If you're going to send us something, make it worthwhile.

So, if you’ve been blogging for any stretch of time, you might get contacted from time to time by public relations firms on behalf of web entities looking for a mention.  I know I do.  Perhaps I’m not so important that I get included on some lists and not others (in fact, I think that’s precisely the reason), but I can’t help but wonder *why* I get pitched the way I do.

Let me explain.

I rarely, if ever, act on a message by a public relations firm — contrary to what some bloggers say about PR firms ruling the blogging roost, that is.

Most of the time its because of the combination of two things

1. I’m clearly part of a list they like to send unsolicited information to, as its addressed quite generally

2. there is no angle or hook that would otherwise make a news bit newsworthy to me

Now, the first thing, I admit, is pure ego.  I like it if people know who I am when they’re emailing to me.  And it kind of relates to the second. If you have no idea who I am, and what I write about, how can you possibly tailor a pitch to me?

Which is a bit irrelevant because it just doesn’t happen – or rather, it very rarely does.

I mean, its not exactly rocket science getting into the mind of a blogger.  We like free stuff.  We also like access to stuff that no one else does.  We like to get a chance to write about something and be first about it.  And we also like to get noticed and validated for the work (or, should I say “work”) that we do.

You want us to yak about your thing?  Its easy. Give us free stuff to try out.  The more the better.  It can literally be the crappiest swag you have lying around.  Send us that private alpha or beta invitation.  If you don’t have one, make one up (I’m kidding … sort of).  Or — in this case — tell us something interesting and fresh about that thing that we can write about, that’s worthwhile, interesting and uniquely tailored to our audiences.

But for pete’s sake, don’t let *US* figure that out.  Most of us are either a) too lazy b) too busy or c) an ironic combination of the two to connect the ersatz dots, particularly if there’s no *real* picture there anyway (shhh — I won’t tell anyone).

Yes, perhaps I, and a cadre of other bloggers, are not actually that important to spend the time to do any or all of the above.  But if that’s the case, why are you trying to pitch bloggers if you’re probably aware that its not going to work in the first place?

Because, if it is, then really, those kinds of communications are no better than spam, don’t you think?

The AP (Associated Press) report quotes a Dr. Strasburger , who is an “an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics policy”, and the Google Comments has Dr. Strasburger making his own comment over here.  What’s interesting is that the AP report distills Dr. Strasburger’s opinion into a two or three sentence sound bite.  Google News’ Comments allows Dr. Strasburger to have a fully developed opinion (and boy, is it an opinion) about the issue.  I think this is a great example of comments adding a good layer of complexity to the topic, because it really allows people to get a bigger, fuller, picture around the story.

And by that, I know that Phillip Lennsen queries as to whether having Google Comments will dilute the power of the story — but that will only happen if its a one -sided comment, or that there is only one comment.  To get a good appreciation of any story is to understand both sides, and what better way is there to do that than actually hear (or, in this case read) what both sides are saying, quite literally, without the hindrance of a filter, or the artificial limitations of what a story is?  And this is even without the regular audience stepping in (which will no doubt come at a later point).

Which leads me to the other interesting issue.

Of course I fully expect someone from McDonald’s to post something — and as the PR part of the blogosphere gears up for this new change in Google News, I expect that its probably filtering through layers of bureaucracy if its reached anyone’s ears at all.  But, getting corporations to think about this issue is another Good Thing.

In order for this to work, Google Comments must (and there’s no reason not to) allow all sides to have their say, including corporations, and other large seemingly faceless entities.  In this case, I fully expect McDonald’s to trot out some kind of PR-flackery.  But maybe they won’t.  Maybe they’ll suprise us with a refreshingly honest answer, and use the Google News Comment system in the same vein and in the same ethos as blogging.

I wonder if this — and not, say, Second Life — is PR’s next greatest frontier?

When corporations are forced to respond on Google News, perhaps we’ll hear disarmingly real and honest answers about the issue — and perhaps that will be the greatest PR lesson that could come from blogging.  Hey, I love blogging as much as the next bloke (or gal), but Google News has the kind of reach that blogging just doesn’t have. 

Lots of unexplored issues here, and the story’s just hours old.  As I said previously, this is something I say with only a dash of hyperbole:  This ‘addition’ to Google News has the potential to be something big, whether its affecting how stories are written, how they are perceived, allowing the development of a lively debate that encourages people to understand the complexities behind the stories … and perhaps even more exciting, how large corporations — and governments? — are held accountable to stories that move across its “desk”, and what they might be encouraged to say when their proverbial feet are held to the metaphorical fire.

It announces that its going to start spying on you.

In a round-about way, of course. There’s a great piece over at the Boston.com where Sony is going into a partnership with Nielson so that usage data by gamers on the Sony network can be analyzed by them. This is good news for Sony because in selling that data, they’ll be able to defray the costs of their wickedly expensive console. Now, while I am *sure* that no *personal* data will be analyzed, and that gamer behaviour will only be able to be measured in aggregate, this announcement only seems to make sense from a corporate point of view.

Sony — the company — will be able to defray costs of making their luridly expensive console by selling user gaming habits.

Sure, there are valid reasons to do this and the article brings them up. The gaming market is worth billions but is undercapitalized because advertisers don’t know anything about gamers.

Fine.

But the gamer in *me* says something else. Something like … you know what?

Rather than trying to offset the cost of your gargantuan strategic mistake of making such an expensive machine on the backend by leading to some misunderstandings and possibly creating a(nother) public relations nightmare — why not do the simple thing that will make both gamers AND stockholders happy?

Why don’t you just make better games? Exclusive games? Games that give people a reason to buy a console that for some, is the equivalent of a mortgage payment?

I recognize that it might not be easy, but for land’s sake gentlemen — on a background of failing sales and a summer where reading is otherwise light, this is a public relations firestorm that is just waiting to be lit.

BOOOOOORING.

Disengaged.

Out of the conversation.

Dammit, why can’t we see more press releases or news rooms that are smartly integrated with social media?

Hell, isn’t Yahoo! trying to take a more social media bent, what with its Web2.0 acquisitions?  I know, I know — PR is different, and yes, maybe I am hallucinating about Yahoo!’s future.

But jeebus, why can’t we for once see a major product launch (or service launch) with

a) Just the facts: You could pare down the Press release into about 5 or 6 bullet points.  And the most important point in the Press Release is actually buried somewhere in the middle.  Did you read it?  It said “SmartAds generally resulted in click through rates of two to three times higher than static, non-customized display ads using the same targeting and placement.”  But I’ll bet most DIDN’T because its buried in paragraph SIX.

b) Links to ongoing blog “reactions”: Technorati — are you listening?

c) Examples: Why not show exactly what SmartAds does?  Either link out to sites that are doing it, or actually show demos and case studies.  The first — fine, they’re still testing it.  But jeebus, man, instead of telling us, just show us.  Or get Scoble to do a video on it! (PodTech, are you listening?)  In fact, I’m kind of surprised Scoble *hasn’t* done a video on it.

Yes, I know, I know. Press Releases have their time and place.  You need to get everyone on board and have the important principles to sign off.  Its a corporate statement.  And so on.

But for the love of pete, this was a great opportunity!  Yahoo! could have really gotten with the Peanut Butter to create something that people would go back to — as social media news rooms act like a hub *for* conversations.  I love Techmeme like everyone else, but why let Techmeme have all the fun?  Yahoo! started the conversation — why not let host it for real?

Ok … ok … I’ll get of my soapbox now. ;)