One of the interesting changes online is that we now have at our disposal, powerful technology for communicating with each other and with groups.
The corollary is that people’s expectations have grown in line with these advances.
People expect companies to communicate with them based on their preferences. They want plain text e-mail, they only want information on product X, they prefer RSS feeds… whatever.
The simple fact is that if your organization isn’t properly managing your databases then you could have some very upset consumers on your hands.
Media relations is facing a similar challenge. Journalists know that MediaMap and Vocus hold vast volumes of information on journalists, analysts and bloggers. But they also have expectations that PR people will use the technology at their disposal to fine tune a pitch.
The simple fact is that a lot of information in online media databases is out of date – regardless of the sales pitch. So it’s important you only use the databases as a reference point. Before putting your finger on the “send e-mail” icon, make sure you’ve done your due diligence. The risk is you’ll look ridiculous.
Steve Rubel points to a great example of this. Jeremy Wagstaff recounts a media database-driven pitch that was a little wide of the mark:
“Bottom line: I don’t mind being pitched. And I don’t mind it that much if the product is actually either too old to really get excited about, or too far away from the stores to burden readers with it. But couldn’t these media research databases, and the people who use them, do a bit of basic research (it’s called ‘Googling’) before they fire off their pitches? We bloggers, just like journalists, are a sensitive lot and hate to feel we’re being taken for a ride by folk who haven’t done their homework first. Otherwise it looks dangerously like spam.”
Postscript:
This is another illustration (if it were needed) of the perils of pitching bloggers…. You may end up reading your pitch online…
Murphy's Law 