I see Roxhill’s venerable commentator Simon English criticising the increasing use of ‘off the record’ comments.
He is absolutely right. On the one hand, the flak (or the PR to the normal world) in this case appears to be trying to deflect, through an off-the-record comment, what is likely to be a difficult article. But on the other, they are only doing their job by providing context to go with the piece.
From the PR side, these articles are always going to be written. Too often companies hope that the press will not pick up on this, but if they do - and you always have to believe they will - then have a proper statement ready.
If there are job losses, then there is clearly a reason behind this - be open about why this is the case and what is being done to stem further losses. There is often an unfair expectation by clients that the PR is being well paid to deflect negative stories and there is pressure on the PR to achieve this.
This is all too often unrealistic, instead the PR is there to provide the balance. Once the journalist has the story, such articles are always going to be written. The value of PR in this case is their role to work with the journalist and provide the rationale/ the context, rather than deflect the piece.
From the PR’s perspective, there is always a concern that off-the-record statements become on-the-record commentary. This is where relationships are so important and the ability to have more open conversations where required.
There are rules about what should be on-the-record and what is off-the-record. The most important one is to never be embarrassed by an off-the-record comment if you see it on-the-record. All too often PRs and clients come unstuck on this simple point.