△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Two wrongs don’t make a right

Hat tip to C.C. Chapman, who already blogged this and tipped his hat to Jeremy Pepper, who tweeted it.

Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson—author of “The Long Tail”—has posted an item to his blog that makes an excellent (although not a new) point, then ruins it with a vindictive, mean-spirited, and ultimately childish action. (I subscribe to Anderson’s feed, so I would have seen the post sooner or later, but this just shows that CAPOW email can reach me faster than RSS.)

Anderson’s constructive point: There are a lot of lazy PR people out there who don’t know how to pitch a blogger, so they send clueless emails and generic press releases that have nothing to do with the blogger’s focus.

The over-the-top bit: Anderson listed the email addresses of all the people who have sent such pitches.

Anderson’s complaint is a legitimate one:

I only want two kinds of email: those from people I know, and those from people who have taken the time to find out what I’m interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that (I love those emails; indeed, that’s why my email address is public). Everything else gets banned on first abuse.

This approach is far better than Tom Coates’; Coates—about whom I wrote back in August—doesn’t care if you took the time to find out what he’s interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that. He hates any outreach and believes it’s completely inappropriate to view a blogger as a potential ally in a communication effort.

I also feel Anderson’s pain. Just today (and it’s only 1 p.m.), I’ve received half a dozen press releases about things I couldn’t care less.

So articulating his disdain for inappropriate pitches and his decision to ban the email addresses of those who send them is aces with me.

But publishing the email addresses? Even The Bad Pitch Blog—dedicated to such abuses—has a three-strike policy before outing the offenders, and even then it’s a company name, not an email address. While the people who sent these inappropriate pitches may be bad at their jobs, or clueless about the social media space, you have to wonder if they deserve the shitload of spam that’s about to come their way as their addresses get scraped from Anderson’s very public blog. (They’ll get real spam—mortages, organ enhancement, poker, the whole enchilada.) After all, while they may have been lazy or clueless, these people didn’t do anything overtly malicious; their goal was not to make Anderson’s life miserable. Anderson’s action is expressly malicious (and, as executive editor of a premier technology-focused publication, he can’t claim he didn’t know those addresses wouldn’t be scraped.)

Weren’t banning those addresses enough and explaining his policy enough? Would Anderson support the death penalty for parking violators, too?

10/30/07 | 19 Comments | Two wrongs don’t make a right

Comments

  • 1.Very well said, Shel.
    Of course I noticed that one of the commenters on Anderson's blog stated that he had been "spammed" by Wired.

    There is a vast difference between spamming and inadvertently misdirecting a pitch.

    Donna Papacosta | October 2007 | Toronto

  • 2.There is such a difference between SPAM and a misdirected pitch.

    But there is also a thing called laziness - and too many PR people fall into that trap.

    Jeremy Pepper | October 2007 | San Francisco

  • 3.We all get these pitches. Get used to it. It's part of being a successful voice. It's even more ludicrous when you are a PR blogger and get such a pitch. I mean, what does that say?

    But even though I am doubly insulted with ridiculous pitches from my PR brethren, I would never humiliate someone like this publicly. If it's that much of an issue, just block them, but no need for this kind of a blood-letting.

    Geoff Livingston | October 2007 | District of Corruption

  • 4.I don't know Geoff, by keeping bad or clueless behavior under wraps, and not holding the individuals accountable for their actions, don't we just help perpetuate it?

    Many lifetimes ago when I was an exec in a PR agency and officer in the local IABC and PRSA chapters, there was a solo practicioner, let's call him Jim, that was notoriou among the PR community for bad behavior, questionable ethics and anemic results. We used to shake our heads over the bad image he was giving the profession. When someone asked how he was able to stay in business (and do quite well, BTW) I quipped that he had an "inexhastable" supply of victims.

    Once, when we are kibbitzing on the topic of Jim at a local watering hole, one of his "victims" accosted us after overhearing our conversation. She was outraged that since Jim's faults were apparently well known by the group of professionals/profession we represented, we had done noting the warn others. Had she had any hint of an idea about his reputation, she said, it would have saved HER reputation among her bosses and the company a lot of money.

    We were, she said, no better than the medical community that closes ranks around a questionable doctor, or the police that doesn't acknowledge bad acts/actors on the force, etc.

    I don't know about the others at the table, but I felt particularly small and ashamed at that point. So I think people who do bad things should be publicly outed, especially if it is for repeated bad behavior. If for no other reason to warn other potential "victims" to stay clear.

    Craig Jolley | October 2007

  • 5.I don't disagree, Craig, and I might have been a lot less vexed by this if Anderson had simply listed their names and affiliations. It's the email addresses themselves that seemed more like an extreme act of vigilanteism than simply exposing bad behavior.

    Shel Holtz | October 2007 | Concord, CA

  • 6.Craig:

    1) There's a big difference between your situation and publishing a list of PR people who are blindly mass emailing to large groups of journalists and bloggers.

    2) My response to your situation is, it makes sense to out him... But only f you took the time to try and address the situation directly with Jim first. Outings have larger implications that not only affect him, but also you and your reputation.

    Geoff Livingston | October 2007 | District of Corruption

  • 7.Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired magazine and author of the must-read The Long Tail, is sick and tired of lazy, stoopid PR people. (We’re with you, Chris!) And now, he’s going to do something about it. (Yeah!)
    From his blog post:
    I ...

    http://altyrianview.com/2007/10/31/the-long | October 2007

  • 8.What I don't understand is people who create blogs, write about a specific subject or variety of subjects, and yet want to create some artifical line - if you're a "regular" reader it's okay if you email me, send me links, or converse electronically. But, if you're a PR person, you're inherently evil and you're not allowed to contact me.

    I can't speak for other PR people, but I routinely send info, links, reactions to stories to reporters and yes, bloggers, that have zero to do with my paid clients. One reason I do that is because I'm a media junkie (one of the reasons I ended up in PR), and if I routinely read a specific reporter or blogger, I'll email him/her with feedback or info that I think could interest them.

    And, yes, I do the same thing when I'm conducting outreach on behalf of a client. I pitch people who would be interested in what my client is doing. I think it's easy for strident bloggers to get self-righteous and label all PR people as bad - based on the behavior of a few lazy people.

    Ummm, that'd be like labeling all NFL players as outrageous and irresponsible based on the actions of T.O. or Michael Vick.

    Jeff Rutherford | October 2007

  • 9.You took the words right out of my mouth Shel. Well, to be clear, you took the words right out of my mouth, polished them up, and made them more compelling. Chris's scorched earth approach doesn't sit right with me. His point is valid, his execution was not...

    Terry Fallis | October 2007 | Toronto

  • 10.Shel -I agree, listing email addresses was a bit over the top and unneccesary although I think if bad/clueless professionals stay in the shadows there is little incentive to change behavior.

    Geoff - it was in my younger days. Come to think of it, the majority of the profession in town was about my age (24 - 26) as well. No one wanted to, nor felt they could credibly, challenge Jim (who was 45+) at the time. It also was the pre-computer/online communication age (no blogs, online discussion forums, websites, etc.) so there wasn't much pressure we could have brought to bear.

    I guess we could have filed an ethics violation complaint with PRSA and/or IABC but who are we kidding?, that is a dead end as well.

    Jeff - I don't think the issue is sending information to reporters/bloggers that have zero to do with your clients...I used to do the same things myself when I did media relations. Rather, it has to do with sending information that has zero to do with what the reporter/blogger covers. It's the age old complaint against PR exacerbated by the ability today to easily and cheaply throw everything up agains the wall just to see what sticks.

    Craig Jolley | October 2007

Comment Form

« Back