The Industry Standard - A source is a source, of course, even when it's free and turning an industry upside down - Comments

I'm a fairly hardcore

Erik Sherman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:27:06 -0700

I'm a fairly hardcore freelance journalist. I use both services because they can sometimes be helpful. Profnet did clean up its interface, which was good. But otherwise, I've gotten good sources from both and off-topic sources from both. HARO seems to generate a higher number of responses. Both seem to bring in different types of sources - so, for example, if I'm doing something where I'd want to reach larger law firms (beyond the ones already in my contact list), Profnet work better. Sources for my food news and review blog? HARO. Leads when I need to find companies that have experience with particular types of technology? Both can help. And virtually every time I use either one or both, it's a back-up to my own research and source identification. Social media, whether free or paid, can be of use. Dismissing it because "real journalists and PR practitioners don't virtually network" is silly. And making such electronic connections the world of your research is just as silly. That's it - there's no religious overtones and nothing personal.

Yeah, real cowardly.

Jay — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:51:33 -0700

Yeah, real cowardly. Interesting take. David W. posts under his real name in a forum that’s clearly not friendly to his cause, in an attempt to reach out to Peter, and he gets tagged as being a coward. Brilliant.

I’ve worked with David W. for years and have found him to be one of the friendliest people I've ever worked with, in the context of a client/vendor relationship. His company is being called out in this exchange, yet he still manages to offer what I feel is a pretty thoughtful response, only to have it nitpicked. To that point, so ProfNet isn't an industry standard? Then I trust that nobody here has ever used the term "ProfNet" to describe what HARO does? I have no way of saying, but the hypocrites know who they are.

I'm a writer. ProfNet used

Annie — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:53:40 -0700

I'm a writer. ProfNet used to be really useful a few years ago, for when I needed sources and was running out of ideas. It also helped me build my source list; some of my first ProfNet respondents are people I've worked with frequently since then. However, ProfNet has gone downhill. The company introduced a new interface that never worked right. Its database of sources got all screwed up; I remember emailing someone who was completely wrong for the story because her contact information was listed with the wrong experts. Then, there were the completely off-topic pitches. Not kinda-sorta off topic, I'm talking wrong industry, wrong topic, "Gee, I know you are writing about savings account strategies, my client supplies pens to office supply stores that are often purchased by banks, so he might be able to comment!" Uh, yeah.

I've talked to ProfNet people, ProfNet people have talked to writers groups and visited writers message boards, and nothing has changed. As long as they were the only game in town, a lot of people put up with it. I finally wrote them off. I signed up for HARO on Facebook, and so far, it's been great. When I send out queries, almost all of the responses are on topic, and the few that aren't are in the kinda-sorta category.

It should not be a surprise to ProfNet that this is happening. Or did the firm see no need to respond to its users and customers?

I receive both lists and

Allison — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:53:36 -0700

I receive both lists and find queries to respond to on both of them.

However, a client of mine pays for Profnet. If they didn't, I wouldn't have it.

I think the true problem with PR Newswire, and many other services (Bacon's, Vocus, etc.) is that they don't have any good options for freelancers. For instance, the cheapest Vocus will give me is $5,000 a year. I'm a part-time work at home Mom. I can't spend one month's salary on Vocus, or Profnet, or whatever the service might be.

If it's free, it's me.

I tend to agree that HARO,

Su — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:33:51 -0700

I tend to agree that HARO, perhaps more than ProfNet, is an inside peek at how journalism is assembled today - which puts it into the train wreck and VH1 reality TV category (can't...must...watch). As "venting" commented, it's astonishing how many journalists already have crafted a story and are now working backwards to fill its sloppy holes (I need a food expert who'll say organic is bad; I need single men 25-35 to comment on why women who wear pants aren't sexy).

Lucky for PR pros, sloppy journalists rely on PR sources even more than their counterparts, and can be found at all media outlets from occasional bloggers to top national publications, so there's no losers.

Certainly each service has its place and its unique identity. Considering how journalism is devolving, for both to thrive, the onus is on ProfNet to maintain its value to subscribers rather than whine about how HARO has moved their cheese.

I drank the Kool-Aide and

Cheryl Smithem — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:47:16 -0700

I drank the Kool-Aide and signed up early. My clients and colleagues have benefited from HARO. I've had ten really good stories that have come from this for either me, my clients or colleagues. HARO is great and helps us all, journalists, pr pros, and small business owners. The accountability factor keeps everyone on topic and my sense is that journos who use HARO trust the responses. Talking about small media, with the internet, there is NO small media. If it's online it's out there for people who are looking for information on a specific topic. It is direct...not broadcast. That's why the world of marketing and advertising is changing. I'd rather spend my bucks or my client's talking directly to those who care about the product or service, not hoping that they might remember the client's company when they need the advertised service.

C'mon people, it's like the

KC — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:26:21 -0700

C'mon people, it's like the fat rich kid with the pool- of course yer all going to cozy up to him. You get what you pay for- a nice enough service that sometimes has good payoffs - great for inexperienced PR reps and lazy journos

Peter If I wasn't married

Henriette Burbank — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:59:57 -0700

Peter

If I wasn't married with children - I'd be sleeping on your doorstop. You are the BOMB!, the American Way! BRAVO! and you have really made me believe that one person can make a difference - Hooray for u!
I'm your No. 1 Cheerleader! Poo-poo on all the haters out there, they only wish that they would have been the ones to build such an amazing service and community.

I use both services and I

venting — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:43:09 -0700

I use both services and I will say "confidentially" that I get ProfNet for free as a "trial" period that's lasted for three years now. Somewhere along the line they cut off my login facility, but it's not necessary to get the raw queries.

So, here's my one-minute vent: It's a note to journalists who post queries on either service:
Often writers and editors are heard complaining about off-topic replies, or worse, lazy PR people who send you off-topic news releases without any relationship in place. I don't agree with or practice either bad habit.

Some PR people have been "outed," blocked" and publicly shamed for their bad behavior. I know it exists and I apologize for my brethren, but there is another side to this tarnished coin.

As a PR person, I can't count how many ridiculous queries I have seen. Many are unintentionally comical.

Several years ago, I saw a query about the movie, The Chronicles of Narnia, and its religous overtones. This was about 10 days after 2 major newsweeklies had run cover stories on the topic. Does this journalist keep up with other peoples' writing or know how to use Google? Having reviewed both stories by chance (which is why I noted the query to begin with), there wasn't much left to be mined, but knowing he had to do his thing, he certainly had plenty of good sources already available -- and this would have enabled him to take the story beyond either piece to the level.

Worse are the queries that show how the writer has already written the story or has made the direction ridiculously obvious ("For an article about philandering husbands, I would like to speak with a man who would "do" Hilary") or ones that request such a specific and unrealistic interview subject that you know the story will be killed: "I would like to speak with a gender-neutral martian between the ages of 24 and 350 years old, who has experienced discrimination at a soon-to-be-closed Starbuck's store in the Northeast, preferably in Boston. I am on deadline and must hear from you in the next hour."

People: I realize the benefits of working together - - it's endlessly productive and even fun when it works for both parties. I simply grow weary of my profession being at the butt end of the admiration list when there's plenty o' blame to go around.

The main difference between

BSC — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:16:05 -0700

The main difference between PR Newswire and HARO is accountability. In PR Newswire, a journo can get off-topic (spam) pitches with no recourse for the source.

With HARO, journalists can forward spam pitches on to Shankman and he'll kick them off the list. This is a HUGE difference in that it 1) makes it so much easier for a journalist to find the sources they need without having to go through hundreds of off-topic pitches and 2) source pitches are judged on their usefulness to the reporter, not whether they're on-topic or not.

Great comments. There is an

Chrys — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:56:47 -0700

Great comments. There is an optimism and hard work ethic present in Peter's intros--even if I received his email just for that, I'd be happy. The queries run the gamut and it is like finding the perfect piece of beach glass when I find one that fits me. I wish him every success for a quality idea and execution.

@Anonymous Coward: Yeah

Adam Boettiger — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:35:37 -0700

@Anonymous Coward: Yeah right. Spot on. Just like the internet and social media are just tools for lazy people who cannot meet people in person. Stop being such a Luddite, de-cloak yourself and reveal your true prnewswire.com identity!

I can't believe no one has

daniel tynan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:21:54 -0700

I can't believe no one has yet mentioned that shankman was recently elected the 'hottest male blogger'. more amazing: even shankman didn't mention it. this almost makes up for the fact that he loves george michael. (I did say 'almost.')

as an ink-and-web-stained wretch, I rely on shankman's list to supply sources it would take me weeks if not longer to dig up. I haven't got weeks to file most of my stories. unless you're writing for vanity fair or the nyer, this gig doesn't pay well enough to spend weeks digging up "someone preferably in their 30s to 50s who can discuss what living with ulcerative colitis is like" (taken from today's batch of queries). I bet anonymous coward wouldn't do it either.

this is where HARO excels and ProfNet falls down -- finding real people that give life to a story, as Jordan points out above. ProfNet is better for finding experts, consultants, book authors, and (mostly) products. that is changing a bit as more people use HARO. there's a place for both, I think.

peace out,

I've been a HARO member

Karen Arena — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:07:13 -0700

I've been a HARO member since May or June, when membership was at around 4,000. Peter's secret sauce is his ability to draw us in, make sure we only send on-target pitches and keep us engaged, which he does by giving us a glimpse of his personality all the while teaching us a thing or two about marketing, promotion and PR. I find the daily HARO feeds not only useful (I've pitched my fair share and nailed a good story or two), but amusing and insightful, something that keeps me coming back for more. That's not always been the case with Profnet.

Such services are just tools

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:52:07 -0700

Such services are just tools for lazy journalists who don't have their own sources, and lazy flacks who don't have any real relationships with the media. Real journalists and their PR counterparts don't need either service.

I've spent years on both sides of the fence. In my experience, services such as these, free or not, usually (not always, but mostly) deliver low-value media hits, and low-value sources. It's bottom-feeding at its best.

Sorry for the negativity, but that's a truth I think you'll find the silent majority would echo, were they not silent.

A source is a source, of course, even when it's free and turning an industry upside down

Jordan Golson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:43:48 -0700

When skydiving PR guy Peter Shankman started the "Help a Reporter" group on Facebook last November, he thought his project could connect a few reporters up with sources for their articles. He didn't expect his idea would garner clients like The New York Times, and challenge a long standing industry giant's spot on top.

Help a Reporter Out, or HARO for short, is a mailing list with more than 16,000 members and dozens of source requests being sent out daily. It's also a significant threat to the only other major source-finding game in town, PR Newswire's ProfNet. ProfNet, which reportedly costs upwards of $3,000 per year for potential sources, has a looming threat in HARO's free model.

The threat began to materialize in March, when Shankman turned his project from a 684-person Facebook group into a full fledged three-times-per-day mailing list that was dead-simple to sign up for -- and more importantly, free for both reporters and sources.

PRNewswire, on the other hand, charges possible sources just to offer them queries with reporters. Anywhere from $600 to $4,500 a year depending on what "channels" they wish to subscribe to. That's a significant amount of cash coming in that is now being threatened by Shankman. Why would you want to pay PRNewswire when you can get Help A Reporter for free? One PR agency sent Shankman a note saying "I did it! We are off the grid. No more pr newswire!"

PR agencies are switching because in a mere ten days after launch, he had doubled his readership, to 1,400 members. In two weeks it doubled again, to 3,100 members. The astonishing trend continued in May when readership reached 5,000 and by June, already past 10,000. Today, Shankman's "little" email list goes out to more than 16,000 readers daily. Not bad for a pet project.

A typical email starts with a few notes from Shankman about HARO, or highlights certain queries as high priority or personal anecdotes. Other times Shankman is casual, using his newsletter to share a skydiving story or his talk about "not fat but big-boned" cats, Karma and NASA. Following that are 10-25 source requests from big name sources like CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times, and some from small blogs and local websites. One evening email looked for "small businesses switching to rail due to fuel costs" from Reuters, a question about bridesmaids from an unnamed national publication, and a request for product offerings for the American Express holiday wishlist for 2008.

It's a mix of many types of requests, but works quite well according some journalists. Jim Kukral, host of a daily podcast, posted a query for entrepreneurs and marketeers to be guests on his show. "In less than 24-hours I was bombarded with tons of high-quality and targeted proposals."

I submitted a query myself for people who had tried to activate a new iPhone 3G on launch day and had difficulties. Within an hour I had more than 30 totally on-target replies -- more than i could ever use.

For a reporter, finding good source is the difference between a successful story and a bland rehashing of current events. Having a strong network of folks to call on deadline is key to finding that perfect source and Shankman's Help a Reporter helps make that connection faster, easier, and cheaper.

Shankman tells me he heard from a source that ProfNet is so concerned salespeople have been issued talking points against him. With 14,000 "professional communicators" in its roster, ProfNet has a significant cash flow at stake, especially when your competition gives away its product for free.

Shankman says he'll never charge for his service and would never sell his mailing list -- the hour and a half per day that he spends on his mailing list results in great publicity for himself -- better than he could ever buy. Though, he does make some coin selling ads at "way over $100 CPMs" to advertisers like American Apparel.

The story sounds strikingly similar to Craigslist's start. Now Craigslist is blamed for snagging hundred's of millions of dollars worth of classified ad revenue from local newspapers and sending the industry into a tailspin. The HARO mailing list, if it continues to grow and expand, could do the same to PRNewswire by using cheap technology to undercut old media models. It wasn't the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a long standing industry giant starts wondering if the Web could threaten their revenue.

(Disclosure: I met Peter Shankman at CES in January when I made a fool of myself in front of an entire table of reporters. We're friends in real life, but he had nothing to do with the writing of this story other than being a source.)

7/23 Update: There is a follow-up article with some new information about the HARO/PR Newswire rivalry.

More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:

Special Feature: The iPhone naysayers, one year later
Special Feature: IT vs. initiative: The Internet age comes to the battlefield
Special Feature: The Digital Home of 2013: 10 consumer technologies that will succeed, and five that will fail
Special Feature: Where are they now? The Industry Standard tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s