Comments on: Are Media Database Companies Complicit In PR Spamming?

By: Karrine McFarlane

Karrine McFarlane — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:54:00 +0000

I still get emails from Cision to my unpublished email that ended up a lot of blogger pr lists. It was from conversations with other bloggers with the same issue that blogprwire was born

It’s not just about sending irrelevant pitched -it’s about the can spam act. Many of these pitches aren’t only not relevant but they aren’t from managed databases allowing users to opt out. Worse- emails are added to these databases without permission.

Double optin – time stamps. Ask if your wire / pr service can provide these and if they are can spam compliant.

By: Soccer Jerseys

Soccer Jerseys — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:58:00 +0000

soccer is my favorite,so is David Beckham

By: Modern PR: New Incentives to Behave Professionally | soloprpro.com

Modern PR: New Incentives to Behave Professionally | soloprpro.com — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:26:49 +0000

[...] days), Iâ€™m sure many of us have gotten confused on occasion and sent an irrelevant pitch. An over-reliance on media databases is another widespread source of missteps. Many of the PR people on the blacklists are known [...]

By: Addressing the PR spam question on FIR Live : NevilleHobson.com

Addressing the PR spam question on FIR Live : NevilleHobson.com — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:54:21 +0000

[...] original idea for this debate comes from John Cass and Jason Falls; see their blog posts for detailed background [...]

By: PR spam is mostly the result of being careless : NevilleHobson.com

PR spam is mostly the result of being careless : NevilleHobson.com — Wed, 21 May 2008 13:25:03 +0000

[...] is the idea of John Cass and Jason Falls, both of whom have posted detailed commentary on a very big problem in the PR [...]

By: Mike Keliher

Mike Keliher — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:05:12 +0000

Understood. I hoped — I figured — that was your intent. I just wanted to clarify a potential flaw in your thinking or, at least, your wording — and that I’m kind of a dick sometimes.

Again, thanks for this discussion.

By: Jason Falls

Jason Falls — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:29:04 +0000

Mark and Harry — Thank you and agreed!

Britt — Amen to that. PR firms are clearly the ultimate responsible parties here and we don’t want to unnecessarily point fingers at the database companies. Lots of links in this change have to adjust (I’d say bloggers included) to make the system run more smoothly. PR firms have a lot more to change than others. Great point.

Sara — Agreed. Starting point is a good way to put it. The onus is still on the PR practitioner to make it right.

Mike — John and I are discussing your comment. Off hand I think you may have misunderstood the statement. We weren’t saying PR outreach makes you legitimate, but rather, having a certain audience and success makes you a candidate for legitimate media outlet status. Bloggers should know and understand that with an audience comes opportunity for both advertising and relationships with PR folks who can help you with your coverage of their clients or businesses. Yes, they may pitch you, but you can call on them as well. John may address this a bit differently but we very much appreciate the perspective in your comment.

Andrew – EXCELLENT suggestion. I would worry that most reporters, particularly the old school set, aren’t going to be any more motivated to login and control their profile than they would be to reach out and correct the information in the first place, but it certainly may resonate with bloggers. Good work, sir.

By: We’ve gone public! « PR Research

We’ve gone public! « PR Research — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:54:58 +0000

[...] juicy post from Social Media Explorer asks the question “Are Media Database Companies Complicit In PR Spamming?” This continues on the blacklisting of PR firms by blogs by posting emails addresses online. Turns [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:56:46 +0000

I looked into the database issue for a reporter a few months back. This reporter was still getting press releases sent to her old beat (a topic she had not covered for two years!). I tracked it back to BurrellsLuce. Couple of things I learned from this: 1) Reporters don’t like being put on theses lists and often ignore calls from these companies looking for beat updates (thus contributing to its inaccuracy). 2) Reporters bristle privately, but rarely complain to the sender because it’s easier to just delete the misdirected/irrelevant press release (thus continuing the cycle of inaccuracy). One possible remedy: journalists/bloggers create and control their own public profiles which explicitly states what they cover, how they like to be pitched (if at all), info about their publication and latest stories etc. I’ve created this at Newsvetter.com. see: http://tinyurl.com/3vnh9l

By: Mike Keliher

Mike Keliher — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:35:48 +0000

It might make sense to say that a legitimate media outlet will inevitably be contacted by PR people, but it’s quite an assumption to say that “in order to be a legitimate media outlet you subject yourselves to public relations outreach,” as if PR outreach is what brings an outlet into legitimacy.

Other than that matter of perspective, I think you’re on to something great with this piece.

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:30:24 +0000

Wow – great piece, Jason and John. I’m at a very small firm and we rely heavily on outlets like Cision (will always be Bacon’s to me) as a starting point when creating new media lists, but try to be very responsive if we find out our pitch isn’t hitting the mark and make a note of that info in our own internal database. These services should be used as a starting point, but they’re definitely not the be all and end all. Kudos to them for owning up to their mistake and fixing it quickly.