The word cloaked means “to cover or conceal.” For those of us who subscribe to reporter/expert lead services ProfNet, HARO, or competitors, we’ve come to know cloaked to mean “I’m a reporter that doesn’t think you’re worthy of knowing who I am until you are been vetted or sniffed at.” These reporter queries look like this:
• Faintly Veiled: A reporter reveals his/her name, but only provides a vague description - not the name - of the media outlet (often times, they are freelance reporters still pitching said story).
• Moderately Veiled: A reporter doesn’t reveal his/her name, or the name of the media outlet, but provides their email address.
• Ludicrously Hidden: A reporter conceals his/her name, along with name of outlet, and has pitches filtered through a blind [ProfNet/HARO/other] email.
Years ago there was a certain cachet associated with anonymous queries, as reporters and producers were often from top-tier (big shot) publications like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or national broadcast outlets like, ah, Nightline. We would send our careful pitches and then anxiously sit in nail-biting hope … waiting to see if we’d piqued the reporter’s interest and get that response we deftly deserved.
In today’s transparent and ever-flattening media landscape, cloaked/anonymous queries are as outdated as faxing the press release! Not only are these secret queries demeaning to PR professionals, but they are also counter intuitive to client initiatives. We take great care to ensure our pitches are on target and are consistent with our own goals. And each time we deliver a valuable solution – whether positive outcome to a client crisis or a reliable source to a reporter on deadline – we elevate ourselves higher on the ladder of invincible credibility.
I recently saw a faintly veiled query that said “This is for a major business Web site; will disclose publication in response to on-target pitches." A search of her name and some keywords revealed in a second that she was a freelancer who had been covering the financial crisis for Portfolio.com (the new one). Not only does this type of query discount our ability to be resourceful (Hello, Google?!), but it is egocentric and self-serving.
While reporters might think cloaked queries shield them from the onslaught of pitches (deal with it) or somehow feel they might get “scooped” by someone competing – as if - they should take into account that PR pros like me will not respond to their anonymous queries. They then miss out on that expert they’re looking for!
Skeptics might proffer that I shrug and pitch my client and then if it’s not right for everyone, simply move on. Logical, but flawed, reasoning.
1. Our time is valuable. Who has the hour to develop an on target pitch for an off-target publication? I have no idea what I’m reaching out to. The time spent writing, sending and waiting could be better spent focusing on reporters, producers, bloggers and the like whom we know matter already. Throwing darts blindly and hoping to hit a target is not a good use of anyone's time, not to mention disappointing (and, again, patronizing).
2. Our clients expect more from us. Strategic decisions require careful thought and execution--period. Our clients trust us to position them and their companies in the right publications to reach an intended audience. You can’t say you’ve been pitching them to a reporter but as it turns out, they would not have been interested in it anyway. The obvious question is, “Didn’t you know before you sent the pitch what it was for?” May I remind you: Results without a purpose just don’t matter!
3. Our credibility hinges on relationships. While that cloaked-and-daggered publication might not be the right fit for the client today, it might be a publication suitable for another customer tomorrow. If I throw the rod into the water and the bait is taken, I can’t throw the fish back in. This wastes my time—wait a minute, it wastes everyone’s time! How will that reporter feel if I find out what she’s all about and then go: “Oh, I’m sorry, he’s, er, unavailable” because I don’t want it anymore? You can bet next time I pitch with another idea, they won’t be too interested in taking the offer.
4. The client’s reputation is at stake. You’ve positioned hun as an expert source and provided salient points of their expertise, so the reporter might disregard the fact that your client is no longer available and call them directly. Yep, that would be bad. Client will be taken off guard, will be unprepared-- and darn unhappy you’ve sent his information to a reporter about a story that doesn’t fit anyone’s model. The trust you worked hard to build has been chipped away because of one blindfolded move you could have avoided by just saying no.
5. Elevated egos have missed the boat. The right comment on the right blog can have a bigger impact on the bottom line than an uninteresting quote in some shrunken newspaper! We no longer need to pander to “cloaked” reporters when our clients are more into the advocates and ambassadors on Twitter and in the mega-important, blogosphere. Reporters who haven't come around to recognizing their non-traditional media brethren - who continue to operate as if the media landscape was still embedded in 2004 - might be looking for a new job any minute now. Their appeal must be all encompassing, not stuck in a suction-less vacuum.
No matter the situation, audience or relationship, trust has to be earned every day. We work to engender it from all our constituents. PR folks who send off-target pitches learn quicker-than-ever when the email stops pinging. So, as more journalists jump into the world of PR and even news organizations along the lines of Dow Jones bring PR into their fold, I can’t help but wonder what it will be like when everyone starts to see the error of their antiquated ways. A turned table is one that goes, “We’re all in this together.” Welcome to the uncloaked world.
By Susan E Jacobsen, Luv2XLPR Chief [@susanejacobsen]
Thanks to RLMpr CEO and 2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade author Richard Laermer for his witty and astute additions to this post.
...BadPitchBlog tweets: @badpitch
Thank you for bringing up the issue of anonymous outlets. I saw a HARO query the other day that my client might have been a great fit for, but the poster did not disclose the outlet and rather than asking for pitches, the posted wanted detailed commentary on 4 different questions. Answering the query would have meant taking up a substantial amount of my time and my client's time for an outlet that may not have been worth the effort. Given the time required to respond to that blind post, I'm guessing many other good sources decided to pass.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all reporters, but let me tell you why I choose to cloak my queries. I used to use my name and publication with every query, but I found myself being flooded not only with answers to my pitch, but I got even more pitches that had nothing to do with my beat.
ReplyDeleteAnd I won't even get into the crazies that would bombard my email box with crazy conspiracy theories and huge useless attachments that crash my email system.
Worse, people would take my name and email and add it to their media contact list (without my permission) and blast me with any and every pitch for clients that had absolutely zero relevance for me. And getting off these irrelevant lists takes time, and some people never remove you despite repeated requests.
I worked on the PR side for 5 years, so I am not unsympathetic to what you guys need to do to satisfy the client. I am one of those reporters who sends the story once it's printed, and I also send emails to the client when I work with a particularly good PR person.
SO for me, it's not ego or inconsideration -- it's survival. And it's too bad that the actions of a few irresponsible people have forced me to change how I do my queries. I hope that helps.
BJW
We're spending our client's money when we prepare and submit pitches ... it'd better be spent on something they'll value or they'll stop coming to us.
ReplyDeleteHere are some ideas to help with your junk mail problems (we all get junk...there are ways to deal.)
* If they really are PR people, they have a valid email address, which gives you and easy way to block them if they send you annoying pitches.
* You can also report them to HARO and they'll be blacklisted.
* Your junk may be coming from spammers searching for email addresses...so mask your address. I don't put my full address on anything that'll appear on the internet ... use shmo at whatever dot com if you have to...that'll avoid spiders searching for addresses to spam.
In other words. We're communicating through technology. Use the technology available to block, filter and deny access to violators.
I asked some ProfNet people why they have cloaking. Answer: "Some journalist don't want other journalists to know what they're covering, writing about, etc."
ReplyDeleteSeriously? What is this, 1996?
Anytime something's cloaked, I pass. These days cloaking basically says, "I think my outlet might make people think twice before pitching [for whatever the reason]." Which is a shame.
And anybody that slaps a name and email on a blast list is a tool - not only for slapping, but also for blasting. "Slap and Blast." Sounds like a war tactic.