I’ve since edited the post of the UK100 influential bloggers with a holding note. I’ve also deleted Tom’s blog from it too. This is what the holding note says:
WARNING PR PEOPLE
First let me say that this list of UK bloggers has NOT been created for you to go and SPAM your press releases to. Please read this post by one of the bloggers who I had included in this list but have since edited out.
Please understand that blogs are not the same as traditional media and some bloggers couldn’t care less about your clients’ news. They just want to be left in peace. Please respect that.
And if your dumb ass still wants to send a spammy press release to these people, I will not be held responsible if you, your agency or your client is mangled online. And believe me, it won’t be the first time it’s happened.
Thanks and check out this post too.
And to keep in tune with the brothels theme, here’s a tune called Harlot by Felix da Housecat.
Stephen is a communications consultant based out of the UK. You can connect with him on Twitter or check out his LinkedIn profile. | Email Stephen
Stumble it
Digg it
Deli.icio.us
Tweet this
Robert
Stephen, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for with regard to Tom Coates tantrum. As far as I can tell, he has yet to place any information regarding a “do not pitch” policy, or anything else … aside from recent posts (more like links) to his latest opinions on the topic.
Now, certainly there are likely people spamming many bloggers with emailed pitches, ad nauseum. I’m sure of that. But, his ranting tantrum took place in Flickr – not his blog. To be sure, any wise person would investigate him before pitching. But, if he is truly sincere about not wanting pitches, Coates would be best advised to actually place the notice he claimed he would post on his blog.
I did not see where Coates stated that he *knows* the recent (or even past) pitches came due to your blog posting of the list. If it is there, please show it to me and I will recant. He stated that he believes your list *may* have caused it, but I did not see him provide any clarity (in many ways) regarding your 3rd party involvement.
And, for the other post on another blog, that claims that PR people are ruining the blogosphere by making Tom Coates mad … that is lunacy. Yes, there are dumb practitioners (or practitioner-wanna-be) goobers making big mistakes. But, what Coates and others would do well to remember is this … the world of blogs is still new to many. That isn’t meant as an excuse, but rather – a dose of reality. You can whine, or you can live in the real world where these foolish pitches are an inevitable fact of life. I get them, for crying out loud.
Coates and others may certainly write a post about them if they wish, but don’t whine that you are being sullied by the act of being pitched. A person with kindness, character and dignity would have written to the offending pitcher of said nonsense. Then, if they did not get a proper and professional apology … then write a post. But don’t whine. Really, that’s just more of the same nonsense only it is covered in koolaid.
Don’t want comments? Turn them off. Don’t want to receive email, don’t provide an address. If you do provide an address, then provide some guidance.
Finally, we see once again (remember this one, Stephen?) a blogger using the old trite reference of PR as prostitution. Please. As we’ve said before, “Oh, the imagination and the literary skills on display – it just takes your lunch away.”
And that’s my 2 cents on this recent lame kerfluffle.
Tom Coates
It’s weird, Robert, I don’t think I’ve been referred to so much by my last name since school. I’m guessing that the effect here is to dehumanise much as it was then. Is this something they teach you at PR school?
Anyway, let’s get to the substance of that comment, shall we? (1) Robert is of course correct that I haven’t added that to my site. I will be doing that shortly.
He’s also correct that I shouldn’t blame Stephen for the press releases I’ve been getting. It’s not his fault that people have acted particularly badly with the information that he provided. I have commented a couple of times to say to people that I don’t hold Stephen responsible for the e-mail I’ve received.
However, again I do think it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that his list of 100 Most Influential UK Weblogs was designed to help PR people find bloggers to target and there has certainly been a clear relationship between that post being published and the amount of spam I’ve received from PR people.
With regards to the ‘whining’ thing, as I understand it Robert’s contention is that if I haven’t tried to do anything about this issue then I shouldn’t be protesting now.
Actually, I sent e-mail responses to a lot of the first people who sent me press releases. They did for the most part stop sending me their spam. However, it didn’t slow the amount of spam I was sent. There are, it turns out, a lot of people spamming with press releases. So I’ve been keeping a list, and thought I’d make a larger splash online with them in one go, where people might get the message. I hadn’t got around to it yet, but I’ll make it a priority now.
With regards to whether I have kindness, character and dignity – again, I’ve received press releases from probably over a hundred apparent sources. I don’t think I can be expected to afford each one of them with the kind of response you would like. Neither have I been able to write to the individuals who send me helpful letters about viagra. And—frankly—I don’t see why I should have to. These are the people sending me unsolicited e-mail. They should be asking me before they send them.
And with regards to comments and e-mail? I actually have had to turn off comments to unregistered users because of the spam I received. Are you saying that if I don’t want to get spam, then I shouldn’t have comments on? Or do you think it is reasonable for me to protest and fight against that spam?
And with regards to my e-mail address, it’s on my site it’s true, but in a fairly limited fashion. What has become clear is that PR people are not finding that e-mail address from my site. They’re getting it from PR databases of bloggers, centrally held, which they’re giving out to anyone who pays.
Nearly done. That blogs are new to many is perhaps true, although my site has been around eight years and it’s pretty far from the first. To say that people act badly but then it’s ‘whining’ to complain and protest about it in such a way that it’ll get their attention seems to me to be fairly absurd. Surely, it would be more ‘whiny’ to do something bad and then act all upset when someone held you to account for it.
And finally, Robert, I didn’t compare PR with prostitution. If you had read the post, you will notice that I compared PR with a john, trying to turn me into a prostitute.
But—to be blunt—you’re quite right. I don’t much like your business. I think that public relations, along with marketing and advertising are highly dubious industries that bring out the worst in people who start off having to justify the worst excesses of their industry and often end up viewing those same excesses as strengths.
Just to finish up and to try and win Robert over by demonstrating that I’m willing to be proactive rather than just complain, I’ve become fascinated by some of the stuff I’ve been reading online about the acts that forbid commercial e-mails being sent to people without their explicit opt-in. Apparently in all other cases this constitutes spam, and can be punished with a £5000 fine.
If bringing this all out in the open has the benefit of making it impossible for any European PR company to blindly send out press releases to people it thinks are likely to find them interesting, then that alone will be a good result.
Mark
Robert,
Why should Tom, I or anyone else be required to post a “do not pitch” policy on our sites? Why should we be required to engage you on your terms? Our time is valuable, and I’m not going to apologise for reacting badly when people act antisocially towards me.
I’m certainly not going to waste my “kindness, character or dignity” on interacting with people like you; if I did, I’d never get anything done, because it’s too cheap for you to spam people and work the numbers.
Robert
Mark, you miss the point. First, I do not condone nor endorse the practice of pitching and/or sending releases to bloggers without first asking for permission.
Second, you can either do the best you can to make your preferences known to visitors or you can suffer the consequences of unwanted pitches and news releasese.
You see, we are at an interesting point in online PR / Marketing activity. Over the past few years and over the coming few years (I hope it is just a few) it is merely realistic to expect these pitches to happen. I don’t believe they are right, good or acceptable acts, but I live in the real world that says they are likely to happen.
So, choose to not provide information on your site. It is your choice, but don’t complain about the results if you aren’t willing to take steps on your own.
Finally, the point about “kindness, character or dignity†was directed at Tom’s allusion to Stephen being the cause. As you can see, he is already recanting that claim. As in, “I shouldn’t blame Stephen for the press releases I’ve been getting.”
There is another comment pending and it relates to Tom’s comment here.
Isofarro
Robert says: “As far as I can tell, he has yet to place any information regarding a “do not pitch†policy, or anything else”
The presence of a blog is not permission to pitch to that blog.
Robert follows up with: “But, if he is truly sincere about not wanting pitches, Coates would be best advised to actually place the notice he claimed he would post on his blog.”
No. This is not right. People in PR must take the approach of: it is unacceptable to pitch to bloggers without their permission. Again, publishing a blog is not that permission.
Robert goes on to say: “A person with kindness, character and dignity would have written to the offending pitcher of said nonsense. Then, if they did not get a proper and professional apology … then write a post.”
These pitches are nothing more than spam – unsolicited email. From the perception of people writing blogs, there is no difference to what you do and what spammers do. No one, including you, has the time to write to every piece of spam and ask kindly for them to cease. I don’t believe for a second you follow your own advice.
PR Marketing to bloggers is spam. No matter how you couch or twist what you do, it doesn’t change the simple fact that the email is unsolicited. Futher than that, these pitches are about benefiting the sender not the recipient. For some reason that characteristic echos in most of the spam currently in the email system.
Robert says: “Don’t want to receive email, don’t provide an address.”
And this further reinforces the comparison of spammers and PR people. This is the same excuse spammers use to justify their activities, and its sad so see it being adopted by PR.
The presence of an email address on a website does not convey permission to anyone to use it for solicitation. PR people need to accept and understand that before they can claim they are any better than spammers.
(I’m drawing a distinction between PR and spammers to give Robert and the author of this blog the benefit of the doubt on this blog. Most people have lumped both together as spammers – and so far, particularly Robert’s two comments, have done nothing to suggest otherwise.)
Serge
I’ll just stick to: “great tune, Stephen!”
Stephen
Quality tune isn’t it, Serge.
Sidney Stencil
The funniest bit about Tom Coates’s self-aggrandizing PR stunt is the contrast between his moralistic attitude on the one hand and, on the other, the way he plagiarizes Peter Saville’s idea from January’s “Creative Review”.
Tom Coates
Hm. The last comment rather misses the point that the guy from Creative Review ‘ripped off’ the notice on the front of the door in Soho. We took pictures of the same thing – difficult to say that I ripped him off in that respect, unless all photos of the Eiffel Tower are derivative knock-offs of the first…