Be Smart About E-Mailing Press Releases (Online Media Outreach, Part 9)

Reality check: Although webfeeds will probably become the best way to distribute press releases, right now most journalists don’t yet know what webfeeds are or how to use them. I believe this will change in the next year or two, which is why I recommend launching press release feeds now.

Of course, it’s important to work with today’s reality as well as tomorrow’s direction. Therefore, you should distribute press releases by an opt-in e-mail list. Journalists like options, and right now e-mail is a popular preference – despite its considerable drawbacks.

Many organizations already distribute releases by e-mail – but fundamental errors abound. If you’re going to offer an e-mail list for press releases, it’s important to be smart about it…

ALWAYS GET PERMISSION

Everybody hates spam, including journalists. If your organization offers an e-mail list for press releases, DO NOT add any journalist’s e-mail address to your list without getting permission directly from that journalist.

If you have an existing list of press e-mail addresses, it’s appropriate to send out a one-time invitation to your press release list. Realize that this is basically an unsolicited e-mail that may be perceived as spam by some recipients, so expect some negative reations.

More importantly, however tempting it may be, do not pester nonrespondents after that initial invitation. Reporters who choose not to join your e-mail list at this time would probably just ignore subsequent messages. Even worse, they may resent you for bugging them. That’s not the kind of relationship you want to foster with the press.

By requiring that journalists take some simple action (such as click a link, complete a short form, or reply to an e-mail) in order to add themselves to your list, you’ll build a very valuable resource: an opt-in list. In general, opt-in lists have fewer bad addresses and enjoy greater readership and response. Opt-in lists demonstrate a clear respect for the audience’s time and attention. This makes an especially good impression on journalists, who are always pressed for time and suffering from information overload.

Don’t worry about the size of your e-mail list. It’s more important to have 50 journalists on the list who have requested your releases than 500 who didn’t and will therefore ignore your messages or dislike you for bombarding them. Your e-mail list is a relationship-building tool, not a shotgun.

RESPECT REPORTERS’ PRIVACY

Journalists are a fairly privacy-conscious group. They generally don’t want their e-mail addresses distributed indiscriminately. Therefore, it’s important to guarantee that you will not share your e-mail list with any third parties or use it to create additional e-mail lists within your organization.

Also, do not require journalists to submit more information than you absolutely need to establish an e-mail subscription. If possible, ask only for an e-mail address. (Your list software should use a confirmation process to validate the address.) If you request a name, organization, phone number, or other information, make those requests optional.

DON’T BE AN E-MAIL PEST

Some organizations have a lot of news to share. Often, larger organizations publish several press releases daily. However, journalists have a notoriously fickle and finite attention span. Therefore, it’s best to avoid sending more than one e-mail message a day to journalists. Combine all of the day’s releases into a single digest-style e-mail message.

When combining two or more releases into a single e-mail message, it’s best not to jam the full text of both releases into the e-mail unless they are both VERY short. A better approach is to include a brief (2-3 sentence) summary that explains the “so what” of each release clearly, followed by a direct link to the full text on your web site.

NO ATTACHMENTS – EVER

I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating: When distributing press releases by e-mail, the messages should be plain text or HTML only. Do not attach any files, whether pdf, word processing, spreadsheets, whatever.

Here’s why:

Viruses: Many people are justifiably concerned about viruses and will not open any unsolicited attachments, even those sent by a known party.
Firewalls: Many e-mail systems work with firewalls that severely limit the ability of attachments to pass through, so your message may arrive with no attachment.
Bandwidth: You’d be surprised how many journalists are still limping along on slow dialup internet connections. Attachments always consume more bandwidth, and thus take much longer to download.
Luddites: In general, journalists are not very technically sophisticated people. Many of them wouldn’t understand what to do with an attachment.

OFFER APPROPRIATE OPTIONS

If you have the resources to offer more than one e-mail list, it’s nice to give journalists the option of receiving either plain text or HTML e-mail. The contents and timing of both lists should be identical, only the layout will differ.

If resources are limited, stick to plain-text e-mail. This is because many journalists use old computers with old software that either choke on or get weird about displaying HTML e-mail. If you really want to control the display of your messages, a clear text-only format is your best bet.

If your organization is very large and diverse, attracting journalists from several different beats, you may wish to offer separate press release lists (and webfeeds) divided by topic. For instance: investor news, R&D, Asian markets, environment, etc.

ALWAYS SEND RELEASES FROM THE SAME ADDRESS

Designate in your e-mail system a special address for posting press releases to your e-mail list, and never use another address for that purpose.

The reason for this is that many journalists rely on primitive “whitelisting” functions for spam filtering. To make sure they get your messages, they should only have to whitelist your list address one time. If you change your “from” address, the percentage of your releases that get nabbed by spam filters will rise sharply.

EXPECT THAT MOST OF YOUR MESSAGES ARE FOR NAUGHT

As a communication medium, e-mail has a lot of flaws.

The plague of spam is having disastrous effects on legitimate e-mail distribution lists. Most people – especially journalists – receive such a high volume of spam that they routinely overlook, delete, or filter out many legitimate messages, including mail from opt-in lists.

Because of this, don’t be disappointed if you get little or no direct response to your e-mail press releases. It’s important to offer this service because it works well much of the time for a decent percentage of journalists, and because many journalists want to get releases by e-mail even though they may only glance at a small number of actual messages sent.

You aren’t offering this service for the direct response. The main rationale is the indirect relationship-building and awareness benefits. Every time reporters receive an e-mail press release from your company, they’re reminded that you exist, that you have something to say, and that you’re open to communication. Even a one-way e-mail list implies the potential for two-way communication. Don’t underestimate that benefit.

NEXT: Use good mailing list software

PREVIOUS: Publish your news by webfeed

INDEX to this series

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

5 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Obviously, this discussion deserves its own place in CONTENTIOUS, not tacked into this comment thread. I’ve reposted the comments so far in this new article, and added some more thoughts. If you want to continue the webfeed debate, please feel free to do so in the comments to that article not this one.

Please post a comment here only if it pertains to the article on this page, about e-mailing press releases. Thanks!

[Reply]

1. Amy Gahran on December 3rd, 2004 at 10:11 am
Though perhaps you are not trying to force anyone to use the term, you continue to promote its use.

But if the term ‘webfeed’ was going to replace ‘RSS’, it would have done so by now. All its continued use does is to muddy the waters.

I think the extraordinary adoption of RSS feeds qua RSS feeds demonstrates that the name is not, in fact, an impediment.

It was bad enough when RSS forked to create two versions. It was bad enough when the differently named Atom came onto the scene. But at least they were distinct; there was something to them.

The term ‘webfeed’ is just marketing, and marketing of the worst sort, as it does not respect the user, it talks down to them.

I have introduced RSS to thousands of people over the years. The name has never been a problem. Indeed, it has a history and has a value. It has meaning and a hard-earned respect.

I think we lose that when we try to market RSS as though it were just some Madison Avenue creation. We turn it into, well, pablum. The whole point of RSS is that people are more than just consumers - and when we change the language, we turn our backs on that.

p.s. I’ve never heard of them referred to as ‘PC Cards’ - perhaps it’s a regional thing.

p.p.s. I’m glad you like my website. Thanks. (Oh, and I also wish the processor would leave my original : ) intact - I think people can understand that, too)

[Reply]

2. Stephen Downes on December 2nd, 2004 at 7:19 pm
Amy did everyone a big service by recognizing that the term “RSS” wasn’t “consumer friendly” and taking the lead in coming up with a better term. In addition, as other formats come along, such as Atom, it’ll be important to have a term that encompases all feeds from Web sites.

It frequently turns out that the adoption of a name such as “webfeed” corresponds to greater adoption. I’m glad we now call PCMCIA cards “PC Cards.” And, in 1980 no one knew what an IBM 5150 was — but everyone knows what an IBM Personal Computer is.

Cliff

[Reply]

3. Cliff Allen on December 2nd, 2004 at 1:52 am
LOL, thanks Stephen. It’s funny how this simple issue of terminology manages to strike a major nerve every now and then.

I’m not trying to force anyone to adopt the term “webfeed.” I just held a contest to offer another option. I fully admit it’s not a perfect solution. No argument there.

If you or anyone doesn’t like it, then don’t use it. All I know is that yet-another-geeky-acronym like “RSS” is an obstacle to an awful lot of nontechnical people who otherwise would probably enjoy this new medium and reap considerable benefits from it.

But if you don’t like it, no biggie. I still like your blog, Stephen.

- Amy Gahran

[Reply]

4. Amy Gahran on December 1st, 2004 at 8:57 pm
They are not webfeeds. They are not webfeeds.

It bugs me every time I hear the word. But they are not webfeeds. They are RSS feeds.

You say ‘RSS’ is tough for people to learn. Really? The same people who managed just fine with ‘aplitude modulation’ (AM) and frequency modulation (FM)? The people who are fine with RADAR and LASER? The people who can handle ‘HTML file’ or ‘JPEG image’?

You say they are webfeeds. But many - nay, most - RSS feeds are not even read on the web. They are distributed through ‘RSS readers’ - a client that does not need to touch the web at all. Calling them webfeeds misrepresents what they are and how they’re viewed.

You don’t want to confuse people? What about all those people out there who have finally caught on to the concept of RSS feeds - now you’re going to change the name?

Oh, I know, you want to promote a word. But I can’t support it, and every time I see it I want to be increasingly vocal about it.

p.s. agree with the comments about emailing press releases.

[Reply]

5. Stephen Downes on December 1st, 2004 at 8:30 pm