A bit of a debate has broken out in an Industry Standard comment thread after my profile of Peter Shankman's "Help a Reporter Out" service.
Help a Reporter Out is a 16,000-strong mailing list that links up journalists looking for sources with PR professionals and others looking for good press. The service is free for all involved, and has received rave reviews from customers.
Its main competitor, however, is not free. PR Newswire's ProfNet is rumored to cost upwards of $3,000 for "sources" to receive pitches. In other words, ProfNet's customers pay to get their name in the press (journalists, however, don't need to pay to use the service). ProfNet is a good service for some customers, especially those in very specialized professions, but not so good for smaller PR firms and individuals who won't see a positive ROI on that kind of investment.
Can HARO and ProfNet coexist? Perhaps, but not without some jawing at each other in The Standard's comments. PR Newswire's David Weiner responded to my article with this:
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.
HARO founder Peter Shankman shot back with a feisty comment slamming ProfNet and simultaneously touting social networks as the future of business networking. Given the growth behind Facebook and LinkedIn as business communication tools, he may not be far off -- HARO did start on Facebook, after 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.
Comments
Shankman ought to sue PRN for slander. It's astounding to see them running so scared, but I can tell you that I'll never use PRN again: lying about the competition shows their true colors.
Newspapers had to deal with it years ago with bloggers and Craigslist. If they didn't provide superior value, they died. PRN better figure out how to compete, or fold it up and go home. But griping about the competition -- especially lying and with such sour grapes -- will only hasten their demise. Pathetic.
I've used HARO a few times and been totally overwhelmed at the amazing number of leads. I had never heard of PRN before Peter Shankman mentioned them. I understand their fear. It's going to be a beast to overcome when CNN, NYT, and the other major media outlets are all flocking over there.
Thus the evolution knowledge. Information wants to be free.
Have you heard about the new service competing with NYC hookers? It's called JARO. J= jack. O= off.
Yep, that just sealed the deal on the PRN coffin for me.
Just have to weigh in on this. I'm a journalist and have used both: HARO since it was a Facebook group, and ProfNet since it was the pet project of someone at SUNY-Stony Brook, before it was bought by PRN. (And yes, in case anyone's counting, that was well back in the 90s, and therefore I am made of old.) They are extremely different services. I absolutely reject that HARO is somehow scraping Profnet's feed; the assertion fails on its face given just the number of writers I know who are talking about HARO and posting to it, . Do we post similar queries to both? Sure, because they are serving different constituencies. Using both ups your odds of hitting good sources. Stealing? Feh.
Maryn is right -- there's no reason writers can't use both. I do it, and so do lots of my friends. We write for big consumer magazines and websites, and the reality is that often, HARO saves a lot of time and effort you waste with terrible, off-topic responses at Profnet. When I need a medical expert or someone in a particular field, I usually query Profnet, because the responders in those fields stay on topic. When I need something from PR people or "everyman" sources, HARO is the way to go. And when I'm desperate, I post to both. Do they have overlap? Yep. Does this mean HARO is stealing leads? Uh, no. I seriously doubt Peter has the time or inclination to even consider it.
And soon sources will develop a way for new products and ideas to be pitched to writers and reporters who will pitch to media sources ideas that are beyond even the imagination of the media owners so creativity can be expanded. What a concept!
I'm a freelance journalist for magazines and newspapers and I've used ProfNet, happily, for years. But after working with HARO and seeing the results over the past few months, I have to say I'm impressed. Peter has neither the time nor the need to steal anything from ProfNet. The duplicate queries ProfNet is seeing is just journalists using both services from time to time, I'm sure.
Also, Peter speaks loudly and frequently to sources about the importance of not replying off topic to journalists. He will drop them from HARO if they go too far with this. The result? The replies I get from potential sources are usually just what I need.
Plus Peter spreads good karma in many ways. For instance, he is fond of a particular animal charity and suggests that if people do want to pay for the service in some way, that they make a donation. I hear that the donations are rolling in. (He does accept sponsorships for HARO, and he's up front about that. And there's nothing wrong with making a living off of providing such a valuable service.)
If this is the future of social networking, sign me up.
Kathy Sena
And the walls came tumbling down! It's only a matter of time before ProfNet has to dramatically change its business model.....and Peter is spot-on about the need to stick to the core principle of connecting the media with sources. When I was freelancing for a national magazine about seven years ago, a well-known sports stats agency charged close to $1,000 for info that I came across, for free, a day or two later. That's the last time I've considered using that agency.....not because they did anything unethical, but because it underscored for me the value of seeking, and finding, info at a lesser cost elsewhere.
I heard a rumor that PR Newswire planned to eliminate its "sole proprietor" pricing for one-person shops like me, making everybody pay the four-figure agency rate. Wonder whether they're rethinking that in the wake of HARO's success.
ProfNet is just not a reasonable purchase for those of us who are not primarily "PR people" and who may hold a variety of roles -- writers, topic experts, part-time professors, bloggers, etc., while HARO fits the bill perfectly. I think it's a testament to how hard Peter has worked on this project and how popular it has become among writers, PR reps, and regular old people who enjoy the personal touch in the HARO e-mails and who see HARO as more of a "trusted source" for connecting people. There's no way that HARO is plagiarizing PRN's query list -- it's a ridiculous thought! And if you're a journalist, why not post to both? Honestly, I think some people should experiment -- post your query to both lists and see what yields the best (better) responses! I'd put my money on HARO.
I use both ProfNet and HARO. The thing I like better about HARO is that Peter keeps the list clean - PR wankers who pitch off-topic or worse, spam a reporter, are kicked off the list. I think reporters appreciate that kind of effort to help them do their job better. ProfNet is struggling as their service is a cash cow and now new market entries are causing them angst and potential losss of market. Welcome to the new world people - adapt or get left behind.
I think an important question regarding HARO is whether Peter will be able to sustain the time and energy he has put into this service over the past few months. It is a wonderful service that fits an important need and offers a cost efficient alternative to ProfNet, but what happens if eventually HARO goes away because Peter can no longer maintain the service (he has mentioned in his posts multiple times that he doesn't know how long he will be able to keep this up)? If in the interim Peter's service puts ProfNet out of business, or forces reductions that greatly limits its reach and effectiveness, then the result would be disastrous for the PR community. So, I think before people get any closer toward damaging the future of ProfNet the appropriate next question to Peter is does he have a strategy or vision for HARO becoming a long-term business or is he still doing it as a whim with no idea of how long the service will continue.
Duane:
I've never said any such thing. I'm in this for the long haul. Don't you worry. :)
@Duane: <>
Let me make sure I'm understanding you: Peter is offering a service that successfully competes with an established business. The established business (possibly - anyone care to offer metrics?) loses customers to Peter. Therefore the response should be that competitive business realizes its terrible mistake in harming the market appeal of the established business, unlaces its shoes, goes home?
Ohplz.
ProfNet is a business, not a government-guaranteed monopoly. *If* they're losing customers - still unproven - let them tune up their game.
And FWIW, I am pretty confident that if you looked up "whim" in the dictionary, maintaining a community of 3x60,000 emails a day would not be listed among the definitions.
(Sigh. REPOST because the comments code took out the blockquote:)
@Duane: "Before people get any closer toward damaging the future of ProfNet the appropriate next question to Peter is does he have a strategy or vision for HARO becoming a long-term business or is he still doing it as a whim with no idea of how long the service will continue."
Let me make sure I'm understanding you: Peter is offering a service that successfully competes with an established business. The established business (possibly - anyone care to offer metrics?) loses customers to Peter. Therefore the response should be that competitive business realizes its terrible mistake in harming the market appeal of the established business, unlaces its shoes, goes home?
Ohplz.
ProfNet is a business, not a government-guaranteed monopoly. *If* they're losing customers - still unproven - let them tune up their game.
And FWIW, I am pretty confident that if you looked up "whim" in the dictionary, maintaining a community of 3x60,000 emails a day would not be listed among the definitions.
All I can say is Thank you HARO and Peter. By the way is is Peter Shankmans Birthday today August 6th!
They were responsible for helping us find "Our Wedding Ship" after 25 years. Click link below for this Twist of Fate, What are the Odds Story!
http://marytt.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=363629
Can't HARO and Profnet just get along?
http://tinyurl.com/5pa5ub
Post new comment