looks like their has been another twist in this story.

Todd at PR Squared has reported that Gina's personal email address is contained in the Cision Mediasource directory. more info at

http://www.pr-squared.com/2008/05/maybe_it_was_all_a_big_misunde.html

Mike Ashworth
Marketing Consultant
Brighton and Hove, Sussex, UK

I'm sorry, Mack ,but I vehemently disagree with you. Tripani or her organization must have wanted her to get the pitches or why else would her email be listed in Cision's database.

You article fails to take into account the impact public outing does to people's careers, reputation, etc. It's an irresponsible cowboy move from a prima donna that doesn't know how to handle her success. Bad pitches get their just rewards: No coverage.

Mack,

I'm with Geoff. Bloggers, get over it. If the pitch is bad, delete it or block the sender. But outing anyone for doing their job, even those who don't do it well, is childish and self-centered and only hurts people while helping no one.

"I'm sorry, Mack ,but I vehemently disagree with you. Tripani or her organization must have wanted her to get the pitches or why else would her email be listed in Cision's database.

You article fails to take into account the impact public outing does to people's careers, reputation, etc. It's an irresponsible cowboy move from a prima donna that doesn't know how to handle her success. Bad pitches get their just rewards: No coverage."

I understand your positioning Geoff, you're coming at this from the PR firm's POV, and one that has a reputation for doing well when pitching bloggers. Good for you.

But I think you are marginalizing this a bit. If we were talking about the occasional bad pitch, that would be one thing. I loved my time writing for BMA, but the one thing I didn't miss when I left was getting the probably 100 horrible pitches a week from PR firms. And that was 2 years ago for a blog getting about 2,000 visitors a day at the time. I can only imagine how many a well-trafficked blog gets every day.

I think individual bad pitches do indeed get their reward of no coverage. But I think that when you add up the thousands upon thousands of horrible pitches that bloggers get at major blogs, add in the 16+ hours they spend a day writing, and it's no surprise that we see some bloggers say they've had it, and publish blacklists.

Only surprise to me is that this doesn't happen more often.

And again, the key issue that everyone's overlooking is that the VAST majority of pitches are just as bad NOW as they were THREE YEARS AGO. I can literally count on both hands the number of truly good pitches I have gotten in the last three years as a blogger, and I have probably blogged about most if not all of these.

We can argue about who's right and who's wrong all we want, and we can throw blacklists at each other (BTW my guess is the vast majority of bloggers would VOLUNTEER to be blacklisted from PR pitches, they are THAT bad). The biggest story, IMO, is why the overwhelming majority of PR pitches to bloggers are horrible, and have been horrible for as long as PR firms have been pitching bloggers.

There's been no improvement, in fact it's possible it's gotten worse. Why?

"I'm with Geoff. Bloggers, get over it. If the pitch is bad, delete it or block the sender. But outing anyone for doing their job, even those who don't do it well, is childish and self-centered and only hurts people while helping no one."

Again, it's not that we are talking about the occasional bad pitch that most niche bloggers have to deal with. I only get a few bad ones a day in most cases, and those are indeed quite easily ignored and deleted.

But would your stance toward the severity of these bad pitches change if you were spending time checking and then deleting dozens a day? Hundreds a day? Because I think that's what bloggers at larger blogs are facing on a daily basis.

Mack,

My stance would be exactly the same: When we launch a blog in public space, we invite the public, including PR professionals, to interact with us. If we don't want to receive pitches, block those senders. It's an easy fix.

I once received dozens of e-mails that have no value everyday because of my blog. After about of year of blocking those senders, I'm down to about 10 a day.

Mack, as a former newspaper and than magazine editor, I received hundreds upon hundreds of pitches and article submissions weekly. It did not then or does it now give me permission to out those whose work was on the poorly executed side.

Finally, if we don't want e-mail sent to our personal e-mail address, don't list that e-mail.

Do we know for a fact that the only way these companies could acquire her personal email address is through her personal blog, where they must either completely miss or ignore the disclaimer? Email addresses are a bit promiscuous (to borrow an idea from Gavin Heaton), after all.

That said, there are good ways and bad ways to pitch, regardless of which address the pitch is sent to.

"Finally, if we don't want e-mail sent to our personal e-mail address, don't list that e-mail."

Sorry but I can't buy this. Gina lists her personal email address and clearly asks PR firms to NOT pitch her there, and ALSO provides an alternate email where she invites PR firms to pitch her at. Gina is claiming that what looks to be several dozen PR firms are ignoring her request, and pitching her at her personal email.

Not saying I would have outted the firms that did this, but I can definitely understand how it would have pissed her off enough to do so.

As for her needing 'permission' to create a blacklist of PR firms that she feels are purposely ignoring her pitching requests, when was it declared that she needed permission? Gina doesn't need anyone's permission to create a wiki that has a 'blacklist' of PR firms that do bad pitches. Neither does Chris Anderson or anyone else. On the flipside, Jason Falls or Geoff Livingston or any PR blogger doesn't need anyone's permission to turn the tables and call for bloggers like Gina to be blacklisted by PR firms.

But again, the blacklists aren't the issue here, IMO. The issue is why we keep having the topic of blogger feeling the need to lash out again bad pitches coming up every few months. Bad pitches from PR firms continues to be a problem that isn't improving, and in fact is getting worse if anything.

And let's not forget that this is happening as more and more bloggers are adding pitch policies on their blogs. So it's obvious that bloggers WANT to be pitched, but want it done CORRECTLY.

Oh well, if the last 3 years are any indication, we'll still be arguing about bad pitches 3 years from now.

Well, if a store can retain the right to refuse service or post names of customers who've passed bad checks, why can't a blogger announce those with whom she no longer wants to do business? I'll bet (but have no confirmation) that, early on, Gina attempted to request that these PR folks cease and desist. And maybe they complied for a time. But why should a journalist/blogger have to school every clueless PR person from the same firm who gets it wrong? I know from first-hand experience that PR agencies are woefully bad at sharing media info across account teams -- sometimes even when it could score them a hit (e.g., "Joe Blog is looking for an expert on using twitter in business to provide comment today! Who can take it?").

I'm with Mack. The PR firms have had a LONG time to iron out the wrinkles in this process. The fact that they've annoyed generations of old media and are now pissing off those in the new media indicates that the problem is bigger than one of online etiquette. Agencies need to get their houses in order and provide better training/mentoring to young employees. And anyone who's been asked by a reporter/blogger not to contact him or her or to use only a certain email carries responsibility for his entire agency's behavior from that point forward.

"Agencies need to get their houses in order and provide better training/mentoring to young employees. And anyone who's been asked by a reporter/blogger not to contact him or her or to use only a certain email carries responsibility for his entire agency's behavior from that point forward."

Agreed. The root problem seems to be that bad pitches still exist, and still exist in very high percentages and numbers.

Seems to me that the most constructive response is to address the root problem, not argue about who can and cannot have a blacklist.

It's simple. Online life ain't that much different from offline. PR will remain what it was and bloggers are just another type of media for them.

The same goes for bloggers. What did journalists always love&hate? Press releases. What are bloggers starting to love&hate? Press releases.

Best bloggers will start organising into companies, have a sales department, brand, owners, secretaries,... become media houses.

Yet it's still my lonely opinion. :-) Otherwise, I'm always with Patricia. :-)))

Together, Dusan & I will some day conquer the world.

"I'm with Mack. I'm with Geoff. I'm with Patricia." What???!!!

Seems to me the answer lies in a better understanding of just how to pitch bloggers. Whether a set of standards or best practices have been created I don't know, but it appears they're needed.

Of course, on the other hand, I get the impression bloggers tend to be "testy" and hyper-sensitive about how they want to be pitched. Very elitist if you ask me as if we're some type of little Lord Fontleroy who deserves more kid gloves treatment than a professional journalist would expect to receive.

But, then, I'm neither a professional public relations expert or journalist. I'm just a blogger who thinks we need to get over ourselves.

Great stuff! Thanks for sharing, one fresh
idea and you can change the world, keep
up the great work.

It's easy to say p.r. people should get their own houses in order. I agree, in principle. Ideally, when pitching a media person, be it in traditional media or in "new" media, p.r. people should do their homework to see what's appropriate to pitch to whom.

But then reality sets in. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be intimately familiar with every single media outlet -- especially with so many new ones now in the blogosphere. And only the very largest p.r. budgets will cover staffers' time to do the proper research 100%.

So there will be some inappropriate and off-target pitches that will go out. It's bound to happen. If a media person feels the need to soothe her frustration by "outing" the throwers of "bad p.r. pitches," let it be and move on with life.

As someone said in an earlier comment, we all make mistakes.

"So there will be some inappropriate and off-target pitches that will go out. It's bound to happen. If a media person feels the need to soothe her frustration by "outing" the throwers of "bad p.r. pitches," let it be and move on with life."

David I think many of the pitches would improve dramatically if the people doing the pitches actually read the blogs they are pitching. The best pitches I get come from people that read my blog regularly, because they pitch me on topics that they know will interest me and my readers.

I'm not sure what the solution is, it's almost like PR firms should require those doing pitches to spend a set amount of time reading blogs. How else could we do it?

As a consumer (not a PR wonk or professional blogger) I have a different perspective on this.

Both sides need to fix the issue and quit pointing fingers or expecting the other side to do it alone.

http://tinyurl.com/4toxno

Black lists don't work. They catch the innocent and naive along with the guilty, and the true spammer routes around them.

There's no excuse for Trapani's email address being in the Cision database without her permission. And while it explains the error that some of the PR firms made, doesn't completely excuse, and to their credit, most don't seem to be trying to lay all the blame at Cision's door.

Instead of focusing on how to punish the trangressors we should be looking at how to fix this vexing problem. Some ideas on my blog, and more to come.

Let's try to fix it: it's a matter of respect and being professional.
Some bloggers, and I'm no referring to Trapani 'cause I don't know her (shame on me), tend to believe they are over any judgement and never make mistakes. PR firms sometimes act as they do not know the complexity of the blogosphere: throw a pitch, take the list of the first 100 bloggers and mail to them.

A blacklist, as the name implies, is a list of people or companies who have met with the disapproval of others. In the online world a blacklist refers to those people who have been marked as responsible for generating spam in a very big way. Blacklists are also known as blocklists.

Sigh. Why are bloggers so resistant to learning from the pre-blog internet?

The Internet Press Guild was founded in 1996 -- yes, that long ago -- to deal with this exact issue.

http://www.netpress.org/

Really enjoyed it, I wanted to click out and
you kept pulling me back in! Many thanks
and keep up the great work!

One more comment...What we have here is a "teachable moment," or an opportunity for some smart entrepreneur to capitalize on what is a hotly-contested, unresolved problem.

At the very least, it's an opportunity for parties with vested interest to get together and figure out a way to remedy the problem.

I suggest that a summit be convened. Maybe, in a manner of speaking, that's a purpose this post is serving. If so, let's get on with coming up with a solution. Enough volleying back and forth; as Gianandrea said: Let's fix it!

"Let's try to fix it: it's a matter of respect and being professional.
Some bloggers, and I'm no referring to Trapani 'cause I don't know her (shame on me), tend to believe they are over any judgement and never make mistakes. PR firms sometimes act as they do not know the complexity of the blogosphere: throw a pitch, take the list of the first 100 bloggers and mail to them."

G I think that's a big part of it, there's some ego involved on the part of bloggers, and there's a lack of respect involved on the part of the PR firms.

But again, this creates an incredible opportunity for a PR agency that follows the 'rules of the road'.

"One more comment...What we have here is a "teachable moment," or an opportunity for some smart entrepreneur to capitalize on what is a hotly-contested, unresolved problem."

Agree completely, Paul. This is why I was saying that the 'dueling blacklists' is simply a smokescreen to the real problem that a LOT of PR pitches to bloggers are horrible, and they aren't improving.

Fixing that problem should be the focus, and as you say, there's money to be pay for someone that can offer a solution to that problem.

Excuse me, there's money to be made for anyone that can offer a solution to that problem.

I'm all for making money! :-) Seriously, if, as Brian Clark purports, "teaching sells," then this could make someone a fortune!

As a new member to the PR world, I've found this blog and comment exchange extremely beneficial.

Someone else asked and I concur. Have a set of best practices been established? I know that ultimately it will come down to the individual I am trying to engage, but some basic rules would be very helpful.

BTW I think this tweet by Gina perfectly sums up the situation:
" I love that pissed-off PR people are threatening to never email me again, as if that's not my dream come true."

And that's the key here, PR firms need to pitch bloggers a helluva lot more than bloggers need to be pitched by PR people.

First off great post. I don't know her but think she needs to get over herself. Anyone who is worth their salt in this business sure as hell knows what emails, screen names, phone numbers et al to protect. Let's face it if you are a blogger you want readers. You don't want to be communicating with yourself. Being solicited means you've gotten quite the following. If you do then kudos to you but don;t f&^k it up by sending antagonistic tweets.

First off thanks for the link and the post Mack. Second I did mention in my post that Lifehacker in particular had a valid reason to be annoyed at being spammed at her "personal" email address.

I put it in quotes because her "personal" email address is published on the internet and the moment you do that you relinquish your privacy. That doesn't make it right for folks to spam you but you should expect to get spammed when you do. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Walk around with 100 dollar bills hanging out of your coat and you are going to get robbed.

I was arguing a larger point and the ensuing complaints from other bloggers crying about receiving too many press releases. If a blogger considers them self to be some sort of citizen journalist or even wanna be professional then they have no room to complain about receiving too many PR pitches. That is what comes with being a professional journalist.

I just asked a dean at a major journalism school about this today. I explained this little blog drama and told him I thought that reviewing press releases was part of the job for a news organization. His reply was "absolutely".

I just asked someone who works for one of the major wire services just how many releases they sent out a day on behalf of various companies and agencies. His reply was "thousands".

Now just imagine you are the New York Times. How many releases do you think they receive a day?

Tens of thousands. Hopefully I will have a real number on this tomorrow.
Granted they have resources to deal with all of those pitches along with the breaking news, and various personal interest stories, investigative journalism and opinion pieces on a daily basis.

The point is, we as bloggers love to play at journalism for some of us it is a very serious hobby, to a part time job, to even a real job.

If you want be treated like a professional then act like one and quit crying about how its hard work.

Yes it is hard being a successful blogger. It is also a hell of a lot of fun. So rub some dirt on it and suck it up or go home.

/rant off

"And that's the key here, PR firms need to pitch bloggers a helluva lot more than bloggers need to be pitched by PR people."

Not true. When I was the Technology Editor for a large content network, I remember the writers / bloggers under me getting pitches from major companies and their PR reps.

That advanced news would lead to tens of thousands of visitors (sometimes in a day) that they otherwise couldn't have touched being just another blogger picking up the story after all the "big dogs" already reported on it.

A lot of bloggers would give a limb to get pitches that help them break a decent story (traffic often makes or breaks a blog - reputation, converts to regular readers, revenue, etc.).

But to get those gems, you'll put up with a lot of garbage. It's not going to be handed to you on a silver platter every time.

That's just reality - coming from someone experienced on both the blogging / publishing and PR sides of the fence.

Frankly, I think it's funny how bloggers hate PR reps until they want something from them (review copies, event access, interview access to company reps, etc.). Not like we've ever seen that before, right?

Love or hate, we all better just learn to deal with it.

I am a freelance writer who works for small and start-up firms through Elance.

We write press releases that are well-received by print media.

How can we better serve our clients who wish to send releases to bloggers?

Our clients do all the sending--at the prices they can pay, we cannot research any mailing for them.

Nicki D. Harper (HarperCo)