Pitchspace’s solution just exacerbates the problem

By Flora Haslam

This week’s Guardian tech podcast – aside from asking whether PR is needed anymore (something which I won’t go into here as it’s fairly obvious which side of the fence I’d sit) – introduces us to an interesting new concept: a matchmaking service that aims to put journalists in touch with stories without having to wade through mountains of irrelevant PR-generated fluff. 

Pitchspace is headed up by James Cox, who I might be inclined to trust a little more if he didn’t sound as though he’s never, ever worked in PR.  You really have to listen to his interview – classic comments include the idea that journalists will write your story if you send them a hamper from Harrods, that to start off in PR you need to invest in a database costing thousands of pounds, and that it’s all about product PR.

I’ve no doubt that journalists are faced with an incredibly irritating barrage of ill-targeted emails every day, only a tiny percentage of which are of any use.  But is a content aggregation service, where PRs post stuff and journalists search/RSS it, really going to make life that much easier?  I’ve also not heard many journalists say that what they’d really like are stories and pitches that have already been provided (in an identical format) to every other hack in Britain. 

Finally, is this really such a radical approach – Sourcewire, anyone? 

Yes, there are a lot of badly written releases and pitches out there, as well as some shamefully bad targeting – but I just can’t see how this system will improve things.  It’s certainly not going to make PRs write better materials and means that those who are new to the field are going to have even less idea about what individual journalists are interested in and care about.  Call me old-fashioned, but whatever happened to reading the publication or site you want to be in to find out who and what’s relevant?

I always thought that if you had a decent story that’s well-targeted and well-presented, then you’re sorted.  But then maybe I’m wrong. 

Quick trip to the Harrods website and rest of the day in the pub for me then...

Comments

[Anon]

I completely agree. This is a man who knows nothing about PR - as evidenced by his suggestions about having to buy huge media databases (which all freelance PRs can afford, naturally) and 'blast out releases', not to mention his belief that 'most PR is around product reviews' - rubbish. And they trust him to 'fix PR'?

Also, as you say, his solution is almost purely based on journalists subscribing to RSS feeds. This doesn't necessarily help for a lot of reasons - some companies may only dabble in an area you're interested in; it also doesn't stop releases being poorly written or build good relationships.

He also says 'people [journalists] don't have time to be on the phone' - but if this is true, surely they don't have time to watch a video embedded in a 'social media release' either?

His own skills at PR (irrespective of his views on 'traditional' PR) are also suspect. He's effectively done his product launch with the Guardian, but doesn't have anything to back it up on his own website.

Lastly, he contradicts himself again by talking about the need for conversations between PRs (or their clients - this isn't entirely clear) and journalists to identify an angle on an item. But surely not all journalists have the time for this? If you're smart enough to tailor your pitch to each journalist you contact and tailor your angle to the section of press you're talking to, you won't need to discuss it - you can simply present it - and without too many tweaks, you're onto a winner.

All that said, James' background is mostly in publishing and systems development (except for a brief stint as a junior editor in the US, which might explain his views on PR) so perhaps we should be a bit forgiving about his views. However, I think he probably should have thought twice before doing a podcast with the Guardian...