Two wrongs don’t make a right

Hat tip to C.C. Chapman, who already blogged this and tipped his hat to Jeremy Pepper, who tweeted it.

Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson—author of “The Long Tail”—has posted an item to his blog that makes an excellent (although not a new) point, then ruins it with a vindictive, mean-spirited, and ultimately childish action. (I subscribe to Anderson’s feed, so I would have seen the post sooner or later, but this just shows that CAPOW email can reach me faster than RSS.)

Anderson’s constructive point: There are a lot of lazy PR people out there who don’t know how to pitch a blogger, so they send clueless emails and generic press releases that have nothing to do with the blogger’s focus.

The over-the-top bit: Anderson listed the email addresses of all the people who have sent such pitches.

Anderson’s complaint is a legitimate one:

I only want two kinds of email: those from people I know, and those from people who have taken the time to find out what I’m interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that (I love those emails; indeed, that’s why my email address is public). Everything else gets banned on first abuse.

This approach is far better than Tom Coates’; Coates—about whom I wrote back in August—doesn’t care if you took the time to find out what he’s interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that. He hates any outreach and believes it’s completely inappropriate to view a blogger as a potential ally in a communication effort.

I also feel Anderson’s pain. Just today (and it’s only 1 p.m.), I’ve received half a dozen press releases about things I couldn’t care less.

So articulating his disdain for inappropriate pitches and his decision to ban the email addresses of those who send them is aces with me.

But publishing the email addresses? Even The Bad Pitch Blog—dedicated to such abuses—has a three-strike policy before outing the offenders, and even then it’s a company name, not an email address. While the people who sent these inappropriate pitches may be bad at their jobs, or clueless about the social media space, you have to wonder if they deserve the shitload of spam that’s about to come their way as their addresses get scraped from Anderson’s very public blog. (They’ll get real spam—mortages, organ enhancement, poker, the whole enchilada.) After all, while they may have been lazy or clueless, these people didn’t do anything overtly malicious; their goal was not to make Anderson’s life miserable. Anderson’s action is expressly malicious (and, as executive editor of a premier technology-focused publication, he can’t claim he didn’t know those addresses wouldn’t be scraped.)

Weren’t banning those addresses enough and explaining his policy enough? Would Anderson support the death penalty for parking violators, too?

1. Very well said, Shel.
   Of course I noticed that one of the commenters on Anderson’s blog stated that he had been “spammed” by Wired.

   There is a vast difference between spamming and inadvertently misdirecting a pitch.

   Posted by Donna Papacosta  on  10/30  at  02:24 PM

2. There is such a difference between SPAM and a misdirected pitch.

   But there is also a thing called laziness - and too many PR people fall into that trap.

   Posted by Jeremy Pepper  on  10/30  at  03:53 PM

3. We all get these pitches.  Get used to it.  It’s part of being a successful voice. It’s even more ludicrous when you are a PR blogger and get such a pitch. I mean, what does that say?

   But even though I am doubly insulted with ridiculous pitches from my PR brethren, I would never humiliate someone like this publicly.  If it’s that much of an issue, just block them, but no need for this kind of a blood-letting.

   Posted by Geoff Livingston  on  10/30  at  05:50 PM

4. I don’t know Geoff, by keeping bad or clueless behavior under wraps, and not holding the individuals accountable for their actions, don’t we just help perpetuate it?

   Many lifetimes ago when I was an exec in a PR agency and officer in the local IABC and PRSA chapters, there was a solo practicioner, let’s call him Jim, that was notoriou among the PR community for bad behavior, questionable ethics and anemic results. We used to shake our heads over the bad image he was giving the profession. When someone asked how he was able to stay in business (and do quite well, BTW) I quipped that he had an “inexhastable” supply of victims.

   Once, when we are kibbitzing on the topic of Jim at a local watering hole, one of his “victims” accosted us after overhearing our conversation. She was outraged that since Jim’s faults were apparently well known by the group of professionals/profession we represented, we had done noting the warn others. Had she had any hint of an idea about his reputation, she said, it would have saved HER reputation among her bosses and the company a lot of money.

   We were, she said, no better than the medical community that closes ranks around a questionable doctor, or the police that doesn’t acknowledge bad acts/actors on the force, etc.

   I don’t know about the others at the table, but I felt particularly small and ashamed at that point. So I think people who do bad things should be publicly outed, especially if it is for repeated bad behavior. If for no other reason to warn other potential “victims” to stay clear.

   Posted by Craig Jolley  on  10/31  at  06:03 AM

5. I don’t disagree, Craig, and I might have been a lot less vexed by this if Anderson had simply listed their names and affiliations. It’s the email addresses themselves that seemed more like an extreme act of vigilanteism than simply exposing bad behavior.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  10/31  at  06:19 AM

6. Craig:

   1) There’s a big difference between your situation and publishing a list of PR people who are blindly mass emailing to large groups of journalists and bloggers. 

   2) My response to your situation is, it makes sense to out him… But only f you took the time to try and address the situation directly with Jim first. Outings have larger implications that not only affect him, but also you and your reputation.

   Posted by Geoff Livingston  on  10/31  at  06:23 AM

7. What I don’t understand is people who create blogs, write about a specific subject or variety of subjects, and yet want to create some artifical line - if you’re a “regular” reader it’s okay if you email me, send me links, or converse electronically. But, if you’re a PR person, you’re inherently evil and you’re not allowed to contact me.

   I can’t speak for other PR people, but I routinely send info, links, reactions to stories to reporters and yes, bloggers, that have zero to do with my paid clients. One reason I do that is because I’m a media junkie (one of the reasons I ended up in PR), and if I routinely read a specific reporter or blogger, I’ll email him/her with feedback or info that I think could interest them.

   And, yes, I do the same thing when I’m conducting outreach on behalf of a client. I pitch people who would be interested in what my client is doing. I think it’s easy for strident bloggers to get self-righteous and label all PR people as bad - based on the behavior of a few lazy people.

   Ummm, that’d be like labeling all NFL players as outrageous and irresponsible based on the actions of T.O. or Michael Vick.

   Posted by Jeff Rutherford  on  10/31  at  07:18 AM

8. You took the words right out of my mouth Shel.  Well, to be clear, you took the words right out of my mouth, polished them up, and made them more compelling.  Chris’s scorched earth approach doesn’t sit right with me.  His point is valid, his execution was not…

   Posted by Terry Fallis  on  10/31  at  08:27 AM

9. Shel -I agree, listing email addresses was a bit over the top and unneccesary although I think if bad/clueless professionals stay in the shadows there is little incentive to change behavior.

   Geoff - it was in my younger days. Come to think of it, the majority of the profession in town was about my age (24 - 26) as well. No one wanted to, nor felt they could credibly, challenge Jim (who was 45+) at the time. It also was the pre-computer/online communication age (no blogs, online discussion forums, websites, etc.) so there wasn’t much pressure we could have brought to bear.

   I guess we could have filed an ethics violation complaint with PRSA and/or IABC but who are we kidding?, that is a dead end as well.

   Jeff - I don’t think the issue is sending information to reporters/bloggers that have zero to do with your clients…I used to do the same things myself when I did media relations. Rather, it has to do with sending information that has zero to do with what the reporter/blogger covers. It’s the age old complaint against PR exacerbated by the ability today to easily and cheaply throw everything up agains the wall just to see what sticks.

   Posted by Craig Jolley  on  10/31  at  09:22 AM

10. Where, exactly, is the evidence that ALL of these PR professionals who hurled bad pitches are unethical, lazy, stupid or otherwise unfit to have the letters PR associated with their names?

    Is it possible that they are new to their careers, or just getting their feet wet in social media?

    And if bettering the profession as a whole is truly the optimal response in this case—as most of the comments suggest—why not post some constructive criticism to your blog and e-mail the link to the offenders?

    Maybe they’re not actually trying to “stay in the shadows” and remain “bad/clueless professionals.”

    As a newish communicator myself, I know that I am extremely grateful for the guidance I recieve from others in the field. This includes being told, respectfully but directly, when I’ve screwed up. These are invaluable opportunities for me to improve.

    I wonder if some of these people would have actually appreciated helpful suggestions had they recieved some, instead of being “outed” with such acrimony.

    Likely, I’m merely projecting my personal feelings, but I’m wiling to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m not going to assume they’re jerks and/or idiots based solely on their sending out a lame PR pitch.

    Posted by Francis Wooby  on  11/01  at  06:15 AM

11. I think you’re exactly right, Francis, and others have made the point on Anderson’s blog that some of these people may be newbies who made a mistake. Still, you have to wonder about (and Jeremy Pepper wrote about) PR agencies that don’t educate their staffs about the proper way to reach out to bloggers.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  11/01  at  07:42 AM

12. Well, what better way to force better behavior than to go over the top? I wouldn’t do what Anderson did, but I don’t think I have a huge problem with it.

    To be fair, I hadn’t thought about the scraping/spam consequences. But still—this isn’t a new problem. Social media didn’t create spam PR (call it other than spam if you like)

    If you are on the list—you may not be a bad PR person, you just sent the bad PR pitch (and we all have been guilty of this at some point) to the wrong person at the wrong time. Jump into comments there and tell us what you learned! some of them already have.

    After all, what’s the best response to a bad pitch complaint? Send a good one…

    Posted by Doug Haslam  on  11/01  at  07:45 AM

13. I wrote in another reply, that Chris is the epitome of why you should wait 15 minutes before posting a rant. I’ve read many posts on this topic, and the majority seem to be congratulating him on a job well done. At the end of the day, do Chris’ actions teach journalists or public relations practitioners how to do their jobs better? For me, it says, “Ridicule works best, kids!” – signed, Editor-in-Chief.

    To that, I say, okay. I canceled my subscription to Wired after reading his post, but I sent my pitch to his publisher. I can get the news and features elsewhere.

    It’s the ego that pisses me off. No one in this game has the market cornered on social media and communications, period.

    Posted by Mich  on  11/01  at  09:20 AM

14. A couple of interesting comments (among others) from the blogosphere:

    http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/10/pr-and-the-firs.html

    http://www.copywriteink.blogspot.com/

    Back in the day it was called “Media Relations” for a reason:

    * You spent time researching media that mattered in getting your/your client’s message to the right audiences that were important to achieving strategic objectives.

    * Once you identified prospective journalists/editors you pulled back stories and then read everything they wrote to understand what they focused on, who they wrote for, what appeared to be their hot buttons (positively and negatively)

    * Only then did you reach out and introduce yourself to them. Not to pitch a story, but to establish yourself as someone who worked for/repesented clients that might have information form time to time that might be of interest. You asked how they liked to get information, generally when their deadlines were, and how best to reach them should something really hot break.

    * You provided them with your contact information and described how/what the process was for fielding inquiries from them (i.e., items you could comment on directly, those that needed to be sent up the chain and how long to expect a response, etc.)

    * Then you didn’t contact them again until you had something of merit that would be of interest to their readers (company/client related or not). As a rule of thumb, I always told my clients that this mating dance could take up to 30 - 60 days before we could reasonably count on getting stories into print.

    It was a lot of work and I constantly had to battle clients/my superiors who wanted to try and shortcut the process. But in the end, I had nearly a 100 percent success rate in getting client stories placed. One memorable month I was able to get three agency clients (only one of which was mine) placements in a regional business pub that were direct results of the publication editor calling me asking for story information.

    Posted by Craig Jolley  on  11/01  at  09:31 AM

15. How long before we get a Facebook group :“I’m on Chris Anderson’s blacklist.” Or on a t-shirt (black only) plus a coffee mug “Chris is steamed” ...

    Posted by Tom Foremski  on  11/01  at  12:20 PM

16. You took the words right out of my mouth Shel.  Well, to be clear, you took the words right out of my mouth, polished them up, and made them more compelling.  Chris’s scorched earth approach doesn’t sit right with me.  His point is valid, his execution was not…

    Posted by Fake Doctor Notes  on  03/19  at  10:59 AM

17. I understand anderson’s point of view but with the web today he kinna asked for that outcome when he turned his email add public- dont you think?

    Posted by wherecaniclub  on  07/11  at  10:35 AM