Just because someone posts something personal online doesn’t mean it’s OK to use that to manufacture a faux-personal connection in order to persuade them to do you a favor.
Case in point: Yesterday a clueless media relations professional whom I do not know sent me an e-mail with the subject line: “I sent a poem to a wannabee crotchety old bitch.” He was alluding to my recent birthday post, in which I reflected on aging.
The comment this person attempted to append to that post — which I did not approve — was the poem When I am an old woman I shall wear purple. That was in itself a mistake, though not a fatal one. If ever there was an overused, reflexive cliche response to any woman who mentions aging in a positive light, that poem would be it.
So this PR guy e-mailed me to let me know he’d tried to post that comment. Here’s the start of his message, and where he really screwed up…
He wrote:
“Hello Amy. I don’t think I’ll ever get to put the word ‘bitch’ in a corporate email subject line ever again but happy birthday. I hope you like the purple dresses poem that I commented with on your blog. It has stuck fondly in my memory since I was 13 and while I probably won’t wear purple dresses when I’m older, I aspire to that living.
“Anyway, here’s a pitch with some findings further below…”
And he did, indeed, follow that intro with a PR pitch. The real reason he was contacting me was that he wanted me to write up for CNN.com (where I blog about mobile technology) a study that his company recently released.
What can I say, but: Ick! No! Not in a million years!
I bear no personal animosity toward this media relations rep. But his note squicked me so much that I think it’s worth offering as an example for what people should generally not do when reaching out to strangers in order to try to get them to do something for you.
What was wrong with his approach?
- Transparently slimy.I have no problem that he read a post on my personal blog that contained personal information. I wouldn’t have published that post if I hadn’t intended it to be public. However, using my personal disclosures as a basis to try to ingratiate himself, and then launch straight into a PR pitch, lacked finesse and forethought.
- Presumptuous.If he wanted to comment on my personal post — even with that cliche — fine. Other people who I don’t know commented on that birthday post, and I welcomed (and published) those responses. But it was presumptuous for him to assume that leaving a comment on my personal blog post actually created some kind of personal connection between us that might encourage me, more than otherwise, to use his pitch for a CNN.com story.Granted, I have sometimes struck up meaningful personal connections and friendships via blog comments, and sometimes these cross over with professional matters. This is a process that happens organically over time. Trying to engineer that in a single e-mail is a really bad idea.
- Inappropriate/rude. When I saw the word “bitch” in the subject line of an e-mail from a person with a male name whom I don’t know, I nearly deleted it as spam immediately. That’s not the kind of thing a man should ever say to a woman who doesn’t already know him and consider him a friend. Even if she recently used that word in a blog post. And especially if you’re trying to contact her for professional reasons. No matter what you do, that language just won’t look friendly or funny. Gender power dynamics suck, but they do exist. So it’s dumb to act like they don’t, especially when you’re trying to build bridges.
What could he have done instead? If he felt so moved, he could have left his blog comment. Really, that would have been fine. Cliche included.
Then if he wanted to pitch me, he should have sent me a separate e-mail that did not refer to his blog comment, and that did not use language which could easily be mistaken for a gender-based insult. From there, if I recognized his name, I might have noted or asked him about his blog comment. But it was inappropriate for him to draw this connection, since it implied that I should give his pitch special treatment in a professional decision.
There’s a huge fuzzy gray area between the personal and the professional realms, especially online. So I can understand why these missteps happen. Personally I think it’s futile (and fundamentally not credible) to try to separate the personal and professional spheres entirely. It’s better to blend them thoughtfully in a way that suits you. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since I got online way back in the early 90s.
Being ignorant of, or choosing to ignore, the emotionally and socially crucial distinction between personal and professional information (and how they might imply relationships and influence) leads to overstepping that can look invasive or offensive.
In light of this reality, it’s more important than ever for everyone (especially media pros of all kinds) to be aware that there is still a difference between personal and professional, and to use those different kinds of information mindfully in pursuit of your goals.
In my opinion, journalists should be equally mindful of this pitfall when scouring personal posts on blogs or social media in order to find sources to contact, especially regarding breaking news with deeply personal angles like a murder or arrest. If you want to use digital communication tools to build those kind of community connections, do that up front as much as possible.
If a journalist must approach someone they don’t know about a sensitive personal matter in order to cover a story, be very very sensitive to the personal/professional distinction. Don’t use their available personal info to ingratiate yourself by pretending to be their friend, or that you care for personal reasons, and then try to get them to give you the information for your story. That tactic can work, but it’s unethical and slimy. And from a practical standpoint, it can easily backfire in a way that not only thwarts your goals but undermines your personal and professional reputation in a very public, findable way.
I chose not to publish this PR guy’s name or employer because I really don’t want to smear him personally. He made a mistake, and this is a “teachable moment.” We can all move forward from that.

Excellent, thoughtful post, plus I just learned a new word: “squicked.” It’s perfect for the emotion it describes!
Hi Amy,
This post a little harsh. Lack of finesse and poor word choice notwithstanding, he put forward an unusual amount of effort in finding out about you and making a personal connection.
I don’t see what is “fake” about this “friendly”. It’s a little forced and hamfisted, but it is genuine friendliness, isn’t it?
He may have failed but I applaud the effort. I don’t see how his approach is more offensive than a completely cold call, and they often succeed.
There are some good lessons here, and you make some excellent points. But I think this guy is on the right track. He needs a little coaching, but “ick, no, not in a million years” doesn’t seem like a fair response to a well intended effort.
Just my two cents.
Thanks,
Jay
Amy Gahran reply on August 25th, 2011 7:53 am:
Seriously, Jay? I think you’re eating your own dogfood here.
This PR pitch was WAY inappropriate. If you think this pitch was on the “right track,” PR pros following your advice are in for a rude awakening.
Jay Lebo reply on August 25th, 2011 8:08 am:
I’m the one in for a rude awakening. I didn’t think posting my honest comments would make me the target of an ad hominem attack. I engage in discussion with you and you slam my competence (in an area in which I don’t even claim to have any competence, mind).
Talk about way inappropriate.
I don’t offer PR advice to PR pros. I am not a PR pro. I came across your post and commented, that’s all. It isn’t professional advice, just my own comment. I neither sell nor consume dog food, thanks very much.
Using the word “bitch” was way inappropriate. Besides that, I only see a well-intended effort to warm up a cold call. The writer has an opportunity to turn his good intentions into good tactics. That is what I meant by ‘on the right track’.
You say you would have excused his behavior if he had not drawn the connection between comment and email himself. That may be your preference, but I see nothing unethical about what he did. Your drawing of the line at this specific point seems arbitrary to me. How is that a capital crime that earns him such vitriol?
I guess we just have to agree to disagree here. His approach is deserving of criticism and guidance, for sure, but your reaction seems completely overblown to me. Slimy and unethical? Come on. If I’m high on Alpo, then you’re tripping on self righteousness.
Hi Amy – Thank you for this post. Many times when press make public a poor pitch they simply complain and don’t offer constructive criticism. You went the extra step to include how this PR person’s approach could have been improved. As I often run agency trainings on best practices for media relations I’m always looking for fresh examples on how to get it right. I’m going to share your post with my PR team! Thanks, Karyn