Well, the week started with the shot heard round the world, 21st century style: Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, blogged more than 300 email addresses that had spammed him in one form or another — mistargeted pitches, unsolicited newsletters and so on — in the past 30 days. And this followed right on the heels of Marshall Kirkpatrick’s 5 bad pitches post the previous week.
I’m sure that a large number of the folks outed in Anderson’s email were just in the wrong place (his email box) at the wrong time (October 07). They made a mistake. Do they deserve to be raked over the coals forever? No, and they won’t be. They may never get off his list but I doubt it will ruin their reputations or their careers.
And some of them don’t have reputations to ruin. Being on the Anderson blacklist won’t affect them in the slightest because they will just get another email address and spam away. They don’t care, and they never will.
Nevertheless, much online conversation ensued. Most commenters sympatized or empathized with Anderson’s plight. Some approved of the tactic. Others understood the motivation but didn’t approve of publishing the email addresses. The rant also spawned endless analysis of the state of PR, manifestos for change and the usual apologies for the bad behavior of the profession. [Too many to count, too many to link. To read the many screeds, here’s the Google search and here is Technorati for the terms "Chris Anderson PR" ]
Some commentary was good, some less so, but, really, it all felt like more of the same to me. Public outcry over bad PR practice, much gnashing wailing and wringing, promises to do it better, to make it better, god damn it. But it doesn’t seem to get better. Not really. This blog is almost three years old, and the more things change…
The responsible practitioners of PR — the good guys — are still faced with unrealistic client expectations, a societal attitude that PR people are guilty until proven innocent and really bad PR practice from some members of the profession. Witness the truly juvenile behavior from two flacks, and I use this term deliberately, who used Anderson’s rant as an excuse to engage in some mutual, public mudslinging and attempted client poaching. Perhaps someone told them that any PR is good PR? Umm, no, and if that’s the sort of advice they give their clients…
And mixed up in the commentary was a theme started the week before by Jeremy Pepper in PR will lose Social Media to Advertising Because of Sex, a manifesto of sorts for PR to change its ways or risk losing the "fight" for social media to the dreaded Marketers.
This is a far more interesting topic. No, not because of the sex. The title of the post was just a tease. Good tactic, that. I’ll have to use it someday 🙂
In my opinion, we have to look at this conversation, this communication with our customers, with a completely different lens. Keep seeing it as a battle for supremacy, nobody wins. Not PR. Not marketing. Not the companies. And definitely not the customers.
In a post after the Anderson rant, Jeremy calls for better education, and that’s a start. But I don’t think it’s enough.
We have to break down the functional walls between PR and marketing. PR isn’t the rightful "master of social media" because of its traditional role as counselor, any more than marketing is because it has been the traditional channel to the customer. You have to be able to do both, and you have to be willing to give up some of the most deeply held, profound assumptions about the "right" way to do things in the parent disciplines.
For example, press releases. Still useful, whether new or old form, when communicating with journalists, including journalistically inclined bloggers. Usefulness to customers. Not so much. The detached, impersonal format just doesn’t tell them everything they need to know. Now, neither does a hyped up direct mail piece. Sure, direct response has its place, but it is generally to encourage action, not to share information.
I firmly believe a blogger wants a meld of both. An honest, open, relevant communication with a clear benefit statement that tells her WIIFM. What’s In It For Me. To do this, you have to know, really know, what is in it for her. [Sidebar: I expect journalists would be happy if they got this much honesty too. More on that another time.]
The best social media marketing people won’t be PR people. Or marketing people. They will have a skill set that blends both disciplines. Whether you are at an agency or in a company, start developing this — in yourself, in your teams.
Stop worrying about whether PR or marketing is going to win. The answer is neither. And both.
The only thing that’s certain? If you keep thinking of it as a fight, with a winner, you will be the loser.
That, and if you spam Chris Anderson, one strike and you’re out.
Time to start breaking down some walls.
Tags: Chris Anderson, Jeremy Pepper, PR, marketing, social media
Meg H. says
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!
Mary Schmidt says
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.
Susan Getgood says
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?
Chris Brogan... says
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.
Susan Getgood says
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.
sara says
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.
Susan Getgood says
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.
David Wescott says
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.