“[A] PR blog & spin-free zone… dedicated to cutting through the crap in online public relations and social media issues with blunt honesty, hard questions, and a healthy dose of skepticism.”

That’s how I described NakedPR in its early days (having launched in late 2006). It’s largely how I’d still describe NakedPR today.

With its 2016 re-launch, NakedPR will still focus on online PR and social media, with an emphasis on transparency, ethics, and industry commentary. I also expect to spend significantly more time exploring blogging and broader publishing and media issues.

In other words, you can think of the “New NakedPR” as the same old NakedPR with a slightly wider focus and at least 20% less swearing (on a good day).

What It’s All About

The aim of NakedPR is to make you think about industry issues in new ways and help you make better decisions as communications professionals. I want to see critical thinking skills become less of a lost art in our line of work. I want to see us, collectively, do better.

Why?

• Over the years I’ve watched PR pros fail to conduct even rudimentary targeting research on behalf of clients.
• I’ve watched bloggers and journalists parrot misleading “facts” and statistics to trusting readers minus any thoughtful analysis (and sometimes minus any source citations).
• I’ve watched major publications and firms try to rank blogs based on “influence” using well-known faulty and manipulatable metrics all because such lists serve as effective linkbait.
• I’ve watched marketers hijack and abuse PR tools to the point of negatively impacting their effectiveness.
• I’ve watched PR pros, on the other side of the spectrum, show up late to the game and try to hijack broader-use tools and tactics, imposing their views and standards on other groups.
• I’ve watched far too many communications pros (from PR professionals to writers) act like children, instigating mob mentality to rile people up behind their causes or targets (usually of the “oh boo hoo, someone disagreed with me; go get ’em!” variety).
• I’ve watched as campaigns present outright lies to the public and get away with it.
• And, frankly, my bullshit tolerance has been tapped out.

That’s why NakedPR is back. And it’s why I care about PR and media issues so strongly, especially in the digital realm where I’ve built my career in consulting, writing, and publishing.

What You’ll Find Here

NakedPR went through an interesting, and unexpected, transition in its early days. The blog was initially launched to offer practical advice to online business owners — my target clients at the time.

You won’t find much of that here anymore. I’m not here to teach you how to use shiny new tools.

Later, NakedPR focused more on PR and social media professionals themselves. That wasn’t something I planned. The audience changed after I somewhat “loudly” spoke out against one of those instances of mob mentality I mentioned (where a colleague was attacked by a group of ignorant fools empowered by their own echo chamber).

That’s the kind of content you can expect to see more of: commentary on tough, and sometimes unpleasant, industry issues. Examples of topics we’ll explore together in the coming weeks and months include:

• Bullshit data dissemination;
• Influencer outreach;
• Employee advocacy;
• Brand journalism;
• Authority chains in blogging;
• Zombie tools (the ones that just won’t stay dead despite the ever-growing list of claims to the contrary).

Updates will often come in the form of essays and opinion pieces, but I’ll also bring in guests for occasional interviews. This will mostly be done when I find someone whose online PR or social media work makes them stand out in a positive way. That said, the emphasis will still remain on perceived problems in the industry more than feel-good case studies.

When calling out problem behavior, sometimes individuals will be named, and sometimes they won’t be. I’m not completely heartless, so if there’s a way to keep them anonymous while still exploring the underlying issue, I’ll try to do that. If a direct quote or link is required to cover the topic appropriately, then they’ll likely be named.

There is no set publication schedule at NakedPR — something I’m sure we’ll explore in a more general sense when talking about fabricated “blogging rules” in the future. I’ll update if and when I have something to say. And all posts will be my own. I don’t accept guest posts here.

If you’d like to stay on top of posts easily despite the irregular posting schedule, you can subscribe to receive posts via email using the form below any blog post, including this one.

If you have questions not covered here, or there’s something specific you’d like me to weigh in on here on the blog, feel free to leave a comment or email me any time.

The post The Evolution of NakedPR appeared first on NakedPR.

The Case for Targeting & Pitching Bloggers

No matter where you fall in the bloggers vs journalists debate, Darren thinks public relations people should avoid snubbing bloggers:

“One big benefit of bloggers is that they have an ability to build real trust with readers. I’m not doubting that this can happen with journalists too but blogs can be very personal and the relationship between blogger and reader can be quite deep.”

I agree with him.

Bloggers can build trust with readers on a deeper level than can be done in some other outlets. It comes down to that interactive conversation we love so much in PR. I’ve witnessed this on one of my other blogs specifically. I saw first-hand how a more personal approach built trust, increased interaction, increased backlinks and referrals, and increased revenue.

Darren’s ProBlogger also exists as a trusted resource for new bloggers.

“I know that after writing daily content for three years that some of my longer term readers feel like they know me. They’ve benefited from my advice for years, they’ve seen me develop and experiment in my field of expertise, they’ve also seen some of the personal things that I talk about from my life… they trust me. As a result when I make a recommendation or suggestion they’re more than likely to act on that. This is a powerful thing and something that companies are obviously interested to tap into.”

And tap into trusted blogs they do. They do so through advertising and pushing affiliate programs on bloggers they know can reach their target market. They’re pitching bloggers in the hopes of getting exposure with their loyal and targeted audience.

Choosing Blogs to Target

If you intend on pitching bloggers your press releases, focus on bloggers that are reaching your target audience effectively. But go beyond that. Target those bloggers with developed trust, as Darren mentioned, with that audience.

Darren and I disagree a bit on targeting bloggers – mostly in how to build the relationships (what’s needed, what’s not, etc.).

At the same time, he makes some excellent recommendations:

“There are a number of things that I’d suggest:

1. Use tools like Technorati or Google’s Blog search to find what blogs are covering the topic you’re interested in. You can set up ‘alerts’ or ‘watch lists’ for certain keywords to be notified what’s going on in an industry. After a while you’ll see the same blogs coming up again and again which is at least an indication that they are ‘on topic’.
2. Track with the blog for a few days or weeks before approaching them. See what and how they cover stories. Watch how many comments they get and what tone the comments are (you can learn a lot about a blogger by what goes on in their comments section). Pay particular attention to the ‘voice’ that they use to write posts (if they’re an angry and controversial blogger they may or may not be the best vehicle to target.
3. Watch what others say about the blog. Use a tool like technorati to watch what other bloggers are linking up and for what reason they’re talking about the blog. You’ll quickly get an idea as to whether the blogger is trusted, influential and a credible source of information.
4. Use tools like Alexa or Compete to get an idea of traffic. They won’t give you actual numbers but when you compare blogs using these tools you get an idea of how they rank in general terms.
5. Test the waters with a few comments of your own on their blog. Don’t pitch them or do a PR spin – but leave a valuable and useful comment and see how it’s received.”

I don’t agree you need test the waters with comments for every blog you may want to target.

Rather, I think the key here is you need to take the time to know what stories a blogger may or may not be interested in. More importantly, you need to let the blogger know why they’ve been targeted. For example, let them know what related pieces you’ve read instead of assuming they’ll know why you’re pitching them.

Darren sums it up nicely:

“My advice to PR people is to travel with a blogger over time, build relationships, resource them, help them improve their blog, only ‘pitch’ relevant stories, tailor those pitches as much as possible to the blogger’s audience and never manipulate bloggers (or be perceived to).”

Pitching Bloggers Your Story

After familiarizing yourself with bloggers who can reach your audience, find a way to pitch them without alienating them. Darren wrote a 21-point series of tips on how to pitch bloggers (covering not only story pitches, but those for link recommendations and exchanges, interview requests, guest posts, and more).

His thoughts on pitching press releases directly interested me (he flat out suggests that you not do it):

“I must have hit ‘delete’ on thousands of press releases over the last few years. While I do occasionally use them – it is generally only when they are right on target for my niche and quite often when I go searching for them. I’d much rather be pitched a story idea that is tailored to my blog. This need not be long or detailed (in fact it’s best if it’s not) but if someone shoots me an email that says ‘here’s a story you might be interested in and here’s why it’s relevant to your blog’s readers’ I’m much more likely to read it. If you do have a press release it might be more effective to not send it – but to give a link to where it is hosted online so that if the blogger wants to refer to it (and link to it) they can.”

On this point, I disagree a little bit.

I think you should absolutely send news releases when pitching bloggers.

My experience specializing in online PR, working as a blogger on quite a few blogs myself, and working in larger networks where I became exposed to hundreds of online writers / bloggers tells me that many bloggers (including respected niche experts with large trusted followings) do in fact want to receive your press releases.

However, I can understand that for a blogger of Darren’s popularity, it might get overwhelming at times. So I don’t blame him for feeling the way he does. I know other “big” bloggers who feel similarly. At the same time though, other large blogs (Mashable comes to mind) actively solicit news release submissions.

I think the thing to focus on is your targeting. While you may not be required to follow specific bloggers for a long time to get a feel for them, you should absolutely check to see if they have specific pitching policies, requests, or even flat-out refusals before sending a release. If they make it clear they don’t want your releases, you’re not helping yourself by sending them.

I think Darren did hit on an important point when he mentioned sending a short pitch email suggesting a story idea and why that idea would be relevant to the blogger’s audience. Where we differ is I look at that brief, more personalized email as an addition to the press release and not a substitute.

I work with a lot of web-based clients targeting bloggers and have for years.

Here’s the course of action I’ve found most effective when pitching bloggers:

1. Target the bloggers.

Create a list of the ones most relevant to your news story (you can use the tools and tips Darren offered).

2. Look for any mention of a pitching policy.

The sidebar or contact page is where you’ll often find it. If the blogger doesn’t accept pitches, scratch them from your list. If they do, see if they mention any preferences for how to receive them (their own online form, via email, etc.). In most cases I end up pitching via email.

3. From that targeted list, search for specific blog posts related to your news story in some way.

Read them thoroughly. Observe the interaction with readers in the comments. Get a good feel for how the individual bloggers cover topics like that you’re planning to pitch. Evaluate their attitude and tone in those posts. If their posts about the subject matter are negative, you’re not doing yourself any favors.

For example, anyone pitching my freelance writing blog should know never to pitch me about a content mill or race-to-the-bottom freelance bidding marketplace. (And if they do, they shouldn’t be surprised if I tear them apart publicly for promoting the exploitation of writers.)

4. Write a short email (similar to what Darren mentioned).

It should be tailored to each blogger individually. You can comment on one of the posts you read while evaluating the blog or something about their approach. Let them know you’re not simply sending a random story idea, but instead you did take the time to research their blog, audience, and interests.

This kind of pitching even works on me personally. I get a lot of pitches for my blogs. If it’s nothing but a release, I trash it. If it’s something tailored to me, I consider it (which just led to me publishing a guest post and agreeing to partner in a contest very recently on another blog of mine).

You don’t have to spend a lot of time stroking the ego of the blogger you’re emailing. Ego-bait is inherently slimy behavior anyway. Just show them you actually know something about them.

5. Paste your press release at the end of the actual email.

It has always proven more effective for me and my clients than linking to the release online as Darren mentioned. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with including a link additionally (preferably to a version hosted on your site or your client’s site where the blogger can quickly and easily learn more).

This works better for a simple reason… as easy as it is to click a link, it’s still often a struggle to get people to do it. Remember, it’s just as easy for the recipient to click once to close your email. Put the information in front of their face. If they want it, they’ll read it. If they don’t, it’s extremely easy to ignore, and just focus on the personal pitch above – I suggest leaving a bit of space between the two to avoid it looking like one huge continuous email message, and just allude to the press release in the short message.

So tell me… what pitching policies do you follow when targeting bloggers (or are you even targeting bloggers)? Have you experimented? What’s been most effective?  Are there any other specific tools you use to help you identify bloggers that may be worth targeting, following, or building relationships with?

The post Targeting and Pitching Bloggers (With ProBlogger’s Darren Rowse) appeared first on NakedPR.

On the other hand, I despise the prevalence of social media lies.

There’s a certain amount of anonymity involved. That’s always been the case, from the days of old school chat room and message board handles. I feel it’s that sense of anonymity that makes social media spaces such a prime playground for the dishonest among us.

Today I want to share a few of my “favorite” examples of the lies I’ve seen through social media. Then I’d like to hear your thoughts. Does social media make people more likely to lie, or does it just attract those who are already full of shit? And what kinds of lies do you see most often via social media outlets?

Social Media Lies: 5 Examples

I’m not talking about major corporations or politicians here. I want to focus more on everyday folks — my own colleagues in some cases. With that in mind, here are some examples of lies I’ve seen in social media:

Nefarious Post and Comment Deletions

To be clear, I’m not talking about things like deleting spam or abusive blog comments, or even deleting old posts when there’s a valid administrative reason to (outdated content you don’t want to promote to readers anymore or timely announcements that are now irrelevant for example). I’m talking more about post edits and deletions designed to hide past truths.

For example, one freelance colleague I know used to delete old posts sharing an opinion that had since become unpopular. Then, in new posts, they’d claim they never said those things in the first place. This was often a result of them being paid to promote something they used to advocate against.

Others delete things like negative blog comments and then act like everyone agrees with them. Both are a crock. And both are easily caught.

Remember, readers can subscribe to comments or posts including via email (including through third party RSS subscription services, so you can’t prevent this as long as you have feeds). You never know who still has an archive of your old material in their inbox.

Mysterious Changing Stats

Some people are attention-seekers. Others constantly seek validation.

In one case there was a colleague in the latter group. They posted in a comment on a popular blog that they spent X hours per day on something for their own readers. When they didn’t get the oohing and aahing responses rolling in, within days that story changed and they claimed to have invested even more.

On another site where they promoted the content they were seeking validation of, the number magically increased. They were suddenly doing more, and “deserving” of more praise and adoration. I guess they forgot when you post on sites in the same niche chances are good the sites or blogs have shared readers.

I saw similar with another freelance colleague. They were a guest on a popular blog, and in a post there they shared their income numbers (a type of boasting common in the freelance community). They weren’t impressive. And within the next couple of weeks, their story changed. While trying to impress readers on their own blog they touted income stats well into five figures higher than what they’d just disclosed elsewhere.

That’s the kind of thing that happens to liars though; they sometimes forget which lies they’ve told where.

False Identities

As a writer who understands the importance and value of pen names (and as someone who’s been a victim of cyber stalking), I don’t consider handles themselves to be lies, especially when your handle can be tied to your real name in some way or at least you use it consistently as your online identity. There’s a place for privacy, and there’s value in them in the sense of safety.

But one of those freelance colleagues I mentioned above took the issue of pseudonyms a step further.

On another colleague’s blog they were being criticized. So they commented. And that’s fine. They were invited to do just that. But then they went too far. They commented again, this time anonymously. (They were caught because they forgot to change non-public information tied to their comments — such as your email address and IP address.)

The idea is simple. If people aren’t backing up their point, they comment anonymously or under another handle or name to provide false support for their post or previous comments. In other words, they used sock puppet commenter “accounts.”

This is one of the reasons you can’t judge a blogger’s popularity based on the number of comments or interactions they get. Most are easy to fake (and internet marketers in particular have a habit of finding ways to game every system).

That’s dishonesty plain and simple. And finding this out about a colleague is a surefire way to convince me to drop them — from my subscriptions, from my social media follows, and everything else. After all, if they would lie in that way on someone else’s blog (or even your own), who’s to say they don’t do the same thing on their own to make it look like they have more readers, commenters, or supporters?

False Credentials

Lying about credentials isn’t new to social media. People have “embellished” resumes for ages. But social media seems to incentive it.

Just consider the wave of self-proclaimed social media gurus for example. People twist something small (like follow-spamming their way to 10,000 Twitter followers) into an expert status in social media.

Yet another colleague — a PR writer — I know used a large online community (where I was a moderator at the time) to blatantly lie to prospective clients claiming they had a degree when they didn’t. They were called out on it and tried to say they never claimed that in the first place. Funny thing about the web is archives are usually still publicly available somewhere.

After being exposed, this person practically dropped off the face of the earth. And really, is it worth damaging your career for a quick buck? Never.

Another example was downright laughable. Someone publicly advertised in that same community offering press release writing services. They claimed major corporations flew them all over the country to write their releases. You know you can call bullshit right there. But it got better…

Forgetting others in the community could see their public ad (beyond their prospects) this person messaged me privately since they knew I was a PR professional. They admitted they were a kid working out of their parent’s place, and they practically begged me for advice on getting started.

Why people lie like this is beyond me. They will be found out, even if not usually through their own stupidity of admitting it.

Claims of Uber-Success

Sometimes these lies are rolled up into others, like false credentials. It’s a popular one in the freelance game. One time, for example, I came across a writer claiming they earned six figures. No big deal. It’s hardly uncommon. But this person was using that as a way to attract more readers and attention for their blog.

So I looked at their business site because it never hurts to see what other colleagues are doing and I try to keep a wide network with other successful freelancers. Imagine my surprise when I saw their rate list and their claim to fame was $10 articles. That comes to more than 27 articles every single day — no weekends, no holidays, no sick time, nothing. Right.

The thing is, many people don’t check on claims. One of the biggest repeat liars I’ve seen in the blogging community still has a loyal following because people just don’t pay attention (like how some of their “teaching” was plagiarized from old copywriting textbooks). In the end, it frequently does catch up to you.

So what about you? What kinds of social media lies bother you the most? What seem to be most common these days? Do you think one platform supports liars more than others? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The post Social Media Lies: How Social Media Enables Liars appeared first on NakedPR.

It began with the blog “influence” lists or rankings based on faulty metrics (like the Power150 or Edelman’s social media index). Things aren’t any better today I’m sorry to say.

They’re worse.

I came across an article this morning on Twitter that discussed how companies are overvaluing Facebook “likes.” And I agree with that completely.

What is a “Like” Anyway?

In the end a “like” doesn’t equal a customer. It doesn’t even mean you have a lead. You can “like” a lot of things you can’t afford for example. It doesn’t mean you’re in the market for it. You could “like” a website after reading one good article and still never see enough value in it to go back. In the end, a “like” means very little.

A “like” is just another way of whipping out your trusty litter ruler to see who’s bigger than whom, and for friends or followers, a “like” is a near zero-effort activity.

It’s not new. It’s the same thing we see with Twitter spammers — the type who follow thousands of people they know they can’t realistically follow because they’re hoping for automatic follow-backs as if caring about what someone has to say should be the result of a reflex.

Rather, it’s all about who appears to have more friends, fans, followers, or whatever you want to call them today — who has the biggest list. And in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Large generic groups of people “liking” you or “following” you means very little. Building a following of a smaller group of people — but with a genuine and regular interest in what you have to say, sell, or do — will benefit you more.

Somewhere in this social media mix we lost the concept of targeting. 

Popularity Alone Isn’t Social Proof

At this point I’m little more than embarrassed for the “social media professionals” who participate in these popularity contests or convince their clients that they should care about them. They’re still missing the mark.

In the end, who benefits from the hype around these popularity-based lists and emphasis on vanity metrics such as “likes?”

The social networks being promoted for starters.

Perhaps more important, those who benefit are the sites sharing these ranking lists in the first place. After all, if you can’t get attention by being a legitimate authority, there’s always linkbait. And let’s not forget all the unqualified social media consultants gaming clients who don’t know any better for an easy buck.

Popularity only matters as social proof if it comes with true influence. But the two are not one and the same. It’s time the PR community stopped confusing the two.

If you want attention, via social media or elsewhere, earn it for the right reasons. Don’t get caught up in meaningless metrics. Looking like a big deal is fun and all. But being a trusted source and someone people actually want to do business with is even better. That’s where real influence comes from.

The post Social Media Continues to Miss the Mark: The Overemphasis on Popularity appeared first on NakedPR.

What I want to address:

“Now the question becomes: are these algorithmic authorities any worse than the corporate goliaths they are displacing?”

I’m someone deeply embedded in the digital publishing world. My business, and my clients’ businesses, are affected by these algorithms. And I would argue they are worse.

Here’s why.

Algorithmic Authority Can Change Almost Daily

Algorithms that determine the authority status of a person or publication (or pretend to) often change. They don’t remain static or depend on thoughtful analysis by people qualified to judge authority.

Instead, they rely on surface-level measurements such as the number of backlinks to a page.

These factors change all the time.

Actual authority doesn’t change as frequently. And true authority tends to grow over time. A corporate entity changing measurement standards cannot displace that true, earned authority.

Measurements of Algorithmic Authority are Easily Manipulated

Unfortunately, algorithms aren’t perfect. They look at data. But they don’t control the humans behind that data.

Almost as soon as we see obvious algorithm changes from players like Google, people find ways to exploit them.

By this point, internet marketers treat algorithm-chasing as sport.

Algorithms Aren’t Free From Human Input

Google’s PageRank algorithm featured in the above post. So let’s focus on that example.

Google can override algorithmic assessments by applying penalties. They can even outright de-index a website. This can happen if you don’t follow their rules as the self-appointed internet police.

For instance, with PageRank Google can eliminate or decrease your site’s rank if you use an advertising model they don’t approve of — like selling links directly.

Excuse my side tangent, but a few words on Google’s manual actions related to their algorithm and paid links:

Legitimate reasons exist in online publishing to sell links that don’t involve any “black hat” intent to manipulate search rankings.

That said, two problems exist on Google’s end.

First, private link sale advertisements exist as direct competition for their own link-based contextual ad network (Adwords / Adsense).

Second, their algorithms can’t determine advertisements from other links adequately. They over-rely on backlinks as a metric. That both led to an increased demand for text link ads and an increased crackdown on them.

If you use this kind of ad model without following their rules they treat you like a scam artist. It doesn’t matter how relevant or transparent the ads on your site are. It doesn’t matter if your content serves as the most authoritative content on its subject matter. They make no differentiation between relevant ads that offer value and search engine spam.

While I’ve worked in the online publishing, webmaster, and search engine optimization (SEO) communities for years, the bulk of my clients include small businesses and independent professionals. They’re often true experts in their fields.

Because of this, I take issue with Google’s largely self-serving manual actions overriding their algorithm.

Rather than fixing their over-reliance on backlinks, Google created a system where online publishers were expected to change the default behavior of how links on the web work.

This means including a “nofollow” attribute on any link that might violate their guidelines. Publishers can’t simply link where they wanted to anymore without risk of penalization. They now have to tell Google whether or not they want each link, or type of link, on their site crawled.

Problem: They Put the Onus on Publishers

Publishers of all sizes and experience levels now have to tell Google’s bots which links to follow and crawl in their code, and which not to. So publishers are expected to help overcome Google’s design flaws.

Now, those who routinely game the system can find ways to work around this. They just make it less obvious when links were sponsored. As an online publisher managing over a dozen sites at any given time, I’ve seen more than my share of these requests. And while I don’t accept them, I’ve seen how Google’s policies can hurt transparency more than they help.

But what about those smaller publishers, often true authorities (which popularity can poorly indicate)?

Independent researchers, academics, industry professionals, entrepreneurs… If slapped with a manual penalty for doing something Google disapproves of — not necessarily selling links — are they really less authoritative in their area of expertise?

Of course not.

Algorithms are deeply flawed and incapable of distinguishing between real authority vs popularity. Human intervention mucks things up even more. Just because you don’t see human interference with algorithmic outputs, it doesn’t mean that interference doesn’t exist.

Tools like PageRank should not be factored into anything authority-related.  It can never be a legitimate measure of authority.

Algorithmic Authority in 2016: Update on Google PageRank

Google no longer updates Toolbar Pagerank. That means while they still can rank sites behind the scenes you cannot see your PageRank publicly. Before this, updates were infrequent — about once per year toward the end. If you come across a tool or rankings list showing PageRank for sites, they are woefully outdated. On the surface, this is a good thing. But I’m still concerned over PageRank simply becoming more of a hidden metric in an effort to stop marketers and SEO people from exploiting its obvious flaws without the underlying flaws being fixed.

The inaccuracies of authority / influence ranking tools or algorithms aren’t new. They’ve been discussed for quite some time, such as following the “best” list craze that relied on them to paint a false picture of influence in blogging.

Popularity doesn’t determine influence. And algorithms don’t determine, or accurately calculate, authority.

For now, be cautious about where we place our trust. That, and stop amplifying subjective and faulty evaluations on behalf of ourselves and our clients. And maybe stop seeking validation through algorithms and the ranking lists that employ them in the first place.

The post Algorithmic Authority and Why it Can’t be Trusted appeared first on NakedPR.

However, a recent AdAge article* on a BlogHer event demonstrated just how bad the situation has gotten. So it’s time to chime in with some reality checks.

To summarize, caring more about swag than your readers is not OK. Dragging companies for not giving you freebies is also not OK. It’s time for mommy bloggers to be a little more aware of this bad behavior in their community. And it’s time for PR pros to stop enabling this nonsense.

Here are some important takeaways from the BlogHer coverage:

1. Mommy bloggers aren’t special.

This cult-like mentality in the mommy blogger community is something to behold. To be fair, it’s not exclusively mommy bloggers. They’re just a group that demonstrates these issues fairly regularly and were a key group at the event in question. And by all means it’s not all mommy bloggers – I know plenty of honest ones who don’t engage in the kind of behavior here.

It’s a subgroup of the whole WAHM group which I’ve taken issue with for years through my freelance writing work. It’s the epitome of mob mentality. And they need to stop isolating themselves, acting like they’re special in the blogging world.

Yes, they may have a natural audience. So do most niche bloggers.

That doesn’t make mommy bloggers special.

It doesn’t mean they deserve special treatment. It doesn’t mean they deserve loads of free shit just because they want it, and (heaven forbid) blogging actually involves some work.

Yet that’s where the entitlement stems from. Some of these bloggers get into this because it’s fun. Then they realize publishing involves… wait for it… real work. So they decide they should be compensated. But they don’t feel like they should have to earn that compensation through well-planned, responsible business practices. They just want companies to “buy” them and their attention.

Frankly most bloggers (including mommy bloggers) do not deserve half of the swag they get as it is. They get it because some PR and marketing folks responsible for securing coverage are too damn lazy to find out exactly what reach those blogs have. Guess what folks – if they did their job and took a hard look at your stats, chances are you’d get a whole lot of nothing. So rather than demand things you haven’t earned, maybe count your blessings.

2. Nobody “hates mommy bloggers for their swag”

What we hate is the fact that not only do they get the swag, but then they proceed to bitch about it.

If you think PR folks (or marketing folks in many of these cases) are evil for doing their job just because you’re too greedy to say “no” when people offer you free things, then learn to say “no” instead of biting the hand that feeds you (or more accurately buries you in your precious swag).

BlogHer wasn’t the issue alone. The PR Blackout wasn’t the issue alone. It was the hypocritical combination of moving from “PR people suck for giving us free shit” to “Gimme, gimme, gimme!” in record time.

Again, not all mommy bloggers fall into that group.

But I found myself wondering at the time how many of those swag-in-arm mommy bloggers at BlogHer previously decided to spit in the face of the people (and companies) offering them those goodies.

That’s the difference between mommy bloggers and so many others. It’s bloggers behaving badly, and doing it as a group. I can’t recall the last time I saw people up in arms about other blogger groups who get equally valuable review material. Why? Because they don’t act like self-important snobs who demand more, more, more — at least not on such a grande scale.

They don’t tell PR and marketing people to shove off because they can’t juggle their own responsibilities, and then run back when they want free crap again. They also don’t pretend to have an incredible reach for products they simply want as opposed to those best targeted to their readers.

Do moms care about cars? I’m sure they do. But that doesn’t mean a mommy blogger deserves one (even for a while). There are better targeted publications and sites, and ones with bigger audiences who reach the same kinds of buyers.

3. It doesn’t matter what print magazines do.

The argument that this behavior from mommy bloggers (demanding free things and complaining loudly when companies don’t cave) is okay because women’s magazines get swag is as absurd as saying they deserve it because blogging is such hard work.

Bullshit.

First, if blogging is such hard work (it is) that you can’t do it without feeling compensated, then do as every other online business owner has to do and learn how to properly monetize your damn blogs. If you’re too lazy to learn the business side of the game, you don’t get to use the compensation / hard work argument.

That’s the equivalent of lazy writers complaining to me constantly (because I guide new freelancers elsewhere) that they can’t earn more than $5 per article. No, they’re just too lazy to learn how to move beyond that. All the information is out there for them to improve their careers, and all the information is out there for mommy bloggers to learn how to (ethically and effectively) monetize their own blogs. Swag isn’t meant to be compensation for the oh-so-exhausting work of blogging.

Back to magazines…

When you’re one of the few mommy bloggers who have a comparable audience (and well-targeted), then you can make the argument that you deserve equal treatment. Maybe. IF the company’s target audience is the type who reads blogs. Hint: your blog doesn’t fit into the marketing mix of every company that happens to target women.

At the same time, why should mommy bloggers (who specialize in writing for moms, not women in general) equate themselves to women’s publications? They’re not the same thing.

They’re focused on a narrower niche within the female audience, and not all companies are specifically targeting moms – more general publications make more sense for them. It would be like me saying I should get all the same crap BusinessWeek journalists get just because I run a PR blog. PR is a narrower niche. BusinessWeek reaches a much bigger, broader audience. Of course they’re going to be treated differently.

Promotional budgets aren’t endless.

Companies can’t afford to send samples out to every Jane Doe who happens to yap to other mothers on the web. Get over it.

I don’t hate mommy bloggers. I really don’t. Some of my favorite people are moms. Some of my favorite people are bloggers. And some of them are both. But there’s no excuse for the kind of behavior some have demonstrated recently. It’s as if they had no idea people would be watching. And if you don’t realize that, it’s time to get out of the blogging game.

While the PR blackout was a poorly thought-out plan, it did get one thing right.

How about everyone shutting up about all the crap they get and start getting back to your readers? It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t review products if you want to. But do that. Review them. Don’t post just because you got something. Don’t brag about how important you think you are because people are giving you shit. You’re not.

Instead, go through all the swag and ask yourself “of all this crap I really don’t need, would any of it be truly useful to my audience?” If the answer is yes, then write an honest review for your readers. If not, then scrap it. It’s not a difficult concept.

In the end remember this — you can survive without swag, but you’re nothing without your readers.

* As of 2019, the referenced AdAge article has been removed from their website and is not available via online archives. You can read similar coverage that demonstrates some of the same behavior discussed in this post here.

The post Mommy Bloggers Mayhem – A Few Quick Thoughts appeared first on NakedPR.

Their question would apply to any website or social media profile where you have censorship ability.

Here is their question, paraphrased:

Assuming someone posts a derogatory comment on your company’s page, do you take it down to address it, or do you leave it up with a note that you will contact them if you know how to get in touch?

First, I’m happy to see the question wasn’t a case of simply censoring negative comments. The reader is still willing to address them even if the comments are removed.

But look. There’s no clear cut answer for this one. Here are a few things to consider though when deciding how to deal with negative feedback:

1. Does the person want an actual solution to the problem, or are they complaining just to complain?

My philosophy is this: complain to your heart’s content as long as there’s a real problem, but be prepared to take credit for your comments.

If your commenter isn’t giving you any option to contact them (no phone number, email address, or even a website link), then they don’t want a personal solution that badly.

Does that mean you should delete anything that’s anonymous? I don’t think so (and definitely not when we’re talking about reviews — deleting any honest review makes you inherently dishonest yourself, and that’s not someone worth doing business with).

That said, there are anonymous comments making reasonable complaints that you should address because they likely affect a broader group of customers. And there are anonymous comments that are unnecessarily heated because someone posted while pissed. There’s a difference.

You don’t need to tolerate abuse from customers, and neither to other visitors to your website or profile.

2. Is the language inappropriate for your site?

What’s considered tolerable language for one audience may be completely inappropriate for another. If you don’t want to allow swearing on your incoming comments, that’s fine. But make that clear up front in a comment policy, so there’s no question as to why something may have been removed.

If you don’t have a comment policy in place, you run a bigger risk of your censorship stifling conversations with other customers. They might worry you’ll delete anything you don’t agree with.

If someone posts a negative comment filled with swearing, and if you deem that inappropriate for your site, my personal preference is to keep the comment, remove the problematic bits, and add a note about what you removed with a link to your comment policy.

3. Is it libelous?

There’s no place for libel. Period. And your company doesn’t have to host it or support it just because you don’t want to be known for overly censoring feedback.

4. Is it really a derogatory comment?

I don’t think it’s acceptable for any company to censor comments just because they don’t agree with what was said. I’d be careful about limiting the scope of what the company considers inappropriate. You don’t want to turn away potentially valuable constructive criticism. Look at it this way: it’s free market research.

There are cases where deleting feedback may be the most appropriate course of action, whether you respond to the commenter privately or not. But remember, there are consequences. If you’re too liberal in using your delete button, you could turn potentially mild situations into heated ones. Your site is not the only place people can go to complain about you. Piss them off even more there instead of trying to help, and you risk even worse feedback being published elsewhere (where you have no ability to censor or even directly respond).

One of the greatest things you can do for your company’s reputation, especially online, is to be responsive to legitimate customer feedback. That doesn’t mean you should respond to everything. Just don’t turn a blind eye by censoring everything that’s critical of your company. That would make you an asshole. And people don’t like doing business with assholes.

Plus, that’s a surefire way to get your company some scathing reviews on consumer reporting sites. And they won’t censor unflattering feedback for you. I have a client of my own in that industry, and I can tell you that even if you tried to sue those sites to get negative reviews removed, you will lose. So don’t push customers to that point to begin with.

When you respect and appreciate your customers, they’re much more likely to respect and appreciate you. Focus on being helpful, and don’t get your panties in a twist every time someone criticizes your company. You don’t have to please everybody (let’s face it; some people are just piss-ants and you’ll never please them). But your goal as a business owner should be to please as many of your customers as possible. And a big part of that is listening to them. So let them speak.

Note: This post was originally published in 2009 and has since been updated.

The post Derogatory Customer Feedback Online: Should Your Company Delete It? appeared first on NakedPR.

There’s nothing wrong with marketing or advertising. Yes, I know, they’re our “evil twins” and whatnot. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with ethical marketing and advertising practices.

With full disclosure, that’s what many sponsored blog posts are. Sounds hypocritical given my past stances on companies buying bloggers’ opinions with free swag and invites perhaps, but it’s not.

My primary issue with Molson and others over the last year hasn’t been that they’ve given free crap to bloggers. Rather, it’s that they do it under the guise of good blogger relations. They focus targeting on general, broad-spectrum influence alone rather than legitimate reader interest. And those bloggers defending that behavior as just good blogger relations are lacking in ethics far more than ones who openly disclose sponsored relationships.

The Influence Factor of Sponsored Blog Posts

“But paying a blogger to post might influence their opinions,” you might say. One comment on Brogan’s post even outright equated sponsored posts to “buying opinions.”

What bullshit.

First of all that mentality assumes all sponsored blog posts are opinion-based to begin with.

They’re not.

It also assumes all sponsored posts are actually written by the blogger.

They’re not.

It also assumes that non-“sponsored” posts are unbiased to begin with.

They’re not.

Bloggers are in Business

I am sick and tired of PR and social media folks acting like tools exist for their purposes and their purposes alone. It’s bad enough PR folks are habitually late to the game, but once they discover a new tool, it’s like no one exists but them.

Yes, I understand the PR value of blogging. I understand the value of conversations and relationship-building. Blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard it all before. I teach my clients these things on a regular basis.

What I also understand is there are other motivations behind blogging.

Blogs have always been self-serving. Even using them in a PR capacity is precisely that.

Blogging is a significant part of my own business model.

I’ve monetized them in numerous ways (from contextual ads to my own product sales to, yes, sponsored blog posts).I can tell you with certainty sponsorship in no way guarantees positive opinions.

On the site where I offered them (a former small business blog), the bluntly honest content was often cited as the reason for wanting a sponsored review to begin with. People wanted honest opinions on how to improve their sites and products targeting members of my audience. And by allowing me to critique them publicly, they saved quite a bit compared to hiring me to privately consult and offer that feedback.

I’ll give you another example, also from a few years back. I ran a music webzine. We were always inundated with review requests. I hired reviewers to handle those for me.

We did offer sponsored reviews. Payment had zilch to do with the content of the reviews. Reviewers were paid the same, by me, whether a post was paid for by an artist or label or no one at all. In that case, the fee was solely for guaranteed space on the site and a quick turnaround. The demand was so high, they could otherwise wait weeks just to hear back about whether or not they’d be assigned to a reviewer.

These sponsored reviews were frequently used by artists and indie labels looking for last minute reviews right before an album launch when they didn’t plan ahead well enough. There were absolutely no differences between “normal” reviews and sponsored / paid ones in the terms of what the writers delivered–ever.

It’s just business. And not everything in business has to do with PR.

As a blogger you answer to your readers. If you’re able to work in sponsorships that don’t deter from their general experience, I’ve found they’re rarely bothered by it (unless they’re taking part in one of these industry-centered debates). In fact, they may very well find them preferable to other monetization streams. For example, a sponsored blog post relevant to the site can be better than heavy use of contextual or banner ads.

If you keep your audience happy, and you’re earning enough to keep you blogging (for those doing it as a business), then you’re doing something right.

What Constitutes “Sponsored Blog Posts?”

For those so adamant about (again, disclosed) sponsored blog posts being evil, or some such nonsense, I have to wonder what they consider sponsorship. (That’s especially given this is the same crowd that backs half-assed “blogger relations” efforts revolving around event invitations and free swag for coverage).

Being paid cash outright for posting is certainly sponsorship. Then I suppose posts with affiliate links would also qualify (I mean, you are potentially getting paid for that post over, and over, and over again, and those links are often placed within reviews where they only earn if you buy). There’s no real difference there in the motivation to post positive feedback for the sake of payment.

How about that free stuff? How about those special events? If someone gives you something with the expectation (or even hope) that you’ll post something nice about them (and let’s be honest–no one specifically targets bloggers in the hopes they’ll keep their mouths shut), I don’t think there’s a valid argument that would support freebies not constituting sponsorship.

Just look at the whole pseudo blogger relations rush targeting “influencers” instead of audiences. It’s all about wanting something in return.

Sponsored Blog Posts: Some Scenerios

Let’s think about two hypothetical blogs.

The first is an informational tech blog run by an authority in the niche, and it generally consists of news and advice. The second is solely a commercial blog which revolves around product information (mostly reviews) to help readers make buying decisions.

Let’s look at the role sponsored posts might play, and how there’s no one size fits all answer to the question of their ethics. Assume equal popularity / readership.

Sponsored Blog Posts on an Authority Blog

Most of Blogger A’s posts have nothing to do with product reviews. However, once in a while when something new comes out of interest to his readers, he tests it out. Sometimes he buys the products himself, sometimes he tests them out in-store or through publicly-available trials, and sometimes he gets his hands on them through a friend.

Now let’s say Company A is releasing an anticipated gadget of some variety. A company rep is familiar with the blog, knows the readers fit within their target market, and they like the authority style of reviews the blogger writes up. They decide to send him a pre-launch “toy” to see if he’ll review it. He agrees. He writes a balanced review like those his readers are accustomed to, and he discloses how he received the item. No money changed hands, but you would be hard-pressed not to call that a sponsored post. Instead of giving him money, the company simply saved him from potentially spending that money himself later in exchange for that early authority review.

Is there anything wrong with this kind of sponsorship? I don’t think so. It’s disclosed. It’s honest. The readers know the blogger’s style better than anyone else, and they’re big boys and girls. They’re fully capable of deciding if they trust that review when making a decision of whether or not to buy.

Sponsored Blog Posts on a Commercial Blog

I’m referring to this blog as a commercial blog, even though there may not be direct advertisements on the site–being paid in merchandise is still being paid.

This blog posts very little other than product reviews. In fact, they actively solicit freebies from companies interested in reaching their audience through a review. They rarely, if ever, actually purchase review materials just because they think something would be of value to their audience. They’re more likely to accept a more poorly-targeted item for review if it’s given to them for free, regardless of the interest their audience might have in it.

We’ll say this blog was originally designed to specialize in software, hardware, etc.–computer-specific gadgets and tools. Blogger B is contacted by the same company that reached out to Blogger A for a review of their new gadget (let’s call it the next iPhone alternative). They don’t hesitate to accept.

The review does disclose that item was given to them, and they also make an attempt to write a balanced review. However, unlike Blogger A, this blogger doesn’t have any real expertise in this type of gadget (meaning their review would likely carry less weight with the company’s specific target market).

Is there anything wrong with either of these examples?

While I personally would never read Blog B, because I would find the constant sponsorship and greater interest in free stuff over readers to be obnoxious, I still don’t see anything inherently wrong with either blog as long as things are disclosed. I mean if the readers are sticking around, they know what they’re getting into, and they have the ability to leave at any time if they feel their trust was betrayed.

Yes, if their approach to reviewing changed for sponsored reviews vs non-sponsored ones, I would say there’s an ethical dilemma. Yes, if they failed to disclose any kind of sponsorship it would be a problem.

In the end, it always comes down to the individual blogger’s ethics. My actual opinions could never be bought–not with cash, not will affiliate earnings, not with free stuff. Can yours?

If you don’t like sponsored blog posts, that’s fine. Don’t host them, and don’t read them. More power to you. That’s between you and your audience and what’s acceptable in your blog’s niche. But don’t make blanket judgments that all of anything is automatically “bad” just because it doesn’t fit within your own goals within your specific profession.

Criticize if you have valid points, yes. But try to put them in context. Sponsored posts come in many forms, from completely honest reviews to sponsor-provided advertorials. Don’t judge them all collectively.

As for Brogan, while I don’t personally support content marketing in a network type of environment (where middlemen companies facilitate paid posts), I know many others do. So to them, good luck with it. I hope they find a way to keep on benefiting everyone while keeping it honest, and maybe they’ll eliminate some of that sponsorship stigma in time.

The post The Stigma of Sponsored Blog Posts (& Why PR Pros Need to Step Back) appeared first on NakedPR.

I avoided getting into it here for a while, but the discussions around the community continue — the same few people saying the same few things.

This topic came up again when Eden Spodek commented on Mack Collier’s post “Are Companies Targeting the Wrong ‘Influencers’ with Social Media?“

To say I cringed would be an understatement. I left a few thoughts there. I planned to follow up with more in response to a comment from Brandon Carlos, but the comment ended up practically being a post in itself. So rather than hijack Mack’s post over this particular case, I’m posting those thoughts here in the hopes they’ll sink in with at least one sane person out there in social media land.

Before this, I suggest reading Mack’s post. It’s a great discussion on how much influence those “influencers” actually possess, especially when a company doesn’t bother researching exactly who they exert “influence” over to begin with.

The Original Comment

I think the real problem is companies becoming content with getting bloggers to say “Oh, they’re so nice to invite us,” or “They hosted a super-cool event,” while completely ignoring relevance.

I follow several “influential” social media bloggers for example. When I visit their blogs, I expect to read about social media issues — not beer, not soda, not anything unrelated unless there’s a heck of a good reason.

Telling your readers how Molson decided to give you free beer to pour down your throat isn’t a good reason. Unless perhaps you’re a food & beverage blogger, or you blog in a pop culture kind of niche full of cheap beer drinkers who want to pat you on the back for the great mooch. Even attempting to spin it as “a great example of blogger relations because they ‘bought’ me with free beer” doesn’t cut it. If anything, that’s sad.

Personally, I stopped following a few bloggers who went on about that event, because frankly they showed me they didn’t “get” blogging’s role in social media. That makes them unreliable sources. As a member of the type of audience those bloggers were targeting, I couldn’t respect their opinions on that blog anymore seeing they could be bought. There’s no other way to describe it after reading some of those posts. Even a hint of that can turn off blog readers – the very people those companies are hoping you can influence.

Now as much as I despise the BS surrounding the Brew 2.0 event, I’ll at least give Molson a tiny bit of credit for trying. But they should try harder.

How can companies do better?

1. Focus on better targeting (more quality over quantity).

2. Actually give the bloggers something no one else has – something worth blogging about that their readers would care about – a story to break, etc. (And “they hosted a blogger event” hardly counts when it’s irrelevant to the bulk of their target market / customers.)

3. Get it through your heads that blogger relations isn’t about kissing the ass of bloggers, parties, and events. Far more often a blogger wants advanced info (a big deal for most of them to break even something tiny). Or bloggers might want your direct interaction on their blog. Those in the food & beverage industry or those industries companies like Molson otherwise sponsor would probably love a high-level company rep stopping by and leave a comment. Or offer to do an interview. Or offer to host a special contest or promotion through their blog. Do something of value to them. Build a relationship that amounts to more than manipulation through freebies and schmoozing.

What matters in blogging? The information, not showmanship.

It doesn’t matter how generally “influential” a blogger is. If their audience doesn’t care about your company or product (or wouldn’t want to hear about it in that particular place), that “influential” blogger has very little real influence over their readers when it comes to that particular post.

Did Molson get some blog coverage? Sure. But I didn’t see anything truly substantive (and I saw a lot of it). I saw the same old “ooh, it was so cool they asked me to go… blah, blah, blah.” Not much product info. Not much actual value for each blogger’s readers. Nothing truly new.

If Molson asked people in PR and social media specifically because they wanted them talking about how the event itself operated, that still wouldn’t be good blogger relations. But it would at least be slightly less absurd. When asked publicly however, they made it clear they had no intention to get that kind of coverage, or pitch that kind of angle to bloggers.

“We’re in no way interested in publicizing our social media capabilities, rather we want to ensure that we’re present, and can contribute somehow if possible, when beer or related topics are being discussed online.” – Green Banana

Instead they opted to put on a fake face and say they really expected nothing at all.

I’m sorry, but by telling those bloggers there that you didn’t expect it, you’re bringing it up with the hope of planting that idea in their heads. And if it were really about “being present” as a future resource for beer-related posts and nothing more, they wouldn’t have targeted social media “influencers.” They would have targeted people already talking about beer.

Thoughts?

The post When a Blogger is “Bought” How Much Influence do They Really Have? appeared first on NakedPR.

On Pitching

The pitch came from Amanda Miller of Nike Communications, pushing the Phil & Ted’s line of products – inline stroller and playpen / crib combo to be more specific.

It was loaded with pop culture references: Brangelina, J.Lo, Marc Anthony, Brook Shields, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc.

It even referred to children as fashion accessories.

Let’s cut to the chase – it wasn’t a very well thought-out pitch. More importantly, let’s look at why:

1. This PR pitch wasn’t well-targeted.

Why on earth would you send something like this to the Times? Would it work for a pop culture mag? Possibly. But this isn’t a pop culture mag. I’d like to think most of us know enough to target pitches like this differently to different audiences. In the future, I hope Amanda joins those ranks.

2. This PR pitch was hypocritical.

On one hand, Amanda notes “with the widespread use of fertility drugs and an increase in women having children later in life (average age is now 31), twins — and children born in quick succession — are born in greater quantity now more than ever.”

So we’re talking about an aging group of new parents. Then why does the pitch sound like it’s targeting a parent reader base in their teens to early twenties? I understand the concept of targeting parents who care about fashion. This was just too much though. Again, time to improve the targeting.

3. This PR pitch was drawn out.

With a PR pitch, you need to get to the point. And get there quickly.

The issue of referring to children as fashion accessories is a bit unnerving. Then again, it’s sadly true in a lot of cases. Don’t act like you’ve never seen it.

On the other hand, is it smart for a company to tie itself to that group? Would you want your, or your client’s, company associated with the seriously superficial when the products could otherwise appeal to a much larger base? That doesn’t seem smart in this case, especially given the likely readers of the journalist being targeted.

Amanda’s mistakes all come down to the same thing – the pitch was extremely poorly targeted. The good news is that’s easy to fix moving forward.

On Bitching

Am I going to whine about Nocera for exposing this bad pitch on his blog? Nah.

Someone wasted his time. He happens to have a public outlet to express his disdain. That’s life.

Could, or should, he have handled it a bit differently? I think so. It’s one thing to spend your time complaining publicly about a pitch you don’t like. But wouldn’t it be more productive to give some useful feedback?

If you want someone to improve, tell them how. They may or may not listen — if they don’t, by all means, rip them a new one if you think the pitch really needs to be exposed to protect you or someone else from similar stupidity.

On Fixing This Mess

On a more general note, when it comes to folks complaining about pitches, I’d really like them to come out and say how they were contacted. And it would be nice to hear how that PR person came across them, if they know (and it wouldn’t hurt for them to ask if they feel they’re being improperly targeted).

Why does this matter?

It would help to know if they’re actively soliciting pitches, and what they’re saying they do (or don’t) want. It would also help to see what kind of bio exists, if any, and if that would explain why they’re getting certain types of pitches.

Is their own writing style where the PR person found them similar in any way to that of the pitch? If so, then it may not be as poorly targeted as originally thought.

I’m not saying Nocera specifically solicits, or makes it appear like he solicits, these kinds of pitches. But journalists aren’t always completely innocent when it comes to bad pitches they receive. Sometimes they forget that they’ve covered certain things in the past for example — and that makes it reasonable for PR folks to think they might be interested in covering something similar in the future. At other times, they place blame for bad pitches in the wrong places.

When Journalists Contribute to Their Own Problem

A good example would be when Gina Trapani not long ago was bashing PR folks for “ignoring” her requests on her website not to send pitches to a specific email address. What she neglected to point out (or figure out) was that PR folks weren’t finding that address on her website. They were in fact finding it in a media database – a problem she could have solved much earlier by bothering to ask.

Journalists can get to the root of a lot of these problems by simply asking where they were found. I’m not saying they should waste time doing this constantly, but it would cut down on a lot of the bickering back and forth when there are more legitimate reasons for targeting someone, even if the journalist personally thinks something was poorly targeted to them.

By all means, I’m not taking blame away from the PR crowd. We have plenty of clueless folks masquerading as PR professionals without understanding what that really means (which is a LOT more than pitching).

I sometimes wonder what happened to the relations side of things (equally important from the journalist perspective). I suppose as long as Amanda’s clients aren’t looking for coverage from Joe, and as long as Joe doesn’t later need access to Amanda’s clients, there’s no major harm done here.

It’s when either side doesn’t have enough forethought to think about what they may be doing to future relationships that we really have a problem.

The post Bad Pitching and Bitching: Should Journalists Expose a Bad PR Pitch? appeared first on NakedPR.