Just because you're paranoid...

So it seems that Cision has been emailing hacks today, trying to get them to sign up for its media database.

All very admirable, but they've inadvertently kicked off a paranoid frenzy in some circles with the wording of their request, which seems to suggest that a Cision client has requested the journalist's details be included in the database. Except when a hack asked Cision which client had requested the information, they were told it was a secret (Data Protection, obviously). Much alarm has ensued, with various hacks complaining about shady practices and complaining they've never heard of this mob before.

Media databases can be, as I may have mentioned before,  a bit rubbish. Especially if they rely on hacks themselves to sign up for the service. And why use some shady-looking mass email to try and recruit them?  Because most hacks have no idea what Cision or Vocus are, and what they are used for. Better surely to be totally transparent and say: "This is to help PRs send you relevant info, and to invite you to the nice parties."

Personally, I think Cision et al should take a leaf out of Gorkana's book and require hacks to update/confirm their details every time they log in to  the site. So, if a journalist wants to use Gorkana's media alert service or view the jobs on the site, they have to provide some up to date details. Seems fair enough to me.

* I'll also just point out how much I adore the fact that a Google search for "Cision media database" this afternoon brought up an advertisement for rival service Features Exec. Very nifty, Mr Willcox.

Comments

[Daryl Willcox]

Great post Sally. Keeping media databases up-do-date is a real challenge and we're always examining new ways to do this for our FeaturesExec service.
Email broadcasts to encourage journalists to update details is just one of many techniques, but you are absolutely right in that such emails need to be transparent and explain the benefits.
Luckily for us, a lot of journalists know who we are because I think we're a bit more 'visible' than others.

[Lucy]

Hi Sally,

While transparency is to be admired, let us not forget that ultimately all of the databases you mention want my personal information to SELL. I really fail to see any benefit as a journalist, or any incentive for me to provide this information.

1. I already get invited to parties by PR executives who know the sector and writers.

2. I get more than enough stupid, dull, pointless press releases through the wires and individual agency lists, plus I'm apparently listed in an assortment of other databases which never bothered to seek my permission. Grrr!

3. Where I list my details in a database it is for my benefit - the NUJ freelance directory, Journalism.co.uk - not so some PR can bombard me with spam.

[Daryl Willcox]

Hi Lucy,

You make a very good point about PRs bombarding journalists they find in media databases. One way you can use media databases to actually help here is to make sure they know exactly what you want (or what you don't want) from the PR community, and how you want to receive it.

For freelancers we run a dedicated freelance directory (http://www.journalistdirectory.com) and on that you can actually choose to withhold any or all of your contact details from PR people, so that you can only be contacted by commissioning editors.

[Sally Whittle]

@Daryl:

I agree databases are hard work – I’m not convinced there is a way to do it really well and make a profit but for my money, Gorkana’s approach of twisting the hacks’ arms to update details in return for the goodies (jobs/media alerts) seems the best approach I’ve seen.

However, have to say, the idea that putting my contact details and preferences on a media database and expecting to receive more targeted releases and less spam as a result is unconvincing to say the least.

I’m listed in most media databases – yours, the NUJ, journalism.co.uk, Gorkana etc. Nowhere in any listing did I say I'm interested in personal finance, consumer products or similar. Despite this, PRs today have sent me releases on new holiday destinations, learning foreign languages, changing your energy provider, some sort of solar power nonsense in Spain, research about deaf people and – of all things – a new sink mat!!

If someone can explain how that's a good use of resources, I'd love to hear it.

[REG CROWDER]

As a journo myself, let me put in a good word for the Journalist Directory that Daryl Willcox publishes on the web.

I am in that directory because it brings me work! Also, I get a few, carefully selected press releases that come pretty close to what I write about. No problem there.

I do a few low-key things, like keeping my information in the Daryl Willcox databases current and complete because I NEED TO REMEMBER TO DO A LITTLE MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS for myself now and then.

That's the real reason I just put up a new Google "Knol" on International Investing. If you're curious, this is the URL:

http://knol.google.com/k/reg-crowder/international-investing/6dyptd3yjxyq/2

There's a lot of useful information in there. But I put it up because I think it is a good showcase for the kind of research and writing I like to do. I'm pretty confident it will, over time, bring me more of the kinds of clients I like to have. (This "Knol" is targeted to Canadian and American editors and publications. Sorry.)

On the other hand, from what I've read, if I get anything from Cision, I will probably bin it on sight. They sound utterly "bush league."

I take the time to read and consider everything I get from Daryl Willcox's shop because it is always professional.

REG CROWDER
Freelance Financial and Investment Writer
London, England & Brittany, France

http://knol.google.com/k/reg-crowder/international-investing/6dyptd3yjxyq/2

http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TgTQ/REG-CROWDER

[Sally Whittle]

You on commission, Reg? ;-)

[REG CROWDER]

Dear Sally,

When you get down to the essence of things, we're ALL ON COMMISSION, aren't we?

[Sally Whittle]

Good point!

More seriously, I don't argue a bit with the value of directories for us freelancers - which is why I'm listed in directories that are accessible freely to potential clients and editors. I'm not overly concerned by the PR spam they generate - it's the work of moments to hit delete, after all.

My original post refers more to the databases such as FeaturesExec, Vocus and Cision which are subscription-based services aimed specifically at PRs.

I think they cost an awful lot of money and if I was a PR paying the bill, I'd be asking questions about how the data they contain is collected, what permissions have been sought, how regularly the information is updated, and whether it is verified.

[REG CROWDER]

Dear Sally,

Okay. I get it now. Hmmmmm. I think you're on to something. As I mentioned, I don't seem to have much of a problem with getting buried under stupid press releases. (Oh Gawd. Just watch this change tomorrow.)

I pay for most of my visibility on the web. I pay to be listed on a freelancer's marketplace on MediaBistro.com but the PRs don't have to pay. I pay to have a listing on the Canadian "Jeff Gaulin's Job Board" to make sure Canadian editors know about me. PRs don't have to pay to look at that, either.

I have a profile on Daryl Willcox's "Journalist Directory." I don't have to pay for that but it brings me more new business than the other listings. If I understand correctly, PRs can see some of my profile free but have to subscribe to see everything. (But I'm not real clear on that.)

But, of course, any PR who stumbles across me on the Journalist Directory could easily run a Google search on me and find out EVERYTHING they need to know about me.

Well, in short, I definitely agree with your conclusion. PRs should know what they're buying when they spend a ton of money for media data. I think ANYBODY who gathers data should be ready to explain what they're going to do with it. And ANYBODY selling data should be ready to explain how they got it.

Okay if I put in another plug for my NEW, FREE Google Knol -- "International Investing" while I'm here? Thanks.

http://knol.google.com/k/reg-crowder/international-investing/6dyptd3yjxyq/2

Bye,

Reg

[Serena]

Interesting post, Sally.

I don't think that FeaturesExec needs consent from journalists to list them in the database, since the listing comprises professional information.

The fact that you are a commodities reporter on a specific newspaper doesn't constitute personal data, so I don't think there's an argument for needing consent - although I'm not sure if it's allowable to list personally-owned mobile numbers, or a mechanism for checking whether those numbers are owned by the company or the individual - perhaps someone else knows?

I'd also be interested to know whether people signing up for the various freelance directories are aware their contact information is being sold, since I was under the impression it was freely available, but am now told it costs a couple of thousand pounds a year to access it.

I would love to see something free, independent and accurate replace these databases. Perhaps as we're all spending more of our working lives online, they will become redundant. Or perhaps the Media Standards Trust will enhance Journa-Listed?

[steveearl]

Cision - the tales I could tell. In my experience (and yes, it's a thankless task) the entries can be woefully out of date and the customer service is provided by people who bury their heads in the sand rather than confront basic questions with a straight answer.

I'm not trying to do a character assasination on Cision here. It's just that media databases typically stretch themslves too thinly by trying to cover all the ground, and so come up way short. Darryl's got the right approach, filling a niche with what tends to be accurate information.

As a hack many years ago I got myself listed as wine correspondent with zero scrutiny - naughty (but nice) and shows how easy these databases can be to manipulate or misinform.

Oh and if you want some more filth on Cision there's some at http://www.rainierpr.co.uk/earl/2008_07_01_archive.html.

[Sally Whittle]

@Serena - I don't really know much about the consent issue. I volunteered or paid for most places where I'm listed. The only time I got miffed was registereing for journalism.co.uk, I had to provide address details for billing and found my listing went live complete with my home address, phone number and postcode - delightful! Weirdly, got an email last night saying they're no longer doing that so perhaps I wasn't the only person to kick off.

@Steve: I am not sure Daryl has a niche these days but you have a point - Gorkana tends to be focus quite ruthlessly on nationals and finance and seems to do well. As to fabricating profiles, I'll just say it's amazing how many of my hack peers are regular contributors to the FT, Business Week and Wall St Journal... (wine specialist is SO much a better plan, though!)

[Andrew Smith]

Seeing as "nudge"is the concept du jour in politics why not apply it to the realm of PR?

(In case you've missed all the coverage, Nudge is a new book by American academics Thaler and Sunstein - they define "nudging" as anything that influences our choices rather than telling us do it eg A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front; organ donors in Spain have rocketed by simply making it an opt out process rather than opt in).

So. In terms of journalist contact details - why shouldn't journalists charge money to media database companies to be included - after all, it is their data. Or, to help "nudge" PRs behaviour, why shouldn't journalists charge PR companies for receiving press releases via e-mail? Or phone calls - why not have an 0871 number for PR calls?

For those PRs sending out highly relevant and targetted e-mails, the additional cost is worth incurring (perhaps journalists could offer a rebate or free delivery to those deemed to be providing worthwhile info). Similarly with calls - it'll encourage you to get to the point ASAP (ie have a good, sharp simple pitch) - and hopefully keep the "did you get my press release calls to a minimum).

Or am I just insane?

[Sally Whittle]

Andrew

Nudge? What will they think of next?

You could have a point there, though. Perhaps our friend Mr Willcox will give me the price of a pint next time I'm in Brighton in return for my valuable data?

[Daryl Willcox]

@Andrew - Payments for journalists for using their data? Interesting idea. I like to think we already give a little back to journalists in the free services we provide.

@Sally - Very happy to buy you (or any other journalist, or PR person for that matter) a pint next time you're in Brighton. And it would be really great to show you round the DWPub operation in Croydon one day.

@Everyone - A central theme here is the question 'anybody who gathers data should be ready to explain how they got it what they're going to do with it'.

I can answer that question with regard to how we do things on FeaturesExec.

We have a team of full-time, permanent researchers at our office in Croydon. They represent roughly half of the entire team there. They contact media outlets by phone and email to add or update them on the database. As they do this they explain what the data is for and who will be accessing it. We sometimes send out group emails to media outlets to update their data and we also allow them to post updated data by a form on the site. But all of this is verified by our team of researchers. We aim to check what we have for every media outlet every three months.

We are led by our customers in terms of what media outlets to add. We provide a dedicated email address (researchers@dwpub.com) and phone line (0845 370 7778) for people to contact our research team directly if they spot a gap in our data. We also encourage journalists to contact us if they have any questions about the data we hold (full contact details at http://www.featuresexec.com/contact.php ).

We *do not* buy-in data from third parties. We *do not* ask our customers to do research for us in return for incentives. We *do not* add any data without human verification.

I passionately believe that the only way to get any kind of accuracy in a media database is to use real people to collect and check data. We invest in our researchers, for example we offer journalism training – this helps them understand the needs of the journalists they are talking to every day.
As you can imagine, doing it this way is not cheap. And that is why, generally speaking, media databases are not cheap.

Our Freelance Journalist Directory works in a different way. This is all user-generated content. Freelance journalists submit their details (for free, of course) and commissioning editors can search for journalists and send them messages (for free, of course). We charge PR professionals an annual subscription (much less than a FeaturesExec subscription – it certainly isn’t ‘a few thousand’ as suggested before) to access the data. We try to make it clear to journalists when they add their details which bits will be seen by editors and which bits will be seen by PRs.

One thing that sets us apart from the other PR support service providers is that we put a lot of emphasis on the journalist side of the equation. I am an ex-journalist myself (I think I may be the only ex-journalist running such a company) and I believe strongly that if we look after journalists then we will build a strong business. I’m sure we don’t always get it right, but we strive to be open and responsive at all times. That’s one of the reasons why I work hard to be visible, and why I am writing this comment now.

[Sally Whittle]

Daryl

Thanks for taking the time to respond so fully.

You’re absolutely right that clients should be asking database companies how data is collected and verified, and it’s good you’re trying to be transparent about how DWPub does this. It allows clients to make a better judgment on whether what they’re paying is worth it.

With the best will in the world, databases get stuff wrong, and different databases appear to have different strengths and weaknesses. I think phoning people probably gets better results than email, but I also think making journalists verify their details every time they use the site is a pretty good idea.

(ps, I think Gorkana was also set up by a journalist)

[Daryl Willcox]

We're looking into the idea of getting people to verify their details when they use Response Source. It's a good idea.

Thanks a again for a great post Sally, for the feedback and the opportunity to discuss how we do things.

[Sally Whittle]

"We're looking into the idea of getting people to verify their details when they use Response Source. It's a good idea."

Sounds promising.