A Reminder To Build Relationships

Seeing this post over at The Bad Pitch Blog this week made my blood boil. Please go read the post in its entirety and draw your own conclusions. I feel so bad for the journalist who reportedly begged to get off an agency's media list only to continue to be bombarded with unwanted pitches and no response (or reported action) from the agency to rectify the situation.

Unfortunately, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. Reports like the one above remind me why it's so important to establish and build relationships with key media as far in advance as possible. Being transparent about who you are representing and being available to the media as a resource (not just a source) for stories is crucial. The media may not cover my clients every time, but I'm flattered when they ask me if I know someone who can help them with a story they are working on or point them to a colleague who may be able to help.

I have argued for Better Rules of Engagement when it comes to media relations. This means doing all you can to build relationships with all media before pitching. I look at it this way: cold pitching the media (just making a list based upon a database or minimal research) is tantamount to running up to someone and explaining a solution to a problem that they nothing about or may not care about. Be transparent, be a resource and introduce yourself (as much as possible) before representing clients. Most importantly, if a member of the media asks that you remove them from future communications - YOU DO IT and QUICKLY. Sending a quick note to let them know you have done so, as well as an apology can go along way and not burn a bridge.

Remember: media relations is person-to-person communications. YOUR own reputation is at stake. So, research, craft relevant pitches and then be responsive to who you are pitching - even if the result is they don't want future communications about your client.

Your Input Needed: Information for the Next Generation of PR Pros

I've been asked to speak to a media relations class at American University in a few weeks. In addition to going over new media tools, media monitoring, pitching basics and how to build and effectively maintain media relationships, what information, tips, advice or general knowledge should I share with the class? Students: what types of information would be useful? I'm told this a senior level class with a few graduate students as well. I appreciate all suggestions. Feel free to e-mail me, leave comments on this post, or @ me on Twitter with your recommendations. 

Thanks!

Coverage Is What a Company Defines It to Be

Today's MediaPost Online Spin is a great article written by Kendall Allen and seeks to address the question, 'What Constitutes Coverage in the Age of Social Media?'
Businesses used to a traditional media relations program (print, online coverage by media outlets, and MAYBE a few bloggers) probably ask themselves this question all the time. Questions I've heard in recent months include:

Does a customer twittering about our latest product constitute coverage? Does a Facebook fan page where I can post information about our latest version upgrades and have people comment and link to their own blogs/pages constitute coverage?Does traditional media even LOOK at social media for info on my company? Should I just target bloggers? Why would I need to do more than one social media platform?What's the value of all this anyway?

PR is going multichannel where communications and relevant content need to be deployed across numerous social media as well as traditional media relations platforms to be effective. This also means creating and packaging relevant information in to different formats (audio, video, mobile, social media engagement, etc.) to gauge receive the maximum ROI. This requires a strategic plan of deployment and engagement across many different targeted communication platforms as well as marketing channels. Where most integrated communication campaigns fall short is a deployment and engagement strategy to be able to update, monitor, listen, respond and learn from an audience's reaction to company content. It is the reciprocal and ongoing dialogue with an audience which makes a communications campaign successful and strengthens brand position.

The real question I think companies struggle with is what it is the VALUE of deploying a multichannel communications campaign? Understandably, most clients know and appreciate the value of having coverage in a major newspaper, magazine, trade press or even (arguably) high-authority blog. But what's the VALUE of having 100 fans or more on Facebook? What's the VALUE of someone twittering about the latest press release? What's the VALUE of 10,000 views of a CEOs video on quarterly figures?

The answer my friends is that companies are making their target audiences a PRIORITY. Interacting and providing content as well as services (think customer service responses via Twitter) allow companies to create goodwill for their brands and may even create brand evangelists in the long run. As any good crisis communication professional will tell you: don't wait for a crisis to start looking for allies. Create goodwill and protect your reputation NOW.

So what IS coverage in today's social media age? Coverage is what a company defines it to be. However, not making use of and deploying communications across multiple platforms means some companies may be limiting their ROI and losing a valuable opportunity for more customers, media and other stakeholders to learn and love their brand.

PR ≠ Media Relations Only

I was reading Heidi Cohen's piece on ClickZ entitled 'PR goes Multichannel' (pretty good overview of how marketers need to start understanding the new PR landscape) and I couldn't ignore the comment someone made at the bottom (it wasn't me):

Way to go on misunderstanding what public relations is about completely, and helping to continue spreading misinformation about the field. What you're talking about is traditional media relations. Media relations... not public relations. Media relations (let's say it again - MEDIA relations) is just one small part of public relations. Public relations as a whole is not losing its effectiveness. In fact it's becoming immensely more important in the social media age, where conversations and reputation management happen in real time. Only those who don't truly understand what public relations entails consider it simply a part of a marketing plan - precisely why marketing folks should stop trying to explain the benefits of public relations which they don't fully understand themselves. You do make a few good points (impressed to see a marketing professional acknowledge that SEO is actually a PR tool), but please stop equating media relations to public relations. That only does readers a disservice.

While the commenter's tone is a bit harsh, the definition of public relations IS SO MUCH BROADER than media relations. I see this time and time again - marketers and even some companies thinking that public relations is just a function of publicity to either raise awareness or promote thought leadership. In essence PR = media relations (press coverage).

The backlash against public relations professionals for the past few years is due to the fact that some agencies (like companies) and independent practitioners are struggling to adapt in the new social media landscape. It's not enough to know what these social media tools are (although that's a good start!). PR Pros now need to know how to suggest, develop, create, and technically maintain relevant content to enhance an organization's brand awareness and/or market share across the social media platforms. As I am very fond of telling my clients: Setting-up/establishing social media platforms is inexpensive, but development and creation of compelling content and sustained engagement is not. Companies will have to devote resources across deployed strategic communication tactics and tools to ensure that they not only receive a high ROI, but they ACTUALLY move towards accomplishing their business development goals.

Trolling for ink does nothing but infuriate the journalists and publications companies hope to influence. GONE are the days of dialing for dollars and sending out a pitch via e-mail to a large media list because those are the contacts your media database says are relevant (Reminder: Always vet the lists, read the blogs/articles and do your research BEFORE pitching). Even the well crafted pitch and press release (still relevant BTW), need to be reconsidered and revamped to engage with relevant stakeholders across different communication platforms.

To me the biggest misconception in our industry is that public relations is just about publicity and not about sustained engagement (that why I don't like the word "BUZZ"). Print and even online press coverage will not continue to yield the results companies want in terms of engagement and awareness with target audiences.

Print and trade publications are not dead (yet) and a pure social media strategy may or may not yield the results a company wants ("If a tree falls," analogy). Bottom line: A BALANCED marketing communications strategy is a company/organization's best bet to achieving its goals. There is no "right" one answer per se, but there are best practices and case studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing ALL aspects of public relations and marketing strategies to achieve desired business outcomes.

Happy Birthday HARO!

Congratulations to Peter Shankman, the brilliant founder of Help A Reporter Out (HARO), which is celebrating its one-year anniversary today.

Peter, thank you for providing a valuable resource to your fellow PR Pros and businesses who want to tell journalists their stories.  I look forward the morning, afternoon and evening editions of HARO.  You have truly made a difference in media relations by connecting journalists who need resources with the professionals and businesses who are able to help them out. The fact that you have made HARO open to everyone is a testament to HARO's philosophy that "Everyone's An Expert As Something." Keep up the great work!

If you would like to receive daily media inquiries/request from HARO, visit here to sign-up. Also, make sure you read the rules of HARO.  No off-topic pitches and trolling for ink!  

Happy Birthday HARO! Here's to many more! 

PR's Evolving Role

I love Twitter.  I follow so many interesting PR Pros, Web/Graphic Designers, Public Affairs Officers, Social Media Gurus, Journalists, Political Strategists and Goverati types that use and love all different types of communication methods.  What strikes me as odd is that there seems to be a reoccurring topic that is the subject of blog and twitter posts: What PR is and what is isn't.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who's read anything on this blog knows that I have my views too. But lately, it seems the definition of PR is getting narrower - a definition that consists of pure media relations/outreach, writing of thought leadership pieces, market and competitive research, case studies and the occasional trade show or event planning support. 

I have said and believe that media relations will always be the staple of public relations (it's essentially the bread and butter of any agency with a PR department), but what I am consistently amazed at and wonder about is why PR is talked about as separate from the emerging social media and digital strategy methods that companies are demanding.  Is it because the perception is that many PR Pros lack the necessary skills to effectively understand, recommend and implement digital and social media strategies to clients?  Is it because traditional forms of the media (print and arguably some broadcast) are dying and therefore traditional PR tactics are too? Have we as an industry self-segmented (segregated) itself from the digital and social changes that have taken place in today's media? Or is the rise of new media tactics/strategy a market challenge to the traditional PR business practice and model?

Obviously it's probably a combination of these things plus many more aspects I failed to identify. In an industry where niches and specialization are praised for experience and the building of sustainable relationships (think about agencies specific practice units e.g. Health Care, Technology, Corporate, etc.), how are digital and social media strategies being integrated into current PR business models? Moreover, what input or influence do PR practitioners have on the planning, implementation, measurement and promotion of these strategies?

I increasingly read case studies where the lines between a good marketing and PR campaign are often blurred (and rightly so) because of the different channels used to execute the strategy. My sense is good communication campaigns are becoming a lot like the model used (NOT LIKE) multichannel marketing. It takes more than one media vehicle to communicate to a target audience.

What's your take on the ever evolving definition of PR? What skills and abilities do PR Pros need in today's market? Moreover, what role should PR Pros play in the recommendation and execution of digital and social media strategy?

How A Journalist Made My Day

I won't use his name publicly, but I do want to thank a certain radio journalist for the wonderful follow-up e-mail he sent me in relation to an interview I helped him set-up with a client. He praised my responsiveness, candor and ability to deliver (this was NOT an easy interview to schedule-lots of issues surrounding the coordination). Most importantly, he paid me the ultimate compliment by saying he'd be interested in working with me again for similar stories and topics and would let his colleagues know that I am a PR person "who gets it." I'm thrilled! :)

I've written many times since I started this blog about how I believe the pitching system is broken and the dynamic push/pull of media relations is causing people to question the value of their PR people. Today restored my faith in building relationships with the media and getting back to the human interaction (even if it's facilitated by technology) to make things happen. I think the trust amongst PR pros and journalists is slowly rebuilding. I am hopeful that so much of the negativity surrounding media relations in 2008 will begin to dissipate in 2009.

Thank you again to the wonderful radio reporter. You made a PR person's day!

The Echo Chamber

I've stated that we need better rules of engagement between journalists and PR professionals when it comes to conducting media relations. One of the things I suggested is that PR pros begin recommending and demonstrating the effectiveness of alternative ways to communicate their client's core messages in today's multimedia world.

I was stoked this morning to read Robert Niles post at The Knight Digital Media Center about how journalists can begin to utilize new and social media in their coverage of stories. Specifically he looks at the partisan "echo chamber" that has emerged among political journalists/pundits and how reporters (particularly from newspapers) can learn a lot from how politics is covered across multimedia channels. Niles writes, "We need to use the power of online interactivity to build our own echo chambers, not for partisan spin, but for real reporting. Because without it, traditional news reporting is going to continue to lose readership, and influence, in a hyper-competitive media market." (No kidding!)

How do journalists do this? Niles says:

• "Journalists must offer reporting that people actually want to tell other people -- news so compelling that people will put aside whatever version of Scrabble they're playing on Facebook at the moment to send that story to all their friends."
• "Use the skills of a social scientist to look at what he said, and what she said, then to show readers who actually is telling the truth? That's how journalists can motivate readers to click. But better, sharper reporting won't be enough. We also need to use our reporting skills to identify what bloggers, Tweeters and discussion board leaders can help us spread the word."
• The media business model needs to shift its attitude when it comes to proliferating the echo chamber. Niles writes, "The last thing that newsrooms ought to be doing in this media environment is punishing people who write about our work, whether it be with threats, ridiculous licensing fees or lawsuits. But that's too often been the response from news managers who are locked into a pre-Internet mindset about how intellectual property gets and keeps its value."

Niles argues that this last point is crucial if mainstream or traditional media is to thrive in today's multimedia environment. He notes, "With each repetition of our work, the echo grows louder. More readers start paying attention. Influence, and value, grows. Eventually, with enough repetition and enough penetration into enough social networks, good journalism can once again reach the ears of those readers who long ago left their local newspaper for partisan talk radio, blogs and cable news."

He concludes his article on the importance of audience engagement in today's society.

From a PR perspective, Niles article nails a lot of the issues facing newspaper and other traditional journalists today. It reinforces the need for PR pros to demonstrate the value of new social and multimedia tools to clients. It reinforces the engagement strategy that most companies are adopting for long term growth of their brands and reputations.

My only reservation after reading Niles' article is that the "echo chamber" is good for getting past the initial gatekeeping function of new social media, but does very little for long term sustainability. While applicable to the larger stories (like the financial crisis), the trouble (and perhaps the threat) with an echo chamber is that after awhile, all you hear are the same voices or messages being proliferated.

I would argue that if traditional journalism wants to stay relevant in today's multimedia world, focus on covering the continuing debate on issues. The ongoing search and addition of new content and stories is what will draw the widest audience to online newspaper formats or to the hard copy of the newspaper.

The way I read Niles' entry, he is advocating that newspapers and traditional journalism lead the way in what the social media and new media spheres are talking about.

The news cycle has changed. Depth, breadth and relevance of information (in real time) is what makes a news story popular. My message to journalists struggling to find balance in a traditional news medium: Don't be afraid to cover complex issues and certainly don't be afraid to lean on your PR peers as well as your readership to help you do so. The good sources will help you find what you need and more importantly, will listen to what will help you do your job in this new media world. The rise of citizen journalism, blogs, and social media means the gatekeeping rules have changed. If the echo chamber model becomes popular, it must be done in such a way that it not only sustain the media business models, but allows multiple points of view (not just the popular ones) to be represented in traditional print and online forums.

The Perfect Pitch

"The Perfect Pitch." That's what the baseball said on the desk of my manager when I was an intern at a large PR house. I remember asking him: "What makes the perfect pitch?" He responded: "It depends."

Its been almost 11 years since then. As media relations changes, I've been thinking about my exposure to the industry and how I was "taught" to pitch. I use that term loosely because it wasn't until later in my career that I actually met people (PR professionals and journalists) who took the time to actually explain how to pitch.

I've come to a conclusion - The perfect pitch is equated with having common sense.

When I first started out in my career, no one taught me how to pitch. My first pitch assignment (when I was still an intern!) was to call a list of reporters and do what I now know to be soft soundings for an event a client was hosting.

I was SCARED to death to cold call reporters. I remember asking for guidance and being told "It's easy. Just tell them about the event and see if they would want to come."

Keep in mind that no event date had been set. No content/programming had been determined and I was handed a list by my supervisor who gave me NO background further than I've already listed.

Thank goodness my common sense kicked-in. I went through a media list of 80 reporters and did a search on each one. I determined from my own vetting of the list that only 18 reporters out of the 80 that were listed would probably be interested in hearing about the event, let alone covering it. There were some reporters (not to mention publications) on the list that didn't even cover anything anything remotely related to our client or the event they were going to sponsor.

I pitched the 18 (via e-mail) who were very appreciative and asked for more information.

My supervisor was livid.

I explained my reasoning. Showed my research. Thought he would be proud of his young intern for taking the time to learn about who we would want coming. I will never forget his words:

"When I give you a list, you contact EVERYONE."

When I asked "why?" I was told that I was "just the intern" and "needed to learn to follow directions." No further explanation provided. No additional information (e.g. "I'd already vetted the list and there are people on there who asked to be contacted"). Nothing.

Wow.

I almost left PR after that internship (talk about an introduction to the industry). But I'm glad I stayed.

Throughout my career, I've sat in agency sponsored (sometimes mandated) brown bag lunches on pitching. I've attended at least five "media relations" seminars and classes held by various industry associations, and I've listened to countless conference speakers, corporate communicators, marketing managers, VPs, CEOs, editors, reporters, clients and others go on about pitching. I get at least one e-mail a month (sometimes more) about the latest pitching techniques in a seminar/webinar/class/teleconference/virtual conference/etc. sponsored by so-and-so in conjunction with such-and-such publication/company/vendor/etc.

Everyone has a take on what it means to craft and execute the perfect pitch. The reoccurring themes I have heard in all of these seminars is 1) do your homework before pitching (including reviewing the last three months of a reporter's stories) and 2) be responsive when a reporter contacts you (to find our more information or to remove them from the list). All good advice.

Too often, however, I've sat in these seminars on media relations and heard my fellow PR peers take the speaker's advice as gospel - even if it wasn't relevant to their client.

Just like the hypodermic needle theory holds very little weight in communications theory today, there is no "one-size-fits all" response when when it comes to pitching. Good practices (manners), yes, those exsist. As I've alluded to in previous posts, media relations is changing and the rules of engagement are evolving. What may work for one company or organization, may not work for another (due to the industry, client budget, target audience, relevant content, etc.)

Maybe my old supervisor got right - "It depends."

Did anyone teach you how to pitch? Did you get any guidance before your first pitch? Do you have a first pitch story that beats mine?

WOW!

Wow! I've only been blogging a short time and I've already gotten such a great response!

HUGE shout out to Jennifer A. Jones at Speak Media Blog! Jennifer blogged about my Better Rules of Engagement post on Thursday!!! I've been reading Jennifer's blog for over a year and it is a must read for anyone in the MARCOMM/IMC world. Thank you Jennifer!

I've also gotten some great comments from SCA MarCom and Kevin! It's awesome to hear from you and thank you for introducing me to your blogs/points of view as well!

Thanks also to everyone who's e-mailed me directly with questions and comments. The feedback and insight you've provided is awesome. Feel free to post your comments and questions. Some of you are raising great issues and points about the current pitching system and I encourage you to post openly to encourage the discussion on this important topic.

Again, thank you all for such awesome feedback! Now back to PR!!!

Better Rules of Engagement

My post earlier this week reflected on the current state of media relations and whether or not the pitching system is broken. My unwavering stance is that the current system IS broken, but it does not mean that it is not beyond repair or at least tweaking.

Recent trends (listed in my post called the Pitching System IS Broken) indicate a shift in how PR professionals and members of the media are distributing, receiving and more importantly interacting with each other. I alluded to what we need are better rules of engagement to fix or at least begin to salvage what traditionally has been a symbiotic relationship between good PR professionals and media representatives.

For what it's worth here's what I think needs to happen:

Get back to relationship building: This seems to be a universally accepted concept on both sides. Journalists don't want spam and (good) PR people don't want their reputations trashed. For PR firms and individuals that specialize in specific industries (health care, tourism, fashion, etc.) this may be easier than for others. But at the end of the day, we all represent companies with different goals, focus, and services that make it necessary for us to reach out to a wide array of target media within and outside specific industries to demonstrate different relevant aspects of a client's business.

Realize that not all media has the same needs: The media business (yes, it is a BUSINESS - not an information service) has changed. Newspapers are in trouble, ad revenues for some trade magazines are down and even with shift online and to more integrated approaches, publications, bloggers and even broadcast media appreciate good content that goes beyond the typed press release or media alert. Getting (and yes this does take convincing) clients to provide additional content resources (blogs, webinars, podcasts, twitter feed, bylines, white papers, case studies, interactive video, online games, interactive maps, photos, 3-D diagrams, videos, social media , tele and video press conferences, trade shows, mobile (SMS) updates, etc.) takes some doing. Clients aren't always willing to take the risk, but we owe it to our industry to examine some of these ways to present content and information to a wider audience, including the media.

Members of the media now often are forced to address multimedia platforms for their publication. So a newspaper columnist may now have a blog, a regular radio spot or show (with the convergence of media conglomerates this is more prevalent), as well as Flikr page, Vimeo or YouTube channel in addition to their column. The more relevant and interesting content we can provide a member of the press, the more likely and the better chances we have of helping that reporter, editor, blogger, etc. tell a good story to their audience.

Recognize the news cycle has changed: A few years ago, PR people were "jazzed" about the twenty-four hour news cycle and how that created more opportunity for their clients to be covered. Yes, we still have the perpetual news cycle, but what we have more now is an inclination to report stories more in-depth and with better tools (think CNN's use of Google Earth and touchscreens for election returns). This means that the news cycle isn't as wide open or inclusive as we would like to think. Instead it means that more resources should be devoted to exploring different angles of larger stories with a strong consideration and emphasis on how a client can be strategically positioned.

Warnings need to be given and heeded: As a reporter if you feel you are spammed, issue a very short e-mail saying you do not wish to receive this type of information and you wished to be removed from the list. If you are interested in the company, but not necessarily the current news, issue a short e-mail saying "interested in your company but not recent announcement, please keep me on list. Particularly interested in information regarding (insert relevant topic here)." This is helpful and much appreciated.

PR Peers: let's agree if you receive an e-mail from a reporter saying to take them off your list you DO IT. Even if the reporter/editor is on your client's "must get" or "short list." We may not always get (and we certainly aren't entitled to) an explanation as to why this reporter doesn't want to hear about a company, service, product, financial disclosures, corporate responsibility campaign, etc. (It would be nice, but we're not entitled). This becomes an issue of self-respect in the industry. Media are smart. If a company is purely "trolling for ink," they can tell and probably aren't interested. If we fail to heed reporters or hound them like dejected two-year olds ("But, why?") Then we deserve to be outed on PR spammer wikis and have e-mail domains blocked.

That being said, there also needs to be room for redemption. One bad pitch should not end a PR person's career (unless it meets the criteria mentioned in my previous post). There needs to be a meaningful dialogue between media and our profession to fix this problem. It means it will take work from both sides. It means as PR professionals, we need to discuss alternative types of media relations strategies with our clients, and manage their expectations. It also means that media (within their ability) needs to communicate directly to PR people about what is unwelcome. I am certainly not advocating that media respond to every irrelevant pitch (they don't have time), just respond to those individuals aren't necessarily off-topic but may be a resource (not just a source) for you down the road.

What are your thoughts on ways to reform the pitching system?

The Pitching System IS Broken

Last week the PR blogosphere lit up with a debate on whether or not media pitching is now a broken system. Steve Rubel's post touched off a flurry of comments and backlinks on other blogs about how PR professionals currently contact the press. Citing many reasons, Wired's Chris Anderson and Lifehaker's Gina Trapani (creator of the official PR Spammers Wiki) gave before they outed bad PR professionals via their e-mail addresses, Rubel takes it a step further pointing out journalists and bloggers enjoy the thrill of the chase and self-discovery when it comes to finding news or information about a company, product or service and asks does it make PR professionals obsolete? Rubel points out that if we don't adapt, we may be.

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more.

This conversation though got me thinking about the nature of media relations had how the last nine months indicates a shift (if not a departure) from the traditional outreach plans and the overall state of public relations. Some observations:

1. Journalists and high-authority bloggers' inboxes are out of control. It used to be "No follow-up calls." Now it's turned into do not e-mail. The worst part of this is that the bad PR apples are spoiling the bunch. If you take the time to craft a perfectly relevant pitch only to have it never to be seen by a journalist you know would be interested because of all the "off-topic pitches" in their inbox - that's annoying. The fact there's really no way to follow-up except to call or send a follow-up e-mail is equally annoying. No one's happy here (especially if you are representing a new client and they are just trying to make introductions and send contact info so a journalist knows how to reach you or your client directly - it is about building relationships).

2. PR people (and clients) are reluctant to change old habits. Yes, let's admit this. I do see progress being made. People are using twitter to announce press releases just posted to a client's blog and in their online newsrooms. Some journalists are beginning to use Peter Shankman's HelpAReporterOut.com (HARO) and of course there is always ProfNet for inquiries. But echoing Steve Rubel's observation about self discovery, PR professionals need to take a strong look at how we are advising clients to disseminate information. I don't believe the press release (in any form) is dead, but working at an integrated agency has taught me to consider other options. Blogging, interactive tools and even guerrilla marketing and WOM tactics are increasingly discussed when developing strategic communication plans and outreach strategies. The challenge then becomes how do we attract media and key stakeholders to experience and learn our client's business? It's about staying above or out of the noise (the creation of good, relevant content).

3. Corporate communications is having an identity crisis. How does this fit in? In my experience, agencies are rarely reporting to or working with in-house corporate communicators. This means there is a great deal of time in agencies spent trying to understand the goals of the client who may be unable or unwilling to listen to alternative methods for reaching the press. In recent years, several high-profile and Fortune 100 companies have completely restructured or done some very strange things to their corporate communications divisions. Last December, Chrysler fired the head of PR and reassigned their corporate communications division to report to their human resources department. At some companies, corporate communications is solely devoted to internal and employee communications with heavy emphasis on analyst and financial relations, while all "external press relations and communications" are left to agencies or the CMO. What has happened to corporate communications in corporate America? Do CCO's or Directors of Communications still have seats at the executive table? Or have agencies become the substitute for strong public relations initiatives outside of the marketing division?

4. The agency structure makes it hard "to get it right" every time. This is the hardest one of all. Many of the comments posted in response to Chris Anderson's blog post and open letters from PR people to Gina Trapani following the creation of the PR Spammers Wiki indicate that some of the e-mail addresses listed were young PR professionals (AAEs or ACs) who did take the time to try to learn as much as possible about the editor or blogger before pitching what they thought was relevant information. The reality of it is that very few agencies (boutique or large PR houses) take the time or have the time to review the media lists created by less experienced employees. There seems to be a perpetual "passing of the buck" on media list oversight and accountability by account directors, account supervisors and even yes, vice presidents.

The current system is an imperfect system. Mistakes are made. Repeat offenders should be outed and punished on a wiki or blog. BUT there should be room for error and more importantly redemption. One bad pitch SHOULD NOT end a PR person's career unless it is libelous or breaks other laws (dissemination of trade secrets, etc.). Keep in mind that media relations is a two-way street. PR professionals deserve one warning about potential spamming before being listed on PR blacklists. Anything less than a warning and condemning the whole profession (read: "I've had it with PR people") means that we need better rules of engagement - not diatribes (yes, like this one) that bemoans the current state of the industry.

Agencies information and quality assurance issues aside for a moment, we now live in age where virtual contact is a substitute for handshake, where vcards replace business cards, and even if a journalist is my "friend," I still must respect the rules and hopefully recognize that I should not be pitching them on Facebook (unless they say its OK), the same way I would not want to receive questions about a client on my wall (that's not OK, by the way. E-mail me).

My thoughts on what we can do to fix the pitching system later...what are your thoughts on the current state of media relations?