Getting Ink

Is your blog copyrighted?

One of the things I tend to do with any blog I write per myself or a client is pop a copyright statement on the site.

Honestly, it's not something I've thought about a lot, but I have heard enough from colleagues on Journobiz about having copy ripped off for use on commercial blogs that it always seemed sensible.

Now it turns out there's another reason for clearly asserting cpyright over your own blog - so the Irish Mail on Sunday doesn't take it wholesale and turn it into a nice juicy feature without so much as mentioning it to you.

That's what happened to Melanie, an air traffic controller who writes a blog about her life, including a post about how it felt, 10 years ago, to be one of the first women working in that profession. This weekend, she discovered her blog was a feature in the Sunday papers. And not a particularly positive feature, at that. ("Controller's Web Diary Reveals the Sexism and Filthy Language That are rife in the Tower.")

Seriously, is this even legal? My media law is perhaps a little rusty but it certainly doesn't seem anything like fair dealing. It certainly makes me a little more cautious, which is perhaps no bad thing.

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket.

Good grief, it's nothing but depressing and annoying news this week.

In fact, the only thing that made me laugh properly was when the PR I wrote about in my previous post accidentally replied to an email I sent instead of forwarding it. That was pretty funny.

This, however, from the latest Gorkana PR jobs mail-out listing work opportunities for journalists, is not so funny:

Mizz, Unpaid Feature Writers

date posted: Tuesday, 12th January 2010

date ending: Thursday, 11th February 2010

Mizz are currently looking for unpaid contributors to write features for the magazine – if you are looking for features or a byline please contact lsaxton@panini.co.uk

Words almost fail me - except to say that I won't be buying any Panini products any time soon. 

Daryl at DWPub (which owns Response Source and job site SourceThatJob) recently published this brilliant post on his blog explaining why they would no longer be publishing details of internships and work experience opportunities since so many of them are simply exploitation, and a way of getting professionals to work for free. It really warms my blackened journo heart to see someone standing up for journalists.

On the other hand, I'm a little disappointed with the guys at Gorkana. I've found Gorkana absolutely great to work with in recent years, and really helpful - so I'm a little surprised that they're distributing this kind of opportunity, and in the process endorsing it.

Being a professional journalist isn't something we just decided to 'have a go at' one day. Most of us have specialist training, degrees, professional qualifications - and we've worked hard to build our skills in writing, interviewing, editing, media law and so on. I don't think it's too much to expect publishers running commercial enterprises to put at least some value on that. Do you?

Is this the The Whittle Foundation for Agencies That Have Fallen on Hard Times?

I’m a nice person. Honest. I don’t kick small children unless they seriously annoy me. I sign petitions to ban things that seem bad, and I always let people in front of me in traffic.

I go “aaawwwww” when I see a cute kitten.

But sometimes, just sometimes, someone makes me feel a bit cranky. 

I got an email last week from a PR agency that wanted to “partner” with my parenting blog to launch a social media campaign for their client. They want to increase awareness of the event and exhibitors among parents, hence pitching me, as a parent blogging GURU (I’m thinking of having it on my business cards).

I said I was potentially interested but wanted to know what they meant by ‘partnership’ and what they had in mind.

The nice PR exec called the next day, very keen. The PR agency didn’t really have a detailed idea of how blogs work, and what the campaign would actually ‘do’ but they wanted to run a kind of award for Mums. We spent 20 minutes or so chatting through some basic ideas, and I suggested a particular sort of campaign, and provided a bit of detail on why I thought that would work, what it would involve from the PR agency and the blogger, ie, me. 

Next day, I get an email from the PR. “Just to confirm we’d love to partner with your blog on this campaign, and can we meet up to discuss ideas and content?”

“Fine,” I say. “Could you let me know what budget you’re working to on this?”

“Ah,” the PR replies. “We are just looking for this to be content-focused rather than something we have budget for. Is that okay?”

You mean no budget apart from what the client is paying you for coming up with the campaign? So, what you basically mean by partnership is “you don’t get paid” and by “content-focused” I think you mean something like, “you don’t get paid”.

I don't know. I'm always happy to provide a bit of advice to a PR contact, or a bit of feedback. And if something's interesting enough then I'll write about it, no fee involved. But when you're asking a blogger to help devise a campaign, put it together, travel to meetings, and then post something promoting your client, - and all for FREE - then I think that's patronising and crossing a line, somehow.

Or am I being too sensitive?

Why do we care about PR spam?

Oh, such a lot of hoo-ha this week about the latest journalist to publish a list of PR spammers. It’s not the first time someone’s published this kind of list, it won’t be the last. Remember Gina Trapani? Or Chris Anderson? Or even Systeme-D?

Really, why do we care?

After 10 years of journalism, I find it hard to get worked up about this stuff. When I was new to freelancing, I couldn’t understand why I got 200 emails a day about stuff I’d never cover. It irritated me that PR agencies couldn’t do decent data cleansing so I got three copies of random emails to various email addresses, or that they couldn’t seem to remove me from mailing lists when I asked.

Over time though, this stuff just becomes background noise. An experienced eye can spot a rubbish press release in 5 seconds, and thanks to the ‘block delete’ function that these new-fangled computers have, spam PR emails probably waste, ooh, about a minute of my time each day. Let’s face it, if I wasn’t deleting emails, it’s a minute I’d spend pratting around on Twitter or Facebook.

I’m not sure PRs should worry too much about ending up on this sort of list, either. After all, you might as well just publish a list called, “Anyone who’s ever been an account exec”. I can’t think of any agency that hasn’t been guilty of sending an irrelevant press release at some point. And as a PR, surely, you can always blame either the account director or the client, right?

Besides, there are bigger issues to worry about. Like the disingenuous and borderline dishonest use of social media by some quarters of the PR community.

And attachments. Dear God, why are we still having this bloody conversation? Only today, I got a 5MB attachment attached to a random press release – twice, because the PR agency hasn’t cleaned its data lately. If you’re using WiFi on a public hotspot or you’re using a 3G dongle or BlackBerry, downloading huge chunks of data is not fun. HUGE waste of time. Don’t do it.

I could go on – the agencies that offer to pay journalists to cover their clients. The executives who won’t respond to queries from publications that aren’t important enough. The PRs who pitch me news stories that turn out to be two weeks old. Follow-up phone calls. Ugh.

All of these things waste my time (and presumably the PR’s time, too), and they’re all a far bigger hassle than a press release that doesn’t hit the spot. Or am I missing something?

Best New Year's Resolution Ever. Fact.

Well, it was a lot less hard work than going to the gym 151 times in a year!

As both my regular readers will know, a year ago, I made a resolution to see 100 new movies in 2009. And by the end of 2009, I had watched 102 new movies, although December was almost entirely dictated by the viewing preferences of a four-year-old and therefore included such gems as Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Squeakwel (ye Gods), Aliens in the Attic and Where the Wild Things Are. I’m still undecided about that last one, actually. I thought it was beautiful but it seems a shame Jonze couldn’t make a movie that would be more accessible to children who love the book right now (I’d argue it’s a movie for nostalgic adults). 

Regardless, thanks to everyone for recommendations and I think it was the most successful New Year's Resolution I ever made. I've seen lots of great films and I think having regular cinema breaks was a great form of stress relief during an interesting year!

Of the 102, my top 10 would be:

1. Slumdog Millionaire – I’m a sucker for a good fairy-tale, and I thought this was visually stunning and made me think a lot. I’m still not sure whether it’s trying to tell us that the kid’s awful suffering was all worth it in the end, or not. I suspect not.
2. I’ve Loved You So Long – if you’re not a fan of sub-titled movies, this is the one that will convert you. Spare, atmospheric and impossibly well-acted by the two young leads.
3. Into the Wild – takes what could be quite an unsympathetic story (over-privileged middle-class kid goes on self-indulgent voyage) and makes it really thought-provoking, and even though you might know how this true story ends, it’s still a gripping piece of cinema. Plus Eddie Vedder did the soundtrack, which is awesome. 
4. Thirteen – possibly one of the best representations of teenage girls I’ve seen on screen, combining the verve of Lords of Dogtown (director Catherine Hardwicke’s previous film) with a real edge of violence. The scene where the two girls punch each other in the face just reminds me (in tone, not reality) of so many of the teenage girls I knew.
5. Coraline – just amazing, and one of the few book to film translations for kids that I really think captured the spirit of the original text although it’s too scary for little kids! It’s also one of those films that’s so technically brilliant you spent a lot of time just thinking, “Wow, I can’t believe they did that!”
6.  
7. Star Trek – I know, it’s popcorn fluff. but really, it was so much fun I can’t think of anything bad to say about it. I love watching it again just for all the JJ Abrams Easter Eggs, too.
8. Avatar – another movie that’s not got an amazing script (to say the least) but it’s really entertaining and technically just breath-taking. one of the few films I’ve seen this year where I would absolutely say you can’t do it justice without seeing it at the cinema, and possibly it’s also the only one that makes proper use of 3D.
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – oh, just because. I love the attention to detail in the Potter movies. there’s almost always something that makes me want to squeak with appreciation. this time it was the pensieve and the way the memories were visualised – how cool was that?
10. Man on Wire – the first film in years that made me shout “HOLY MOLY” out loud. Several times. It’s just amazing.

Of course, where the sun shines, some rain must fall. and where the movie project is concerned, the 5 most annoying films of the year were:

1. Knowing – did the writer have an aneurism half-way through? Ugh.
2. Monsters versus Aliens – the film that forgot to be funny.
3. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas – 2 hours of waiting for the most miserable ending EVER.
4. March of the Penguins – watch small, cute animals die. If you like that sort of thing.
5. Bride Wars – When historians want to pinpoint the end of civilisation, this film will be revealed as the tipping point. although, to be fair, I couldn’t make myself watch more than the first half hour.

So, all I need now is a 2010 project. I think 100 books might be a bit ambitious, and I’m not sure whether I could do 100 swimming sessions without actually killing myself. I’m going to give it some thought and decide next week, I reckon. It doesn't pay to rush into these things.

"We will pay you to write about our client". Yes, really.

I don't know about you, but there's nothing that makes me feel warm and glowy inside like a PR person who thinks I'll write about any old client if they offer me the possibility of a bit of cash.

That's why I was so delighted to receive a PR pitch for my parenting blog recently that offered me a share of an unspecified budget if I was prepared to post a video about their client's new service. And I was even more delighted to receive a virtually identical pitch from the same agency a week later, making EXACTLY the same offer on behalf of another client.

Let me share the pitch with you [identifying details removed]: 

Re: Introducing the XXXXXXXXX: We'll pay you to  post this content.

Hi there,

I'm getting in touch today to see if you'd be interested in posting some new video content on your website.

We are distributing a video which features [chief executive of company] introducing the new [company’s service]. You can view the video here: [link]

If you'd be interested in posting this content, we can pay you for the views your site generates. Please let me know if you'd like to be involved asap, so we can distribute the budget.

Best regards,

[PR exec]

Literally, the only difference between pitch 1 and pitch 2 was that in pitch 2 the PR exec made the extra effort of including "your parenting website" in the opening sentence. Way to go the extra mile. 

When I got the first pitch, I wasn't sure quite how to respond. I felt uncomfortable about it. The second pitch just confirmed every reservation I had in the first place - not only is the agency treating all bloggers and writers as a single entity, they're presumably treating clients in the same way. That can't be good. 

What's so horrible about this particular pitch?

First, there's no effort at personalisation or research, not even a perfunctory "love the blog". It's an example of the worst kind of spam pitch that journalists have being receiving for years - the only difference is that bloggers aren't even being paid to read this nonsense.

Second, it's not the most flattering offer. The PR doesn't tell me anything about the service or why it would be of interest to my readers. She doesn't even tell me what's in the video. It sort of feels like she thinks I'd post any old nonsense on the site in return for a couple of quid. Wow, I feel all warm and glowy inside just thinking about that.

Third, it's not even a guaranteed payment - I have to post this random content then receive unspecifed share of unspecified budget IF I generate enough page views. Bloggers who followed up on this were told the agency will pay EUR 0.04 per video view. Tempting. 

Fourth, I've watched the video. And honestly? It's terrible. I can't imagine anyone with any credibility putting this on their blog. It's the kind of video that makes me think I missed my calling because I could do a better job in my sleep. Hey, my video would definitely include a sentence or two about what the service the client has launched actually does. If you're going to spend money on a video with a view to getting that video online, though, it should be useful, or funny, or really interesting.

Finally, and this is a small point, perhaps - there are no instructions on how to post the video. Clicking on the link takes you to a page with a Windows Media video in the middle. If you're going to do something like this, I'd suggest spending the extra hour it'll take to create some easy YouTube style HTML that bloggers can copy/paste into a post to embed the video on their sites - many, many parent bloggers wouldn't have a clue where to start otherwise, and even though I know how to do it, I'm not sure I could be bothered.

I've had a quick browse online and I can't see the video in the first pitch has been picked up yet - but it's a recession, I'm sure someone will take the opportunity to make a few quid sooner or later. But I can't help thinking it's a missed opportunity. The client in the first email is a big, household name - and the service being launched is pretty nifty. I can see some bloggers might have written about it just because it's interesting, had the pitch and the content been better. 

The real missed opportunity, though, was not inviting bloggers to test the service for themselves - it addresses an issue that many, many bloggers regularly write about, and by offering them a free taster, you could have generated lots of coverage on these blogs without having to pay for the posts - or am I being too harsh?