This isn't exactly brain surgery, yet the fellow at a PR agency called Rocket Science managed to violate Rule #1 while attempting to drum up publicity for Singlefin, which provides e-mail, IM and Web filtering services to the likes of Juno and NetZero.
Rather than direct the request to the appropriate individual or individuals here -- oh, say our spam and security beat writers -- the Rocket Science rep lit up the inboxes of 11 different Network World staffers, not to mention at least three individuals who no longer work here.
Now, it's not at all uncommon for PR professionals to spew their pitches at everyone on our masthead -- there are worse sins, although this one is way up there on every journalist's list of complaints. However, this particular agency also violated "Rule #2 when doing PR for an anti-spam vendor: Know how to use e-mail."
PR spam, artfully crafted, can go largely undetected since recipients can be duped into believing that they received the only copy within their organization. In this instance, however, the mass mailing was readily apparent to all because the "To:" field of the e-mail was populated by 116 clearly visible names -- our 11 staffers, the three exes, and 102 other journalists.
And if that wasn't enough to convince every targeted scribe that he or she was getting a less-than-exclusive interview opportunity, there was this personalized method of address:
"Hello [RecipientFirstName]:"
All of which I might have let slide without remark if not for this final indignity: Nowhere among those 11 Network World addressees, three former employees, and 102 other journalists could I find the name that matters most: mine.
"Rule #3 when doing PR for an antispam vendor: Don't dis the news editor who writes a blog."
(Update: A reply from Rocket Science President Mark Addison.)
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Not bad...
Nice rant, solid use of hyperbole and a dash of sensationalism. Also, bravo on your server holding up under a Slashdotting.
Such fond memories
Paul,
As a former member of the high tech PR community, I got a moment of nostalgia from this quick story. I remember the years of trying to come up with creative ways to get scads of editors and reporters interested in terribly mundane stories. I also remember cringing at the tales of one of my hapless cohorts committing some mortal PR sin, much along the lines of the ones you describe. I ended up leaving PR to pursue a more technical, and honestly more fulfilling career path and haven't looked back. That is to say, except with a hint of morbid nostalgia when I see a story like this one. Thanks for the memories.
-G
Your complaint is overblown.
I think Network World's complaint is completely overblown. They guy sent 11 messages to various writers at a publication that is completely on-target.
OK, maybe he could have done some research as to whom at that publication might write about their product, but heck, it's completely related to Network World's business.
And 11 messages is completely different than sending out 4.8 million ads for V1agkra.
FWIW, I read about Singlefin.com some time ago, I signed up (free, forever, up to 10 mailboxes) to test it for clients, (but never did).
One thing interesting: On signing up on their site, I clicked submit for my registration, and almost immediately the phone rang. Allan from Singlefin. I have to say they are right on top of their business, and even though I haven't yet tried it I think it's very nice of them offering free service for a small number of mailboxes. The way it works is you redirect your MX to them, they filter the mail and send it on to your mailserver. Pretty nice. If you have the guts to let someone else be your MX, that is.
Ciscoguy01 said WHAT!?!
I think your comment is underblown.
The reason the guy was on target is thanks to people like him. Even if the spam message was to 110 (not 11) people and not 4.8 million that doesn't change the fact that it's spam.
Truth be told I would much rather anonymously receive an email message that 4.8 billion other people received than to have a message sent to 110 people and have my email address attached.
Read the article, dork.
McNamara specifically pointed out the email addresses were from the magazine masthead. The others were probably all very public addresses as well. You don't publish and email address in a magazine and expect to keep it spam-free, at least not in this century.
*applause*
*applause*
Thanks for the laugh.
So you're complaining because ... YOU weren't spammed?
As you pointed out ...
So basically, you're complaining that you didn't get spammed?
You just KNOW we're going to have fun with this on slashdot
... btw - nice astroturfing
I think pathetic is closer
I think pathetic is closer to it.
But what more did you expect from this place?
Email is going down the hill everywhere
Let's just hope that EmailXT gets adopted...
www.emailxt.com
I doubt it.
I doubt it.