Comments on: Who Do You Blame for PR Spam? Vocus?

By: millertm

millertm — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:58:39 +0000

Hoping that technology won’t replace relationships: http://bit.ly/b2XyU

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: Sam Gronner

Sam Gronner — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:21:22 +0000

Not long ago I attended a seminar called “Writing for Robots.” It was about search optimized release writing. The journalists on the panel told us PR practitioners that they in fact don’t read emails. So here we have service providers telling us that we need to write our releases to be read by robots that provide RSS feeds to journalists who track specific topics, while other providers sell us robots that can do mass mailings to reporters who get their information from RSS feeds.

Call me old fashioned, but haven’t we forgotten what the “R” in “PR” stands for? It’s not Robots. It’s Relations, as in HUMAN RELATIONS. If public relations practitioners and (most) journalists acknowledge a symbiotic relationship, why are we allowing robots to rule how we relate to one another? Let the service providers simplify our research, and let them finesse their algorithms, but ultimately PR pros must use sound judgment before pushing the “send” button to a press person. On the other hand, journalists should not solely rely on robots for ideas. There are diligent human beings like myself who take the time to thoroughly do their homework and craft a highly targeted individualized pitch we believe to be timely and newsworthy. Not interested? Fine, but common courtesy dictates a response, even if it’s a canned “thanks, I’ll pass.”

By: Ronnie Manning

Ronnie Manning — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:17:18 +0000

Great post Jeremy. I don’t think Vocus or other media databases are solely to blame for PR spam, it’s due to not doing proper research on the media that you are contacting and for what purpose. It’s important to fine tune your media lists from the foundation that is created from the databases – never just blindly blast out your news/pitch to the original lists created. For myself, I had used the auto-distribution features a couple times in the past to those that I worked with on a regular basis, but dropped using them many years ago. As far as relationship building, personalized contact goes a long way and obviously media are able to detect blanket pitches.

kindest regards,
Ronnie

http://twitter.com/rmanning_mynt

By: Jeremy Porter

Jeremy Porter — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:13:00 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more on the accountability Meg. Actually, why don’t more agencies hold themselves accountable? (Because most of them would be embarrassed to share data on how many pitches result in placements. I’d guess there would be a zero and decimal point before most success ratios).

By: Meg Weaver

Meg Weaver — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:08:24 +0000

(Full disclosure: My company, Wooden Horse Publishing, publishes a unique media directory for magazines.) It seems there is enough blame to go around to everyone, but I wish clients would try to hold PR professionals more accountable. As in: How many pitches were sent and how many resulted in placements? I agree that PR is difficult to measure but maybe we have been too successful telling our clients?

Meg Weaver
mweaver@woodenhorsepub.com

By: Chris Bechtel

Chris Bechtel — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:50:57 +0000

Great topic Jeremy. As the previous discussions indicate, there are a number of factors that lead to PR Spam. Certainly, it’s clear this is Vocus’s model: make it easy for PR people to email large groups of journalists (who have not opted in to receive those emails) and hope you get coverage that way. In contrast, savvy publicists can and should focus on creating a great pitch to a small, select group of media targets that would find that pitch most relevant to their readers. At iPressroom, we believe that the paradigm has shifted fundamentally and that the focus for PR should be to tell your story online, in a full-featured newsroom – that goes beyond text – and is connected to your organization’s (or client’s) website and includes capabilities to make that content visible in search and relevant social media sites – so that journalists researching stories will find you. You’re much more likely to get coverage that way than spamming 100s of journalists with already overloaded email in-boxes. PR pros are the media now and clearly in a position to create content directly for consumer consumption. So, seek out tools that allow you to publish your content right from the corporate website, and create content that others will want to share and discuss. If you’re targeting media directly; target a smaller group of journalists first, prepare a comprehensive set of press materials (beyond text), make them available online in your organization’s online newsroom and send a short text email with a compelling headline to the journalist with a clear explanation of why your news might be of interest to their readers (do not send them your press release), then include links to the full complement of press materials that will help the journalist (pre-selected high-resolution images for download, audio and video content, facts and figures, history and background, related research, product info. and specifications). Ensure all of this content is easily displayed in one place in your online newsroom and that all related materials are displayed alongside any press release. Then, if you consistently provide high quality resources online – journalists who find you in search and receive your targeted pitches may choose to subscribe directly to your newsroom updates (via email, RSS or Twitter feed even). In summary, quality content in a variety of digital formats displayed on your site (or your client’s site) in an intuitive and easy to consume and subscribe fashion will drive far more results in the long run than spamming journalists using a database.

By: Jenna Oltersdorf

Jenna Oltersdorf — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:30:01 +0000

I really enjoyed your post. One of the most important lessons I have learned in my career is to research the contact before pitching. Sure I use services like Vocus to help create a list, but I also realize that those services aren’t always accurate. PLUS, I want to have background info on the people I’m about to call so I can have an intelligent conversation with them. Research is important and personalization is king. If you don’t know who you’re talking to, then wait to make the call.

By: Jeremy Porter

Jeremy Porter — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:15:47 +0000

First off, I really like the fact that you made MatchPoint one journalist at a time. This is a huge point and clearly indicates you’re on the anti-PR spam side of the table.

I really do think MatchPoint has an innovative approach, and it is a much needed breath of fresh air in the world of PR tools. I like the fact that you’ve automated the process of researching what journalists have written about before against the content of your pitch. That is a huge time-saver for any PR person.

While I love the concept of matching pitches, keywords or press releases to a journalist’s cumulative body of work, I just think the exactness of search results could be improved (though it’s better than any other option available right now). I’m sure you’re working on improving the accuracy, and it sure beats “pitch tips” information or manually searching Google search results for relevant media targets.

Please keep me posted on your progress, I like where you’re headed. And thanks for taking the time to comment on this topic.

By: Jodi Echakowitz

Jodi Echakowitz — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:03:21 +0000

Another great post, Jeremy. We use available PR tools to help us determine (at a high level) which media may be a relevant fit for a particular client. But we wouldn’t dream of pitching them before we’ve read their stuff, have a clear understanding of what their beat/area of focus is, approach they like to take, and what elements they like to include in a story (e.g. customer references, industry research, etc.).

As much as possible, we work to tailor our pitches according to a journalist’s particular interests, recent writings, recent interactions with us, etc. You can’t do that by using a tool to blast out a press release (or the BCC feature in email).

As a PR consultant, it’s also my job to ensure clients understand the way in which we reach out to media. A little education on our part goes a long way in ensuring they understand why sending out a press release is not a 5 minute job.

@JodiEchakowitz

By: Peter Himler

Peter Himler — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:42:21 +0000

Jeremy,

We are in agreement that the automation of media relations contributes to the problem of PR spam. Intelligent human involvement in the process is the only true way to ensure that reporters receive timely and editorially appropriate story pitches.

It should be noted, however, that the way PR people “target” journalists has not changed in the decades — until MatchPoint. One searched a paper or electronic media database for the journalist’s title or listed beat, and came up with an often inexact list of reporters. MatchPoint instead matches a story pitch, keywords or press release to a journalist’s cumulative body of work. The search results produce a ranking of the most relevant reporters from a proprietary database of 4.5 million articles and 200,000+ by-lines.

What’s more: companies like Vocus allow the user to send multiple emails to reporters with a single keystroke. MatchPoint only allows its users to engage one journalist at a time so as to ensure a tailored approach and avoid the plague of mass-disseminated misguided PR queries (eg, spam).

Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful post. I hope this clarifies.

Peter Himler
http://www.prmatchpoint.com
http://theflack.blogspot.com