
Embracing Marketing Mistakes · 2026-06-25 · 7 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
37 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
72Point, a PR and newswire distribution firm, became the subject of a Twitter firestorm when PR professionals questioned their use of the term "guaranteed coverage," arguing it conflates earned media with paid advertising. For PR practitioners, this distinction matters fundamentally - earned media represents authentic third-party validation, while guarantees imply payment-based placement (advertorial). The controversy escalated when PR Week published a story on October 17th, drawing more public scrutiny. Two junior team members were named and pictured online during the criticism, creating significant distress despite the firm's ethical standing. The agency responded by conducting introspection and engaging Stuart Bruce, an industry expert, for a six-week transparent review of their processes. Bruce's findings confirmed the firm operates with ultra-ethical standards, using rigorous vetting before distributing content through newswire channels. The confusion, it appears, stems from limited market understanding of how PR distribution and journalist relations actually work, particularly around bylined content and how creatives sometimes mistakenly contact 72Point staff members they've seen published in national media.
Guaranteed coverage implies payment-based placement similar to advertorial, which contradicts the core PR principle of earned media - unpaid, third-party validation. True earned media cannot be guaranteed because editorial decisions rest with journalists and publications.
PR professionals on Twitter criticized 72Point's use of 'guaranteed coverage,' questioning whether the firm was conflating paid advertising with earned media, leading to a PR Week article and escalating social media backlash that publicly named two junior team members.
The firm conducted introspection and hired industry expert Stuart Bruce to perform a transparent six-week review of all processes, which concluded that 72Point operates with ultra-ethical standards, including rigorous content vetting and evidence-backed claims.
Approximately half of 72Point's team are trained writers who author page-ready content distributed via newswire; when their bylines appear in published media, creatives sometimes mistakenly assume they work for those publications and reach out with PR pitches.
Content must pass multiple quality hurdles and cannot make claims without backing evidence; stories are based on robust research and must meet standards required by newswire distribution, which naturally limits what can be marketed as 'guaranteed.'
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode rehashes a known PR industry debate about 'guaranteed coverage' versus earned media without introducing novel frameworks or unexpected angles. Most insights are defensive explanations of standard PR practices rather than fresh thinking about how to navigate reputation crises or transparency challenges in modern media relations.
if it's guaranteed coverage, it's an advertorial, it's not earned media
we should have been more transparent about our processes leading up to that because there is clearly a lack of understanding in the market
The conversation recycles well-worn PR talking points (authenticity, earned media, ethical processes) without offering fresh perspectives on reputation management, crisis communication, or how to actually repair trust after a public backlash. The response strategy - bring in an external auditor to validate ethics - is textbook and uninspiring.
we're all about authenticity, earned media, that is a key part of what we do
his report that they issue six weeks later said that we're not only ethical in what we do, we're actually ultra-ethical
Chris appears to be a senior operator at a PR agency (72 Point) directly involved in the crisis, giving him legitimate firsthand experience and responsibility. However, the transcript provides minimal context on his actual seniority, portfolio of work, or track record of success, limiting our ability to fully assess his caliber as a guest.
at 72 point it was particularly uh challenging because two members of our team uh were publicly named online
we brought in um the industry expert Stuart Bruce, who came into the business and he conducted a six-week review
The episode names dates (October, October 17th for PR Week article) and organizations (PR Week, Stuart Bruce, 72 Point, Reach plc) but lacks concrete data, metrics, or named examples of the actual coverage disputes or outcomes. Claims about being 'ultra-ethical' and having robust processes are asserted rather than evidenced with specific examples or numbers.
In October, was it October last year?
PR Week did an article on the 17th of October
The host asks reasonable contextual questions ('walk me through what happened') and attempts to drill into specific allegations (the Iona tweet about account team replies), but mostly accepts Chris's explanations at face value and fails to probe deeper on contradictions or the underlying business model. Follow-ups are present but lack sharpness and accountability.
So what happened at your end then in terms of how did you deal with that?
So that's a valid question, isn't it?
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
In this episode of Embracing Marketing Mistakes, Chris Pharo CEO from 72 Point talks through the controversy that erupted after critics on social media challenged the term guaranteed coverage. What began as a few confused comments quickly grew into a public discussion about ethics, transparency and how PR teams work behind the scenes. Chris explains how two members of his team were unexpectedly named online, why the situation became so stressful for everyone involved, and how a lack of clarity around their processes helped fuel the reaction. He also shares the steps 72 Point took in response, including bringing in industry expert Stuart Bruce to carry out a six-week review of their methods. The findings surprised many people and led to important changes in how the company communicates its approach. This episode offers valuable lessons on communication, expectation setting and how to respond when a story takes on a life of its own. Click on this link to listen to the full episode. Send us Fan Mail Is your strategy still right in 2026? Book a free 15-min no obligation discovery call with our host: [ Book your call with Chris now ]
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
I mean we haven't really talked about the because we you've sort of started to talk about the the mistakes. So obviously the show's about mistakes. We're trying to talk about we've sort of got into the mistake here. So what was so for those of you that don't know what's happened, I'll explain.
In October, was it October last year? Um a couple of a couple of PR people who I who I sort of know on Twitter um talked about the fact that they were crit they were saying it that you use the term guaranteed coverage and how can how can somebody guarantee coverage? Because if it's guaranteed coverage, it's an advertori, it's not earned media. Now, for those marketers that listen don't work in PR, are you do you really care about it?
Well, if you're a PR person like I am, from we're all about authenticity, earned media, that is a a key part of what we do. And we say to a j say to a client, you can't just put a story out and it'll get published. That's what that's the battle we PR people face all the time. We've got clients going, I want you to get me coverage about this story.
And we go, Okay, we need to quick craft a story around that. It's not just that. And if you want to get that in the press, you're gonna have to pay for an advert or you're gonna have to do an advertori. So I can see that so that story sort of broke that people said guaranteed coverage is not a thing.
And um and PR Week did an article on the 17th of October, and several people had comments about it. So that's what we're talking about, isn't it, Chris? So what happened at your end then in terms of how did you deal with that? What happened?
Just walk me through what happened and then where you're at. Okay, so if you go you go back, you're right, it was was last October, and what in in actuality, what happened? A few people made comments on social media that were inaccurate, which effectively didn't understand our processes and how we go about our work. Um, I think that some of those people uh had an agenda, but I completely understand that other people then picked up on that and and ran with it.
And I have to say it was an extremely stressful time uh at 72 point. It was particularly uh challenging because two members of our team uh were publicly named online and pictured to extremely professional, hardworking young women within the team who, because we act with probity and and completely ethically, um that effectively they were very, very upset by the whole process of being sort of publicly outed for something that uh was completely inaccurate. Um PR Week picked up on the story because of the scale of comments on social media.
And again, I come back to my point. I I I we should have been more transparent about our processes leading up to that because there is clearly a lack of understanding in the market about how we actually work. Um what we subsequently done is we it it did cause a great deal of introspection on our part. Um so we thought, you know, we looked, we looked at ourselves.
Uh it came out of nowhere really, we weren't expecting it. So uh we looked at ourselves and we brought in um the industry expert Stuart Bruce, who came into the business and he conducted a six-week review where we with with full openness within the business, full transparency, he looked at all of our processes, interviewed several members of the team, and I'm pleased to say that he um his report that they issue six weeks later said that we're not only ethical in what we do, we're actually ultra-ethical.
Because, in truth, the content that we're putting on the wire is has to go through a really assiduous process before we get it there. We don't make claims in our content that we can't back up with evidence, for example. Um, or indeed that our stories are always always based on really robust research, and we are that that's the beauty uh to an extent of working with a newswire, because it means we have to go through these multiple jump these multiple hurdles to get our content to the the quality that we believe it is, and and I think our coverage outcomes show on a daily basis.
Yeah, so I think that's where the confusion is, isn't it? Because people have seen that story and then they've gone, oh right, okay. So I've sent a pre I've seen I had a comment about someone sending a pre I need to find it, where someone's well oh here we go. There's a lady called Iona who tweeted me, uh, and she put when I pitch a reach plc journalist, why do I get a reply from 72 points account team asking if I want to buy their PR services?
So that that's a what do you what what would we say to that? That's a valid question, isn't it? I I've obviously I've seen the tweets, so you know I saw the question you put out. Look, I think um ultimately it that's a very difficult question to answer without more information.
Um however, what we do have occasionally is sometimes our team are bylined in the national media. Just briefly explaining why that happens. Half our team are trained writers and they actually write the content. So because it's page ready, they author the the stories that go out.
And so sometimes they go on the wire with their byline on and they get then get used in the media. And sometimes creatives see those names in the media, assume that they are, staff people at that publication and reach out to them in that fashion. But I don't know if that's the case uh in this tweet, and if I wants to get in touch with me directly, I would be more than happy to look into it.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.