Two alternatives to the PR black lists
public relations May 12th. 2008, 8:35pmI have two ideas that might provide an alternative to the recent PR firm blacklisting that’s been set up by both Gina Trapani and Chris Anderson (see yesterday’s blog for the context behind this post). I don’t believe in the concept of public blacklisting for infractions of the magnitude that’s been bandied about here. Genocide: yes, that’s pretty evil and a blacklist would be a minor punishment in such a case. I think that improperly using a personal E-Mail address is a somewhat smaller infraction.
So, here they are:
1. Set up a “no pitch” Wiki and remove the “banned PR” lists.
This Wiki would serve a similar purpose to the infamous “no call” registry set up by the US government. Bloggers/journalists/executives can voluntarily register so that they won’t get any unwanted PR pitches. In fact, they probably wouldn’t get any pitches at all.
Pros:
- Makes it very clear, in a public forum, the identities of the people who do not want to be pitched to.
- Less ostracizing than a black list.
Cons:
- Unless flexibility is built in, bloggers/journalists/executives will be cut off completely from PR folks who do provide some value.
- Compliance is voluntary and unenforceable.
- Subject to gaming through the use of aliases and fake accounts to hide the identity of the rabid pitcher.
2. Set up a different Wiki whereby PR firms and employees publicly pledge to respect the rules of engagement for contacting bloggers or journalists.
If they break the rules, then they’re removed from this Wiki and are effectively blacklisted by omission.
Pros:
- Would provide a means for self-regulation.
- Does not publicly ostracize the offenders.
Cons:
- Compliance is voluntary and unenforceable.
- Subject to gaming through the use of aliases and fake accounts to hide the identity of the rabid pitcher.
Shoot holes in them, please
Now, as I’ve previously stated, I don’t work in the PR field and I’m not an A-list blogger, so I really don’t know what other party deals with when their work is a job, not a hobby.
Therefore, I invite those people more knowledgeable than me to tear apart these two ideas and, if they can, build something better. Let’s go!
P.S. (edit after publication) - these two ideas are band-aids, though…
P.P.S. - interesting discussion on this topic by Mack Collier at Marketing Profs Daily Fix.
If you're new here, welcome! Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed to stay up to date with my latest posts and articles. Thanks for visiting!
Other posts that you might enjoy reading:
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 0 times hide
May 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Great ideas, Mark. I agree they are just band aids, but certainly are better approaches than the public embarrassment of PR firms and practitioners. And frankly, your ideas don’t necessarily have to be unenforceable. If IABC and PRSA could get their heads out of their antiquated asses and realize social media is having a profound effect on their businesses, they could administer something simple, like Ogilvy’s Blogger Code of Ethics as a membership guideline. If every member were forced to take it to heart and reassess how they pitch media members, particularly bloggers, there would be a quick turnabout and wholesale in-box noise reduction. No, it wouldn’t totally eliminate the problem, but it would make a huge dent. Nice work.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:34 am
@Jason - thanks. I keep coming back to the idea that bad pitches are very similar to getting cold-called by a telemarketer, which is what made me think of the “no pitch” list. The Blogger’s Code of Ethics sounds like a good idea, too.
Hopefully this takes the conversation a bit further.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Unfortunately, the problem is that we have a generation of PR practitioners who believe that because a medium exists to reach people, they are entitled to use it. It does not occur to them that they are wasting someone’s time because “Hey, it’s just one stupid e-mail, so wtf, just delete it if you don’t want it.” The deluge is not their responsibility….
To me, it’s the same as individual smokers who toss their butts out the window of the car. “Oh come on, it’s not litter, it’s just one little cigarette butt.” There is a sense of entitlement that their convenience is more important than anything external.
In either case, making the offenders’ names public has no effect because in the offenders’ minds, we just don’t ‘get it.’ There are enough people who share their sense of entitlement that they can always find a handful who say, “Yeah, like hitting the delete key is so hard, right?” or “Yeah, like anybody can even see one little cigarette butt on the side of the highway.” And although your ideas are optimistically brilliant, they will have the same effect as designating a stretch of highway as a “Scenic Corridor.” Those who care about ’scenic’ are already not throwing their trash out the window; renaming the road will not change the others’ habits.
Telemarketers stopped calling *only* because the law has some teeth, a physical threat to their pocketbook, followed by actual enforcement. The process will only stop when these PR practitioners’ *customers* start to lose business and fire the PR folks — and even then, the PR folks will just find some other like-minded customer who feels entitled to spray his/her message without thinking.
Oh heavens, I’m usually such an optimist… but “responsibility” is the dark side of “freedom.” Too many people believe they are entitled to use any public space in any way they want: spamming the Internet, tossing trash out the window, playing the boombox at full volume in the middle of a public park, etc. Voluntary systems work on pride/peer-pressure. At some point — as in now — there are too many “entitled” peers to make any voluntary system work, because there is no sense of ’shame’ at doing these things.
Check out Photos & phlowers from Steph
May 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am
@Steph - quite eloquent. As I said above, these two ideas are probably only bandaids, but they could be another step in a discussion. This problem is much larger than either the PR or blogger camps and is really about spam, cold-calling, and interruption marketing (?) in general, in my opinion.
Your comments about the potential abuse of the E-mail medium is kind of like the issue where any public space is not only considered to be a target for littering, but advertising as well.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I like the phrase “interruption marketing.” That’s exactly what it is.
Check out Photos & phlowers from Steph
May 14th, 2008 at 5:45 am
@Steph - I wish that I could take credit for the phrase “interruption marketing”, but I think it goes back to Seth Godin.