Thanks for linking to my blog.
However, I think you've taken the point I was trying to make of context to suit your argument.
Firstly I specifically said:
"...I also think that a happy medium is perfectly possible and I welcome approaches from all PR people - and indeed anyone seeking to try to get exposure and coverage for products."
My caveat was that I wasn't interested in all the kinds of crap I get sent and gave the following examples of approaches I've had in the last month from your colleagues in PR:
"cat food, cookery, space technology or lighting"
So while it might be "impossible to predict" what I might find interesting enough to write a story about, it's far from impossible to predict what I *won't* write about - cat food, for instance.
I'd also strongly urge your readers not to follow your advice. It's important to include bloggers in the marketing conversation and there can be real benefits for both sides. Just follow the approach I outlined on my blog - which frankly any PR agency worthy of the name would do anyway - and you've got the same chance of being covered, ignored or slugged out of the park as you have with any writer or journalist.
Finally, instead of appealing to your colleagues to do a better job, you urge them to accept the status quo:
"Investing the time to analyze individual bloggers to try and predict their reaction to a pitch is counter to the way most firms operate."
This might indeed be true and there are many old-fashioned, out-of-date PR agencies who do take this approach to all publications they try to work with - and not just bloggers. However, there are many excellent PR agencies who serve their clients well by investing some time and hard work in understanding their markets and behaving accordingly.
It's the latter agencies who you should be urging your readers to model, not just accept the old, lazy and ill-informed ways, because that's the way it's always been done.
The world's changed. Ignore it, as you advocate and you're dead in the water.
Russell
Russell:
Thanks for your comments and for continuing the discussion.
Part of what you're seeing in my post is an admission that many PR firms cannot or will not change. I am indeed an advocate for the types of dialog and communication you mention ... I talk about it often on my blog. In fact, it's the REASON I blog.
But the reality is that change for many PR professionals is impossible due to the current structure and focus of agencies and their clients.
For example, the fact that most people assigned to pitch reporters (and most definitely bloggers) are likely to be junior-level folks with little to no experience means that many of the people on the front lines lack the experience and critical thinking necessary to do the job properly.
That's just one example.
Changing those processes and structures won't happen today, tomorrow or any time soon -- IMO -- so in the meantime, I believe it's best for PR folks to avoid pitching bloggers altogether.
The other issue here is that while there are of course excellent PR firms and practitioners, anyone with an e-mail address can practice "PR" if it means sending e-mails to bloggers.
Unfortunately, some bloggers throw everyone together in the same pile o' doo, hence the "PR people are morons" types of posts that appear all-to-frequently.
If it means backing off for awhile until the rules of the game are more clearly understood across the board, then I think that's not such a bad thing. PR people -- even the good ones -- need to get past the idea that the only valuable service they can perform is getting someone else to write something about their client.
Thanks again, Russell. This kind of conversation is helpful to my readers, I hope.
It must be a lot of work. Thank you so much for sharing all of this with us. I hope you appreciate my site. Explore new a-mp3-download col lection .
Commenting by HaloScan
