Journalists versus PRs: Name and shame is not the answer (unless the question is 'what would be the petty thing to do?')

There's a bit of a brouhaha, brewing and haha-ing, on Twitter right now regarding a blog post by Kevin Braddock, a freelance journalist who may have too much time on his hands. Braddock has gone to the trouble of naming and shaming every PR person who rubbed him up the wrong way during 2009. Furthermore he added their email addresses to his post, perhaps ensuring a little more spam should be coming their way in 2010 courtesy of those pesky spam bots trawling the web looking for live mailto: links.

Data protection - and a soon-to-be obvious irony - notwithstanding, Braddock's greatest complaint appears to be about the amount of spam he receives from PRs who appear not to know what he writes about. This despite the fact he makes it abundantly clear on his blog that he writes about everything from "cycling" to "sex", via "military", "general interest", "health & fitness", "work", "going out" and "how-to stories" for publications such as The Mail on Sunday, GQ, The Telegraph and Wired.

"The work has been broad", Braddock adds, perhaps somewhat unnecessarily.

But when he's so clear about his specific niche, how could PRs get it so wrong?

Whizzer and Chips

Of course he's right that spamming out press releases is a hugely inefficient and massively annoying way for journalists to receive information and should be abandoned forthwith in favour of more beneficial relationship-building. But that has always been the case and any value Braddock's point may have added to this well-worn debate is certainly lost amid the ham-fisted way he has made it.

Now, must get back to that general interest 'how-to' pitch I'm writing about the military going out to have sex on bicycles as a way to keep fit after work. I'm thinking it's got The Telegraph or Wired, or maybe Whizzer and Chips, written all over it.

(Updated @ 15:13, 5th January 2010: Braddock's post has now been changed and the email addresses removed.)

Comments

[Lex]

I'll stop sending press releases out when journalists stop using them. I was named and shamed by a journalist, who then passed my release off as their own work. Today alone, ten 'journalists' used my press release on their websites, word-for-word, with their names on the top.

That's not journalism, that's hitting 'Copy' then 'Paste'. And it's not just insignificant freelancers like today's example. I've had stuff I've written used by a staff journalist in a national newspaper before. They didn't even check that the statistics I gave them were accurate.

So, like I said, if journos stop using PRs, then PRs will stop calling them.

[Fran Molloy]

As an insignificant freelance journalist myself, I definitely prefer bulk email press releases to phone calls and unsolicited product samples!

But do I use them? Nah, hardly ever; what's the point? Every editor and their dog has seen the same story, so it's not 'news.'

Cut and paste is not journalism, it's sloppy copy and deserves derision - and with most releases ending up on a website, it's also easily identified that I don't know why any journalist with half a brain would do it - nor why any publication would keep staff who run straight press releases (or lightly reworded ones) with their own byline.

By nature journalism and PR do have a symbiotic relationship, despite many journalists refusing to acknowledge it - so there's no sense in either group getting all hoity about it!

But I sympathise with Mr Braddock's frustration - particularly when I get so many really bad press releases, often with huge attachments, with no apparent opt-out or unsubscribe option (or worse - I unsubscribe but keep getting them!)

I agree with you, Lex, name and shame is not the answer ... (though would be interesting to see the names of the ten 'journalists' who cut & paste your release!)

But surely any PR worth their salt realises that shooting a press release to a thousand journalists almost guarantees that your story WON'T get a run.

I applaud PR companies that keep good databases and target their releases more effectively. CRM technology is so easy & cheap these days, I dont understand why it isnt a fundamental part of every PR's toolkit.

[James]

Like most people on either side of the media / PR fence I'd never heard of Kevin Braddock until yesterday.

I suspect his bullying post was a misguided attempt to become popular among the journalist community, in hope of work, and he thought he'd impress the bigger boys by beating up on some account executives at large PR firms, who were clearly just following orders and learning their trade when they emailed him (the horror... it must have taken seconds to delete all those emails!).

Fortunately most journalists are decent, fair-minded people and will be as reviled by this horrible little man as PR people were. More fortunately the employers of all those named will know Kevin Braddock is clearly just one of the minority of nasty little journalists. It reflects far worse on him than it does on their staff. We all make mistakes, theirs were innocent, Braddock's was malicious.

Given the time he has on his hands - to compile such lists - I suspect the recession has not treated him as well as he'd like. The writing assignments he's mentioned certainly don't sound like a man owning the UK media scene. He clearly thought a little infamy might bring more work. I hope it has the opposite effect.

[Matt Guarente]

Why should press releases be any different to the rest of the product that is offered to us as consumers - that is, 95% of it is useless shite (including journalistic output).

[John Wyndham]

As one of the PRs on this particular list, I'd like to add my thoughts.

I was actually dismayed to see myself making such a list, as I do attempt to carefully target any communications with journalists. I looked up how many emails I had sent the poor guy. I had in fact sent him two: one in May and the other in late July 2009. One of my colleagues who had also made the list emailed him just once in 2009!

Of course, the added pressure of multiple PRs sending him the occasional email can quickly fill an inbox, but to make his "hate list" I would have expected to be slightly more annoying than two emails in a year. It seems more likely that he has simply posted the name of any PR who sent him news he regarded as irrelevant. Of course, as the original post mentions, he covers a hugely broad remit, with various regularly changing commissions.

I quite agree that agencies should carefully recheck and update press lists on a monthly basis. I also know that the usual pressures of client work can make this unfeasible. I also agree that the traditional mail-merge and sell-in may not be the most efficient way to operate. However, this is standard industry practice and, if anything, this is a point to be raised with MDs of PR agencies, not their execs.

At the end of the day, PRs and journalists need to work together. Attacks like Kevin's seem more about feeding his own ego and promoting himself for freelance work than actually trying to achieve anything useful. If he had wanted to educate, there are many posts he could have written on how to target journalists more effectively - and I know many PRs who would have been interested to read them.

Sadly, his tactic seems to have worked with publications like PR Week and Brand Republic now chasing the story. But it would be a shame if unprofessional behaviour allows this freelancer to pick up more professional work.

[Chris]

Good comment John and glad to hear it sounds like you're above taking Braddock's childishness too personally. I suspect he was working out some personal issues.

By all accounts many of the people on that list were wrongly included, assuming he even had any semblance of a genuine complaint.

Personally, I think you're right, he was either stroking his ego or it was a pitiful cry for help. Either way he is probably a pretty sad individual and as a previous poster points out, a sad individual with a faltering freelance career what's more.

[Steve Loynes]

Do you think his Christmas card list is longer or shorter than his "PR people I have received what I consider spam emails from and gone to the effort of recording and recounting their email address" list?