Brody PR: millal oma avalike suhete firmat tulekahju tekitada

250px-Scream_at_laptop.jpgTäna sain koos mõnesaja mõjuka blogija, ajakirjaniku ja valdkonnajuhiga Beth Brodylt soovimatu meili ( koos pressiteatega selle kohta, kuidas Jump Start Social Media avaldab uue e-raamatu väikeettevõtete sotsiaalmeedia turundusest.

See ei olnud piisavalt halb, et see oli rämpspost, see andis ka avalikult saajate nimekirja kõigi teiste nime ja e-posti aadressi. Kunagi kuulnud BCC?

Ma ei tunne Bethi ega tea Brody PR, kuid ma annan neile teada, samuti kõikidele väljavaadetele ja klientidele, et nad väärivad tohutut tagasilööki, mida nad praegu saavad. Üks vastus (vastus kõigile) ulatuslikus e-posti lõimes (mis jätkub) on väljapaistva tööstusharu esindaja poolt:

Võta mind e-g-loendist välja, kus ma kunagi ei palunud olla ja kelle tellimusest ei saa loobuda.

Nimekiri inimestest, kellele see läks, on kes on kes mõjutajatest. Kuigi ma olen meelitatud, et ma tegin the,en nimekirja, olen ka vihane, et avalike suhete ettevõte paneks sellise loendi kokku lihtsalt selleks, et meid rämpspostitada. Olen kindel, et sotsiaalse meedia e-raamat Jump Start on üsna hea e-raamat ... aga ma ei hakka seda alla laadima, linkima ega soovitama, sest nende PR-firma rämpspostitas mind.

Suhtekorraldusfirmad peaksid rohkem kui keegi teine ​​selles valdkonnas tunnustama soovimatute meilide mõju ja loapõhise suhtluse olulisust selles rämpsposti maailmas. Mul on saidil kontaktivorm, et inimesed saaksid mulle joone alla tõmmata - see on suurepärane viis PR-ettevõttele minuga ühenduse saamiseks ... või 80 muu sotsiaalse meediumi kaudu, millega ma suhtlen. See oli lihtsalt laisk PR, puhas ja lihtne.

Nüüd on minu e-posti aadress jumal teab-kelle käes, sest üks PR-agentuur unustas kõik reeglid Avalike suhete. Mitterahaliselt olen nüüd avaldanud nende e-posti aadressi, mida kogu maailm saaks näha. Järgmise edutamise korral loobuge Bethilt noodist - olen kindel, et neile meeldib see!

Samuti lisatakse Brody pika nimekirja PR-rämpspostitajad by Gina Trapani. See paneb mind tegelikult mõtlema, kas Brody võib olla CAN-SPAM-i seaduse rikkumise pärast hagiavaldus grupiviisikus, kuna need ei võimaldanud masssuhtlusest loobuda.

Järgmine kord, kui palkate PR-ettevõtte, uurige, kuidas nad turul mõjutajaid leiavad ja kuidas nad neile lähenevad. Kui see on nagu Brody PR, siis ärge palgake neid. Nad ei saa sellest aru. Kui teil on selline firma nagu Brody PR, kes spämmib mõjutajaid, vallandage nad. Nad teevad teie kaubamärgile rohkem kahju kui kasu.

Lisalugemine: Kuidas üks e-kiri PR-firma tappis, Ma oleksin vabandust hinnanud, Avalike suhete läbikukkumine: õppetund ja möll ... olen kindel, et neid on veel ...

UUENDAMINE: 8 Beth Brodylt täna väga tore, paludes snafu pärast vabandust, Bethil on peagi ilmunud artikkel "õppetunnid".

TÄHTIS VÄRSKENDUS: 10 Saatsite teise Brody PR-i märkme, et meil olid meie postituses valed lingid! Vabandame siiralt ja linke on uuendatud.

22 Kommentaarid

  1. 1

    The best part about Brody PR is that when I clicked through to their website, the first thing I saw was their header image which proudly proclaims "An agency with a conscience…"

    If that's not Irony, then I don't know what is.

  2. 2

    Doug – people who do these kinds of things have an unbelievable sense of self importance. Look at her client list; aren't you impressed? Even though you didn't opt-in, what she has to tell you is always so important, so brilliant that she is sure you will appreciate that she graced you with her email presence.

    You social media guys just don't get it when it comes to the truly important.

  3. 3

    Thanks for posting this, Doug. Their is public relations, then there is media relations, and then their SHOULD be social media relations (the umbrella that influencers should fall under). Combining these three into one term is a consistent failure throughout the industry, and proof positive that most firms just don't get it.

  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6

    wow – yes this is a big f-up but unless this is a recurring error on their part you really should give the benefit of the doubt. People have bad days and make mistakes sometimes. What if someone called for your head and took a lynch mob after you every time you made a mistake in the course of a day? This post could have been just as substantive without publicly deriding the agency and publicist in question. Clearly, you must be having a bad day yourself to be this angry and militant.

  7. 7


    I don't agree. And in fact, I think this post was inappropriately harsh. Of COURSE the woman knows BCC. She made a mistake. The CC and BCC line are just millimeters away from each other.

    You admit that you don't know Beth Brody or Brody PR. Would you say the things you said in this post to her face. Would you say to her client in front of her that they should fire her because she made a mistake about not putting people in the BCC line? I don't know you, so I don't know the answer to that question, but I"d be interested to know.

    This is FAR from the worse spam. Don't you get real spam?

    This woman made an honest mistake and the response has been completely inappropriate. Everyone who responded, including the quote you used, KNEW what they were doing. They were the ones spamming everyone else, consciously. And I"m sure this is not the first time that this has happened. I'd like to know your thoughts in an article I wrote about the piece:

    Social media "gurus" and bloggers are egotistical jerks

    Also, if you want a real PR fail story, read this one. It's a two parter where the client comes in with a completely obtuse move at the end.

    Hey PR, bloggers are not tools to be used

    UPDATE: Bad PR experience story. PR firm’s client is obtuse.

    • 8

      Hi dspark,

      1. I didn't initiate this terrible series of events, dspark. I've had to react to it.
      2. This is a PUBLIC RELATIONS firm. This is their JOB and, supposedly, their EXPERTISE. it's like asking if a patient who's leg was accidently amputated shouldn't get upset with the Doctor.
      3. It was unsolicited commercial email with NO opt-out.
      4. They secretly built this list of email addresses without the recipients knowing.

      This wasn't an honest mistake – it had to take months to put this list together and they have their clients PAYING for this service. That's not honest, it's quite the opposite – both evil and deceptive.


      • 9

        It must weigh heavily on you to never have made any mistakes, Douglas. I commend you for that, to be so infallible to not ever make a mistake in PR.

        I'm with David on this. Over the top and unnecessary, but you must have felt the need to go further than other posts.

        • 10


          I never said I didn't make mistakes. When I DID make mistakes, I met with the repercussions. If we didn't have repercussions, we wouldn't know that it was a mistake, would we? I'm in touch with Ms. Brody, have sent her my ebook on Business Blogging, and offered to help her firm with whatever she needed.


    • 12

      I don't know about Doug, but I'd say similar things to Ms. Brody directly if I had the opportunity.

      I think it's actually worse than traditional spam. Public Relations firms are not advertisers. They are supposed to be expert communicators who know what kinds of messages will please audiences and what tactics will anger them. If anyone should know how to make sure a message goes off correctly, it's a PR firm.

      • 13


        I did have the opportunity. Beth Brody contacted me by email and asked my permission to quote my blog in her new blog, Lessons Learned. And I did request a formal apology – and received it. I think Ms. Brody will recover from this… no doubt.


  8. 14

    I used to think that nobody knew what BCC was for. I've changed my mind.I get news and PR releases all day long with (sometimes) HUNDREDS of e-mail addresses in the TO: field (frequently the names and e-mails of every media person in the state of Indiana from radio to TV to print, most of whom I'm sure don't want their e-mail address publicly passed around, not to mention that I believe this violates federal law, doesn't it?).

    I think it is intentional and deliberate in an effort to let the recipients know WHO received the e-mail. First, it raises the sender's self-importance by demonstrating to a sizable audience the alleged scope of their influence. Also by doing this, it puts a little subtle (or maybe NOT so subtle) pressure on the recipient to use the material. After all, if all these great influencers received the material and might be using it, shouldn't I be using it, too?

    And the bottom line is this: she certainly got YOU to talk about it, didn't she? Wonder how many people read your blog and clicked through to the links provided? What's the politician's old saying? "Bad publicity is better than none at all–just spell my name right." You took the bait, hook line and sinker. And in that sense, she did her job REALLY WELL.

  9. 16
  10. 17

    Failing to BCC is a severe ATD lapse, but in PR you have to send out press releases to media contacts en masse – it's the only way you can get it to everybody relevant while it's still newsworthy. I understand your anger at having your email address made public – and you are right to feel this way – but, as a blogger, wouldn't you rather know about news stories when they happen, and are fresh and new, rather than wait to be asked?

    I don't know what it's like in the states, but here in England journalists sign up to media databases specifically so that they can be sent stuff which is relevant to them by people who they otherwise would have no involvement with. What's wrong with that?

  11. 18

    Plus, this could be some young account exec, someone who has just started in PR, and made a mistake. You've totally ruined her. Why would you be so callous? At least her mistake was innocent.

    They needn't have spent months assembling the list – you can go to Media Atlas, Vocus, Cision or any number of other media databases and pull of a list of journalists, bloggers, editors, producers… whatever. I sent a press release to 227 people yesterday, today I've been phoning them all up to see if they want to use it. I've got a load of interviews and coverage for my client out of it. Is that wrong? No. It's just the way things work – they know it, I know it, no one's whinging about it.

    • 19

      PRMira,What they did, and what you are doing, is ILLEGAL in the United States. You must supply an opt-out mechanism, otherwise you are in violation of the CAN-SPAM act. Do you realize that you are putting your company at risk?Stop Spamming people. Put an opt-n on your site and collect email addresses the appropriate way – with peoples' permission.DougSent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      Saatja: IntenseDebate Notifications

  12. 20

    I'm not putting my company at risk, because journalists appreciate being sent information which is relevant to them and up to date. This is how PR works and most people are pretty happy with the set up, the people who receive the press releases included. Sometimes you might send it to someone for whom it's not relevant, then they tell you, you apologise and nobody writes a vicious blog about it.

    Obviously I don't know about the rules in the States, but as Vocus, Cision, etc, operate globally ( I think they may be American companies), I can't imagine it's too different. I really think you're creating a storm in a teacup. It's not like she sent you an email about penis enlargement pills or asking for your bank details – this was a genuine piece of PR, which, admittedly, she somewhat nalllsed up by failing to BCC, but that's the extent of it. There's no need for your overreaction.

  13. 21

    I'm not putting my company at risk, because journalists appreciate being sent information which is relevant to them and up to date. This is how PR works and most people are pretty happy with the set up, the people who receive the press releases included. Sometimes you might send it to someone for whom it's not relevant, then they tell you, you apologise and nobody writes a vicious blog about it.

    • 22


      "This is how PR works" is simply not true. I have relationships with many PR firms and they do not accumulate email addresses of influencers in the market without their permission and then SPAM them. I would highly recommend you rethink your strategies. You may be getting results for your clients, but the POTENTIAL to get better results by building permission-based relationships is much greater.

      I would recommend that you also read the UK laws on SPAM, "Corporations can still be approached 'cold' with email pitches but in these instances emails must have an opt-out clause."


Mis sa arvad?

Sellel saidil kasutatakse rämpsposti vähendamiseks Akismetit. Vaadake, kuidas teie andmeid töödeldakse.