal reasons***. That PR Person just happened to be someone who I highlighted to make a point. It wasn’t even an attack on the company that the PR person works for.

The ‘damage done’ was minimal in the scheme of things, but a worthwhile graze since it underlines the problem many band’s face when they sign with PR Companies. For one thing it appears that bands who are signed with PR are concentrating solely on their music, on practicing and on playing (which they should be doing), but blindly allowing spiel to be written that affects how their music is not just heard, but critiqued by influential tastemakers and critics; potentially this stops a buzz that could contribute towards the band moving from the toilet circuit to the festival circuit, gaining new fans and generally getting widely seen and heard.

Such blurbs are received from PR Companies when sites / reviewers get sent the single or album promoting their client, either in CD format, or sent a downloadable file. With this music comes the blurb; loosely describing who the band members / songwriters are, where they are from, forthcoming tour dates, snippets from previous reviews, influences and a little introduction to the songs.

Often this information is pretty generic, templated almost. Some reviewers will pad the bulk of their piece with said information, as I deliberately did for the above review. My point in doing this was to say that the blurb is selling the band to me. Snippets about the band getting endorsed by Zane Lowe or Edith Bowman, or in the case of the above review describing the band as "being a Jeff Buckley forward slash Editors crossover” can be turned negatively. If information can be easily used against a band, then surely that information must be considered damaging?

Artists need to try and keep as much control as their own affairs as possible, especially as they move forward. Once you are established, then PR can be used effectively, but in these formative years, where each decision impacts heavily upon whether or not a band has any future at all, then artists need to pay greater attention to what is being written about them by their representatives.