You send a box of new mosquito patches to a SNEWS editor going on an Alaska fly fishing trip because you are eager for coverage of this cool new product. Also on the trip, an added bonus you think, are representatives from Backpacker magazine, National Geographic Adventure, and Outdoor Life. Oh the publicity. Oh the stories they will write. And then this happens: Needless to say, after witnessing mosquito disdain for said repelling product, the other editors on the trip declined gracefully to join in the product evaluation. Worse, when the SNEWS editor, who diligently tested this product for 24 hours before giving up in an attempt to prevent blood loss, removed the patches from both arms, he was left with wonderful square red marks that lasted for over a week.

Truly, not a good moment for this company's PR firm.

Not sure you can actually find fault with a PR firm for sending a product, designed for outdoor use, to a group of editors heading out in the field.

There was absolutely no finger of fault pointed at all...just an example of a really bad day for a PR company with clearly high hopes for its client's product that did not work at all in front of some very key magazine editors. Hard to find any sliver of positive spin in this, no matter how good a PR firm it is.

still... it was a "truly bad day for a PR company" continues to point the finger at the agency, not the company that designed/produced the poor product that didn't work at all. PR agencies are an outsourced division of marketing, not a magical cure-all.