When Doing PR For Anti-Spam Firm... Don't Spam 116
netbuzz writes "Rule #1 when doing PR for an antispam vendor: Don't spam. 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. He also violated Rules #2 and #3." Given the hundreds of press releases I get in my inbox on a weekly basis, PR folks in general need to learn that lesson regardless of their clients.
Funny someone notices this PR (Score:3, Funny)
I just slam-dunk this all into the bit bin and hit empty.
I'm particularly amused by sp4m which includes [%TO_ADDRESS]
Re:Funny someone notices this PR (Score:2)
Obviously, I replaced email and domain links.
Re:Funny someone notices this PR (Score:2)
Perfect Marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll only reach the customers that need your product.
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:5, Funny)
If you are a personal injury lawyer, please drive said car off of a cliff.
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
If you are a personal injury lawyer, please drive said car off of a cliff.
And if so, to balance your karma, have you ever considered donating your personal fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:1)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:5, Informative)
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 their business.
And 11 messages is completely different than sending out 4.8 million ads for V1agrka.
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.
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA: So, PR n00b sent this e-mail to every address he could scrape off their website (whether it was related to anti-spamming or not), then couldn't be bothered to properly personalize the vaguely targeted e-mails.
So, aside from the fact that 116 messages were actually sent out, at least some of the people at NWW received unsolicited and unwanted e-mail (aka spam).
I'm not sure why you're making excuses for teh n00blet PR guy, but your reasoning only stands up if someone hasn't actually RTFA.
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:2)
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]:"
So, PR n00b sent this e-mail to every address he could scrape off
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:1)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Perfect Marketing (Score:1)
The article never mentions if it was an opt-on mailing list. If so, I wouldn't consider it spam.
Hello [RecipientFirstName], (Score:3, Funny)
To be removed from our list, please send your credit card number to [AdminEmail]
Rocket Science?! Oh, the ironing is delicious...
Re:Hello [RecipientFirstName], (Score:5, Funny)
Got Starch?
Re:Hello [RecipientFirstName], (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hello [RecipientFirstName], (Score:1)
Apparently, it wasn't rocket science either (Score:2)
This isn't exactly brain surgery, yet the fellow at a PR agency called Rocket Science managed to violate Rule #1
If it had been rocket science, they may have gotten it right.
Who needs fiction? (Score:3, Funny)
Screw ups (Score:5, Informative)
By the looks of things, only 116 actual mails were sent. In fact... the whole thing is actually just a big chain of fuckups.
When will someone step up and be the hero in this story?
Re:Screw ups (Score:1, Insightful)
5. linvir got on
Re:Screw ups (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously.
Try and tell me with a straight face that you don't want to do him RIGHT NOW.
Astroturfing, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Astroturfing, too (Score:2)
So if the submitter is clearly identified with Networkworld, how is it astroturfing?. Looks to me like he submitted his own article that we might find interesting.
I don't see what the problem is. Especially considering there aren't any ads on the site.
Re:Astroturfing, too (Score:3)
Yes, its the same guy:
Its also definitely astroturfing, because he admits he wasn't spammed, and that what really pissed him off was that he wasn't included ...
I think his theory goes somet
Network World, ahh that brings back memories... (Score:2)
Re:Screw ups (Score:2)
It's kind of creepy to talk about yourself in the third person, you know?
But anyway, most reasonable people can tell the difference between some rude screw-up sending an email to a few dozen people too many, and someone using (or paying someone to use) dedicated mass-mail software to send millions upon millions of emails with forged headers through botnets.
You were well aware of these connotations attached to the word 'spam'. This was all about point three on your list.
Re:Screw ups (Score:5, Interesting)
If the guy was some "nobody editor" then why was his email on the list in the first place?
Pls read TFA - the "nobody editor" was bitching because his name WASN'T on the list of people it was emailed to.
So he's bitching because ... wait for it ... he wasn't spammed!
This has got to be the WTF for the day!
Re:Screw ups (Score:2)
Re:Screw ups (Score:2)
If you had RTFA, you'd have known that the sender didn't use a BCC - he goofed.
Re:Screw ups (Score:1)
I have received spams in the past that had dozens of recipients in To: and Cc:, but my address wasn't there. I think the explanation is that the address list is split between To:, Cc: and Bcc: fields.
Re:Screw ups (Score:2)
I don't see any definite word that Bcc: wasn't used all all or that the story author didn't receive the spam.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article and do some basic math.
Its all in the article, Watson :-)
Re:Screw ups (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. It appears that *at least* 116 people were sent the email, quite possibly more since the journalist's name wasn't one of those 116 people.
The most widely accepted definition of spam is "Unsolicited Bulk Email". I'm not sure that this particular email is really unsolicited since it appears to have been sent to a reporter in an area closely related to the subject matter of the PR. Bulk, however, has to be defined as anything over 1. I
It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It wan't a failure. Remember - "The only thinkg worse than bad publicity is NO publicity."
Look at it this way - with 116 emails, the guy has gotten his story onto slashdot as a front-page article. So, who are the 116 people I have to email to get the same treatment?
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
This is just like stealing a penny is wrong and still stealing
Actually, stealing an ordinary penny is NOT de facto illegal, under the principle of "de minimus non curat lex" - the law doesn't concern itself with trifles http://www.answers.com/topic/de-minimis-non-curat - lex [answers.com]
So, since the law chooses to ignore it, it may be argued that, by society's standards, it isn't "wrong", just a nuisance.
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
Actually, stealing an ordinary penny is NOT de facto illegal
He said it was wrong, not illegal.
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
And I pointed out that our society doesn't impose sanctions on such activities, so they may be nuisances, but society doesn't judge it as "wrong" - society, by the principle of non minimus lex, refuses to come to any sort of conclusion as to the "wrongness" of it.
There are some things that are so trifling that they carry no "wrongness" with them. Just as not saying the truth when asked "does this dress make me look fat" isn't wrong, even though its a lie.
Then there are the cases that are far from trif
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
It's traditional that you can't sue for piddly amounts, but if you can convince the judge it's worth the states money, you can. Civil cases are often brought over relatively tiny amounts of money, and property with little intrinsic value.
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
A penny from each account adds up to thousands of dollars - not the same thing. Apples and oranges ...
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
Wow, you are pretty dense if you think legality equates directly to morality.
If you took the trouble to read the rest of the comments I've posted in this thread, it should be obvious that I make no such claim - quite the contrary.
The whole idea behind "non minimux lex" is that there are some claims that are too petty to bother with, and that it would actually be morally wrong to pursue them with the "full weight of the law", due to the disproportion between the offense and the burden imposed on every
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
ummm ... illegal comes before criminal, not after.
For example, its illegal to park in a no parking zone, but its not criminal behaviour. You're not a "convicted felon" for doing so.
Also, I'm sure you can think of a few sitations where being rude is the morally right thing to do. For example, if some jerk is hitting on your significant other, and refuses to take "sorry, but I'm with someone already" as an answer.
Wrongness is a moral judgment. As such, it can only be made by looking at all the particip
Re:It wasn't a screwup - quite the contrary ... (Score:2)
For instance, I'm quite sure Bernard Shifman [wikipedia.org] didn't get that much benefit out of all that publicity.
Re:Screw ups (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam (or UCE/UBE--Unsolicited Commercial/Bulk Email) is typically defined as email which is unsolicited in nature. From what you said it sounds as though RS harvested all of the addresses "they could find". It certainly doesn't sound as though they
Re:Screw ups (Score:1)
Re:Screw ups (Score:2)
6 PROFIT
(someone had to do it)
New ad campaign: (Score:1)
You must not be using our products!
Not Really Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not nearly as bad as the heading and write-up sound. Far from normal connotations of spamming, this falls more under the category of "stupid".
Second Rule? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't see how that would work considering they need to advertise an anti-spam product.
Re:Second Rule? (Score:2)
Rule #3: See Rule #2
Its just like with those annoying Net Send's.. (Score:1)
Is that spam? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which inbox... your personal or your business one? Your personal one shouldn't get any PR material. But your business one... well, that's just how the world works. Businesses will get mail targeted for what they are doing. That at least is relevant. I have a tad bit more patience for relevant advertising mail than for "be$t CIA1is softabs!" and Rolex replicas.
Press Releases aren't, they're just tedious. And everyone writes them. Even OSDN and OSTG [google.com]. And considering you are a news source, consider it a blessing that you get press releases; it confirms your relevance. Plus, every once in a while, you'll find one that's actually interesting.
Re:Is that spam? (Score:2)
In business your inbox is worth money. I've more than once reported people for 'targetting' me because of my email address and satisfyingly had the emails of some of the more obnoxious company email accounts shut down
If I want the hear about a product I'll go on google and look for it. I don't want crap being thrown at my inbox - and that goes *double* for my work inbox.
*hangs head* (Score:5, Interesting)
now, in the case of this particular story -- the pr person who prepared this is just, i believe, a moron. the other thing we were taught in pr is that every news organization has something akin to a "wall of shame." these are places where stupid/poorly written/misdirected/etc. releases get posted for all (in the newsroom) to laugh at. this fact is always a motivator for a pr person to get it right (at least one who wants to do a good job).
included with this is the knowledge that just about every journalst/editor you come across will, of course, have a superior attitude (which i always found funny - because without pr people, journalists would either not get a story or have to do a significant amount of leg work to get it, and well, journalists, also, by and large, are lazy.)
so, with all that in mind, every release has a lot riding on it, and an effective pr person knows this and just doesn't do a half-assed cluster-fuck of a job in writing or distributing releases. pr people are targets. easy targets. highly mis-understood targets, and therefor its up to the pr people to make damn sure they don't make it any easier.
Re:*hangs head* (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure your high-school, grammar, teacher is also, hanging her head...
Re:*hangs head* (Score:1)
That is exactly what schools teach, but it's no more true than what the journalists are taught (that all PR people are parasitic shills who are looking to take advanta
Incompetent, but not spam (Score:1)
It's not appropriate to call sending a press release to a news site "spam", because it is *not* unsolicited. Every news site/paper has a submission policy for submitting PR, and actively encourages all relevant industry players to send press releases.
The incompetent individual who sent the PR did not pay attention to the press release submission policy, and he didn't know how to properly address e-mail or stroke journalist egos. However, he was sending a *solicited* e-mail to apropriate individuals. And, as
Re:*hangs head* (Score:2)
Oh, dear God, where do I begin? You've never worked on the other side of the fence, have you pal? If you knew anything about the news biz, you wouldn't be calling journalists lazy. Most of the people I've known in that line of work -- and I've met a few -- are determined and driven individuals. You almost have to be; freelance jou
Snore... (Score:1)
"Rule #3 when doing PR for an antispam vendor: Don't dis the news editor who writes a blog."And that is where I stopped careing. IT'S A BLOG, people. Less important than the opinion page of a newspaper...
Re:Snore... (Score:3)
Re:Snore... (Score:2)
Sorry, spam is not about numbers. He's a spammer. He should throw himself off a cliff before someone does it for him.
Re:Snore... (Score:1)
Bullshit. Someone made a human error. By the way, with out the "Marketing guys", many of the pundits here at Slashdot would be posting their little gems of wisdom from the public libaray instead of from their employer's network.
Rocket Science?! (Score:1)
spam and no spam (Score:1, Funny)
Keep the Rocket Science jokes coming (Score:3, Funny)
"Geez, how could this guy fuck up a PR email? It isn't Rocket Science."
Maybe we can get to 50 by lunch.
Don't spam (Score:1, Redundant)
April Fools! (Score:2)
See? That's got to be a fake! C'mon people, wake up!
The biggest irony of this entire story is... (Score:1)
Notice the odd resemblence between the submitter's URL and the linked story.
Submission is Spam (Score:2)
Phishy.
Hey, it's all about the way you do it. (Score:2)
It is akin to a protection money deal, but hey, that's free enterprise!
Looks like it has worked! (Score:1)
Patience grasshopper (Score:1)
There is no honor in poking the anti-spam hornet nest with a stick.
And you shirley will be stung.
Re:Patience grasshopper (Score:1)
Meh. (Score:3, Interesting)
bad PR (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bad PR (Score:3, Funny)
Marketing - the art of persuading as many people as possible to pay way to much for things they don't need! Normally done by a dumbass (in this case for sure) to a thundering herd of dumbass.
By the way Gates is a marketing genius.
Rules #2 and #3 (Score:2)
Give the guy a promotion (Score:1)
2. Get the event posted to
4. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
Attempted humor? (Score:2)
I wonder if the publicist was trying to be funny...
Years ago, before spam filters and very serious spam problems, friends of mine sent emails with subjects like "Make Money Fast" or "hot nekkid chiks". Ho ho ho, how very droll we thought.
Then fairly recently when spam started to show basic programmers errors like "Dear %name_of_recipient" I also got this deliberately typed into emails as yet another sly dig at the morons at the bottom of the programming food chain trying and failing to emit randomised eng
Bricks Through Your Window? (Score:3, Funny)
"netbuzz writes" (Score:2)
Re:"netbuzz writes" (Score:2)
Ever hear of Bigfoot.com? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and the messages come from randomly generated @news.bigfoot.com addresses, so there's no way to block them with my cell service provider (which only blocks specific addresses). Hmm, could t
Re:fr0st pist? - nt - DOTA RULEZ! (Score:3, Funny)