Community Discussion - Pitches from content marketers versus publicists: any difference?

[FeliciaCrawford]

Howdy, Moz community! Hope you're all having a fine Friday so far!

Tuesday on the blog we featured Samuel Scott's superpowered "Advanced Guide to Online Publicity Campaigns." One interesting tidbit stood out to me as I was reading; the author states:

On online marketing websites and blogs, I see pitching often being discussed by "content marketers" as a way to gain shares of and links to one thing or another. They should stop. I receive e-mailed pitches from PR executives and "content marketers" all the time — and I can tell within three seconds which one I'm getting.

How? Here is the difference between the two.

"Content marketers" pitch me:

1.) To share or link to some random article, and they do so often when
2.) I have no connection to or interest in the topic at all

Publicists pitch me:

1.) To write about an idea because
2.) They already know that I have a connection to or interest in that topic

I ignore or delete the pitches from "content marketers." Following the pitches from publishers, I may choose to include their source, study, or idea in some future piece in the publications to which I contribute. Most "link earning" methods are poor imitations of traditional publicity practices.

Pitch in a way that will genuinely interest the people who you are contacting. Do not pitch thinly-veiled attempts to get links and shares for you or your clients.

I definitely get these emails fairly regularly, but I've never given thought to just what it is that makes me respond positively to some and decline others. So here's my discussion question for the week:

What's the distinction for you? Have you noticed that, in your own pitches, you've had a better reception to a certain strategy? Does the "publicist" angle work better in your experience, or have you had plenty of luck with the "content marketer"-type pitch? What do you actually find yourself responding to, in these situations?

[RobertFisher]

Always happy to see an EGOL response. For me the issue really is one of credulity. When regularly I am approached by those who want to put something on one of our websites or client's websites I am always struck by how blatant they are and how assumptive they try to be. These we can call content marketers, but I like EGOL's reference - they are solicitors. They are not unlike when I was in another business and had a lot of customers; regularly people would approach with the world famous ... "VALUE ADD!" We were supposed to let them market to our customers for free because there world changing product or service was so massively valuable. I think my sarcasm tells you my answer to them was the same as my answer to any content marketer, good bye. Please stop the spam.

With requests to write something I am fairly cautious but do have a couple of known business or marketing blogs that I infrequently contribute to. Since they are publishing media on the web, I am fine with calling them publicists.

Interesting discussion you started Felicia,

Robert

[EGOL]

I have gotten many hundreds of solicitations over the past 12 years of running a growing content site. A solicitation is simply a query that asks if you are open to publishing an article written by someone else.  These are a total waste of my time.  Delete.

So, here are my standards.  You might not like them and you might not agree with them.  But, this is what I use because I am done wasting time on spammers who wear suits to work, people who spin rubbish, plagiarists, and people who think that fluff is substantive.

I called them "solicitations" in the first paragraph.  I didn't call them "pitches".   The difference, in my opinion, is that a "pitch" reveals the topics that you are qualified to write good substantive content about.   A sign that you are qualified to write about a topic is that you have access to the places, people, equipment and materials needed to get good photos - which are required for a good article. Another sign is that you can - in one sentence - explain why you have experience to write about the topic.  It could be formal education, substantive work history, or other experience that required you to spend a lot of  hours engaged with this topic.  If you don't do that.  Delete.

If you say that you can write about anything, then I know you are not telling somebody the truth - you are either BSing yourself or trying to BS me.  Delete.  Ban your email from my inbox.

If you are still in the running and tell me you can write about atomic emission spectroscopy we will speak by phone.  In a few sentences I will probably be able to tell if your selection of words and care of speaking reveal a person who knows what they are talking about.  Gossip, prattle and blather are no substitute for factual technical content published for experienced audiences.

So, after about 12 years and hundreds of solicitations, only a couple dozen people have submitted something that I have been willing to publish.  Most of them have work experience or teaching experience about the topics that they wrote about.

A publisher who values his or her audience is able to say "thanks for trying out, but sorry, we can't use this".  If your message was deleted, I didn't waste your time.