Journalists and block delete: it's nothing new

There was all kinds of kerfuffle in blogland this week when tech journalist Matt Haughey and  blogger Gina Trapani admitted that they've started filtering and block deleting emails from certain PR agencies and domains. Well, Gina has actually set up a naming and shaming Wiki here.

Personally, public outing of agencies isn't generally a tactic I use (I might if I thought it would work) but I'm also a bit surprised by some of the outrage being expressed at the idea of filtering.

I've had an auto-delete filter for almost ten years. There are probably five domains and 50 PR execs on the list. They're the people who persistently send me large numbers of non-news releases that have naff all to do with anything I write, frequently including attached images and PDFs. Or there are agencies that haven't properly sorted out their databases, so send me releases to my married name, my single name, my training company email address, my ISP email and a temporary gmail address I use in emergencies.

It's not a big deal. I've asked to be removed from mailing lists but it rarely works - for reasons discussed previously - so I filter. If you find yourself on the wrong end of a reporter or blogger's filtering process, the reality is they would never have covered your client anyway. So you're no worse off than you were to begin with!

If you don't want to end up on a filter in the first place, my advice would be:

• Don't send all your travel press releases to a writer who NEVER covers travel. Especially don't send them every day for a month (yes, this company is the latest addition to my auto-delete filter)
• Don't send more than one press release a week. Seriously, nobody has that much news.
• Don't issue press releases about executive appointments to a general press list. We don't care.
• Don't send attachments with press releases. If you have images, it's enough to tell us you have them.

Comments

[The Wordsmith]

I'm a serial blocker/deleter of PR emails, too, and have been for some time. I've even outed a couple of serious offenders in my Diary.

I'm totally in support of this. I'm fed up having my POP3 inbox clogged up with PR spam - this despite the fact that my website contact page invites PRs to contact me first to see if a) I'm interested in what they are plugging and b) if yes to get my press-release-only email addy. If they are too stupid to understand such a simple instruction, they deserve to be blocked and outed.

[Rob Ashwell]

I'm a PR and blocking what I'd expect. PRs get incredibly frustrated with having 450 emails per day but too often cannot see it comes from them.

With reply to all being the world's most evil button I filtered and deleted the 'to all chains' from my mail for internal mails too.

Would it just be better to highlight an RSS feed and then let you decide if you want news on that client. Then only contact with good relevant stuff thereafter.

[Sally]

@Rob - I like the idea of filtering the "to all" emails. As for RSS, I think that would work brilliantly for the 10 journalists in the UK who actually use RSS. I think it's a great system but it's time has yet to come.

@Wordsmith - you're scary.

[The Wordsmith]

I know.

But I get PR junk from travel companies when I don't cover travel (one bunny rang me up after the first mail to ask if I'd got it - aaargh! - and when I explained I don't do travel he said he'd take me off the mailing list. I was still getting his junk for a further 6 months before I got tough. Likewise the bunny who sent me a daily release on landlord/tenant stuff (I don't cover housing either).

Seriously, I'm all for naming and shaming. It's the only way to teach them.

[Jon Clements]

A really important issue that all PR practitioners should take seriously if they want to be taken seriously.

Thanks Sally for spotting that our link didn't work. Fixed now!

http://pr-media-blog.co.uk/pr-spammers-youve-been-warned/