luni, 9 februarie 2015

Effective Outreach: Making It as Easy as Possible for Journalists to Say "Yes" - Moz Blog

Effective Outreach: Making It as Easy as Possible for Journalists to Say "Yes" - Moz Blog
Subscribe to the feed

Effective Outreach: Making It as Easy as Possible for Journalists to Say "Yes"

Posted on: Monday 09 February 2015 — 01:12

As part of the promotions and online PR team at Distilled, I spend the majority of my time trying to get the attention of journalists. If you've ever worked in PR you'll know that this isn't always as easy as it sounds. Journalists are busy. They're on a deadline, they're knee-deep in an article that's exponentially more timely than whatever you're pitching to get coverage for. That email you spent half an hour perfecting? It's getting scanned for something newsworthy, for surprising facts, for data that's going to make an interesting story, and something that's going to make their readers hit the 'share' buttons.

When I'm not working at Distilled, I run a travel blog and I'm a freelance writer. Consequently I find myself on the receiving end of the kind of emails I send out in my day job. More often than not, I hit the archive button and move on. Why? Because a lot of the pitches I get are totally irrelevant to my readership and, honestly, if you can't take one minute to visit my site ask yourself whether you actually want you client in front of an audience of travel-lovers, then welcome to my trash folder.

That's not where you want to be; the trash folder. You want to be in the yes folder, if there is in fact such a thing. You want your email to be so compelling, so full of the little details that make a journalist's job easier, that their mouse doesn't even hover near the delete button, let alone actually press it.

So how do you make it easy for a journalist to say yes to you?

Stop with the flattery

Flattery might work when you're doing blogger outreach. Or, should I say, genuine flattery works; as a blogger I've received way too many emails where the the first sentence reads like a random positive adjective generator's been used to say some nice things about my blog so that the sender, seemingly too busy to visit my site for a few minutes, doesn't have to do any actual research.

Genuine flattery works with bloggers because it's our site, our hard work, our money being poured into site design and hosting every month, our bedside lamps burning until the early hours as we write, and promote, and plan, and pitch.

Journalists are doing their jobs. You don't need to tell them that the article they wrote for The Atlantic back in 2013 really resonated with you. You don't need to try to make them like you. You don't need to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. So stop. Stop with the flattery and get to the point.

'CC' is a big no-no

I get it, OK, you're busy. I'm busy. We're all busy. You know what you shouldn't be too busy to do if you really want journalists to cover your story? You shouldn't be so busy that you don't have a few minutes to send a separate email to each journalist you're pitching.

Unless you're pitching an exclusive story journalists know that you're probably going to be pitching to more than one publication. That's OK, that's what you should be doing to try and obtain the maximum amount of coverage for your company or client.

What you don't want them to think is that you've sent the exact same email to every single journalist with the exact same information which, if you send a blanket email, is basically what you're doing.

When you do that you're almost saying 'OK, I've done no research into your publication, no research into the kinds of articles you've written in the past, and I haven't tailored any of my pitch to appeal to you or your audience' which is exactly what you don't want.

Write some of the story for them

Imagine if you told your friends you'd cook them dinner anytime they wanted. They wouldn't have to give you any notice. All they had to do was turn up at your door with the ingredients.

Except word gets around and, one day, you're facing the prospect of cooking 20 different meals for 20 different friends. I don't know what your culinary skills are like but can we all just agree that this would be a somewhat stressful and annoying situation?

Now imagine that those 20 people turn up with their ingredients again, except this time they've done some of the work for you. Onions have been diced, garlic's been crushed. Everything you need to make the meal is there, you just need to bind them together.

How much better do you feel? How much more willing are you to forgive your friends for turning up unannounced?

That's kind of what you need to do for journalists. No, not invite them around for dinner; do some of the work for them so that they can write the story around the facts.

In practical terms, I tend to take the stats that are most relevant to their audience, the parts that I want them to focus on, and include them in my pitch email on separate lines. This way, the journalist can see the most important details at a glance without having to dig through data, or read a huge press release. Help them write the story you want them to write about your client and you're much more likely to get a 'yes' out of them.

Don't Be a Tease, Be Proactive

Do you have images that the journalist can use should they choose to run the story? Do you have a press release with more information in it? Do you have contact details for your company or client's spokesperson?

Maybe you have an awesome interactive graphic the journalist can feature, or an iframe they can use to host it on their site fully. Maybe you have all the things.

So why are you only teasing the journalist in your first email?

'I have some photos of the product if you want to use them'

'I can also get your the details of our expert on this.'

'Let me know if you need anything else.'

Seriously? If you have these things available, give them to the journalist now. Be proactive. If you think they're going to be useful include them in your email. Attach the photos, copy the press release underneath your pitch in the body of the email, include the iframe code.

Journalists are under more pressure than ever to get stories published. They don't spend all day working on one article, they're writing multiple articles each day. This is why it's so important that you give them everything you think they could possibly need so that they can get on with writing the story instead of replying to your email.

Build a relationship

Good news: you did your research, you sent a pitch, and a journalist covered your story. But your relationship with that journalist doesn't stop there. In fact, what you do after they've hit publish on their article is almost as important as everything you did before you hit send on your pitch.

A couple of weeks ago, I got a piece of creative we'd built for one of our clients some coverage on the site of one of the UK's largest national newspapers so, afterwards, I emailed my contact to say 'thank you' and shared the article on my social media channels. It literally took me all of 10 seconds.

I mean, sure, I didn't get another email back from my contact (remember when I said journalists were busy?) but that's because, by that point, she was probably more interested in writing her next article.

And that's OK, because the next time I have a story I think she'd be interested in covering, and I email her, I'll carry on the email thread and she'll know that I was helpful, and quick to reply, and courteous. Things that go a long way in the world of PR.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

You are subscribed to the newsletter of Moz Blog sent from 1100 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 United States To stop receiving those e-mails, you can unsubscribe now.	Newsletter powered by FeedPress
FeedPress is a service edited by Beta&Cie, www.betacie.com

Seth's Blog : Variance or deviance?

Variance or deviance?

If you see things that don't meet the norm as 'deviant', then you are approaching the world with a mindset of mass, of conformity, of obedience. You are assuming that you can be most effective and efficient when the market lines up in a straight line, when one size does fit all, because one size is cheaper to make and stock and distribute.

On the other hand, if you accept differences as merely variations, each acceptable, then you realize that there are many markets, many choices, many solutions.

Packaged goods, leadership or governance--when you expect (or demand) that people don't deviate, you're robbing them of their dignity and setting yourself up to be disappointed.

It's okay to say, "this thing we make, it's not for you," but I'm not sure it's productive to say, "you're not allowed to make the choices you've made."

• Email to a friend •

duminică, 8 februarie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Unexpected Collapse in Chinese Trade; Expect More Currency Manipulation Claims; Impact on US GDP

Posted: 08 Feb 2015 09:44 AM PST

Chalk up another unexpected data point for the slowing global economy: Economists expected Chinese exports to grow 5.9% in January. Instead exports declined by 3.3%. Imports declined a whopping -19.9% vs. an expectation of a 3.2% decline.

With imports down way more than exports, China Posted a Record Trade Surplus of $60 billion, in this case, not a sign of strength.

Year-Over-Year Data Points

Imports plunged 19.9% year-over-year vs. economist expectations of a 3.2% drop.
Exports fell 3.3% vs. economist expectations of 5.9% gain.
Crude oil imports fell 41.8%
Iron ore imports fell 50.3%
Coal imports fell 61.8%
Exports to the European Union fell 4.4%
Exports to the Hong Kong fell 10.9%
Exports to the Japan fell 20.4%
Exports to the Russia fell 20.4%

Imports declined from all major trade partners, including the European Union and the U.S.

Lunar New Year Holiday Affects Numbers

Trade numbers from China fluctuate widely in January and February depending on when a week-long new year lunar holiday begins. In 2015, the holiday begins in February making January numbers all the more alarming.

Very Strange Data

Reuters explains the lunar-cycle in China's imports slump, capping dismal January trade performance.

Chinese economic indicators in January and February are typically viewed with caution given the distortions caused by the shifting week-long Lunar New Year holiday, and while the analyst median estimate was for a rise, the range of estimates was extremely wide.

However the data - in particular the import data - is worrisome even after accounting for cyclical factors; last year the new year holiday idled factories and financial markets for a week in January, but this year the holiday comes in late February and January was a full month of business as usual.

"It's a very strange data print," said Andrew Polk, economist at the Conference Board in Beijing, noting that exports tended to be less effected by the holiday than other indicators, but added he was more concerned by the implications of the startlingly negative import figure.

Chinese officials had predicted that monetary easing measures in Europe would boost demand for Chinese goods, and analysts polled by Reuters had also been optimistic that signs of economic strengthening in the United States would support exports.

However, the data showed that while exports to the United States rose by 4.8 percent year-on-year to $35 billion, exports to the European Union slid 4.6 percent to $33 billion in the same period.

Expect More Currency Manipulation Claims

Chinese exports to the US rose. They fell nearly everywhere else. This state of affairs will no doubt have the protectionists in Congress screaming about China's currency manipulation once again.

GDP Numbers

Reuters notes that China is expected to lower its GDP target to around 7 percent this year, after posting 7.4 percent in 2014 - the slowest pace in 24 years. I will take the "under".

From a US perspective, US exports to China are falling while imports from China have risen.

Recall what I said on January 31, in Diving Into the GDP Report - Some Ominous Trends - Yellen Yap - Decoupling or Not?

Growth in fixed investment is falling rapidly. Equipment, industrial equipment, and transportation equipment are already in contraction.

Inventories added 0.82 percentage points to fourth quarter GDP. Over time, this series trends to zero, so expect a pull back next quarter.

Rising imports subtract from GDP. Imports actually took 1.39 percentage points from GDP. If oil prices head back up, even modestly, this number could get worse.

Exports added 0.37 percentage points to fourth quarter GDP. But note the trend.

Because of the rising US dollar, export growth is dwindling. Will exports add or subtract to GDP next quarter? ...

Decoupling or Not?

I remain amused by all the pundits who think the US has "decoupled" from the global economy and will grow stronger in 2015.

Let's return to a question I asked above: Will exports add or subtract to GDP next quarter?

I suggest the answer is subtract. Not only are US exports getting more expensive relative to Europe and Japan, the entire rest of the global economy is slowing rapidly. Our biggest trading partner is Canada and Canada is in recession, with a rapidly sinking loonie (Canadian dollar) on top of it.

US Recession

The US won't decouple, just as China did not decouple from the global economy in 2008-2009 (a widely-held thesis I also knocked at the time).

Indeed, now that virtually no economist expects a US recession, I believe we are finally on the cusp of one, just as the Fed seems committed to hike.

If you missed that analysis or if you need a recap, please take a look.

Expect More Alarming Data Points

From the Bloomberg link at the top: "The slump in imports means a slump in the overall situation of the economy," Hu Yifan, chief economist at Haitong International Securities Group Ltd., said yesterday in Hong Kong. "We are going to see more of these alarming data in the next few months."

That's precisely my position, for the global economy, not just China.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Seth's Blog : How we watch video now

How we watch video now

Forty years ago, Stanley Kubrick showed us 2001. The first 90 seconds are without dialogue and solid black. It's hard to imagine that working as the intro to a YouTube video today.

Instead, our finger is on the mouse trigger, ready to leave in a moment. Not only that, but instead of leaning forward, we've got our shields set to level 7, wary of what's to come. As the video begins, a series of questions arise, unbidden:

Who sent me here?

What do I expect?

What's this about?

What else is on? (10,000,000 choices, not three)

What does this remind me of?

Hey, isn't that Hugo Weaving's voice?

Wow, he's cute...

Are they selling me something?

What's the joke here?

Are those stock photos?

What will I tell my friends?

Who would love this that I should send it to?

Okay, yeah, I think I get it... Next.

Movies were scarce and long and special and deserved our attention. TV was shorter, with commercials, but still live (now or never) and thus special. But video--video is ubiquitous and short and everywhere. You can transfer a movie or a TV show to this new medium, but it will be consumed differently.

Everyone can publish video now, and in many ways, almost everyone is publishing video now. A video won't work because everyone watches it. It will work because the right people do, for the right reason. The occasional video viral hit has blinded us to the power of long-tail video to build the culture and change minds.

Everything that's watched has always been watched through the worldview of the watcher. And video (and before that, movies and TV) has driven the culture. That culture-driving ability now belongs to anyone who can make a video that the right people choose to watch.

• Email to a friend •