Almost. As the saying goes, almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear war. If your blog pitch is *almost* good enough, it’s not good enough. So what does almost look like in blogger relations?
Here are some examples, direct from my inbox.
Here’s what’s wrong, in order of appearance, not importance:
- Sent from a gmail address versus a company, by one person on behalf of the signatory. Who do I contact with questions? How? We are pretty conditioned to reply to an email with our question. Who gets the question?
- "Hey" is not an acceptable form of address, as far as I am concerned, for people you don’t know. If the sender had been reading my blog, she would have known that I wrote about this VERY recently. She’d also know that I am writing this series about good and bad pitches, and perhaps taken a bit more care with this one.
- The worst problem with this pitch is that it doesn’t tell me why *I* should care. I’ve been included in a wide net, a general outreach to marketing and advertising bloggers; the assumption is that we’ll figure out why we are interested in this widget.
Why didn’t this get consigned to the round file? Why do I consider it a near miss versus a total fail? A few reasons. First, it is short, simple and clear about intent. That does get points with me. It doesn’t give me enough information to know whether I am interested, but at least it isn’t full of BS and fluff. More importantly, though, I recognized the name of the agency as one led by a fellow social media consultant who I know personally and respect. Relationship matters. I’m willing to give this pitch a little consideration because I know someone associated with it. [BTW I provided this feedback directly to my aquaintance, and he knows it will be on the blog.]
How would I fix this pitch? First, the simple mechanical things. Send it from a business account and include the reply-to email in the text. "Hi" or "Hello" instead of "Hey." As far as content, it should be more tailored to the recipients. I like to do each email by hand so I can include some personal details, but if you don’t want to go that far, you still can tailor the pitch more closely to segments in your target audience. In this case, I would have done two simple things.
First, cross reference the pitch list against the principals and employees in the agency/company/on the PR team. Find out who are in the same social networks, and reference them in the pitch. Don’t hope that the recipient will make the connection, as I did. Make it for them: Joe Smith in our firm thought you might be interested in this because…This works in any industry where you can reference someone known and respected by the recipient as the source. Just be sure your source is in the loop ๐
Second, you have to fill in the "because" with something a bit more substantial than "you have a blog in a certain content area." This should be as personal as possible, but you *can* group bloggers with like interests and send them all similar emails. As long as the pitch is relevant. In this case, it would have been relatively easy; though I do not often write about products on this blog, I have mentioned the social media endeavors of the client company in the past. Tell me: "we thought you might be interested because you have written about company x’s social media projects in the past." I’ve masked it, but this is a big company that many social media marketing bloggers have written about.
With the simple additions of the reference name and a connection to what a blogger has actually written, not simply what kind of blog it is, this pitch could be a hit instead of a near miss.
One fiinal comment: the little PS about transparency does seem like overkill, at least as far as this pitch is concerned. There really isn’t a lot of substance to the pitch; no one is offering free product or exclusive access or anything that might be assumed to impact objective opinion. I’m also a little offended by the "please feel free" language. You betcha. If I were going to write about this product for real, I’d have no problem identifying the players. No need to offer dispensation ๐
Here’s another one that misses because it is a generic pitch aimed at marketing bloggers. It has a bit more fluff than the previous example and makes the error of asking the blogger to write, but the main problem is that it doesn’t connect with the blogger’s interests; it just delivers the pitch.
I emailed the rep back and asked what led her to send the pitch to me. My exact words: Just wondering, what led you to send this pitch to me? Didn’t say whether I was interested or not. Here’s the answer:
That would be my confirmation that I’m on some list of marketing bloggers given to this junior staffer and she has NO IDEA why I might actually be interested. Because, again, there is a better answer. I have covered viral marketing programs pretty extensively in the past and moderated a panel about viral marketing at New Comm Forum 2007. All I was looking for was for this agency to connect what I write about to their pitch. They didn’t.
This program might be a good one, might be incredibly feeble. I have no idea, and no one has given me a good reason for rushing to find out. That’s a near miss, and we ain’t playing horseshoes.
All the PR person had to do was make a connection to the marketing topics I’d covered in the past. In both cases, it wasn’t that hard and there was no need to individualize; more than a few of my peers could have been in the same general buckets, allowing the firms to use mail merge software if they wished.
The common reply to this criticism is that the agencies don’t have the time to make this effort. Instead, they rely on the law of percentages and hope that something will hit. That works sometimes – generally when the product is just so awesome it makes up for the crappy pitch — but it doesn’t work all the time. Or even most of the time.
Make the effort.
Tags: blogger relations