By Kyle

Yes, the rumors are true.  We have closed on this site and are officially moving our digital digs to www.racetalkblog.com (check out the new design). The new site is also now accessible by clicking on the RaceTalk link in the upper right corner of the Racepoint Group Website. 

We got too big and popular and decided we needed our own domain.  Plus now we can actually take control of all the reigns and take the blog in the direction we want to go.  Expect more of the same including more exclusive RaceTalk Q&A’s.  We’re also looking forward to launching some new RaceTalk created video content that we hope to start populating the blog with in the upcoming months.  

Since the state of Israel was established in 1948, the country’s borders have been constantly changing with every war and peace agreement. The West Bank and Gaza strip have been particularly sensitive areas, with a lot of fighting and uncertainty.

However, in Facebook’s attempt to assign a network to the people living in the West Bank, it automatically assigned them to the Palestine network – a pretty bold move.

As one could imagine, pinpointing an entire region as Palestine did not sit very well. Every person in Israel defines themselves differently depending on their background, family, and religion. To label an entire region of people with such different backgrounds and identities seems to go way beyond Facebook’s goal of being a “social utility that connects you with the people around you.”

David Shamah, a reporter for the Jerusalem Post writes, “I think it's very unfair of Facebook to take sides in an ongoing dispute by making official (the creation of a state called Palestine), something that the United Nations has not even decided on yet.”

After receiving a lot of complaints and being accused of having a political agenda, Facebook has now started to allow people living in these areas to chose whether they’re listed as being a resident of Israel or Palestine.

By George

There is some interesting work happening over at Optaros, a next-generation consulting firm. Optaros helps companies build web sites and back end systems using Web 2.0 principals. The company recently converted its own web site to showcase what it means by Web 2.0.

Full disclosure: Racepoint was Optaros’ PR agency of record for more than a year, but we are no longer are engaged with them.

Optaros’ new web site has a fresh look and feel (although some of the dynamic content looks a bit clunky, especially on the home page). Optaros lists its “8 Principals for B2B Marketing 2.0” in the new age of the web. Most of its principals have been said before, but they present it well. However, number 6 really took us by surprise:

“Stop issuing press releases “over the wire.” The first press release was “put on the wire” on March 8, 1954 by PRNewswire to 12 news outlets in New York City. The pricing model is still based on the number of words with the average press release costing between $500 and $1,000 to put “over the wire”. Instead, email them to reporters/ bloggers to build a personal connection and increase the probability of coverage.”

This is why companies shouldn’t take communications advice from marketers. They simply don’t understand public relations. This principal flies in the face of what is happening on the web (and also contradicts Optaros’ 7^th principal, which is to syndicate and actively share content).

In the age of interconnectivity and search engine optimization why would a company choose to limit the distribution of its own news? When a press release goes over the wire – it is automatically picked up by dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of online outlets. These “links” immediately push the press release to the top of Google and Yahoo searches.

When Racepoint launched Ringleader, a next-generation mobile advertising network, several weeks ago, its press release held three of the top spots in the first 10 results in a Google search for the company for more than 10 days. That meant anyone conducting a search for “Ringleader” had a 30 percent chance of clicking on a link to the press release.

That’s a powerful mode of communication. If a company was wise enough to include links to additional content in the press release then it now has an opportunity to engage more directly with potential customers.

Press releases are more important than ever. The mistake in Optaros’ thinking is believing that press releases are written for the press. That’s old-fashioned thinking for company touting to be Web 2.0. Press releases are now for everyone: customers, prospects, partners, investors, employees, bloggers, social networks, reporters, editors, and analysts.

Companies should be writing more of them – and distributing them widely through the wires, through RSS, through aggregators and social bookmarking services, and, yes, even directly to reporters when a reporter has asked for a copy of one (and generally before its been widely distributed).

(And on another note: Optaros clearly doesn’t understand how to develop relationships with the press either. One sure-fire way to get off on the wrong foot with a reporter is to clutter up her inbox with press releases she didn’t ask for.)

There’s little doubt that the industry needs to rethink the way they write press releases. We agree with Optaros that companies should kill the corporate voice and engage with everyone in a more straight forward, plain-spoken manner.

Here are some additional details about our philosophy on press releases.

It’s refreshing to see companies like Optaros opening up and communicating better. They are setting an excellent example for other companies to follow.

But they should leave the public relations advice to the experts.

Dallas Mavericks owner (and former 'Dancing with the Stars' participant) Mark Cuban has instituted a new policy of banning bloggers from the team’s locker room. According to an AP article, "the policy was put in place after Cuban decided to keep out a reporter for The Dallas Morning News whose primary job is writing for the newspaper's sports blogs."

As one can imagine, this decision has been met with complaints throughout the blogger community. TrueHoop, an ESPN blog, posted an email exchange it had with Cuban about his decision. Other bloggers have posted open letters to Cuban’ about his decision, such as this one where Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Kamenetzky says the ban is a slap in the face.

Ironically, Cuban posted a response to the outrage in his own blog, BlogMaverick.com:

“Some out there will take this as my not "liking" blogs. Ridiculous. Its the exact opposite. What I don't like is unequal access. I'm all for bloggers getting the same access as mainstream media when possible. Our interview room is open to bloggers. We take interview requests from bloggers. I'm a fan of getting as much coverage as possible for the Mavs. What I'm not a fan of is major media companies throwing their weight around thinking they should be treated differently.”

Cuban also manages to throw in his own opinion on blogging:

"Newspaper blogging is probably the worst marketing and branding move a newspaper can make. The barriers to entry for bloggers are non existent. There are no editorial standards. There are no accuracy standards. We bloggers can and do write whatever we damn well please. Historically newspapers have set some level of standards that they strived to adhere to. By taking on the branding, standard and posting habits of the blogosphere, newspapers have worked their way down to the least common demoninator of publishing in what appears to be an effort to troll for page views."

While many are questioning whether this new policy was put in place just to ban one specific blogger from being in the locker room, Cuban has certainly created some chaos, and a distraction from his team’s recent drop in the standings.

- Det offentlige må tenke gjennom hvordan man bruker de nye mulighetene, sier Storsul. Det er det ikke bare staten som må. Privatpersoner, næringsliv, offentlige myndigheter og etater, organisasjoner, politiske partier og stiftelser. Alle må de tenke gjennom sin kommunikasjon med omverden.

Facebook eller ikke Facebook, er IKKE spørsmålet
Imidlertid stusser jeg over fremgangen til medieforskningen. I oppdrag fra fornyings- og administrasjonsminister Heidi Grande Røys, skal ikke spørsmålene være om Facebook er en døgnflue eller om sosiale tjenester er i ferd med å ersattte e-post. Dette er helt irrelevante spørsmål. De interessante spørsmålene er:

• Er vi der målgruppen er?
• Tar vi forbrukermakten på alvor?
• Lytter vi til samtalen som foregår på nett?
• Har vi lært oss språket til målgruppen på nett?
• Har vi en helhetlig digitalsosial strategi for kommunikasjon i nye kanaler?

Facebook eller ikke, er derfor irrelevant i seg selv. Det er bare ett medium i jungelen av sosiale nettverk på nett. Det som er viktig er å gjøre seg opp en mening om dette er dette relevant for meg? Vet jeg hvem som snakker om meg, og hva snakker de om? Hvor møtes min målgruppe på nett?

Lytte, engasjere, påvirke
I den rekkefølgen. Det er umulig å engasjere seg i noe du ikke kan noe om uten å miste troverdighet. Det er umulig å påvirke direkte en målgruppe du ikke har lyttet til og engasjert deg i. Sånn fungerer vi mennesker og sånn fungerer nettet og sosiale medier. I bunn av dette må det ligge en solid strategi som er forankret i foretningmessige, politiske eller organisatoriske målsetinger. Målet er ikke å være på Facebook, bare for å være på Facebook.

Så svaret på spørsmålet som ble stilt om staten skal justere sin informasjonsstrategi, er et rungende JA. Fremgangsmåten derimot må være gjennom grundig arbeid og lytting, og ikke ved å avlede de virkelige strategiske valgene med å stille spørsmål om Facebook.

Erfaring, erfaring, erfaring
I Norge er det ikke mange som har erfaring nok i de nye mediene til å se mulighetene på et strategisk nivå, eller ta de underliggende truslene alvorlig. I GCI Communique har vi jobbet målrettet med det vi kaller Digital Media Relations (DMR) i flere år, hjulpet norske og internasjonale bedrifter med å kommunisere med målgruppen, direkte, hele tiden gjennom nøye planlagte strategiske valg.

By Peter Prodromou

People can find something to criticize about everything, including the transparency of Bono’s “Red” campaign. The Red campaign was started a little over a year ago and includes corporations like the Gap, who donate a portion of sales proceeds from Red branded merchandise to help with medical issues in developing countries. It seems the New York Times has questions about how much of that money is getting to these countries.

The Times article comes on the heels of Dell Computer joining the campaign and publicizing its participation during a Super Bowl ad.

That’s the problem with today’s brand of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It simply too sporadic and even if it isn’t -- the way it’s executed leaves people with the best intentions open to criticism. This trend points to the glaring need for companies to reform their views and execution on social corporate responsibility. Companies today need to ingrain in their DNA and their corporate positioning the spirit of CSR.

We applaud Dell, Gap and every other participant for joining the Red campaign. Now we ask them to be truly bold. They can begin by reframing their corporate images around a handful of the most important issues in the world today – whether the environment, solving poverty or something else. They should think not only about giving, but empowering societies by developing and providing them with the tools they need to elevate themselves.

Imagine a cleaner world brought to you by a Green General Motors, or a future bastion of democracy in the developing world with entrepreneurialism powered by accessible computers. That’s the true spirit of CSR – the kind companies must focus on to lead and compete in the 21^st century.

By Peter Prodromou

It’s been nearly 80 years since Edward Bernays changed the face of PR by marching a bunch of women down Madison Avenue smoking cigarettes. Yet even with the passage of time, you could argue nothing’s changed. Companies and governments still use the same tired approaches to publicize their agendas:

1 Part Wall Street Journal + 1 Part Charitable Act = Successful Reputation Management

The problem with that formula is that the world has passed it by.

The Wall Street Journal is still important and, let’s face it, who can argue with the righteousness of charitable acts? But the reality is, today’s audiences are more fragmented, sophisticated and connected than ever. The power of the internet and digital media has given everyone and anyone the power to drive perception. At the same time, the public is more issues driven than ever. Just think about how many of your friends and neighbors talk about the environment… and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The companies and countries that are going to define this century are going to need more than economic might and an audience with print and broadcast media. They’re going to be tapped into those issues and, equally important, they’re going to have to understand the value of new technology and web media for not only communicating a story, but creating conversations and on-on-one constituent relationships.

They’ll do it through digital media, blogs, forums and other discussion sites. They’ll do it visually, using the web to spread their message far and wide. Most important, they’ll do it credibly with true commitment to the issues that concern the public today and through true relationship building.

So who’s getting it right? Think One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) – empowering people all over the globe to gain access to knowledge and talking about it on the web, as well as through traditional media. Think British Petroleum, moving to transform from an old oil company, to a next generation energy resource – and is proud – and daring enough -- to talk about it.

These are the organizations that give you hope for a better tomorrow and a view into real leadership. These are the model organizations that work now or will work with World 2.0.

From November 12 through December 31, One Laptop Per Child ran a charitable campaign in North America called the Give One Get One.  It was simple.  Buy two of OLPC's XO laptops (often called the $100 laptop) for $399 U.S. dollars and you get one; while the second is shipped to a child in a developing country.

The campaign is a case study on the effectiveness of public relations in building awareness, creating consumer demand and driving action.  OLPC is a non-profit organization and couldn't afford a fancy advertising campaign to spread the word about G1G1.  So they turned to Racepoint Group.

We have been working with OLPC for more than a year -- doing pro bono communications work.  But the G1G1 campaign was different.  The public relations campaign we created for G1G1 would be augmented by a small (but very creative) advertising campaign (publications and broadcasters agreed to run these ads and short videos as public service announcements).  But we were primarily on our own in building awareness and driving traffic to the G1G1 web site where consumers would be able to purchase the amazing XO laptops.

We had already done a remarkable job in media relations for OLPC -- but now we were tasked with directly impacting sales.  We had to move beyond the core technology and business writers and focus on consumer press.  The goal of G1G1 was to reach consumers -- directly.  There was the added difficulty that consumers could only buy the XO in one place -- a web site built by OLPC.  Consumers wouldn't be able to go to a store to look at, touch, or play with the XO.  In fact, we wouldn't even be able to tell them exactly when they would receive their XOs.

A difficult challenge, indeed.

But our campaign generated thousands of articles and broadcasts -- from a feature in People magazine to appearances on "Good Morning, America" and FOX-TV and hundreds of blog posts.  For the month of December -- OLPC was everywhere.  The results speak for themselves.  OLPC sold more than 160,000 XO laptops and raised more than $35 million dollars.

Proof that when public relations is done right -- it can create a powerful impact.

You don’t hear too much anymore about killing the press release.  It was all the rage for the last two years to talk about the need to murder the poor helpless press release.

The gist of the argument is that in our digital media world – the press release is an archaic relic of the days when PR consultants mailed press releases to editors and reporters (and then went out to hunt mastodons with spears).

You can hit this link to read The Silicon Valley Watcher’s Tom Foremski’s rant of press releases called "Die! Press release! Die! Die! Die!" (a headline which is grammatically incorrect, but that’s a post for another time).

Todd Defren at PR Squared supports the rather poorly named Social Media News Release – which is basically a list and a lot of links.  There's some pros to this approach, but the biggest negative is that it doesn’t allow companies to provide context to the news they are announcing.

A lot of complaints about press releases are legitimate.  Press releases are guilty as charged for containing too much spin, featuring meaningless quotes from executives, and failing to deliver clarity because they are cobbled together by too many cooks in the kitchen.  Companies also inject too much marketing and technology speak into press releases.  The typical press release is written for the market department by the marketing department.  They should be focused on the intended audience (After all, who really uses words like “leverage” and “paradigm” in real life?).

But supporters of killing the press release like Foremski make a big mistake.  They assume that press releases are written for the press.  But they aren’t anymore.  In our digital world, press releases are written for everyone: media, analysts, customers, prospects, partners, and even employees.  In the age of Google searches, press releases are just as likely to be part of the list of results as a news article.  That’s also why Social Media Marketing Releases fail – because they don’t provide an opportunity for storytelling.

That’s why we shouldn’t be killing the press release just yet.  Rather than kill it – let’s save it.  Because of their wide reach – press releases are even more important today than they were 10 or even 20 years ago.  We just need to return to the basics.  Use the press release for its intended purpose: to share information.

Here are some ways that Racepoint Group counsels our clients on how to approach writing a press release:

·         Focus on the News Value – The purpose of a press release is to broadcast a piece of news.  So don’t bury the most important part of the release in paragraph five.  The news needs to be front and center – the primary focal point.

·         Short and Pithy Wins – Long press releases have little chance of being read – by anyone.  The reason press releases turn out too long is because it is difficult to write short.  But at a time when attention spans are shrinking – any release longer than two pages has little chance of holding a reader’s attention.

·         Links Help – Make sure the release contains hyperlinks to Web content that will add another dimension to your news (links to podcasts, web content, news articles, videos, forums, and even other press releases).  Some readers will want to understand the ins and outs of the technology or read a long history on the company.  Rather than put that content in the release – put in a link instead.  It helps with readers who want more detail and has the added bonus of driving traffic to a company’s web properties.

·         Don’t Market Your News – Readers – even business readers – don’t want spin.  They want straight forward information.  So leave the marketing and technology jargon out of press releases.

·         English As a First Language – When writing press releases think Ernest Hemingway rather than William Faulkner.  That means using simple, declarative sentences written in an active voice. Leave the long, stream of consciousness work for Pulitzer Prize winning Southern novelists.

Journalists often have a difficult time understanding the impact of a news article on the people they have interviewed for it.  As a former newspaper reporter and now a PR executive, I have written hundreds of articles and have also been quoted in a few – most notably in my role as an occasional spokesperson for One Laptop Per Child.

So I feel like I can offer some insight that might help journalists do a better job of communicating with business executives.

The sensation of seeing your name in print is a disconcerting one for most people.  It’s a thrill, but there’s also a sense of helplessness – a loss of control, especially when an executive feels like the journalist didn’t capture the essence of what they said.  Unfortunately, this happens much more often than journalists would care to admit.

The problem lies in part on the inadequate job journalists do in preparing the people they are interviewing for the actual interview.  Reporters often assume that people understand the process of researching, interviewing, and finally writing news articles when, in fact, most people have no idea how it works (which is why they hire public relations firms like Racepoint Group).

Here are a few mistakes I think journalists often make and ways I believe they can correct them.

• Vacuum Interviewing: Reporters hate sharing the list of people they plan to interview for a particular story – which is ridiculous, but often guarded like a state secret.  Interviews shouldn’t occur in a vacuum and sharing that information can put the story in context for interviewees.  Since it will public information as soon as the story is published – why the hesitancy to share?  If a source is speaking on the on-the-record then reporters should provide that information if asked for it. 

• The Undiscovered Blog: Many journalists now double as bloggers.  If they blog they should be up front about that with the interview subject.  It’s unfair for a reporter to interview an executive about topic A and then blog freely about topic B, which may have been a discussion during a side conversation after the main interview concluded.  Many executives see this behavior as underhanded and a betrayal of trust.  A simple statement of: “I’m interviewing you for topic A, but I also have a blog and any other information we discuss today might be published there.”

• Fear of Ignorance: Reporters – especially young ones – can be intimidated when interviewing a seasoned executive.  They’re afraid of appearing unprepared or ignorant of a particular topic.  As a result, they pretend to understand a complicated technology or partnership relationship, when, in fact, they don’t.  Stopping an interview to have something explained in detail is smart reporting.  “Getting it” matters.  That way when the story is published, the information is accurate.

• Playing Gotcha: Younger executives tend to babble during an interview with a reporter.  They're nervous after all.  As a result, they sometimes share information that they aren’t supposed to.  If an interview subject asks for a data point to be retracted – and it’s not a crucial piece of information necessary for the story – why not let them do so?  I don’t know how many times, I’ve heard a reporter say: “But he said it” as an excuse to use information like this.  It’s one reason why executives dislike talking to reporters.

A good rule of thumb for reporters is simply to be reasonable.  Interview subjects aren’t the enemy.  And, yes, they have an agenda – promoting their company and their products – but it’s that agenda that keeps them talking with journalists in the first place.

The following simple figures demonstrate the difference between traditional market research and continuous engagement.

There are dozens of differences between the two approaches. Research is ad-hoc or at regular intervals whereas continuous engagement is, well, continuous. Research is one-way, and engagement is two-way. Research is devoid of any direct brand benefit (and research purists will claim this is beneficial) whereas continuous engagement inculcates brand loyalty. Here's a list of the primary differences:

• Research is ad hoc or regular interval; engagement is continuous
• Research is one-way (+ prize or payment!); engagement is two-way (mutually rewarding)
• Research is unemotional; engagement is emotional
• Research is independent of loyalty; engagement inculcates brand loyalty
• Research has a tight focus; engagement has a wide focus
• Research deals with sequential parameters; engagement is multi-parametric
• Research is designed to achieve statistical confidence; engagement is designed to detect weak signals.

The disadvantages of traditional market research

Ad hoc or regular intervals

• Your last data set getting on a bit?
• Trying to read between the lines because the last survey didn’t ask exactly the question you now need answering?
• Is your market speeding up relative to your research frequency?
• Do you need to ask new questions, but want to continue trending previous survey data?

One-way

• What’s in it for your respondents?
• Ever wondered if they’re answering your questions conscientiously?
• Are they likely to benefit or suffer as a consequence of the information they share with you?

Unemotional

• Quite simply, do they care?

Independent of loyalty

• Ad hoc, one-way, unemotional interaction does not drive brand loyalty.

Tight focus

• How long can you keep them interested for the remote chance of winning an iPod?
• Once you’ve collected the demographics, how long remains to get to the crux?
• By what degree can you change the subject?
• How many times can you change the subject before their brain starts hurting?

Confidence

After all that, it’s no wonder you need some mathematics to determine the statistical confidence.

Social media

The best way to understand your customers, is to have a relationship with them. Online. On the mobile. In store.

Social media is defined on Wikipedia as:

"the democratization of content and the understanding of the role people play in the process of not only reading and disseminating information, but also how they share and create content for others to participate. It is the shift from a broadcast mechanism to a many-to-many model, rooted in a conversational format between authors and people".

More simply, we define social media in the context here as:

"all integrated channels through which you can get people discussing you and your market, with each other and with you".

Wide focus

Anything and everything is discussed by your customers in social forums. For each topic, you can choose to interact or just listen.

You can also seed the forums with topics relevant to your business tomorrow, not just today. Test their reaction. Harvest value-added feedback; qualitative and quantitative.

Multi-parametric

Traditional research addresses a limited sequence of parameters, whereas social media can embrace multiple parameters.

Nevertheless, your product roadmap may encompass hundreds of parametric permutations. In this instance, you could chose to present ideas based on "runs" (parameter groupings based on Taguchi orthogonal arrays) to your most loyal and valued social media participants.

Detect weak signals

Weak signals are easily overlooked in traditional research. But understanding how to identify the most authoritative members in your social media, and learning to listen to them, can place you weeks if not months ahead of your competition in timely new product launches.

New skills

Supplanting or supplementing market research with continuous engagement requires:

• A new strategy
• An implementation framework
• New analyses methods
• Sound corporate performance measurement to close the loop

For and against

Unsurprisingly, there are advocates and detractors from this point of view. Take an interview with Bill Neal of SDR Consulting for example:

"..But I have some real problems with consumer generated media as a source of credible and reliable information. In many ways it combines the worst elements of non-scientific research – self selection and advocacy – both positive and negative.

The information they generate may be true, or not true – there is no way to discern which. Therefore, the information generated by those folks is neither credible nor reliable."

However, this perspective could not be more strongly countered by the assertions made in the Cluetrain manifesto:

"A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter - and getting smarter faster than most companies.

These markets are conversations. Their members communicate in language that is natural, open, honest, direct, funny and often shocking. Whether explaining or complaining, joking or serious, the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked."

OK, continuous engagement may not signal the death of traditional market research, but it marks a distinct and influential turning point; a turning point leading companies are adopting today for competitive advantage.

The debate about whether or not a journalist should blog is moot at this point. They blog – and will continue to blog in the foreseeable future.

But blogging can be a slippery slope for traditional journalists because blogging is about opinion and point of view while traditional journalism (at least in the United States) is about being impartial and balanced.

So when a reporter writes a balanced news story about a company and then blogs his opinions on the company – is she undermining her creditability?

That’s the big question.

Two recent episodes at Racepoint haven given us greater insight into the challenges journalists, PR consultants, and business executives face in the world of Press 2.0.

One of our technology executives was recently interviewed by a Boston Globe columnist. After the interview, the client and columnist engaged in small talk and the name of my boss, Larry Weber, came up. Our client and the columnist made a bet that Larry had his own blog.

He does not (and believes CEOs shouldn’t blog). The next day the columnist wrote a blog posting about Larry’s Phantom Blog. The executive was mentioned in the blog post, but not by name. Regardless, he sent an email explanation to Larry and said that he had no idea that the columnist planned on blogging about that part of the conversation.

(On a side note: the post playfully questioned Larry’s social media credentials because he doesn’t blog. From my perspective that’s like questioning the expertise of a football commentator because he’s never played in the NFL, refuting the creditability of an English professor to analyze a novel without having published one. It would also be like questioning whether business journalists should be allowed to write about business if they’ve never worked for one).

The second incident occurred in the spring when a journalist for the BBC wrote a story about another client. The BBC reporter talked to the client who had relayed some misinformation, which was dutifully written about. I called the reporter and asked for the information to be corrected.

I had a 30 minute conversation with the reporter. He insisted the team member “had said it” during the interview and that he was within his rights to report it. I agreed. But I told him the information was still wrong. Was it his job to parrot what he’d been told or to pass on accurate news to his readers? He finally agreed to issue a correction.

But in a box inside the body of the corrected news story he provided a link to his blog. In his blog, he discusses, in detail, my conversation with him and why, ultimately, he decided to correct the story. I wasn’t mentioned by name, but I had considered our telephone conversation private.

I still talk to this reporter and when I’m passing on information via email or telephone, I’ll humorlessly add a disclaimer about the conversation being private and not be used in blogging. I know it annoys him (which is part of the fun) – but I also believe that journalists need to inform people if they plan on blogging about a conversation.

We’ve also had cases at Racepoint where overeager bloggers have posted email pitches verbatim online. As I tell my colleagues – pitches aren’t news stories, but some bloggers apparently don’t understand that.

Blogs are a wonderful tool, but it’s still a new medium and the rules of engagement are still being hammered out. We’ll explore some of our ideas and recommendations for the new rules of engagement in future posts.