How not to court a blogger
Remember when a PR agency aimed their sights on Yahoo's Tom Coates a while back and felt his fury? One is entitled to be furious in such circumstances. The fact that it was an A list blogger meant the press covered it too though. And his squillion readers all joined in the fight. I'm pretty sure that when Tom was blogging more regularly that he was ranked by Technorati as the top Brit blogger. He's kind of still seen that way I think. Well now Tom has reached a point where he feels he's being targeted by PRs with 'parasitic bullshit', that he finds the way PRs treat him is 'revolting' like 'a piece of meat'. Have a look at his post it's not pretty reading for any PR person that's considered sending their news story to a few bloggers in addition to the press.
What does this say about how (or how should) PR people treat well-read personal websites and the people behind them?
Maybe us PR people need to tread increasingly carefully and realise this is more like networking than 'distributing messages' via press releases. And maybe bloggers need to realise that if they publish and they have an audience, they are vehicles conveying messages, and companies will always look to sign them up. A lot of the time the wrong way, but they will try.
Thanks RC for the scoop on this one
Agree with all this but who has the time to fully join all these networks and surely if you cut off the information flow and messaging completely from the corporate world any network would be missing an important perspective even if it is one of parasitic bullshit?
Posted by: Jonathan Hargreaves | August 22, 2007 at 02:08 PM
It isn't about social networks but the art of conversation a la networking.
Posted by: Ged | August 22, 2007 at 06:41 PM
Companies do pay their agencies to be on all these networks and to advise on which show the most potential for their brand.I find the PR people that talk the most sense when it comes to digital media consultancy are those that have tried it.
Posted by: Drew | August 22, 2007 at 09:33 PM
The thing that strikes me is that the blogosphere is made up of many varying opinions. Some don't mind news releases whereas some loathe them.
Some don't mind being contacted by PR people, some love receiving products for review. Heck, some feed off PR delivered content so to fuel their blog to increase traffic to charge more for advertising.
Some aren't bothered about having a 'conversation', they just want you to send the news release (or SMNR) and make it quick please.
It's horses for courses but I totally respect and would never send to those that don't want to receive it.
"And maybe bloggers need to realise that if they publish and they have an audience, they are vehicles conveying messages, and companies will always look to sign them up."
Couldn't agree more. The internet is a wide open commercial platform - many of the PR haters make a living from it. Why can't PR if done properly?
Posted by: Stephen Davies | August 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I'm sort of stunned by what you say here, and I think the reason is that you somehow seem to be arguing that I'm somehow naïve for being unhappy about being targetted by PR companies. It's just something that will happen you seem to be saying, because I am 'a vehicle conveying messages'.
I don't see how this makes PR companies any better than spammers? They might be more sensitive and clever about it, but basically they look at my site as a mechanism for their advancement, as a vehicle for conveying messages, which is precisely how a spammer would view it. And I am perfectly within my rights to consider spammers parasites and a curse on the world? Why is it different in the case of PR people?
Posted by: Tom Coates | August 24, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Agree that targetting blogs with information that is not requested and irrelevant is certainly a form of spamming but if the subject or indeed company is covered that relates to relevant public relations programme then surely it is fair to add to a conversation and it not be spam. Obviously as with any conversation you can ignore the point being made and hopefully the PR would desist.
Posted by: Jonathan Hargreaves | August 24, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Shorter Blog Consultancy:
This guy may have a point, but, come now, we’re hardly going to let that alter anything we do.
Posted by: Joe Clark | August 24, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Like it or not agencies are spamming Tom Coates. The law on spam in the UK doesn't get a lot of attention because it doesn't deal with most 'real' spam. But, if agencies are sending him press releases without asking first and without an opt-out clause, that's unsolicited commercial email and could attract a fine up to £5000 (OK, that's unlikely but it could happen).
He is blogging in his personal capacity. A lawyer might want to argue that Plasticbag is a business but without ads on it and the blog being a personal view on the world, it would have to be a good lawyer.
The UK (and EU) anti-spam laws don't apply to journalists on the whole because press releases go to business addresses in the main. But many bloggers are doing so as private individuals and so should only get releases if they opt in first.
"And maybe bloggers need to realise that if they publish and they have an audience, they are vehicles conveying messages, and companies will always look to sign them up." - Maybe. But agencies should be asking first and not assume that everyone is fair game.
Posted by: Chris Edwards | August 26, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Precisely. I think an opt-in e-mail is just as, if not more important than an opt-out clause. Every blogger is going to react differently and those who don't put a disclaimer on their blog explicitly stating how they feel about being pitched should be prepared for more PR mail.
Posted by: Melanie Seasons | August 28, 2007 at 04:20 AM