Before we start this special holiday edition of good pitch/bad pitch, a minor change of policy. While I will continue to protect the personal identities of the people who send the bad pitches, I will no longer be blacking out company and product names when the pitch is particularly awful or the company is a multiple repeat offender.
Which is the case with both our tales today.
We’ll start with FLABuLESSU.
There’s so much wrong with this pitch, it is hard to know where to start. I’ll leave aside my issues with the product itself, and focus on the why the pitch sent to mombloggers last week was so awful. If you’d like a good summary of the problems with the product, which is basically a girdle for your upper arms, check out PunditMom.
Back to the pitch.
There is a special place in hell for this type of news release, that uses celebrity names to attract attention, fool search engines and imply some sort of endorsement when in fact there is no such thing. The tactic was trotted out multiple times last fall about products tangentially related to Alaska governor Sarah Palin such as her eyewear, and appears on a regular basis for baby products, tied to whichever celebrity mom is about to or has recently given birth. Angelina Jolie… JLo… Jennifer Garner… Gwen Stefani… And so on.
In the FLABuLESSU pitch, this marginal tactic is then compounded by the subject matter, which is both trivial and offensive. Two extremely powerful and successful women and they want us to identify with them because we all have flabby arms? Puleez. It’s already a shady tactic, but this crosses over into the offensive.
To make matters worse, when a friend of mine emailed the company about how offensive the pitch was, she basically got a brush-off reply that many women love the product, which has been featured on Rachael Ray and in the NY Post. Okay then. That makes all the difference. I guess.
Except not. Neither Caroline Kennedy nor Oprah Winfrey has endorsed this product, and to use their names and images in this fashion is offensive and unethical public relations practice. Which is why the FLABuLESSU pitch gets the first-ever Marketing Roadmaps SCUMBAG AWARD.
And it’s too bad really. I personally have known women traumatized by their arm flab. I get it. Don’t agree, but get it. Product fills an unmet market need. Could have been successful. But there are so many better ways to reach out to the target market. Hi-jacking Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Winfrey was unnecessary.
Speaking of Rachael Ray, the PR agency that represents Every Day with Rachael Ray as well as some other food properties seems determined to bury blogger Erika Jurney with recipes, even after multiple email requests to cease and a blog post last May that minced no words. This month’s missives include holiday recipes from Rachael as well as another client.
And then there’s this gem:
Note the date. More than a few months after Erika’s rant about the recipes. And this is only a sample of the many, many pitches Erika has received from this agency, which gets the BURNT SUGAR COOKIE AWARD for not paying attention. Elizabeth, if you were reading Erika’s blog, you’d know that she doesn’t want your recipes.
Next up in our series: why holiday-themed pitches are rarely a good idea.
mom101 says
Sighing. Loudly.
mom101´s last blog post..Confidence check: Nope. Still don’t know what I’m doing.
David Wescott says
Nice job breaking this down and calling them out…
David Wescott´s last blog post..Note to Self: Never Promote Arm Girdles to Feminists.
Erika Jurney says
I got email from the offending PR company this morning saying that they’ll remove me from their lists. I don’t get the impression that she understands just how long they’ve been bombing me with recipes (hire interns much?), and she seems to think that Marketing Roadmaps is my blog.
Anywhoo, I’ll be sure to let you know when I get more recipes from this company. You’re too nice to out them by name, but I’m not. That’s the next step as this has been going on since September 2007.
Erika Jurney says
Oh, and I’ve updated my original post with all this new information and included my next steps.
Susan Getgood says
Well, they may not be reading our blogs, but at least we know the agency is monitoring for the client name. This is one of the reasons I will now “out” the company or product name for repeat offenders. It seems that’s the only way they’ll get the message.
Here’s hoping they really DID take you off the list.
PunditMom says
The thing I really don’t get is why PR and marketing companies would waste their time doing these kinds of cold pitches when they are mostly a waste of time. I’m sure there are blogs that would LOVE to have been pitched this … the one thing in common I see for at least three of us who were pitched? The word “mom” in our blog names. Even a cursory 1 minute view of each of our blogs would have clued in the sender that our readers were not the right audience for them.
Too bad for them if they ever get it and have a client who would be a good fit, because now we don’t want to hear from them
And, like Mom 101 said — sighing.
Susan Getgood says
Thanks for the comment Joanne. A flack that would use this sleazy scumbag tactic isn’t going to care about proper targeting or reading the blogs.
It’s a numbers game for her.
And just think about her standards for hits. Rachael Ray and the New York Post.
The New York Post.
mom101 says
Joanne, They buy lists. That’s it. They buy a mom list or a women blogger list or a fashion list or whatever, sometimes they merge them, and they hit send.
This pr person has actually pitched us some decent stuff before. But I am so entirely turned off by her response. How about “I can see where you might be offended and appreciate your feedback” instead of trying to prove that the pitch was a good one.
Isn’t part of the job of a pr pro to manage negative feedback?
(Yeah, I’m outing myself here.)
mom101´s last blog post..Confidence check: Nope. Still don’t know what I’m doing.
Susan Getgood says
Yes, Liz, it is part of the job.
And generally, f*** you is not considered a good answer.
mothergoosemouse says
Excellent point regarding the ethics of using celebrity names/likenesses when promoting a product – particularly when they’re portrayed in a negative or unflattering way.
mothergoosemouse´s last blog post..Happy holidays to all, and to one of you, a Wii and Wii Fit
Christine @ Boston Mamas says
Awful. I got this pitch twice and cringed hard both times.
I agree with all that has been said here. When I started my blog I used to respond to every single pitch (negative or positive) because that seemed the proper, respectful thing to do. But I quickly learned that respect is not the name of the game for many PR agencies, and I now exercise my delete button… a lot.
And if I were Oprah or Caroline I’d sue them or something.
All of this said, I also wanted to say that over the years I have worked with some really amazing PR folks who really get it, read the blogs, and are class acts. It’s a shame that this PR chaff gives those folks a really bad name.
Christine @ Boston Mamas´s last blog post..Easy & Green Holiday Décor
kim/hormonec-colored days says
I’m onteh same list as Erika, but too be fair, they also send me her magazine gratis, so I tolerate the emails, though I delete them.
However one of the recent pitches, the one for a Thai Coconut Curry( which made my husband drool as he read over my shoulder, did not come with an offer to try the product. Instead it came with an offer for a high-res image of that product. I wrote the PR person and asked her if I could get a sample of the broth, which might be a nice fit for my food blog, but haven’t heard back.
kim/hormonec-colored days´s last blog post..WTF Walmart?!?
Susan Getgood says
I see two key differences, Kim. First, you have a food blog, and second, you haven’t asked more than once to be removed from the list.
That said, I have to chuckle. I noted the offer of a hi-res JPG, versus sample product, in the curry pitch as well. How many bloggers are going to use an image of a can of soup, or if they are a food blogger, of a recipe that they did not make themselves??? Would have been so much more effective to offer you a coupon for a free can of the broth.