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
Comments
I like his newsletter, plus I am all for sticking it to the big guy. It`s a win-win for me.
I have been lurking 3 times a day over the HARO e mails. Searching for some things that might be of interest to me. So far I have given an interview on being a caregiver for seniors, being a foster parent for dogs, being a female tech person, and of course art. Lurking on HORO helps me to know when a PR opportunity might come my way. I am also meeing some incredible people through HARO. A few weeks ago when I was searching for quotes and specifics on a recent article that I myself was writing on the orphans works act I dropped a line to HARO. Within moments I had sources, boy did I have sources!
My hat goes off to Peter Shankman for doing this! Great idea. Thanks for your time and effort.
Jordan,
Competition is healthy and keeps all great companies on their toes. We've been aware of this group for some time and have been seeing all of Peter's tweets about his list/group. He's done a great job growing and especially promoting his organization. HARO is a great social media case study that will be looked at for years to come.
Every day we have queries from the most prestigious and circulated publications, broadcast channels, radio stations, organizations, etc. Today we had queries from ABC News, Advertising Age, Associated Press ... and that's just the As. ProfNet has been the best of breed since the early nineties and will continue to be that and an industry mainstay.
I wish Peter good luck and look forward to meeting him some time in the near future ...
As someone fairly new to the PR game I was surprised to find out that I was supposed to be paying to get my name into print.
I use HARO and like it and Peter is doing a great service for reporters and PR folks alike. Your article is accurate but not complete. HARO is a great, free source but as a health care PR professional, it doesn't compare to the number and significance of health care queries I see on profnet. Granted, that might change but I'm still a long way from going 'off the grid.' PR Newswire is a for profit company that is not evil. However, this competition is certainly good for them!
David:
I've no desire to get into a debate in a comment forum, but considering how well my last invitation to the "head of Profnet" worked out, (i.e., she called me, threatened me, I countered with coffee, I never heard from her again, see http://shankman.com/so-i-get-this-phone-call/ for details,) I'll ask this:
Isn't it a little foolish to predict yourselves to be the "industry mainstay" when you continue to charge your members for something that HARO gives them, every single day, for free?
It's a time game, David, that's all. While Profnet has played a great role in the past, what's going to happen as more and more reporters and media outlets continue to use HARO every day to reach a much, much broader audience? Sixteen thousand members in four months, appearing in everything from the Wall Street Journal to AARP Magazine. (Since you started with the As, I decided to work backwards,) none of whom had to pay a penny, all of whom have just as much credibility as any of your members.
As word continues to spread of the beautiful simplicity of HARO, and the HARO source galaxy continues to expand ever-outward, how will PR Newswire continue to justify the exorbitant fees your members are paying? As paychecks for your editors? I can produce the same quality and quantity, armed with nothing more than a Tassimo machine, a Mac, two big-boned cats, and one Twitter account.
In an age where social networks, and the millions of people within them can be updated with the click of a "forward" button, Profnet's draconian "forwarding our protected queries outside the walls of your company is subject to a penalty of death" rules no longer apply. I can send a query to my list, and in one click, it can be forwarded to thousands, if not millions of people in social networks around the world.
Therein lies the true value of social media, as well as query services like HARO - The ability to share information and get the reporters the sources they need, on deadline, every time. While you're threatening to sue people for going off the reservation because an AAE forwarded a Profnet query about tooth whitening cream to his mother, I wholeheartedly endorse the forward, giving the reporter the source they need in a fraction of the time.
In the end, isn't it about connecting reporters and sources? If a revenue stream doesn't have to waste time policing a out-of-date AOL-esque "Walled Garden," then it can focus on doing the job for which it was built - making those instant connections between the reporter and the source, all over the world, whenever the need arises. HARO has been doing that since day one. And I would be willing to bet that our ever-growing list of sources, reporters, and yes, advertisers, would attest to this fact.
It's going to be a fun ride over the next several months, David. I for one, look forward to it. And again, my offer for a cup of coffee stands. Maybe this time, though, PRN won't blow me off.
All the best,
-Peter Shankman
I love it! I have forwarded a couple interview opportunities to my columnists, and have found some great sources for stories I'm working on. All that in just a week or two of membership.
A small publisher like WALK! Magazine cannot afford to pay the PR Newswire rates.
Cindi Leeman
Editor/Publisher
WALK! Magazine
www.walk-magazine.com
http://walk-magazine.blogspot.com/
WALK! Magazine is the ONLY international magazine for all walkers.
Peter,
We obviously disagree on many of the points we both hold as truths. Maybe there's more to it than each of us would like to concede. It's a big world and not every story will come through either of our portals/lists.
For the record, Journalists and Editors don't have to pay to use ProfNet. All of PR Newswire's services for journalists are free of charge.
Peter, don't get me wrong. I love the idea of free. 90% of my job is informing clients of free products out there that they should be taking advantage of and using (yours will be included in my presentations)... from blogger to blogpulse ... from technorati to twitter.
Let me know when you're available for that coffee ... I have most of tomorrow afternoon free. Dinner sounds good too ...
DW
I joined Peter's mailing list about three weeks ago and almost immediately was able to offer help to a Pakistani journalist writing about women's status in the Middle East, a subject on which I'm at least moderately well informed. From my point of view. however, the limitation of HARO is that most of the queries are focused on consumer-related stories, which are a long way from my expertise. And in the subjects where I do have expertise to offer -- Middle East politics and strategy, terrorism and counter-terrorism, financial crime etc. -- there hasn't (at least yet) been any demand from the journalists, perhaps because they already have a list of tame academics whom they can quote. But I am certainly not willing to pay large sums of money to ProfNet in order to have my name out there as a source: these are not fields in which one can easily earn a lot of money, so it wouldn't pay to make this investment.
I beg to differ on just about all points besides the free angle, but having seen elements of vindictiveness on these newsletters and knowing that HAR has many friends presented as resources I'll reserve the bulk of my opinion.
I love Peter's HARO, and have had a huge blast of PR from one submission. Since then, I have helped out 2 other reporters, one with a kids story and the other to tell them that they would never find a source, their premis was wrong. In each case, the reporter was grateful, charming and nice. This product has gone a long way to alleving my fear of publicity seeking. By positioning it as helping, I no longer feel I'm pushing to get coverage or notice. Isn't that great?
Plus, a guy who loves cats is a Real Man in my book. Bet he'll do OK with quiche, too!
I echo Cindi's comments. There is no way my small trade association could pay for this service. I really appreciate what Peter has started and wish him all the best.
I am a member of HARO and I love the list. One of the things I love about the list is the recognition it gives to a broader marketplace. Peter recognizes a fundamental truth, everyone really is an expert at something. He has made publicity accessible to everyone. While "traditional" media outlets continue to guard the old boy's network, Peter has embraced everyone and in my opinion has created a worthwhile service that will continue to grow. Oh, and the intros alone are worth the emails!
Anyone else think that it's extremely cowardly that PRN is choosing this as their outlet to reach out to Peter? If they're looking for attention, this is not the way to go about it.
HARO all the way!
Peter Shankman is one of the most amazing people. Funny, focused, free-wheeling, generous, hard working and creative central!
HARO is a dream come true for writers like myself. I could never have hooked up with the kind of press HARO has offered me for no cost. I've been published time and time again due to his lists and lists and... lists! of press, from all venues: magazines, newspapers, blogs, etc.
It's about time the Internet serves "the common person" so well, so easily and so Shankman. Peter has created a new model of prosperity proving that giving and receiving go hand in hand; when you help others, you are helped... and keep it moving, quickly!
Thank you!
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.
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.
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,
dt
@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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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'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?
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 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.
Post new comment