Getting Ink

Probably not the sort of 'media buzz' the client had in mind

I'm not an expert, but I'm going to guess that when Peter Cassidy at the APWG (a group that campaigns against the misuse of email) issued a press release about some new research into email fraud last night, he was hoping for a bit of media buzz.

Which he got - just perhaps not the sort he'd hoped for.

Peter accidentally sent the release with all the recipient names in the cc field, so when UK journalist Dan Kaplan replied, pointing out that the release was based on five month old research, everyone else on the receipient list saw it.

When Peter replied to Dan, with the sterling explanation that "we were busy in November, and it didn't seem right to issue a release between the holidays," everyone saw that too.

Everyone also saw the complaint from CNBC that they'd received the release twice. Then everyone saw the email from the reporter at The Industry Standard, pointing out the irony that this flurry of emails (20 and counting) was prompted by an email from an organisation apparently devoted to stamping out the abuse of email.

This was followed by an email from a reporter at the Boston Globe, pointing out that: "Anybody who's not dropping everything else to jump on this five-month-old story has skewed priorities."

After that, everyone saw the emails from Wired, Techtarget, Internet Retailer, CFO, Smart Computing and various publications across Europe and the US asking to be removed from Peter's distribution list.

Oh dear. The lesson we can take from this: please be kind and use bcc: when issuing press releases.

NUJ has its ass whooped: the joys of the reverse IP lookup

Two posts this week have reminded me of the joy that is the reverse IP lookup. (For the uninitiated, when you post a comment on a blog, the blogger can identify your computer by looking up its unique IP address - often this will tell us what organisation you work for, and your location).

The post has now been taken down, but one of my favourite bloggers recently posted a guide to PR for redundant journos. Which you'd think was pretty uncontroversial, but someone commenting on the guide saw fit to call the author a "cock". The blogger then posted a comment revealing the commenter's IP revealed them as working with Trinity Mirror - his former employers. Nice work.

Then today I found this incredible thread on Adam Tinworth's blog (hat tip goes to Antony). Basically, someone at the NUJ sent an email with the subject line "effing bloggers" containing a link to Adam's blog. That information was captured by the blog when someone called Linda K clicked on the link in the email. Oops. See, it's already funny, isn't it? But it gets better.

The author of the email (Chris Wheal, a very respected journalist and chair of the NUJ's Professional Training Committee) then popped up to decry journalistic standards on blogs (because the Daily Mail does such a sterling job of maintaining those standards in print, right?) with comments such as "The NUJ fails to maintain standards in blogs because bloggers themselves rejoice in having lower standards" and (my personal favourite) "I am sorry if bloggers are such delicate petals that they, in the words of corporal Jones, don't like it up 'em."

Well worth reading the full comment thread here.

Movie Project - Update

I’m making some progress on my 100 movies project. It stalled a little this week, as I realised that a) I need to actually put in some billable hours sometime soon or deal with homelessness and b) I have not made great progress on the whole work/life balance thing lately, and I should probably put some thought into it before I’m 65 and too old to have a life.

That said, I’ve been making some progress on your recommendations.

Thanks to Joanne, I watched I’ve Loved You So Long, and thought it was one of the best films I’ve seen in a really, really long time. Completely absorbing, very moving and the acting was just first class. Thanks to Jess, I saw La Vie en Rose, which I also loved – really fascinating. My French movie trio was rounded out with The Beat My Heart Skipped, which was breathtakingly good.

On Sky, I caught Moonstruck, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Taxi Driver (not the cheeriest film ever, is it?). Thanks to the miracle of Lovefilm, I’ve also seen Into the Wild, An Inconvenient Truth, The March of the Penguins, Spellbound, Lord of Dogtown and No Country for Old Men. Sorry to say I got a bit bored by the penguins, but the others all rocked.

At the cinema I’ve seen Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Confessions of a Shopaholic (yeah, so shoot me) and Twilight. I live in Lancashire, they’re not big on independent film in these parts.

So I’m about 15 down, with another 85 to go. Any recommendations not yet listed?

In return, I think your lives could only be improved by seeing Into the Wild, I’ve Loved You So Long and The Beat My Heart Skipped. Oh, and then download the Eddie Vedder soundtrack to Into the Wild – it is utterly awesome.

Crazier than a busload of brazil nuts

Yeah, I know, the joys of corporate writing aren't exactly a new topic on this here blog.

Three things I have learned from corporate clients:

• The fee always sounds big at the start of the project. At the end, after you've done the job, it seems like scant compensation for the post-traumatic stress. 
• Clients know what they want. Unfortunately, there's always 20 people at the client who each know what they want, and guess what? It's never going to be the same thing.
• Just because a client asks for an article about monkeys, provides background information about monkeys and makes you read a thousand white papers about monkeys, you should never be surprised to discover, actually, they wanted an article about rabbits.

Despite all this hard won wisdom, I still had a new US client make me laugh with disbelief this week. And I mean the proper, can't catch your breath, snorting in an unladylike manner sort of laughing.

I'm working on a pretty big series of documents, designed to show the client's expertise in a particular sort of technology. I got draft 3 of the copy back and noticed - hmm - there wasn't any reference to the actual product.

"I was wondering if we could incorporate some more detail about the product and how it helped achieve the business benefits we're discussing? Perhaps why the product was selected over competing solutions?" I ask.

"Really?" says Mr Californian Client.

"Well, I've written a few of these sorts of things over the years, and I'd usually include some key product features, perhaps some idea of capabilities that aren't offered in competing products, that sort of thing? I mean, it's up to you, but..."

"Oh, I see. Well, just make something up based on other things you've written, and we can always edit it a bit if need be."

Genius. If only all my writing could be done by just making something up.Does this sort of thing happen often?

Favourite Fictional Journalists

Over on Journobiz today, there was a great thread about fictional journalists (as in characters who are journalists, not journalists who write fiction. Although I have favourites in that regard, as it happens).

Fictional hacks are a weird breed. They don't do the sort of journalism actual working hacks do. Because let me tell you, Carrie Bradshaw ain't paying for that Manhattan apartment on the pay for a weekly column. And Kate Hudson got 10 days to write 400 words in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days?? When does that happen? 

I suspect the JB thread inspired Wordsmith to write this post on her favourite journalists from the screen. Wordsmith, it seems, is way more cultured than me. I was inspired to become a journalist by Lynda Day, editor of the Junior Gazette, as played by Julia Sawalha from 1989 to 1993 in the Bob Spiers show Press Gang. Yes friends, I am so high-minded that I basically wanted to be a journalist so I'd have an excuse to use my favourite Lynda lines:

Lynda: "See where it says ruler? That's who it belongs to!"

Spike: "So why talk to me?" 
Lynda: "I like to know I'm the smartest one in the conversation."

Lynda: "Has anyone ever told you you've got a wonderful vocabulary?" 
Spike: "I always knew that. I just could never put it into words."

Colin: "He put a shotgun in his mouth! Was it loaded?" 
Lynda: "Not after he pulled the trigger." 


The last one still makes me laugh.

Twitter as an audience builder

It's been close to three years since I started this blog. During that time, it's fair to say, I've killed a few million brain cells through ageing and alcohol, so I can't exactly remember how I started to get people to read my posts.

But these days, I wonder if it isn't easier to build a blog audience? In Jan 07, when I first started tracking referring sites for Getting Ink, my top five referring sites were Google, Journobiz, SallyWhittle.co.uk, Netvibes and Bloglines.

Today, it's Google (still), Bloglines (still) but then Twitter. After quite a big gap, the next biggest referrers are SallyWhittle.co.uk and Facebook. LinkedIn even sends a couple of dozen visitors each week.

I don't purposely pimp Getting Ink on Twitter - I do post links to the media request blog, but not to the main blog. I've always felt pimping your blog is a bit, well, shameless. But if so many people are happy to click on blog links on Twitter, perhaps I'm missing a trick.

Is it permissible to post links to your own stuff on Twitter?

If you just can't get enough...

I just read what might be the funniest blog post ever. A guide to Twitter for reporters, broadcasters and feature writers from Daryl Willcox, the normally exceedingly bright chap who runs Response Source.

It made me laugh because last night I was answering a Q&A for a PR blog, and was asked what I hate most about PR. I replied that my PR hate (insofar as I have one) is just that there's so much of it. There are so many agencies, freelancers, in-house PRs, social media muppets etc, and they're bombarding journalists constantly through email, phone, mobile, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook. The sheer volume of information is terrifying when you're on a deadline and prone to procrastination.

So Daryl's idea that:

"One of your first Tweets should be 'I'm a journalist for [name if outlet] magazine/newspaper/website and I'm looking for info from PR people on [keywords relating to your specialist areas or 'patch']"

just makes me think, "Great idea, why don't I just cover myself in honey and run through a swarm of bees while I'm at it?"

How low would you go?

As some of you may know, in a truly weird turn of events, I ended up doing some PR recently for a local company.

Basically, they use me because I'm cheap. I'd like to think it's my natural abiltiies, but I think we all know I'm not one of nature's born PR people. But for a few hundred quid, they get X hours of my time, and I write their website, update their blog and get them quoted in the right sorts of magazines.

This morning though, I realised I'm not cheap. What's cheap is the new PR agency launching with a portfolio of services for clients including producing press releases at £25, full copywriting services at £100 a day, and - my favourite - rewriting an ENTIRE website for £40*.

My first instinct is this must be an enterprising student. But no, in fact it's a PR firm headed by two very experienced PR types.

I am TOTALLY confused. How does this work? How on earth can any professional hope to survive at rates that equate to less than minimum wage. Rewriting a website is a big undertaking - I'd expect to spend at least three days on even a small website, including meetings with the client, competitor analysis, SEO analysis and so on.

I know it's a recession but under-cutting quite so brutally has to be counter-productive, doesn't it? Or is it just a sign of the times?

* For reference, I do all of these things. Not for 40 quid, though.

Friends, PRs, lend me your movie recommendations...

I remember just before the New Year reading this post on Joanne Mallon's fantastic coaching blog, about her New Year's Resolutions. Rather than set herself one of those silly "I'm going to X three times a week" resolutions, Joanne decided to go to the gym 100 times in 2008. And she did. Which I find seriously impressive.

Now, I'm not going to go to the gym 100 times this year. That would be potentially dangerous given my condition. So instead, I decided that this year, I'm going to watch 100 movies I haven't seen before. It's totally possible - I'm a single parent with a seriously cramped social life so I have time for movies of an evening.

In January, I made a good start. I watched 11 new movies including some unexpected new finds (Lords of Dogtown and Into the Wild were both amazing) the odd guilty pleasure (Twilight) and some that I feel soiled and ashamed just thinking about (Mamma Mia. Dear God, it was awful). Lovefilm just sent me No Country for Old Men and Fargo, so my week's pretty much set up.

But after that, who knows?

So here's my thought. Please, my dear blog readers, tell me the two movies you absolutely think I should watch this year. I'm open to most things. My top 3 movies of all time would probably be Breakfast at Tiffany's, Jules et Jim and Ferris Bueller, but I can't deal with horror movies. At all.

Suggestions?

Twitter Starf*cking. Don't Do It.

I must admit that I am a bit wary of including a swear word in a headline (since my uber-wank post I've received a couple of hits almost every day on the blog from people who ask Google: "is there such a thing as too much wanking?" The mind boggles) But sometimes there's just no better way to express a thought.

I can't remember who it was who introduced me to the notion of Twitter star-f*cking, but isn't there something a bit, well, creepy about an otherwise sensible adult sending little "ho, ho we have so much in common" gags to TV presenters?

And isn't it just the modern equivalent of joining a fan club?