Why letters of assignment don’t matter anymore
Old school PR defined a promising journalist by the outlet they worked for. As the media landscape is changing, this old model of vetting writers is holding some organizations back.
In the old days, PR firms required media to have a Letter-of-Assignment (LOAs) as a precursor to being accepted on press trips.
Some even went as far as spelling out required circulation, usually over 100,000. Many PR firms representing state and local government are still insisting on this ridiculous litmus test as to whether a potential journalist will be worth their time when it comes to sponsoring them on a press trip.
Why then are PR firms surprised when the previously agreed upon goods aren’t delivered?
Here’s why this archaic requirement needs to be tossed out and especially why PR folks need to rely on other metrics to vet journalists:
1. Editorial staff has high turnover.
Editors change all the time, and no editor wants to inherit the legacy of their predecessor, no matter how good the pitch was. If the outlet ceases publication, the journalist must find another outlet for the orphaned article.
It’s better to select the journalist rather than the publication. Research their writing style and publication record and trust they will find the right home for your piece.
2. Outlets can be misrepresented.
Become a Ragan Insider member to read this article and all other archived content.
Sign up today
Already a member? Log in here.
Learn more about Ragan Insider.
