I'm almost certainly breaking the law by posting this, but I saw a fascinating exchange this week between a PR person and a journalist that sums up a classic media misunderstanding so sweetly, that I had to share it.
To summarise: PR type Stephen Davies receives a press release and complains about it. National news journalist Guy Clapperton calls him on his complaint. Hilarity ensues.
Here is the Twitter exchange in its full glory. Warning: They wind each other up a bit.
(I have strong feelings about this, but will let you read this and share yours before I share mine. What do you reckon?)
--------
Steve Davies: Dear Marketwire. Please don't send unsolicited press releases to my company's contact email. I didn't ask for it and it isn't relevant. Thx! 8.16am
Guy Clapperton: So you're an information junkie who doesn't want unsolicited information? Interesting... 8.24am
Steve Davies: Er, no. I'm an information junkie who doesn't want spam. There's a difference - thought you'd know. 8.26am
Guy Clapperton: I didn't know press releases from a bona fide company was spam, particularly when you're saying you're hungry for info, no. 8.38am
Steve Davies: That's not the point. What has my Twitter bio got to do with my company's contact email? Nowt. 8.43am
Steve Davies: So you're telling me, as a journo, you've never considered a press release sent to you as spam? 8.44am
Guy Clapperton: Absolutely. I would look a fool if I put my head over the parapet as a freelance journalist and then objected to press releases. 8.50am
Guy Clapperton: Absolutely. I would look a fool if I put my head over the parapet as a freelance journalist and then objected to press releases. 8.50am
Guy Clapperton: So you're expecting PRs to put a metric in place that divides you into two separate identities and it's their job to sort it out? 8.51am
Steve Davies: OK, 2 questions. 1. Why send a press release to a business (not blog) email? 2. Why not ask for permission before sending? 8.55am
Steve Davies: Yes I do expect people to put a metric in place. That's good PR! It was a wire service though ... not an PR person. 8.57am
Steve Davies: This is not journalism. Even if they did send 2 my blog address I'm no journo. Want my attention? Email me personally. 8.59am
Guy Clapperton: You pitched yourself as an information junkie, people are sending you information. You opened the box, Pandora, no point moaning. 9.02am
Steve Davies: Naah, you're completely missing the point. Where on my company site (where it was sent) does it say send me press releases? 9.21am
Guy Clapperton: You're missing a larger one - where on any site does it say it's anyone's job but yours to manage your online identities? 9.26am
Steve Davies: So you're saying it's OK to send bloggers (and other social media users) unsolicited email they don't necessarily want? 9.29am
Guy Clapperton: I'm saying by declaring yourself an 'information junkie' you've invited these items of information. Your description, in public 9.38am
Steve Davies: I just can't see how my Twitter bio somehow says 'send press releases that I didn't ask for to my company email address' 9.45am
Guy Clapperton: I'm saying by declaring yourself an 'information junkie' you've invited these items of information. Your description, in public 9.38am
Guy Clapperton: Just blogged "Bloggers and press releases « Social Networking Blog" (http://tinyurl.com/cqvn9x ) 9.58am
Steve Davies: Where on my Twitter profile does it say 'send me information' or 'send me press releases'? It doesn't. 9.58am
Guy Clapperton: Oh for goodness' sake, you describe yourself as an information junkie so people send you information! Is it so difficult??? 10.02am
Steve Davies: That's a very strange way of looking at it, Guy. But thanks for your thoughts. 10.05am
Steve Davies: Don't know why you haven't included my name in your blog post. I stand by what I said http://twurl.nl/2yj8gr 10.08am
Guy Clapperton: Didn't have your permission but wanted to give the issue an airing. Feel free to respond on the blog, of course. 10.09am
Steve Davies: They didn't send the release to my blog. It was sent to hello@3wpr.co.uk - not even a person address. 10.12am
Guy Clapperton: OK, manage your online ID or even talk to the sender! (CHECKS WEBSITE) You're in PR yourself? My mind is really boggling now. 10.16am
Steve Davies: Yes I am in PR and it's bad tactics like this that gives us other PRs a bad name among you journos. Boggling mind also. 10.22am
Guy Clapperton: If you don't want info, don't say you're an info junkie; if you don't want releases, don't put a publication or blog out there. 10.42am
Steve Davies: Don't agree with that notion at all. I haven't said I don't want releases. I said I don't want ones I didn't ask for. 10.44am
7 comments:
"no such thing as information overload...just filter malfunction..." now who said that?
Nick Leonard?
Just hit delete or ask to be removed from the mailing list. Easy peasy.
Way back in 2005, blogger (then for Yahoo) Russell Beatie said we were morons:
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008527.html
The editor in chief of Wired added a list of PR people's email addresses on his blog and called them spammers:
http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2007/10/sorry-pr-people.html
Giani Tripiani, then editor of Life Hacker, created a PR spammers wiki:
http://prspammers.pbwiki.com/FrontPage
Every day I read comments on the PRFAIL blog about PR people spamming them with press releases.
I don't know about you but, given all of the above, would I be wrong in assuming there is something fundementally wrong with this tactic?
Online is made up millions of different opinions. Some people don't mind being sent unsolicited press releases and some people absolutely destest it. I think saying "just hit delete or ask to be removed from the mailing list. Easy peasy" is just denying there's an issue and doesn't take into account the recipient or how he or she feels about it.
I think Adam Parker nails it when he says online is all about permission:
http://www.showmenumbers.com/online-pr/why-online-pr-is-like-a-dinner-party
Right, Jon, as an ex-journo* turned PR person what are your thoughts.
* Realise you still consider yourself a journo but had to get a little dig in. ;-)
Perhaps my comment was a little flippant, but that's my reaction when I receive badly targeted press releases for my blog; I delete them.
I agree that PR spam is an issue; nobody wants to receive more junk mail. But by putting my e-mail address on my blog I accept that – rightly or wrongly - I will receive spam mail and unsolicited releases. Generally I don't mind receiving unsolicited releases if they're well targeted. The problem is that most aren’t.
My view is that unsolicited releases are in the same league as junk mail; most of it will end up in the recycling bin but occasionally you might receive something interesting.
As long as a few per cent of journalists and bloggers use unsolicited press releases then PR people will continue to send it. Sure it’s a lot more effective to carefully target people and ask their permission fist – good PR people know and do that. But as long as there are lazy PR people then the easy option of spamming people will still be in use.
Matthew said: "...by putting my e-mail address on my blog I accept that – rightly or wrongly - I will receive spam mail and unsolicited releases."
But it was NOT sent to my blog's email address - for the last three years I've been using a contact form on the blog so my spam intake has been minimal - it was sent to the generic contact email address at 3wpr.co.uk - which, as tiny as it is, is a PR company.
So from your comment above and the one below am I right in thinking you agree that it’s NOT a good thing to send unsolicited and irrelevant press releases to people who didn't ask for them?
Matthew said: "Sure it’s a lot more effective to carefully target people and ask their permission fist – good PR people know and do that. But as long as there are lazy PR people then the easy option of spamming people will still be in use."
This is the point I've been trying to make all along. So by the sound of things we both agree, yes? We both agree that this will happen but it's not a good thing? And chances are, bloggers, journalists or whomever who complain about PR spam will paint us all with the same brush?
So which part of what I've done or said do you not agree with me on? Genuinely interested.
This is what I love about Twitter, a nice heated debate in public.
Ste, I can feel your frustration melting my computer screen.
To be honest, I can see where you're both coming from. Useful information can come from the most random of sources, but why should you have to churn through reams of spam in order to find a nugget?
All unsolicited spam serves to do is give the sender a bad name. If I receive something irrelevant, I politely let the sender know by return. If they insist on sending more, they get blocked.
But that's really not any use to anyone. PRs don't learn their lessons, their clients don't get value for their investment, and the industry gets a bad name.
Public humiliation is often the only option. And I'm all for it.
Post a Comment