Sorry PR people: you're blocked

I've had it. I get more than 300 emails a day and my problem isn't spam (Cloudmark Desktop solves that nicely), it's PR people. Lazy flacks send press releases to the Editor in Chief of Wired because they can't be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they're pitching. Fact: I am an actual person, not a team assigned to read press releases and distribute them to the right editors and writers (that's editor@wired.com).

So fair warning: I only want two kinds of email: those from people I know, and those from people who have taken the time to find out what I'm interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that (I love those emails; indeed, that's why my email address is public).

Everything else gets banned on first abuse. The following is just the last month's list of people and companies who have been added to my Outlook blocked list. All of them have sent me something inappropriate at some point in the past 30 days. Many of them sent press releases; others just added me to a distribution list without asking. If their address gets harvested by spammers by being published here, so be it--turnabout is fair play.

There is no getting off this list. If you're on it and have something appropriate to say to me, use a different email address.

aaron@sunshinesachs.com
acoffaro@fortythreepr.com
actionengine@techmarket.com
admin@cartipostale.ro
adrian.richardson@ar-edelman.com
agarson@taylorpr.com
aheng@moca-nyc.org
alerts@alerts.shephard.co.uk
alessandra@livingdivani.it
alex@highwatergroup.com
alexanne.brown@edelman.com
amaury.laporte@diplomatie.gouv.fr
announcements@dmi.org
apartmenttherapy@app.topica.com
as@thehalogroup.net
athierer@pff.org
awaitkunas@gmail.com
bbrignac@tunheim.com
becky@mediafirst.net
blogworldexpo@gmail.com
bobkatz@easidemographics.com
bounces@darklight.ie
bozenawilkspr@aol.com
broesler@5wpr.com
brranko@gmail.com
bruce@newnetworks.com
bulletin@safe-democracy.org
burrill_life_sciences_media_group@vnh10.net
business_travel_news@vnh10.net
callcenter_events@tig.cmptechnetwork.com
carol.tong@bitepr.com
ccashin@laforce-stevens.com
cemerson@webershandwick.com
cheryl.taylor@chorion.co.uk
chilife@topica.email-publisher.com
chilife1@topica.email-publisher.com
chris@iwebtrack.com
chris@onnetusa.com
chriskeswani@onnetusa.com
chuck@broadwick.com
clay.agee@intermarkgroup.com
clickabilitycentral@nl.clickability.com
cmarch@shiftcomm.com
cmoreno@5wpr.com
cmsprmv@yahoo.com
connect@mailer.idgconnect.com
contact@freenyc.net
contact@mecfilms.com
contact@thejsf.org
cw@email.computerweekly.com
cynthia@emediadynamics.com
dan@onewordphotography.com
danielaschrier@rationalpr.com
danielle@popculturepr.com
dasrate@5wpr.com
davenetz@wallstcom.com
david.cross@ableton.com
david@banktrack.org
dbakker@kirvindoak.com
dberry@5wpr.com
dealmakermedia@response.whatcounts.com
dehartdottie@aol.com
dhenderson@peterlangone.ccsend.com
dice_newsmail-bounces@virtual-hideout.net
dkadakia@inventures.com
dkogan@rsowens.com
domondond@thirteen.org
drumbeat@comminit.com
ecomxpo@theonlinexpo.com
edison.lee@ogilvypr.com
editor@more.punchstock.com
eflyer@choicecutsonline.com
ekannett@sspr.com
email@dealmakermedia.com
emails@agencyaccess.com
engnews-bounces@rfanews.org
enotes@amnh.org
equalitynews@feitventures.com
erik@erikalmasphotography.com
evan@themarketingdivision.net
events@freenyc.net
events@mail.homeplug.org
events@sensesf.com
facilitator@americaspeaks.org
feedback@t-shirtsearchengine.com
financo@financo.com
fllamas@webershandwick.com
fttf@mww.com
gina.ghensi@analysys.com
guestlist@lushonline.com
hcohm@lgphilips-lcd.com
heather.mumm@fleishman.com
henk@isomedia.com
india-now@ibef.org
info.freespeech@gmail.com
info@artexpo.nu
info@asetek.com
info@cceia.org
info@csi-annual-event.p0.com
info@designboost.se
info@goodforparty.com
info@involver.com
info@policyinnovations.org
info@sustainabletable.org
info@tagonline.org
info@wordaffairs.com
internet@rsf.org
invest-now@ibef.org
is@news.imagesource.com
jamie.adams@ciscopress.com
jasperwireless@techmarket.com
jbrown@stantoncrenshaw.com
jdorfman@vivavi.com
jelena@crosbyvolmer.com
jennifer@credibilitybranding.com
jessica.tuquero@dc-intl.com
jgadley@gmi-mr.com
jill@market2world.com
jm@pmgintl.com
jmclaughlin@sspr.com
jmedrano@execforum.net
jmke.madshrimps@gmail.com
jmke@madshrimps.be
jneu@webershandwick.com
jodie@mpogd.com
john@larkinvolpatt.com
johnswren@aol.com
jonas.thornholm@xcerion.com
jorgen.nordin@end2endmobile.com
jroberts@hwhpr.com
jscoggins@doc.gov
julie@liaisonpr.com
julie@softscribeinc.com
justsystems@techmarket.com
kamika@sutherlandgold.com
katie@contosdunne.com
katie@fortythreepr.com
kcabrera@carabinerpr.com
kell@taylorcurtismedia.com
kelsi@investorscircle.net
kevin.johnson@techimage.com
kevind@text100.com
kfoley@coynepr.com
kim@scottandscottllp.com
klipsch@vnewscenter.com
klister@pr-vantage.com
krisj@geminiinc.com
krista@montageagency.com
kristen@hensonconsulting.com
kristien@prioritypr.net
kristin.coleman@morris-king.com
kszarkowitz@mporia.com
kthomas@thomas-pr.com
kwarman@b2zentertainment.com
kzox@nycap.rr.com
laurelkao@comcast.net
lauren@perkettpr.com
lauren@piercemattie.com
laurie@highwatergroup.com
lcapurro@jmprpublicrelations.com
leighnofi@sironline.com
levi@meiff.com
liaisonpr@liaisonpr.com
license@hypetraxx.com
lighthouse-list@independent.org
list@freepress.net
listmaster@soex.org
lkornblatt@sspr.com
llomasky@webershandwick.com
locone-bounces@dna-nyc.info
louis@future-works.com
lpalmer@comminit.com
lsambells@pressoffice.targetwire.com
maeilnews@mk.co.kr
mail@atoa.ws
mail@billiondollarbabes.com
mail@lensmodern.com
mail@pff.org
mailers@marketingmatters.net
mailman-bounces@box153.bluehost.com
mantos@sspr.com
marc@mail2.zogby.com
marge_casey__associates_rqbsrgb@cmpgnr.com
mark@choicecutsonline.com
marlenecheetahlearning@rogers.com
marquiswhoswho@email.marquiswhoswho.com
matt.otepka@104west.com
mchase@calysto.com
mclean@rodmclean.com
mcraig@ringling.edu
mdepoint@tunheim.com
mediacenter7@rothmedia.org
mediarelationsbounce@amnh.org
megang@mbooth.com
meghan@artfinancepartners.com
melissa.robbins@mtvnmix.com
melissa@pepcom.com
menziesbob@lages.com
mertine@melmpr.ccsend.com
messa@americanarab.com
michaeli@hwhpr.com
mika@platformlondon.org
mktinfo@pmai.org
mkusa@marketing.agefotostock.com
mlevine@lcoonline.com
morgan@allisonpr.com
morgan@gregoryfca.com
msg@msgnyc.com
mwalker@mww.com
news@metku.net
news@platformfestival.com
news@uiuc.edu
news@velocityreviews.com
news@vmagazine.com
news1@eprairie.com
news2@eprairie.com
newsbot@tweaktown.com
newsletter#27963.169@pink.nimbussoftware.com
newsletter@fineartamerica.com
newsletter@glass-inspiration.com
newsletter@worldsecuritynetwork.net
newsletters@chicblvd.com
newsletters@webshots.online.com
newwest@newwest.net
nfabris@corp.abiresearch.com
niewalda@kurzfilmtage.de
nikki@chicblvd.com
noe@future-works.com
no-reply@wetpaintmail.com
offers@mercurynews.com
ollie@commontime.ccsend.com
online_resources@cxolyris.cxomedia.com
paarmstrong@myspace.com
palm_software_newsletters@news.palmnewsletters.com
pam@techmarket.com
pandreu@5wpr.com
pattyb@gruman-nicoll.com
paula@kohnkecomm.com
pedro2nd@hotmail.com
petertulba@spe.sony.com
phil@contosdunne.com
photomonday@peterhollander.com
pih@bankinvest.dk
pine&gilmore@strategichorizons.com
pr@adremsoft.com
pr@elcomsoft.com
pr@mayocommunications.com
pr@welcomm.com
pr@xcerion.com
press@creditcovers.com
press@diacenter.org
press@freepress.net
press@lebook.com
press-bounces@taxjustice-usa.org
proctor@anet.net
promo@email.batteries.com
publications@houlihan-lokey.com
publicity@justrockpr.us
q@varnishfineart.com
qualcomm@qualcomm.com
rachel@inspire-communications.com
raghu.madabushi@opco.com
renata.guazzi@r-w.it
reply@reply.marketingsherpa.com
reply-34374@uptilt.com
resposito@5wpr.com
rexmore@themarketingdivision.net
rferguson@stantoncrenshaw.com
rferguson@thinkequity.com
rhart@nine-patch.com
rich@contosdunne.com
rick@montageagency.com
rippmedia@aol.com
robert.reeve@videojug.com
robertj@gymr.com
roger.howie@zaha-hadid.com
rpopko@webershandwick.com
rscanlan@gmail.com
rstephenson@cleanair-coolplanet.org
rsvp@believingisseeing.tv
rsvp@sonnenschein.com
s.goodrich@niveusmedia.com
salesinfo@diskeeper.com
sarah@caromarketing.com
scfowler@20m.ccsend.com
scleland@precursor.com
scoggin@waggeneredstrom.com
scover@crownpr.net
send78-proxymedia@caedefensefund.org
service@outpost.com
sfedulow@gcigroup.com
shannons@ferencomm.com
shipserv_newsflash@mail.vresp.com
stannenberger@mprm.com
stephanietrussell@gmail.com
steve@madeit.com
support@projectcamelot.org
swood@inxpo.com
syreeta@sparkpr.com
talentinfo@stocklandmartel.com
talia.andrews@fusionpr.com
ten@firstbornmultimedia.com
terrece.walker@mtvnmix.com
tesco.online@agboville.aviso.ci
tgould@shazaaam.com
thamer@delianet.com
thecallcenterschool@tallent.com
thesterlingreport@topica.email-publisher.com
thinking_out_loud@enews.1up.com
thomas.trenker@filmangelsclub.com
tim.billings@morris-king.com
tina@letoile-pr.de
tom.steiner@edelman.com
tomd@stylegroup.com
tribalddb_sydney@tribalddb.rsys1.com
trichardson@mrb-pr.com
tstadnicki@alphamediagroup.com
ttg-news@tweaktown.com
tvnewsday@tvnewsday.com
unitydeals@unityelectronics.com
update@activate.us
virtualworldsforum@dynamail.co.uk
vivek@rapleaf.us
wachovia.economics@wachovia.com
walmart@newsletters.walmart.com
wfeek@comminit.com
yj@onnetusa.com
yyamashita@lippetaylor.com
zingrec@zingmagazine.com

Comments

[Tom Whitwell]

Until you're a journalist or a blogger, you can't imagine how lazy and stupid 90% of PRs are (which still leaves 10% of hard working clever PRs). I run a blog about music gear. Old synths and guitars. I got an email which started "You probably get pitched with products all the time, but based on your stats on Technorati/Alexa and great audience, you seem like a great fit for Old Spice's new spray." He thought (and still thinks) that I'd review an aftershave on a blog about music gear.
If you're a PR who can't see what's wrong with spam, then give up your job.

[Pope Ratzo]

Chris P., you chose an occupation and I understand that you need to make a living. Unfortunately, you picked a job that requires skill in lying and bothering people, and little else.

Maybe if you let your engineers contact Wired instead of "PR Professionals" (this is a contradiction), you might have better luck.

There is a backlash against advertising and public relations coming like you've never seen before. I'm trying to think of a "profession" that contributes less to people's well-being and I just can't come up with one. Even politicians and drug dealers provide some service.

[Bill]

@Andrew Graham:

But here, using an "address (at) domain (dot) com" format would be better, assuming spammers don't collect and reformat those yet.

Actually, they do. And a simple Google search will easily field you many, many results for an address formatted like "user at domain dot com", whereas you cannot search Google for addresses formatted the regular way, like "user@domain.com".

By the way, what's with your web log software requiring an email address?

[Adam]

I think Dan's comment and the replies raise an interesting conundrum.

Taking him at face value, it seems Dan purchased a targeted list of contacts supposedly relevant to his industry, which I gather isn't an uncommon practice. I assume such a lists would consist of to people who are very specifically interested in his business (such B2B lists have been around long before email).

Since those emails are supposed to be very specific "leads" for interested clients, I imagine they're not cheap -- and I'd bet Dan has as little interest in paying for Chris' email as Chris has receiving it, since Chris isn't, in fact, remotely interested in Dan's business.

Here's the specific problem I see:

1. This setup sounds like an Akerlof used-car market to me -- there's an incentive to compile B2B lists that, even if largely as-advertised, include useless or at least only tangentially-relevant addresses like Chris'. (Since each address is theoretically worth a premium price.)

2. In other words, there's an information asymmetry -- there's really no reliable way for small business owners like Dan to verify every single contact on such a list beforehand, particularly if at least some of the contacts are appropriate, and it's even less likely he'd be able to hold anyone to account for inaccurate info.

3. Chris' position is also problematic -- not only is it a waste of time for him to respond in this case, unsubscribing isn't exactly a good policy either -- and even if Chris has good spam protection and can reliably unsubscribe, Dan can't expect that everyone on his list can do the same. The low per-message cost and the problems with unsubscribes distinguish this situation from that faced by "regular" snail-mail lists.

4. All that said, there is a lot of tangible value and merit to good B2B contact lists, both for small business owners and potential clients. Again, the "market for lemons" argument seems to apply here -- an accurate B2B contact list has value, but not if it can't be distinguished from an inaccurate list.

Tough problem. On balance, I'd say that if Dan is being straightforward, the onus of responsibility is on him to verify the information that he purchases, because it seems that it wasn't as accurate or valuable as he claims he was led to believe.

Dan, if you paid a premium for a supposedly accurate list, you should be able to complain to the provider. However, if it was a cheap -- and inaccurate -- list, it seems that you may have gotten what you paid for. Caveat emptor?

(That said, Chris' frustration is understandable and the list did make me giggle a bit, but I'm not convinced that publishing the email addresses in text form is the rational response here...)

[anonymous coward]

Give em hell, Chris. I'm a fellow scribe and believe, me, I feel your pain. Out the lot of them and let's hope some spam bot starts clogging their in boxes for a change

[Chrys]

Chris, while I have respect for the frustration you must feel over receiving hundreds of these emails per day, I also know the other side. When I started my career in PR I was essentially told to do what was asked of me, do it quickly and keep it formal.
It's unfortunate that some of the names you listed are interns and AAE's just starting their careers and following nothing other than the orders of their managers. While there are those of us who understand that it is better to send one personalized, well thought out and researched pitch than it is to blast twenty generic "spam" pitches, there are still clients, agencies and managers out there who haven't grasped that concept yet.
I've built some great relationships with members of the media over the past few years by taking a step back (changing agencies and management) and taking the time to do my background reading and be personable. It bothers me to see all PR people lumped into one category. Yes, there are members of the media I’d be thrilled to never work with again, who have made life miserable, but there are also those who are pleasant and personable, who I’ll call first with an inside scoop or story. It’s time for people in journalism and those in PR to realize neither can do their jobs effectively without the other. Better training of PR people and a little more respect from both sides, certainly wouldn’t hurt!

[francine hardaway]

Look at you PR people fighting back and trying to defend yourselves! The rules of engagement have changed. I owned a PR firm for 15 years and then worked in PR at Intel. Even at Intel we never made "lists." We called the people we knew and offered it to them.

The rules of engagement haven't changed as much as you think. It was always a stupid waste of time to spam writers with random press releases. It's just that no one was discussing it back in the day.

[Adam]

Another note: I was told by a friend working in PR that Wired generally didn't listen to PR pitches at all. He said this with some deference, and I remember being pretty impressed by that at the time. Apparently this was not the case?

On that note, this would have been a great opportunity for Chris to announce that as Wired's Official Policy(TM) rather than putting up all these addresses and making that the story. (Why not just the addresses and the first letter of the domain so they know who they are?)

[Anti-Pope]

Hey Pope,

What do you know about PR? You sound like some poor schmuck who just chimed in and has no idea what you are talking about. Why don’t you start researching what you are talking about instead of leaving more than just “spamming” comments all over the web. And, I’m sure Chris P is aware you were making a contradiction. Any educated person on the subject wouldn’t need to spell it out like you did.

As for your backlash against advertising and PR and the profession contributing less to people’s well being than a politician or drug dealer, you make me laugh. I’m cant think of anyone less important than someone who leaves their ridiculous comments all over blog posts. Come back to the table when you have something relevant. You’re a joke.

[brandon]

Well, this is amusing. It's a great discussion you've started against the spammers vs. the spammed, Chris.

I get the feeling that a lot of these PR people don't really understand the term "spam," so we should explain: unwanted email. That's it. Chris clearly does not want your email, I clearly do not want your email, and the rest of the world clearly does not want your email, but you PR guys just keep sending it. Worse, you admit to buying harvested lists of addresses. You admit to adding people to your lists without permission. You admit to being spammers! But when we call you spammers, you get angry and try to act stupid or innocent or cry "i wuz just doing muh job."

I think every blogger, editor, and grandmother with a block list should publish their list. Let the bots harvest the addresses, and let the PR/spammers buy their own addresses from the bots. Man, that would be funny.

-b

P.S. I have a new super amazing thing coming out that I want to email you about. You're cool with that, right? Cuz I commented on your blog so we're like buds now, yeah? kk, cool.

[Kevin]

I'm amazed that the people who can't find out the right contact person from a web site forget how it used to be done. You pick up a telephone and call. Then you ask who the right person to contact is.

You might even end up on the phone with the right person or someone with influence with the right person.

[Frogmorten]

Adam: no, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I've been on the internet since 1992. I say this not to confer some BS authority-by-age halo upon myself, but to point out that spam has had a very clear definition since around that time, and the B2B lists fit that definition. "B2B lists" are spam, the people who sell them are scum, the people who buy them are idiots.

[Ceronomus]

It seems to me that a great number of people are overlooking something. WIRED Magazine isn't blocking all emails from teh individuals on the list, just Chris. That seems fair. HE isn't stating that these PR firms can't contact WIRED magazine, just that they will no longer be able to bury him under thousands of emails daily.

That seems fair.

As for publishing the email addresses?

It seems that most (with a notable exception above) of these folks either

A) Bought a list - Where do you think these lists you are purchasing really come from?

B) Are just sending out spam-like mails - So them getting spam is certainly quite fair

or

C) Both of the above - Give it to them with both barrels.

Now the case mentioned by Chris P is certainly an unfortunate one, and shows that sometimes wheat can be thrown out with the chafe. Sadly, these days, most emails seem to be chafe.

[Scott]

What will I ever do now?

[Avery]

Some of you really need to check yourselves. Ego is ridiculous on here. It takes a pretty big man/woman to point out others' mistakes and then (cross fingers) you don't ever f up. You get too many emails? You hate ? Here's a tip...go scream at the top of your lungs and then figure out how to get a grip.

Tired head with this subject. It won't go away; we all know it. I'm not going to read someone's comment on here and say "that's it!" We're going to all continue to work with one another. Whether you like it or not. Just check your ego...no matter what you think, you're not that good. Promise. Well, Cheers!

[Rob]

I wonder what percentage are actually using mailing lists and an unsubscribe option - and how many are just crudely sending you junk with a big Bcc: list.

A plea to the writers and users of email clients and subscription software:

Most e-mail systems have a one click 'mark this mail as spam' option. What we need is a no-blame-assigned 'unsubscribe me' button in the mail program. Right next to the spam button.
I don't care whether I purposely signed up to a list, someone scraped my details of a website, or I just forgot to tick the 'don't use my details for marketing purposes' small print. If I don't want mail from you, don't waste your time sending it to me.

The reason I don't unsubscribe is the hassle of having to manually send messages, click acknowledgement mails or updating user profile settings (for a website for which I don't even remember having an account let alone a password...)

Can my email client and your mailing list software just do all this for me. Please.

This applies equally to mailing lists, and people you don't know who just send you crap.

I know this would require some magical standard for unsubscribe messages, which no one who sends me mail seems to follow. I know spammers use fake unsubscribe messages to harvest real addresses. I don't care about spammers. If people still send you stuff after you unsubscribe, blacklist them, they have become spammers.

I'm naïvely optimistic no-one above intends to be an evil spammer. We are all just lazy. Let the computers do the dull unsubscribing work. If unsubscribing was automatic for sender and receiver, the world can be a happy place.

[Patrick Moore]

Chris,

As a web development professional making a living in the PR industry, believe me when I tell you that I understand your predicament. I've seen the five and ten thousand item media lists our firm distributes to on an almost daily basis; add to that the thousands of other PR firms and professionals that also distribute press releases and I cannot even imagine the number of messages you must be barraged with every day. However I will presume that as Editor in Chief you climbed the industry ladder, and as such should know that every other reporter, editor, anchor, publisher, producer, etc. in the field receives just as numerous, just as off-topic releases.

Many of the above commenters are trying to place blame on subscription services like Cision (previously Bacon's), Media Map, etc., claiming that your being on the distribution list is the fault of the provider. Not so. For those who are willing to take a few extra moments to review their contacts individually, they would find that in the notes for Chris Anderson a statement that very clearly dictates your preference to receive postal mail contact only, in addition to a comment including the name/email address where releases should be sent. For the record, the first media distribution list I built was heavily criticized by my firm's president. I asked him, "What does it hurt to send out extra emails? The worst that could happen is it gets picked up by a few additional sources." As is evident by his comments and your blog posting, far worse can be achieved through a large, un-filtered list. To quote Josh from above: Build relationships, not lists.

You mention above in a reply that "most stories we run have the author's email address included." Perhaps so, but in a printed and bound magazine -- a medium that has yet to be scoured by spambots. Your blatant disregard for ethics is astonishing. These people are (I will assume for the sake of argument) not soliciting you daily or hourly for Canadian pharma or the greatest penny stock of the millennium. They've likely sent you one (or to be fair, five ten or even twenty) release(s). Yet in return -- as a direct result of your actions -- these people will be sent hundreds upon thousands of spam messages from a multitude of sources until their mailbox is deleted or their domain name expired.

Indeed, turnabout is fair play, but let's be realistic about the numbers. In my eyes, the "punishment" does not fit the "crime".

[Adam]

"B2B lists" are spam, the people who sell them are scum, the people who buy them are idiots.

I've been around as long as you -- I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt here :)

To put it more directly: in theory, a real "B2B" contact list would be a valuable item, worth paying for -- and in fact should exist. Clearly there's people out there like Dan who would be willing to pay for such a list, were it verifiably legitimate. Such lists do exist in the snail-mail world and I think they serve a legitimate purpose.

What I was trying to (admittedly, obliquely) suggest is that the market dynamics here (if you could call it a market) prevent that. It's really too bad, because in many other respects the Internet is a boon to small businesses.

That is, I think you're right, but that doesn't make it unfortunate.

[Rich Y]

Scrolling through, lots of insightful comments and a few useless ones (read: ratzo...fitting name). Couple additional points to keep it brief:

1. There's ABSOLUTELY zero excuse for sending spam of which Chris bases his argument. There are certainly occasions when reporter's beats change (which is more often these days), or perhaps a section of the pub is no longer (which, again, happens more often these days). But email blasts with little rhyme or reason continues to belittle our profession.

2. That said, we as PR people must do a better job at setting expectations with clients from day 1 through day xx of the campaign. Saw a few comments alluding to the fact that most on this list are junior staffers. OK, so do something about it! You as the "senior" staffer/manager/owner should not only be instructing your employee to create a better more tailored pitch BUT before that process even begins, it's up to you oh senior staffer. Just because your client designs and manufactures leading optical fiber specialty photonics products and mentioned in a kickoff meeting that they would "really like to be in WIRED magazine," doesn't mean you need to agree. This is where it begins and where PR needs to nip that false expectation in the bud. Done successfully, that junior staffer won't find him/herself on Chris' blog because s/he was sweating to get an interview with WIRED, or at the very least, "feedback to share with the client."

Unfortunately, this is hardly the feedback the client wants to hear.

Rich

[Are you nuts?]

I'm a PR professional, so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but I would like to respond, even though I don't see my name on this list and haven't had a story idea for WIRED in quite some time.

Chris, I totally understand your frustration, but publishing a list like this is hurtful to people who bend over backwards, take calls at all hours, and bug the crap out of clients - who often don't get how PR works - to get journalists what they need in time for their deadlines. I don't see a lot of respondents noticing the good things PR people do, like grant access to CEOs, convince requested executives to talk to a reporter (some don't want to), spend endless hours trying to dig up an appropriate customer willing to go on record for a story, or do some of a reporter's research, even when it's not relevant to our client - just because a reporter had questions about something during an interview and didn't know where to find the information, or maybe it's a new beat for them.

Some of the people on this banned list probably didn't think you would consider their email spam. What might be spam one day might not be tomorrow, because, hey, maybe you are just crabby, having a bad day, don't feel like talking to anyone, or just got off the phone with someone else that annoyed you. I always do my best to send the right news to the right media contacts, but must admit that sometimes I'm unsure who would be appropriate at a particular publication. Sometimes there are multiple reporters writing about related topic areas. Sometimes it's a newer market. Instead of sending 5 reporters an email, I might send 1 to the editor or managing editor, who may be aware of what folks are presently working on, and ask them if they can point me in the right direction.

As "shaker" posted, an unintended (or intended) side effect of lists like this and "bad pitch" blogs is that some people lose their jobs. Yes, people with houses and families to support. It's a bummer to lose your job by sending a pitch you didn't write to a reporter you were told to reach out to. Even though you might not deserve to lose your job over this, let's say the client PR manager finds out you are on a "bad list" and asks for you to be taken off the account. I've seen this happen. One let go person went on to become a PR manager at a really big technology company – one that everyone wants to talk to. Guess who doesn't get interviews with this company now?? It's a bummer to be a journalist with that company as the market mover for your beat area, and you are the only one who can't get an interview with the CEO – couldn't get an interview to save your life – all because you got some junior PR guy fired years ago.

Also, for those who don't know, depending on the company, pitches can be agreed upon by the larger team, with input from the client, so by the time they come back to us, sometimes we don't even like them anymore! That doesn't mean we get to change back to the cool pitch we had before. As shaker pointed out, clients or superiors sometimes tell us we must pitch something to a particular reporter, even if we don't think they will be interested in it. This can even happen at the manager level because it's the CEO calling the shots, not PR, and he wants his news covered in XXX publication, even though we know it's a long shot. I see some responses on here by PR people who seem to think they've never pitched boring news. Don't try to pretend like you've never been an offender. If you work in PR, you've done it. We've all been forced to pitch non-interesting news. And if you've been around long enough, you've had clients who don't take your advice, or you've reported in to a CEO or CMO because there was no PR organization. Good clients and bosses will give you the leeway to recommend editorial contacts and outlets for news and let PR manage the pitch writing, but some will really give you a list and make you send a crappy pitch and/or boring news to everyone on it. Sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and do it – and hope you don't end up on one of these lists.

[Mike Driehorst]

Overall, a very good post, AND lesson, Chris.

First, no system is perfect. I'm sure some on your list are unjustifiably there; but most on your banned list deserve to be there, I'm sure. So, a few will just have to call you. (A novel idea, I'm sure.)

Secondly, in today's world, all email pitches and distribution of news releases should be targeted. There's enough about me, media DBs and other resources PR people need to use to find out the right contact at each and every media outlet.

And, there is enough software programs that mass-distribute emails but still offer customization options to make each look personalized -- assuming you have the correct media contact (see above paragraph).

So, overall, thanks for the lesson -- one that all in media relations should heed.
-- Mike

Now, someone needs to make a tally of the number of representatives from each agency listed above. THAT would make for a good blog post about the practices of the supposed top-of-the-line, big boys of PR.

[Cortland Coleman]

An errant press release a couple times a year? OK. Calling the wrong editor once? It happens. Pitching a writer who may be not the perfect niche for the client? Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

But 329 individuals sending, essentially, spam press releases in 30 days? Come on, people. Your media list is your most important tool. Take the time to develop and nurture it, allowing it to grow ORGANICALLY. It will pay huge dividends.

I'm not surprised to see small business owners buying lists of what they believe to be legitimate contacts. But to see some of the top PR firms (Edelman, Weber Shandwick, Fleishman-Hillard) on this list is disappointing and reflects poorly on all PR pros. So to the big boys: don't be evil, mmmkay?

[Gordon Shroopdire]

Pardon me in all of this fighting... But... Would any of you be interested in buying some original snake oil?

[Mongo Nicholl]

And this is bad why?

Certainly, I am on the wrong side of the issue here, and I should be more sympathetic to the people who's email addresses got published, yet even after reading the above relies and responses, I am unclear as to why?

Oh lord, I have spammed people in my life. Anyone who has any lengthy relationship with the development of the medium of email (teh internet?) has, I'd venture.

And it was wrong, and I have changed my evil ways. But I had to learn the hard way. This is what is being done here. Simple lesson without any real harsh repercussion — just inconvenience.

Whatmore, imagine how many of the above emailings contained Chris' email address in the main field rather than as a "bcc"! A little tough love that will go a long way, I say.

[PRGossipGirl]

http://www.seriousblogging.com/PR101

[MerrB]

It's one thing for a kid to address a letter to Santa to: Santa Claus - North Pole. But addressing a pitch to WIRED to Chris Anderson, EIC? PR people should know better. Might be well-intentioned, but it's misdirected. Maybe there's an opportunity to pitch Chris for a panel connected with the Long Tail, or a big trend story; but ...more than likely you can tell whom the right beat writer at WIRED is by researching the topic and reading the mag or blog itself. It takes some work, but I've always found the right people eventually.

As for lists -- I've never even seen a list, what are they? People sell lists of journalists' names and PR people buy them? I totally don't get this, especially when it's so easy to click on a link to someone's name in an actual article that *might* have something to do with the topic you wanted to pitch...?

[TerminalDigit]

Nice job Chris. I took a similar approach with people firing away at my GMail account because I have a common name (which is also my username). In my case, it has become so bad that the volume of mail from these people is several times that of the mail I actually want to read (i.e. it's catching up to actual spam levels). It makes me wish the e-mail system was designed based on whitelisting or something. I realize how much trouble this would cause, but I might actually be willing to deal with it.

[Jason]

Why didn't my friends DKNY and The Madma not make the list. Please add them ASAP since they both work at two major PR Firms.
Best,
Jason

[Cody Banks]

Please delete members of the Agency from this list...they include both Agent Pink and Agent Andie in Pink.
Best,
Agent Cody Banks

[Tom Ritchford]

I'm with the editor, against the spammers -- *never send an email to a personal account unless you know it's the right person* (though I think one of these reasonable responses is definitely being outed unjustly).

Dan, you're a lowlife. I get over 300 pieces of Spam a day from people like you. Half of them seem to come with an unsubscribe link and half of those will just sign you up for MORE spam. Thank God for gmail!

You can only do PR on one professional at a time. Frankly, a call or letter is much better.

[Paul A.]

Judge, jury, and executioner?

"There is no getting off this list. If you're on it and have something appropriate to say to me, use a different email address."

Chris, I sympathize with your frustration and nearly applaud your posting.

Nearly.

The problem is the tone.

"There is no getting off this list" ???

As a writer, you know the power of words. As a journalist, you know the important relationship between freedom of speech and accountability.

Putting aside the issue of whether you should be expected to assess the appropriateness of particular individuals on this list (in light of their claims of innocence) -- as a journalist, your accusations should be held to a standard higher than you suggest with "There is no getting off this list".

You (and Wired) are better than this.

[Travis Seitler]

Chris, thanks for doing this--if I ever get hammered with press releases and junk like that, I'm coming here and filtering out your entire list!

[Tim Allik]

Interesting approach, Chris. I don't have any problem with you posting spammers' e-mail addresses here. You are correct that virtually anyone is hitting you directly with a pitch is likely a spammer, and that they should be contacting the editors and reporters on the appropriate beats.

On the other hand ... I'm in PR and used to be in news, so I've been on both ends of the relationship. Reporters are paid to be curious, so whenever I hear a reporter paint a derogatory picture of "flacks" with a broad brush my radar goes up. People who have access to information are an asset, not a liability, to a good reporter.

As long as we're sharing gripes, my beef with some reporters is this: I take the time to follow their coverage, write my pitch in the context of their coverage (and only if I genuinely think it would be a suitable story), ask politely for a response (pursue the story or decline, I don't care), and I get no response at all in return. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Perhaps these reporters are sick of the spammers who appear to ruin it for everyone on both sides of the equation. Or perhaps they are just lazy. Or both.

But typing "no thanks" seems about as easy as pushing the delete button, and a hell of a lot more polite. Because good manners genuinely matter, or at least they should.

[Rich Kulawiec]

Apparently some commenters are having trouble with the definition of "spam". Let me help you out a bit -- as the guy who released what I'm pretty sure was THE first anti-spam program more than 20 years ago. ( See an archive of comp.sources.unix for "Junkmail".)

The correct definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk email". It *deliberately* omits all kinds of qualifications -- such as what the content might be, what the sender's intentions might be, and so on. If it's UBE -- then it's spam. Period. End of argument.

If you're buying a list -- and using it -- then you are spamming, and sooner or later, you should expect to be blacklisted for it. (You're also putting money in the pockets of the scum of the Internet. Thanks a lot for that.) Moreover, you should expect to be *quietly* blacklisted for it, as increased threats from spammers who have had their mail privileges revoked have caused some of blacklists to migrate underground and diversify -- so that getting off them is now much, much harder.

That's a feature.

If you want to send bulk email, then you must make absolutely certain that it's solicited -- and that means using a proper, confirmed (or closed-loop, if you wish) opt-in process such as is described at www.spamhaus.org. Use of anything else (including the fakery known as "double opt-in") doesn't assure that you have permission for bulk email from the only people authorized to give it: the recipients. Use of "opt-out", of course, is a full confession to spamming and leads to instant, permanent blacklisting.

None of this is new. None of this is a secret. If you're in the PR business and you don't already know this, and practice it (including, btw, retaining confirmation for every subscription forever so that you can produce proof-on-demand) then you've got absolutely no business sending any bulk mail: you're not qualified to do so..

I have every confidence that some number of you who've failed to grasp this will proceed anyway and then have the temerity to whine about the consequences. There is still plenty of room left in the blacklists for you.

[pmoshay]

If you're the senior editor why wouldn't you have email forwarded to the appropriate editorial contract? There are only sales contacts listed on Wired. I'd doubt phoning wired would result in anything but being dumped in general voice mailboxes near and far.

[rob]

Getting pitches is part of the job--and many of these pitches are coming from advertisers who pay your salary anyway.

Next up: Angelina Jolie posts pictures and names of every paparazzo who's ever snapped her picture. How tacky would that appear?

[Adam]

"It makes me wish the e-mail system was designed based on whitelisting or something. I realize how much trouble this would cause, but I might actually be willing to deal with it."

"Let me help you out a bit -- as the guy who released what I'm pretty sure was THE first anti-spam program more than 20 years ago."

This is where I usually mention that it's unbelievable that we still use SMTP, endlessly hacking around what's become painfully clear is a design flaw, rather than designing a different, hopefully backwards-compatible protocol. The amount of cruft that's been piled on top of this craptastic standard is utterly mind-boggling.

(Seriously... CRAM-MD5? SPF? Bayesian filters? Tarpitting? The endless RBLs? It's the mother of all kluges.)

Weirder still, this sort of thing strikes me as absolutely counter to the normal disposition of those of us who normally would be expected to solve these things. This problem predates Linux! The open source community built an entire *OS* since then! SFTP replaces FTP, though that's arguably a far less important protocol. New processor? Gimme! New graphics card? Gimme gimme! iPhone! Woo! AJAX! Ruby! We have entire programming languages younger than SMTP.

Yet despite an almost immeasurable amount of anger, vitriol, and frustration, the beast lumbers on year after year, unchanged. HELO? EHLO? Qua?

The number of hours that've been poured into designing filters and maintaining blacklists and so on surely could have yielded something better by now. Sometimes I think about it and it's almost embarrassing.

Anyway.

[A.C.Kelly]

I fully support the move taken here. The 'just unsubscribe' idea is bogus - you have to do the math: if it takes 1 minute per person to read the email (even without un-subscribing) - which it does, relying on rules leads to losing non-spam mail - then the list of 10,000 addresses Dan bought cost society 10,000 minutes, or 150 hours, or, say, $15,000 of waste. Why should we encourage such a-social behavior? I say, let them have a taste of their own medicine.
And that Dan person needs to own up for the damage his behavior is inflicting on unwilling participants, before whining about being outed.

[Eddie]

Bravo, Chris.

I manage the site for a local TV station in a top-ten market, and I get dozens upon dozens of PR spam emails each day. I've been quietly blacklisting them for quite some time, and even Outlook does a good job of killing them before I see them.

Amy, above, said, "I'm also sick of being hung up on when I actually have legitimate news to share." And that, friends, is the root of much of this problem. I know that local news vs. a specialized magazine like Wired is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of what each covers. But I can tell you that almost nothing a PR person is pitching is of any interest to me. Unless you're telling me about the cure for cancer that your employer or client just developed, you DON'T have legitimate news to share. Most of the time, Ms. Amy Edelman-Ketchum-Publicis, you're pitching a product or a service from a company. In the world of local news (where millions of Americans get their news), that's called a COMMERCIAL. We have a whole department made up of people who do a great job of charging companies like yours a lot of money for that sort of thing. They're called SALESPEOPLE. I can give you their number and they'd love to talk to you.

I'm not interested in AT&T's new service, nor Pepsi's new drink, nor any other product you're trying to place. The release of version 1.4.5.2 of your software that nobody uses is not news. Even version 1.4.5.2 of your software that EVERYBODY uses is not news to most journalists.

I used to work in PR, so I know how that business works. Like any other field--journalism included--there are dirtbags who make everyone else in the business look bad. I get that, and I think most journalists do, too. But there are so many people sending email pitches without regard for the recipients that these kinds of blacklists have become a last-ditch defense for many of us.

And that, Amy, is the reason that so many journalists are so hard to reach.

Oh, and next time you ask a question, Amy, use a question mark. Proper punctuation always increases the chance that your unwanted pitch will actually be read.

[Jeremy Pepper]

Okay, I wrote about the issue today on my blog - http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-shame_30.html - and wrote that it's not a surprise, PR is changing, and people (at times) are lazy.

What really surprises me is that people are anonymously posting here, and attacking, with that lack of understanding about IP addresses. How hard is it to figure out what PR firm is saying what here?