Pay-to-play media coverage in 2024 & why it can't be guaranteed
Your client got an email that promised "guaranteed coverage". Here's how to gently shout at them that pay-to-play media coverage isn't real.
There are many shady characters out there trying to promise unsuspecting brands that they can get them onto one of the world's premier news outlets for a flat, small fee of $500 (or some other ridiculously low number). Next time one of your clients forwards you one of these egregiously silly cold emails, direct them this article and we'll let them down easy on your behalf.
And if you are considering a pay-to-play approach, well, sit down, friend, because I've got some bad news for you.
Getting media coverage is tricky. Unless you're going straight for paid or owned media, odds are you will have to hustle to get quality media mentions. Paying for ads is basically the only tried-and-true shortcut. All other forms of legitimate earned media coverage (including coverage from our journalist friends) will be hard-won with lots of work, networking, and building relationships with journalists and publications.
To add, earned media is extremely valuable. It has tons of tangible benefits, including exposure for your brand (of course), backlinks, and increased authority for your website. Because it's so valuable, everyone is clamoring for it at a fever pitch. Every brand wants as much earned media exposure as possible, so it gets super competitive and time-consuming.
Sounds terrible, right? Why do all that yourself when you can simply pay someone else to do it for you?
That's where pay-to-play media comes in.
For every legitimate, time-consuming industry activity, you will find people willing to do it faster, cheaper, and with fewer ethical considerations.
Pay-to-play is essentially hiring a company or individual to win your brand a mention or link in a publication for a fee. These "digital PR" or "link builders" often cold email you, promising to get you into all the top publications. If you want to find such an opportunity, check your spam filter right now, and you'll inevitably see one or two in there.
After you fork over your hard-earned money, these digital markers will get to work. And by get to work, I mean use their network of low-quality, low-reach publications to technically get your link posted somewhere. See, pay-to-play media isn't as honest as paid media because it attempts to replicate the authenticity and organic nature of earned media by paying for it. Paying for ads? Sure, whatever, that's fine. But attempting to pay for actual legitimate news coverage is a whole other issue.
The problem is in the deception. If consumers know they are reading an ad, they consent to that advertisement experience and can make informed decisions (or, you know, use an adblocker). It becomes an issue when you pass off paid media as earned media or try to game the system by ethically ambiguous means.
Pay-to-play media looks like:
- Reviews that were done for pay (without being disclosed)
- Product or service features (that you pay for, that aren't disclosed)
- Articles, interviews, and spotlights that sound like news but are actually not-so-subtle paid ads
- "Awards" or other recognitions (that you have to pay for to win)
- Features in magazines (where you had to pay for ad space to be included)
Basically, anything you see or read that seems like genuine coverage that people would have to laudably earn, but that has in fact been paid for, is pay-to-play. It's an ethical nightmare, legally questionable, and a scourge on the public relations industry.
Read this harrowing tale of one CEO who tried to use pay-to-play and obtained some unsavory results:
My name is Michal Kierul, CEO of Intechhouse. I have ventured into the realm of pay-to-play services that guarantee media coverage, and my experience has been less than satisfactory. The concept initially seemed promising – pay a fee, and receive guaranteed media exposure. However, the reality was far from what was promised, akin to an expensive advent calendar that tantalizes with the promise of delightful surprises but ultimately delivers items of negligible value.
Upon using the service, we did receive media coverage, but the quality and impact of this coverage were disappointing. The placements were often in obscure or irrelevant publications that did not align with our brand's target audience or values. The cost, when weighed against the actual value and effectiveness of the coverage received, was unjustifiable. It was a clear mismatch between expectation and delivery.
The experience led to a reevaluation of our PR strategy. We realized that authentic, well-strategized public relations efforts, though potentially yielding fewer media placements, are far more valuable. Quality over quantity became our mantra. We shifted our focus to building genuine relationships with media outlets and journalists who truly resonated with our brand and our message.
This approach, while more time-consuming and requiring more effort, proved to be more fruitful in the long run. The media coverage we now secure is more aligned with our brand, reaches our target audience more effectively, and contributes more significantly to our overall business goals.
– Michal Kierul, CEO at Intechhouse
Like Michael said, the promises are alluring. I don't blame you for wanting to shortcut the terrible process of getting media coverage. However, as Michael explained (and many have experienced firsthand), you get what you pay for.
Prezly – software for modern PR teams
Write & publish brand stories in an online newsroom
Send email campaigns, pitches & newsletters
Manage all your contact lists in a single CRM, with easy import & export
Measure performance to see who's engaging with your stories
Now that we know how pay-to-play media works, it must be stressed that earned media coverage simply cannot be guaranteed. Even the most seasoned "guaranteed coverage" hacker can't promise bona fide earned media.
So, here's why earned media coverage can't realistically be guaranteed. When these supposed experts come to you with lofty promises of low-cost coverage, this is what happens:
Journalists have to abide by rigorous standards and codes of ethics. They are not like content writers, who can do whatever they want without repercussions (👀). Actual journalists don't take a few dollars to mention a company unethically.
Why? Because good journalism can't be bought. Generally speaking (though there are exceptions), a seasoned journalist at a reputable publication will not want to risk their career and reputation by providing (and not disclosing) paid media. So if a journalist or publication is willing to feature you for some ad-buy or "contributing fees", they are probably not good journalists, and you are not helping your (or your client's} reputation by engaging with them.
Join our free newsletter
Get the latest PR and marketing articles, guides, and templates in our monthly newsletter.
There are a ton of reputable services out there, such as HARO, to connect writers and journalists with sources. These "guaranteed media" pay-to-play gurus will answer the prompts on behalf of you or your brand, usually using generative AI. While this is a relatively easy, lazy, and common shortcut and not as unethical as some other pay-to-play methods, it can cause legitimate harm or damage to your reputation when it's done wrong. Also, it's something you can absolutely do a better job of yourself.
For example, you pay someone to be a "HARO assistant" or whatever. They go and answer queries for you using generative AI, but representing themselves as your ambassador or assistant or what-have-you. They tell the journalist to quote you as the author and source. ChatGPT gives them some junk answers (just robot things ✨), and voila! Your quote gets picked up and distributed in the news with "you" saying something ridiculous or even potentially dangerous. But hey, you got a backlink!
Seems crazy, right? But this is exactly what these services do. They shortcut the process to get fast, cheap results. The worst part? It works. With journalists and writers being expected to pump out articles at an extremely high pace, they have to rely on these kinds of services to get quotes, and many simply don't have time to fact-check as much as they should. Especially when they depend on "you" as the expert to give authoritative answers based on your expertise, and not Steve the HARO Elf to bang out some crap from Bard.
Another comically silly example of "hacking" the earned media system is a media "guru" promising to get your press release distributed far and wide. For a flat fee, they will use their extensive media connections to ensure your PR gets sent to thousands of viewers.
This seems great! The only problem is you can do it yourself for a fraction of the cost. There are tons of PR newswires whose literal function is to do precisely this, admittedly for an often exorbitant fee. Using one of these gurus is paying an intermediary to do what you can already do, but for an even more exorbitant fee. It's like setting yourself up on the crappy end of a particularly unnecessary pyramid scheme.
Maybe you do get coverage from one of these sketchy pay-to-play outlets. They are actually able to send you successful media inclusions with links to actual publications. Are they high-quality?
The answer is, unsurprisingly, probably not. There is no shortage of sketchy spam websites that are happy to provide a link (for a fee). Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much when the site itself has low authority and the website's reach is minimal. What's the point of getting your brand out there if nobody sees it and you don't even get quality backlinks?
As Head of PR and Communications in a mid-sized marketing agency, I certainly have had to use my share of sites that publish content "on-demand".
I do not actually approve of this practice, but in some industries (such as blockchain, for example) it can hardly be avoided, and it's definitely not cost-efficient for us or our clients, but it's a necessary evil, because if we don't provide this service, someone else will, and clients will be basically seduced by flashy package offers like "50 guaranteed publications for $500". Who cares about the details? Who cares that the sites it's published on will not be indexed by Google or viewed by actual persons?
– Yuri Proshin, Head of PR & Communications at Ninja Promo
All "coverage" isn't made equal. A link on the BBC isn't the same as a no-follow link from www.NewsAndCasinoBets.com. Getting rubbish coverage is easy – just throw money at it. Good coverage takes time, effort, and skill.
Sometimes, these companies will outright steal your money. Because it is a sketchy, unregulated, and sometimes even illegal industry, you might pay for the service and simply never get it. Their website may seem nice and authentic, but making a professional-looking website is super easy these days. The company disappears along with your precious dollars, and you are left with no recourse because you tried to buy something shady.
While this is likely rare, it's a good reminder to not trust everyone who slides into your DMs and spam folders.
What can you do instead of paying for sketchy, low-quality media? This.
Unfortunately, the best, most successful alternative to "guaranteed media coverage" is to do the work yourself. You can work on getting that coverage for your brand or clients on your own. It's time-consuming, which is often why people hire specific outreach coordinators and PR folks, but really, it's not a process that can or should be shortcut if you want good results. Of course, having the right PR software definitely helps!
As a seasoned marketing head, I've had several run-ins with 'guaranteed media coverage' propositions. My standpoint, however, has consistently been one of caution. Though the promise of certain coverage can be alluring, in my experience, true, long-lasting relationships with the media are built on authenticity and mutual respect rather than a transactional, pay-to-play approach.
For instance, I focus on cultivating organic relationships with the press instead of using these services. For instance, I engage with journalists on social media, attend press events, and issue well-researched, relevant press releases tied to current events or significant company milestones. Notably, major tech publications extensively covered one of our campaigns for a product launch at A1 simply because we offered exclusivity on some aspects of the product to a well-known journalist, building a relationship founded on trust.
The ethical ambiguity associated with pay-to-play as a marketer, in my opinion, lies in the potential erosion of the fundamental principles of trust and credibility in media, which could prove detrimental in the long run. Every positive engagement we've had with the press was founded on the real values of our brands, demonstrating once again that being good is indeed the best strategy for long-term success.
– Pavel Naydenov, Head of Marketing at Businessmap
There is no harm in just going the paid media route. Run ads, pay for sponsorships, get advertorials, and work with influencers to promote your product. There are plenty of legitimate paid media opportunities, so you don't need to try to circumvent the function of earned media.
Unfortunately, getting your foot in the door in most industries is difficult. Brands will often rely on paid media until they start gaining more exposure and growing organically. Yes, it's a long and tiresome process. But that's show business, baby.
We may just be a biased little PR software company, but we're also big fans of public relations. We know a lot of awesome PR professionals who've landed top-quality coverage for their clients without selling their soul. Yeah, the average PR professional is going to be a bit more expensive than your sketchy link-bait digital marketing buddy. But they also have a lot of tools, resources, industry contacts, and strategies to get you the coverage that you and your brand want.
So… Pay-to-play for media coverage? That's the biggest joke of the century. Think about it – dropping a stack of cash for some artificial fame? That's like slapping a high-end label on a knock-off and calling it legit. And the audacity of these guys, pitching us, of all people, with their overpriced, underwhelming guaranteed coverage.
It's more than just a hard pass; it's a laugh in their faces (yes, we get pitches 2x a month, asking us to resell their shitty marked up packages.. the audacity). $30K for TechCrunch? $40K for Cosmopolitan? Please. We got our clients featured there for a fraction of that cost.
Our approach is different. We focus on authentic, compelling stories that earn media attention, not buy it. When we secured a spot for our client, Cotton and Silk, in Cosmopolitan in just 45 days, Carved in Forbes in 60.. and our total bill was less than 2,000 (which include a lot of other pieces of coverage).
That’s the power of genuine, creative storytelling. You wanna buy media? Go buy some fake followers on IG in hopes of impressing your fake influencer friends.
– Bryce North, Founder at Don't Be A Little Pitch PR
Now that I've successfully made a ton of enemies by trashing their sketchy industry, I'd love to hear what you think about the pay-to-play media market. Shout us out your compliments or very gentle criticisms on X or LinkedIn.
And, since you're here (hopefully by choice and not compulsively), why not sign up for our newsletter? We promise not to offer any sketchy media opps.
Join our free newsletter
Get the latest PR and marketing articles, guides, and templates in our monthly newsletter.