Todd,

Another thoughtful post from you. I'm writing something to Gina as we speak, and your approach was eloquent.

I am confident that the industry can show Gina and her peers that we value their time as well as their content, and that we can provide value to them even as we filter the signal to noise ratio while everyone - on both sides of the table - keeps learning how to communicate more effectively.

I claim no esteem, but we're in the same industry, and my little company does a lot of blogger outreach. I also have a somewhat popular blog, and receive unsolicited and shoddy pitches every day.

I welcome this blacklist. No other course of action has prevented many of our peers from spamming, so this is a totally reasonable and hopefully effective step.

I did want to question this

"You’d expect me to say this but for every 999 compliments we get from media and bloggers, it’s a shame that it’s the one crap pitch that gets publicly outed. But that’s a risk built-in to my profession."

Really? Are you really hitting a ratio of 999 compliments to 1 complaint?

Even if you are, there's an undercurrent of self-aggrandizement in that statement. And it's the ethos implied in that undercurrent that make people so leery of marketing folks like us.

@Dave, thanks for the support.

@Darren, if you read this blog regularly, you know that I often try to point out ways that we can all do better: by extension, as I noted to Gina, I truly empathize with the "spam" issue.

Meanwhile I see your point that I may come off as giving my firm a backhanded compliment, and, no, I probably couldn't point to 999 compliments (would that our media friends were so publicly effusive!), but I can surely point to 999 articles and blog posts that were a direct result of our team's thoughtful, targeted outreach.

Also, that wiki will do NOTHING to change things since the worse offenders will never learn of it (they aren't listening) and the agencies who DO strive to do better will apparently never get the chance to prove that they've learned those lessons. It also blocks the career paths of the thousands of bright & savvy PR newcomers that graduate from college every Spring.

I guess my main point is that extremism in any form (journalism, politics, religion, etc.) is not productive.

I tracked this back from Twitter and read it from a decidedly non PR point of view. You appear to have incurred a state of not having your calls returned to having your calls being blocked.

I don't assume to know how your email servers are configured. I don't assume to know the whole story.

But...

Do you find the prelude to your own comment form to be slightly out of kilter with your "open letter" lament above it?

If a commenter repeatedly abuses PR Squared’s comment policy, then none of their comments will be published in the future (even if those subsequent comments are “good”).

@Jay - LOL, touche, sir.

For the record, we were just one of MANY firms (good ones and bad ones) on that list.

As for the ironic point about my blog policy: I might block the ONE BAD GUY, but not their entire domain (i.e., their blameless colleagues).

I am not again the Public Outing. I am not against the Wiki. I am against Extremism.

Todd, I posted about this to capture my words.

I respect you leaving my comment intact!

So, a touché right back at you.
:)

The one hitch I think that is being grossly ignored in this discussion is that Gina has flat out stated that the companies SHE put on the blacklist are ones that emailed her at her PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS that is only published in one place, not at the Lifehacker one. Her PERSONAL address is a mailbox she just doesn't want to be pitched and considering that ginatrapani.org isn't a publication, and her email address is on there for "personal" use, I'd say she does have a valid argument in this particular case.

That said, I see what you're getting at, Todd. I'm sure there are people on this list who've done something stupid once or twice, and I'm sure there are people who are guilty 5,000 times. Unfortunately, this "come to this" and this is the type of reactions that people are having because it just doesn't ever stop. Yet again, until PR people actually start reading the blogs for 99% of the things they're "sending tips" on, we're going to hear this type of thing over and over again.

First off, labeling this 'extremism' is unnecessarily provocative, and probably should be reserved for political and religious wingnuts.

I do think the error that Ms. Trapani has made is to block entire domains. From a Chris Anderson follow-up approach on his blacklist:

"It is just the senders' email address, not the entire domain. I treat the offenders as individuals, and never make the mistake of assuming that their colleagues share their bad habits."

Aside from this nuance, I see nothing wrong with black lists. Like restraining orders and unlisted phone numbers, they're one of the many ways we can manage our social accessibility.

I disagree that the wiki would be nothing to change things. It will:

* Make bloggers' lives easier, because they'll get less dreck from irresponsible PR folks.

That's a valuable positive change for a bunch of people, isn't it?

Systemic change in PR would be preferable, but will be far more difficult.

Finally, I disagree that spammers aren't listening. Look through the comment thread in that Chris Anderson post. People who were on the list definitely noticed.

Darren - it's fantastic that you and your firm are so perfect that you feel comfortable piling on top of someone who's just taken a hit. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect people to get it right 100% of the time.

Particularly nice move on your part, given that Todd has been one of the people who's tried to take a lead role in helping educate people as to the right way to conduct PR.

Also worth noting that the mistake in this case wasn't that the pitch was bad. The mistake was that it wasn't sent to the editor's preferred e-mail address....basically she just gave people life imprisonment for jaywalking. Of course, that shouldn't bother you, given how you're perfect and all.

Todd, as someone who not only has pitched media and bloggers for longer than I can remember, but also receives dozens of pitches for my own blog each week, I certainly can empathize with both sides and I also agree with Gina that people should NEVER pitch her at her personal email. However, my issue remains with the way people are punishing people, it is an overreaction of media and bloggers by outing people on blogs.

It's mean and it smacks of self-righteousness, it is done with little or no research into the companies nor an appreciation for all the times PR people have actually helped them out.

A large part of our time in PR is about teaching the right way and the wrong way, and this blog is one of the central educational sources. Difficult or not, it is certainly preferable to 'blacklists'. There is an enormous difference between unlisted phone numbers and calling people out on public lists, and to compare this to restraining orders...well I'm really not sure where to go with that one.

Todd, just keep on doing what you are doing because you guys ARE doing it the right way; through education and transparency.

/kff

@Darren -- it's not ad hominem because you weren't really trying to make an argument with your first comment. You were just taking a potshot (otherwise you wouldn't have spent half your comment responding to the 999 out of a 1,000 line). Your second comment, on the other hand, is actually worth responding to.

I agree that a blacklist isn't inherently wrong. The problem is that it's a big weapon and it's getting misused. The mentality seems to be "one strike and you're out" and the penalty for being on the list is way too high. It's going to affect people's careers and I already know of one very good agency who lost a client over it. No doubt that there are some bad PR people on the list, but there are also agencies on there that are highly invested in doing things the right way. Given that this blacklist is an open wiki, it's only going to get worse. I guarantee you that there will be bloggers who add PR people to the blacklist for pitches that any reasonable person would view as appropriate and respectful.

This is a tough one to call.

On the one hand, I agree with Todd (I wouldn't go as far as calling what Gina did 'extremism'). Just because a practitioner sends one or two press releases that the receiver feels are irrelevant doesn't mean that the practitioner isn't trying to cater their message to their intended audience.

But the fact of the matter is that Gina feels like PR practitioners are, in general, inconsiderately spamming her. It sounds like it's up to us (I hope including myself in this group isn't too arrogant of me) to convince her that a lot of us are really doing our best not to spam her with irrelevant releases.

While reading your post, I felt that perhaps your tone was a little too reactionary. I think that better empathizing with Gina's frustration will yield greater returns in the long run.

That's just my two cents.

Not buying it. Ball up, as a friend says. Someone at your agency decided that they didn't want to go through LifeHacker, so they went to her personal blog and got that email address.

Once? Twice? Five hundred times? I don't know, but it was still a personal email address. EOS.

@Jeremy -

"Ball up?" Is that what you're saying to the guy who swallowed his pride to point out to the entire world (including clients & competitors) that his agency had fucked up somehow? And who further offered to extend that pain by publishing and commenting on the offending "spam?"

Do you also think, based on my writings here, that we run a shop that purposefully pissed off an influential blogger, not once but maybe even "500 times?"

Being able to man-up and admit mistakes is not something I've ever been shy about, amigo, and as a long-time reader you already knew that. Save the schoolyard taunts for the scores of OTHER agencies on that list who elected to let Gina's wiki pass by unremarked-upon, eh?

@Bryan - I re-read this post 2X after reading your comment. I humbly disagree about a reactionary tone (but will also admit to being biased). We literally make employees go through hours and hours and hours of training, workshops, etc. so when we flub it, it drains me to the core.

Yep, Todd, ball-up. You might think you are swallowing your pride, but I read this post as a pass the hot potato.

If this was a swallowing pride, you could have left out that first line of being black-listed, sent the email to tips@lifehacker (or used a personal email address to send to her personal email address) and written a much smaller mea culpa that while we train, these things happen.

And, while I have read your blog, I also read your post where you threw the hot potato to a client regarding TechCrunch, instead of holding that potato and getting burnt.

@Jeremy -

Umm, I don't get it. Who am I passing the hot potato to? Back to Gina? I don't buy it. I am sorry if we spammed her and said so. I also disagree with the way she handled the situation, and politely asked her to reconsider. Are you suggesting that the other agencies on that list did the right thing by ignoring it?

(As for that long-ago TechCrunch episode: if a client blatantly disregards our counsel and proactively does something that can impact our agency's reputation, you better believe I'll call it out. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Not sure we can have transparency AND cling to the age-old "client is always right" mentality of yore. Surprised you disagree.)

Jeremy, it seems we rarely agree - even though I think we agree on many of the Big Points of Social Media. I've resigned myself to this sad reality and bow before your Snarky Genius. Have a great weekend, Mr. Pepper.

Black lists don't work. For many reasons, not the least of which is the true spammers are playing a numbers game. A few blocks here and there? So what. No matter how popular the site, there's always another one.

And black lists don't solve the real problem, which is that companies, and their agencies, need to find better ways to engage with bloggers than they have been. It's more than a pitch or a press release -- we've got to do a better job of understanding why the blogger cares. I know SHIFT tries to do this. I also imagine like all agencies you face the usual pressures from clients to get coverage on things that aren't terribly exciting.

More, much more on this, as you know, on my blog :-)

Todd, just thought I'd throw my two-cents into the boxing ring where everyone seems to be throwing punches. Yeah, this is a problem that's been around for a very long, long time and I don't see it going away anytime soon for a multitude of reasons. But that's not to say we (all sides) shouldn't be communicating and working together to help ease the pain for us all.

Unfortunately, PR practitioners sometimes do cut corners by not regularly reading the blog that they are pitching or by failing to do a little research before pitching (hence then they would know that Gina doesn't want pitches to her personal email but rather the lifehackers tips email address).

But another element that Gina fails to mention (and she may be unaware of) is that crappy Cision (and possibly Vocus, too. I'm not a subscriber there so I couldn't check) has her personal email address listed as the email address to pitch to and doesn't have the "tips" email listed at all.

I wanted to throw this point into the ring because it's part of the problem and all day yesterday it was bothering me that nobody brought it to light, which is why I was thrilled to see that you (Todd) mentioned it on Meg Roberts' post earlier today (which I gave you kudos for).

Cision is also part of the problem, but don't get me started on Cision. Every time I have to use it I'm compelled to start a CisionSucks.com blog just to vent my frustrations, but I don't, because that would only add to the problem and I'm not about that.
;-)

From a community point of view, I think your post has the "I'm sorry" part covered fairly well. I think you've acknowledged the error, apologized to Gina, and then shown how your organization has steps in place to attempt to prevent such situations. Seems reasonable to me.

I'm wondering what the downstream of all this is, too. I don't like carpetbomb pitching any more than most folks, but if I ball up behind my blog's wall, what then?

Anyhow, certainly worth thinking about.

Oh! Wonderful job!
Very interesting and helpful post.
Thx, your blog in my Google reader now

I can understand getting your feathers ruffled, but honestly... there are a million other fish in the blogger sea. Who cares about Gina's website? It's a useless blog. I have been on the web since BBSs, and I had never come across her site until this post. I wouldn't waste anymore stomach juice on this.

Speaking as a non-PR professional, if someone publishes their email address they should expect to get email.

If they only want email from specific people or about specific subjects, they should state that next to their email address.

The fact, people don;t do that because they fear they'll miss out on some opportunity or other.

In that case, they have to expect to spend a certain amount of time sorting out the "acceptable" emails from the "unacceptable" emails. Exposing certain people for emailing her because they didn't understand her unwritten rules seems to be passing the buck somewhat.