Lately, I've received some really off-target spam "news" releases from PR types. Last year, my friend Todd Defren and I commiserated about the sad state of PR spam last year, when he told me about a press release he was pitched, all about oatmeal. Todd writes about PR, social media, and agency life. Not consumer products. By the way, Todd is a true thought leader and visionary, the "social media news release" was his brainchild.
Another leader in calling out bad pitches is the "Bad Pitch Blog." They're taking on the silly media relations frenzy that surrounds SXSW each year. It's worth a follow. Here is their social media relations quiz.
Today, I received a completely off-target news release, one of those "Yeah! We're the agency of record for our new client!" garbage news releases. In my opinion, it's great to be "thrilled" to have a new client, but keep this stuff to the Advertising and PR trade pubs. Or better yet, just post it on your agency's website. In this case, the agency was "The Truth Be Told" (offices in New York and LA!)
PR spam is a serious threat to the credibility to all PR people, and it's getting really bad. I'm always encouraging my friends in the media to take action and push back. So, I decided to respond. Here is the exchange that ensued.
First, the breathy first paragraph of the "News" Release. The pitch was exactly three words long.
For your consideration:(!!!!) <----- (That's it, in case you missed it!)
TRUTH BE TOLD TO REPRESENT CANADA G00SE
New York, NY (March 9, 2011) – Canada Goose, Inc.,the Canadian company, who for over 50 years has been committed to producing the best extreme weather outerwear in the world; proudly made in Canada, announced today that Truth Be Told, Inc., a public relations and marketing firm with offices in New York and Los Angeles, was selected as the agency of record for this iconic brand. “We’re thrilled to have Truth Be Told on board. The last five years have been a time of remarkable growth for our company in United States,” said Kevin Spreekmeester, VP Global Marketing. “We believe that TBT has a unique combination of New York savvy and Los Angeles savoir faire to provide the perfect public relations marketing support we need to maintain the upward momentum.”
ME: "Why on earth would you send me this release? You obviously have no idea what you are doing."
Amanda S. from Truth Be Told: "Then it would behoove you to change your details on the media search engines."
Me: "I write about public relations. You've obviously never read my blog. My search details don't include anything about wanting to read random press releases that I would not write about in A MILLION YEARS."
Amanda: "By the way, I hope the advice you give clients includes building relationships, because clearly you're terrific at that."
Me: "I didn't ask you for anything. You are the one who sent me a cookie cutter "For Your Consideration" agency of record spam email. Clearly, I could give a crap less, and your sass is not helping your case, that of your client, or your company's reputation. You do know I'm a blogger, right?"
Amanda: (note the change in tone): I have never engaged in such a correspondence with a media person, nor do I intend to. I was simply surprised by your reaction and perhaps reacted too quickly. We work with several outlets that focus on media moves and somehow your name ended up on this short list. Apologies if it clogged your inbox. There is no reason to endanger my business or the reputation of our client, that spends a lot of time and resources on protecting the environment and endangered species.


This post is so freaking awesome.
When I see businesses send press releases about client wins it makes me think they don't win very often. So what's that say about their firm? And it's not just ad agencies, it's everyone who's never fully comprehended the term "newsworthy."
Thanks for posting this, seems like it was long overdue.
Posted by: Josh Fleming | March 09, 2011 at 02:47 PM
I have to say this blog post seems really mean spirited and passive aggressive. I get pitches all the time that I may not jump at, but that doesn't mean I reply with a snarky comment like you did. This blog has gone from informative to plain old mean. Really.
Posted by: Danny Seo | March 09, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Hey Danny, thanks for your comment. I'll admit to being a little over-reactive if she admits that her pitch was completely off target. Deal?
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 09, 2011 at 08:45 PM
(sigh.)
Posted by: twitter.com/TDefren | March 10, 2011 at 01:28 PM
Todd, is that a resigned sigh or a disgusted sigh, or do you think I just went batshit? Do tell.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 10, 2011 at 01:30 PM
Good points Claire!
Posted by: Jennifer Mirabile | March 11, 2011 at 01:42 PM
Thanks for reading, Jennifer, and for your comment.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 11, 2011 at 01:43 PM
The way you responded to her email was a bit snarky but could have been funny. Listing her name and the agencies name is very bad form and is uncalled for though.
Posted by: ODBF | March 11, 2011 at 05:17 PM
You're not interested in hearing from people for whom spray and pray has been wildly successful? That seems a bit closed-minded. ;-)
Posted by: Eric Eggertson | March 12, 2011 at 09:57 AM
Eric, I've done the spray and pray once or twice myself. And it did not work for me. I've actually received a few nasty responses that included four-letter words. But I would never dream of responding the way that Amanda did. I admit I got a little too incensed, and it came off as arrogance. What I left out of my original post was the culpability of media search engines in this whole debacle. I'll bet my left arm that they were using one of the big search engines like Vocus or Cision. Each makes it way too easy to spray this stuff out there. And they charge way too much on top of it. Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM
TK: I didn't post your comment because it seemed like you're a little nusto, jealous, and you also used a fake email address. Even if you don't agree, at least I put my name on every post. Man up.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM
The sad thing is that, traditional media outlets expect this type of mass news release distribution. They likely laugh at PR and then dump the story (except for the PR, ad and related industry media who use this as a little blurb and to keep up with accounts they cover).
And, that's fine.
But when supposed PR pros assume the same for social media outlets, that's poor targeting. I've been blogging since 2005 and get my share of poor PR pitches, though I very (VERY) rarely do reviews or industry news. In fact, I've criticized PR sloppiness like this more than I've used pitches.
While I wouldn't have responded to the person in such a critical manner (or, maybe I would ;) ), to each his/her own. Your point was definitely made, Claire, and hopefully a lesson was learned.
-Mike
Posted by: Mike Driehorst | March 24, 2011 at 08:59 AM
God, I got tired just reading the lead of that release. Nice to see the PR company describing a company, which is an inanimate object, with the personal pronoun "who."
And would a VP of Marketing really use the term "savoir faire" when referring to an agency? Highly unlikely.
Finally, what great media relations by the PR person, essentially accusing you of being poor at forging relationships. As if sending spam is the perfect ice-breaker.
Ugh.
Excellent post.
Posted by: Paul Kelly | March 24, 2011 at 01:37 PM
I agree with Danny. Writers, including the Bad Pitch Blog, should realize that most publicists are taking direction from management. I am not sure where Amanda is in her career but many times pushing back to managers about sending out jello releases is not in staff members' best interest. I know this from experience. I say good for Amanda for sticking up for herself; shame on Truth Be Told, Inc.
Posted by: Laurendavalla | March 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM
While media search engines like Vocus or Cision make it easy for us to develop a list, it doesn't minimize the basic skills to review the list and determine appropriateness for your pitch/client. We all know that these search engines can be inaccurate and additional research is needed.
Unfortunately, this sounds like they were seeking to get the pitch out there and generate reesults. Some may be too busy and unable to monitor what junior staff do. But it probably also comes down to taking time to train professionals.
As for me? I thankfully don't get as much spam pr pitches. If I do, I either ignore it or ask to be taken off future pitch lists =)
Posted by: Cece Salomon-Lee | March 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Cece, thanks for your comment. I did overreact. But I'm still convinced that spam is an issue that we all need to confront head on. Ask my husband, that's just what I do! Claire
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 25, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Geez, why are bloggers so emotional!? Our newsroom gets tons of emails that aren't really what we're looking for, but we just delete them or respond with a helpful comment.
Posted by: Elizabeth Garner | March 30, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Hey Elizabeth: Thanks for your comment. I know my response was a bit over the top. It's an issue that I'm passionate about and have written about in the past. I firmly believe that all PR people must be very aware that their "one little spam" email only adds to the very real problem of reporters getting 100+ per day, and damages our collective reputation. As someone who makes my living by my reputation, it affects me. So that's the long answer. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Claire Celsi | March 30, 2011 at 01:24 PM