A brief tale of an unsolicited, off-topic, embargoed pitch
I’ve written before that press embargoes are still employed effectively and can work well when implemented correctly. While TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington is leading the “embargoes are dead” charge, they continue to be a staple outside the world of tech journalism.
There’s a lot to doing embargoes right, but one of the most important dimensions of embargoes is an explicit agreement between the journalist or blogger and the organization providing the embargoed information. Not only is this a core requirement, it’s PR 101. I always shake my head when I get an unsolicited pitch that features prominent text like this one, which arrived in my email inbox earlier this week:
This was about the twentieth such pitch sent to me in the last few weeks. I was getting more and more irritable at PR practitioners violating a basic premise of media relations, expecting that someone receiving the press release will abide by the embargo even though there has been no agreement or even a discussion. In fact, I was under absolutely no obligation to honor the embargo.
Not that it mattered, because the pitch dealt with computer hardware. I don’t write about computer components.
It wasn’t the first embargoed off-topic release I’ve received from this individual, so I was sorely tempted to simply call out the offender, and said so in a tweet. Calmer heads prevailed—specifically Rachel Kay, who suggested the offender might be new to the business and simply didn’t know any better. I wound up sending a short note back to the person who sent me the pitch, noting that the embargo was not enforcable without an explicit agreement, then pointing out that I don’t write about chips, processors, hard drives or other computer components.
The first reply I got was simply a thank you for the advice. But it was followed in short order by another email asking, “Why do you have your name listed in Vocus as a reporter for analog products when you are a PR practitioner?”
I pointed out that I didn’t have myself listed in Vocus at all, that the database isn’t an opt-in resource. I also suggested that this is why it makes far more sense to practice more selective blogger outreach than to simply blast a pitch to a monster list. I haven’t heard back.
I’m looking forwward to the release of BlogDash. Should I be listed as an analog computer product reporter there, I could access my listing and correct it. But BlogDash is designed for more thorough analysis of the right bloggers to contact rather than a list for email blasts.
The takeaway is simple, though: I appreciate outreach from people who have taken the time to figure what I write about and for whom, while I grow ever more resentful of pitches that were clearly sent out to a massive list. I’m sure I’m not alone. Have you ever given coverage to an unsolicited, off-topic, embargoed pitch?
11/11/10 | 4 Comments | A brief tale of an unsolicited, off-topic, embargoed pitch