Comments on: The week in PR: Blacklists, sex, education and breaking down walls

By: David Wescott

David Wescott — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:29:52 +0000

The only thing that will really work is if a PR firm loses a client over this.

The nuclear option – call the client and tell them the PR firm is spamming you. You better be able to back it up, but telling the CLIENT you’re not pleased changes behavior right away.

By: Susan Getgood

Susan Getgood — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:28:40 +0000

Quite frankly, if his rant had said “I got more than 300 crappy pitches last month,” without the visual impact of scrolling through the emails, it wouldn’t have had nearly the effect. Which I am sure he knew.

The fact is, nothing works very well, except naming names. And unfortunately that never seems to work for very long.

By: sara

sara — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:05:15 +0000

I think that his tactics may have been a bit over the top, but I give him credit because he tried something new. Yes, you can send a mass e-mail back saying quit flooding my inbox, but chances are you will still be on their lists. I guarantee you everyone in his list took notice and is rethinking who they send their e-mails to. If he did not sign up for it, then leave him, and everyone else for that matter, alone.

By: Susan Getgood

Susan Getgood — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:21:24 +0000

It’s not right that Chris, or any journalist, gets bad pitches and subscribed to newsletters that he didn’t ask for. PR people should know better. Why don’t they? Why do people still take the lazy route? It’s stupid. It’s spam.

Now imagine that you aren’t a journalist, but rather a popular blogger with a full time job, that isn’t your blog, whether that job be in or out of the home. And you get a similar load of crap.

That is the larger problem. That’s what we have to get right.

The publication of the email addresses. Not the issue. It made the point, and I’m sure that’s why he did it. The reputable people on his list will learn their lesson. This won’t irretrievably harm their careers and if the spam gets too bad, they’ll get another email address.

The full time spammers will just get new email addresses and continue their numbers game.

But if we want to do it better, we have to do it differently. And I’m not sure enough people really get that. It’s not *just* about targeting better, it’s about telling better stories. Without hype, jargon, Messaging with the capital M. Etc.

Yet I keep seeing the arguments circle back to “who’s in charge” of social media, and that just makes me crazy.

By: Chris Brogan...

Chris Brogan... — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:52:31 +0000

Blog first, ask questions later. That’s the new mantra, is it not? Do something silly and you don’t get a warning shot across the bow.

But should people educate others on a good approach? I don’t know. I think it’s useful, but it’s also unrealistic. Would *I* do it? Sure. I’d tell someone when their pitch is silly, and I’d tell them in private. But then, I’m another Chris, not the Chris in question.

But 300 cruddy pitches? Guy’s gotta be feeling pretty flooded.

By: Susan Getgood

Susan Getgood — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:14:27 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I too completely understand his frustration. While I think it is a shame that people will harvest the email addresses from his email to then spam all those people, the long term impact is pretty much nil.

And that is *my* real frustration. The problem Anderson highlights is not new. At all. It is perhaps worse than it ever has been before, but it’s an old problem.

How come we haven’t solved it?

By: Mary Schmidt

Mary Schmidt — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:07:32 +0000

I agree that the posting was a bit over-the-top. But…I also understand. Can you imagine how much crap the poor man gets?

I also suggest we focus more on the people, less on the appropriate labels (PR, social media, whatever.) It all comes down to human communications, regardless of the technology or format used.

As for getting on black lists – it shouldn’t be a problem if we bother to know something about the people to whom we’re sending emails.

By: Meg H.

Meg H. — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:16:37 +0000

While I understand the wired editor’s frustration, I was shocked at his unprofessional and vindictive behavior.

His blog entry could have been on how to do an appropriate & correct PR approach. He could have sent a mass email to those 300 folks & told them about it. Instead of turning it into an opportunity, he burnt more than 300 bridges.

I’m totally new to promoting social media, and it is definitely going to be interesting to see how traditional PR & social media promotion merge.

I just hope I don’t get on any blacklists in the process!