Bad PR Hurts Everyone – How “Not” To Conduct Media Relations
January 21, 2009 – update : the text of this entry has been modified to remove statements that could be misinterpreted as potentially damaging the hard earned reputation of the subject. The original intent of these statements has been taken out of context, but in an effort to be fair, we have changed them. We do not deny Mr. Mateas’ expertise, we merely signal some aspects of her online presence (website) that are easily misunderstood. The intent of this article, like others of its type, is to educate the general public and PR professionals as a whole about the fine-tune aspects of the modern public relations methodology: transparency, authenticity, credibility and fair play.
The need for proper communication between PR professionals and the media is crucial. Telling stories, or asking someone in media to tell them, about partners and clients is an invaluable aspect of what we do. However, there is a delicate balance to be struck between stark marketing and sales, and what we do as purveyors of the dreams, visions and news of the people who depend on us. We are not salesmen after all, and good relations with the media or anyone is about value.
I was scanning the globe today looking for the best candidate for the Goofy Award, when I ran across one from an interesting source, “The Media Relations Maven”. For those who do not know, a maven is supposed to be a trusted expert in a particular field. In reviewing Margo Mateas’ site, I was struck by the audacity with which a supposed expert “gasses” what has to be an unsuspecting clientele with. Here are a few examples from her site, with corresponding proper PR dogma.
- The Maven’s site says that her website draws 60,000 unique visitors a year.
- Fact – The Compete metrics for the site indicate less than 5,000 per year
- The Maven says that media relations training is for public relations professionals to improve their relationships with the media.
- Fact – On her training products page the Maven sells a training CD that essentially tears down media relations, the “pitch” for this product reads: Seven Ways To Generate Publicity When There’s No News. She goes on to suggest that a good PR can always get coverage, even if there is nothing going on! My question is; “How does getting a news person to do a story on nothing help promote a relationship with the media outlet?” News Flash! You can have this jewel for only $99 for a limited time I bet.
- The Maven suggests in several training CD descriptions that the client is some sort of villain to be somehow “coerced” or better yet “educated” to understand what YOU the PR is doing. The worst innuendo of these comes from the low low priced BIZSET (at just under $500), which suggests:
Six ways to instantly increase billing without raising your rates. - Fact – The client is not the enemy! Let me say that again, the client is not the enemy. This woman has at least 3 training CD’s that suggest ways in which a client might be manipulated in one way or another.
Conclusion
The Maven got under my skin, I admit it. We all make mistakes every day, some large and some small. Creating a website and claiming to be one thing, while actually working from another camp is simply a lie. The lie, is the single most detrimental act anyone can commit against any profession. Fully half of our initial talks with clients, and in particular new ones, deal with PR’s credibility brought about by these very kinds of tactics. Sales people claiming to be experts in other fields simply gripes me. Hell, any block headed salesman I have ever known thinks he or she knows more than anyone about anything. This is simply not what good public relations people are about!
So, today’s PR Goof Award goes directly to Margo Mateas – The Media Maven – Expert at summoning imaginary unique visitors and hammering those cheap clients into accepting over-billing. Lest we forget, she is also going to make you best buddies with the editor of the New York Times by telling you how to “pitch” him a spitball of a story about nothing for his millions of readers. Magic, the woman is magic.
A snapshot of my personal site (about 60,000 users), our corporate blog, and The Media Maven’s mystery guests
About the Author
Phil Butler is editor-in-chief of Everything PR and senior partner at Pamil Visions PR. He’s a widely cited authority on beta startups, search engines and public relations issues, and he has covered tech news since 2004. Phil wrote in the past for ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, Profy, SitePoint, Search Engine Journal, AltSearchEngines. Follow Phil on Twitter or send him an email at phil [at] pamil-visions [dot] com.
There is enough warning in the article, and a big big warning at the beginning of the trailer, stating RESTRICTED 
Please put a warning on the trailer. There is very disturbing material in it. Not fair to watch thinking it ...
Sleeky20x, I know everyone hates a price increase. But honestly, do you feel the new services and content justify it? ...
i sold my x box 360 a few months ago. i loved xbox but ive saved about $300 since i ...
I think this is a problem Ive always played Live and i really like the how the prices are now ...
Did the Old Spice campaign result in increased sales? 
John, You are correct, take me to your leader. LOL
Always,
Phil (I think therefore I am) 
Comment by The Goofy Maven Herself on 20 January 2009:
Hi Phil, Wow — I must say, I feel like some of my clients who have been blindsided by someone who misunderstood them and who went public with their opinion prior to contacting the source herself. As far as the site statistics, I don’t know how you got access to my site’s traffic, and I would like to talk to you about that, because the last time I checked those numbers I cited were correct. My current site server does not have updated Urchin stats and so I have not been able to update them (perhaps this is the reason for such a low number, they may not be reporting correctly). However, that is not the main problem here. I was a newspaper and radio journalist for eight years. During that time, I had a single retraction — and that is a pretty good record for someone who wrote almost 300 inches a week. Anyone who KNOWS me knows that my claims are not hype. I don’t know how you can profess to understand PR and say we are not sales people. Every time we pitch a reporter we don’t know, that is a cold call. It’s asking someone who is not thinking about what we’re selling to stop what they’re doing, listen to our sales pitch, and to close the deal by agreeing to give us coverage. As far as my opinion of clients, I have operated my own agency and worked for a number of agencies, including Weber Shandwick when it was the world’s largest agency. I do not think clients are the enemy! In fact, I think most agencies treat clients do over-bill callously and don’t deliver what they promise. My training packet with contracts is to protect small and medium-size agencies from being taken advantage of by clients who just decide not to pay because they don’t feel like it. This DOES happen all the time, and I am simply offering my experience to help provide one-person shops or small agencies avoid being burned by using contracts that don’t protect them. Anyone who does business with me will tell you that I most certainly DO NOT believe that clients are the problem. I run my entire business with the belief that clients deserve respect, integrity and honesty.
The fact that you say I “coerce” and manipulate clients is blatantly false — the same thing you are accusing me of doing. How dare you use “coerce” in quotes — you should know that that implies you are taking those words from my site and using them in your text. NOWHERE on my site does it say anything in those words. I do not teach my agency clients to steal from their customers. On the contrary, I teach them how to spread costs across the entire agency and how to use current resources smarter and more effectively. Most young and one-person shops DO underbill and absorb hours they shouldn’t. They need to be taught how to plan and estimate projects better.
As far as being a “charlatan”, I have written a column called “The Media Relations Maven” for The Public Relations Society of America’s Tactics newspaper for the last seven years (they gave me the moniker, not me), have trained executives at top companies including Google, AOL, Sony, Lockheed Martin, Verizon, Glaxo Smith Kline, The Social Security Administration and dozens of others. And people DO get amazing results. The fact that you don’t know how to “pitch the impossible” is proof that you don’t know what I’m talking about. Most PR people have to pitch things that are not particularly newsworthy. I show them, from my journalistic training, how to think like a reporter, and how to work to find a newsworthy angle that will work for the media. I have dozens of stories of how I have effectively pitched Time, Newsweek, the AP, the Today Show and others, starting with pitches that weren’t really newsworthy. It’s not about pitching hype at all. It’s about digging down and finding an angle that will work. But then, you wouldn’t know that because you falsely assumed you know everything about me, my integrity and results from scanning my website with an obviously biased perspective. As for Oprah? Yes, I worked with an agency in NY that had been trying to place a client in Oprah magazine unsuccessfully for five weeks. I did a day’s training with the group, then met with staff 1:1. We worked together and practiced a 10-second pitch that she pitched and landed the very next week. I have trained practitioners to land press in outlets that previously hung up on them. The list is literally endless of what people have done once I teach them to respect and understand the media, and their clients. A wise man told me once, “a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” Until you have experienced my training, talked with my clients, don’t “assume” you know that what I say isn’t true or doesn’t work. Not only is it not fair, but it’s bad journalism. Had I read your site as a blogger and had those kind of questions, I would have emailed you and asked for your response first.
Comment by The Media Relations Maven on 20 January 2009:
Your blog is grossly inaccurate and reflects your own lack of character and professionalism. The web stats you cite are inaccurate and come from a third party, and bear no relation to my site traffic at all. I demand you cease and desist in making these slanderous claims and remove the post immediately. I have already contacted my attorney.
Comment by Doug Motel on 20 January 2009:
I think (thought) you have a great blog but this one is entry is waaay off.
We purchased a couple of her CD’s and then bought some more because they were great and extremely helpful and helped us help our clients FAST.
The stuff about “making news where there isn’t any” is simply encouraging PR people to become more creative about what they think the limitations of a story might be.
This woman really knows her stuff and for you to create such a mean spirited attack (what blogger posts photos of the subject like this without even first attempting an interview?) makes me really question everything I had read from you in the past.
Phil this is just bad form. You should HEAR the product first and then do a review and I believe that afterward you will do the right thing and apologize to her.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
OK, Maven, I’ll let Phil reply to everything else, but the stats. You see, if you claim that you have 60000 visitors each year you are lying, as simple as that. I understand that critique is hard to swallow, and it’s a normal reaction to try to defend yourself, but don’t do it by threatening to sue an A-list blogger because he expressed an opinion. Do your homework first.
There’s no way you get that much traffic. Compete, a third party as it is, although not entirely accurate, gives a pretty close statistic overview. You cannot get the traffic you claim with less than 100 links to your domain, with no links whatsoever from a reputable directory, with a site that has never even been bookmarked in a social media resource. You cannot, and if you’d know a little about the Internet and how things work online you wouldn’t make such claims.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
@Daug – you made her site, it’s natural to defend her.
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 January 2009:
Hi Doug,
I thought I would reply to you first as your suggestion is easiest to address. Though I appreciate your readership in the past (ostensibly), it is apparent from the advertisements on your prospective sites that the relationship between you, your business and that of the Maven is rather commercial. She evidently advertises for you, and vice versa. Given the nature of your business, I would suspect that you either created here site, or optimized it, or both.
The chances of you having read any of my posts on this blog are about one in ten million. We have been in the blogging, SEO and consulting business a long time, and more importantly, on a level beyond what you might imagine. Simple countervailing comments will not suffice when trying to do PR damage control in this case. I think damage control in this case would be more appropriate using a more tailored approach. Admitting to some errors, establishing credibility and a willingness to see faults, and then addressing any issues that are in fact inaccurate would do nicely. Just my opinion of course, but coming to my comments with a ham handed redirect, when in fact your two are associates, only adds to my opinion.
We have screen shots of the links and ads in case eradicating them has crossed your mind.
Thanks for visiting,
Always,
Phil
Comment by PR Professional on 20 January 2009:
I have attended Margo’s Pitching Secrets of the Pros one-day workshop and found it to be incredibly helpful. She preaches research, research, research prior to pitching anything to anyone. Margo also urged us to truly understand the journalist’s view and to be more creative in how we pitched so in the end we can be of more help to the journalist. I have point-blank asked her advice on how to ethically pitch one of my clients, and was very satisfied with her answers. These are not a charlatan’s ways, but those of an astute PR practitioner who has clearly learned the ropes.
Comment by Cole Hons on 20 January 2009:
I met Margo last year when she came here to Penn State to help all of us in the Outreach News Bureau to pitch stories more effectively. She was an energetic, engaging speaker. She gave great us advice, which turned out to be totally valid and practically useful. And she never once said or suggested that we do anything unethical or disrespectful in order to get coverage. Mostly she tried to deepen our respect for journalists and their point-of-view, so that we could more effectively pitch to them without wasting anybody’s time.
Anyone who’s ever worked in PR knows that one of the biggest challenges we face is figuring out how to pitch stories which are big news to our clients, but less so to the general public. Learning how to find a newsworthy angle on a client’s story is exactly what we get paid to do. That’s what Margo means, as far as I understand it, by generating publicity “when there’s no news.” Sure, it’s a cheeky thing to say. The woman has a sense of humor, you know? Anybody working in the field ought to get the joke.
Personally, I think Margo deserves the title “Maven.” She’s got that much experience and wisdom from the field to share. I can’t make any comments on the site traffic issue, but I can say that having gone through a half-day training with her, I never once questioned her integrity on any level.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
Bern, no one doubts her ability to help people
this is not about that.
What bothers the most is that CD that encourages PR professionals and business owners to “spam” the media with no news. I was a journalist before becoming a PR as well and I know how frustrating and annoying is to receive a “no news” pitch. Such practices give the PR profession a bad name. We are seen as BS artists because we try to “sell” a BS story, you understand?
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
Cole, it’s obvious Margo has a sense of humor – the picture on her site shows an opened person, with a healthy appetite for life and fun. And by the way you all come to “defend” her, it becomes even more clear that she has good friends, who care about her.
I am surprised that Margo reacted so aggressively to this post – it’s an opinion, and an invitation to dialogue. We consider the sale of the named CDs wrong. I also consider the 60000 visitors claim wrong. I am an SEO, with almost 10 years of experience in this field. I cannot be fooled like that.
Take a look at this screenshot:
you’ll see the stats I was talking about in one of my previous comments.
So, once again, it’s not about her training skills – clearly the Maven is an authority in this field.
It’s about claiming something that’s not true, and about selling something that should never be sold.
Comment by Doug Motel on 20 January 2009:
Phil,
Just to clarify: I came across Margo’s and many helpful sites (yes yours included) earlier this year when we tried to better understand public relations.
I bought her CD’s “Phone PItching Secrets: Grab Editors In The First 10 Seconds”, “Breaking Into National Press” and “Email Pitching Secrets” and I found them to be a extremely helpful. She had some very clear values that she was trying to impress. She kept hitting home that good PR was “95% preparation” and her focus is on doing her homework before you pitch anything. The CD’s were filled with great suggestions about everything from what you DON’T need to say when you get someone on the phone to how to resources for reaching the people you need to pitch.
I used the suggestions and immediately got 3 features written for a client and I was really impressed. I did something I never do: I wrote a great fan letter to her.
She replied and asked me what I did etc.. and I had some people on my team help her update some content on her site. SHE DID NOT PAY US for this, instead she gave me some GREAT private coaching on pitching a medical client of ours.
Later she asked me to be a guest on her show.
She sent out an email about your blog and I got really angry because I know EXACTLY what you mean about these people who create these nothing products made out of air and rip people off. This is a real problem on the internet and I have been burned a couple of times but you got this one wrong.
Phil I believe that you were simply trying to help us (your readers) avoid another scammer but you did it in an usually personal and attacking way without first listening to the content and it is my opinion that you really missed the mark here.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
You make a very valid point, Doug, about “reviewing without first listening” – honestly I was grossed by the very idea of pitching journalists when there’s no news. We never called the Maven a scammer, we simply pointed out some negative aspects of her online strategy.
I tell you what: we would be glad to review the two CDs we discuss here and publicly admit and apologize if we were wrong. Margo should send us the CDs and we’ll return them after we review them. I go further: if they are that good, we will advertise for them on this site, on my personal site and on all sites we own. Does this sound fair?
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 January 2009:
Margo,
You have responded on a broad front, so allow me to address this in sections please:
Statistics - The metrix for your site are just about irrefutable. My partner addressed this from an SEO standpoint, and i use Compete, one of the most respected site metrics tools on the Web to illustrate your rough traffic. I did not include Alexa or others, as quite frankly, your site does not effectively exist for them. I know you must be wondering how and why anyone would even run such a test. The answer is fairly simple. If you do SEO, help websites do hard work all the time, test the most innovative technology startups ever devised and in general make you life about evaluating sites and their validity. Surfing across one that is sub-par is second nature. You claimed one thing, while even the essence of your site conveyed another. There is no way your traffic is as you say it is, the chances of me being wrong on this are minuscule. Point one in stone.
You are a salesperson – You admit it right here in the comments. PR has neough of a bad stigma because of this type of mis-communication of its purpose and proper methodology. If you will read my friend Brian Solis’ rather definitive article about PR 2.0, then this fact will be further clarified for you. Brian is the CEO of FutureWorks PR, one of the most respected in the industry. We are not hype artists or salesmen, we are story tellers for our partners. There is a difference.
The client is the enemy – Some of your training courses are simply billed as alternative or informative ways to deal with clients on another level. The way you “spin” these products is a very delicate matter. Any good PR or even sales person would agree that peddling one’s products to one segment, can often alienate the other end of the spectrum if not done carefully. I never categorically said you coerced, but rather said that it “appears”, given the pitch of these products. There is a difference. In fact, I worded these variables very carefully so as to convey that “appearances” are important. You should know this especially as a sales minded professional.
Spreading costs? - This is not what your pitch for these products conveys. There is no mention of spreading any costs, and in fact you suggest here in the comments that these tutorials are meant for one or two person entities. I would like to watch an agency spread costs among themselves to bill clients more effectively based on how many variables? Two or three? The point is, the tags for these CD’s wreak of hyped sales tricks rather than sound PR methods or transparent strategies.
A charlatan is as a charlatan does – I did not categorically call you a charlatan, I leave that definition to my readers, but if the shoe fits, I suggest you wear it or get a new pair. I suggested that based on all these apparent evidences, that you might be lumped in there. I don’t care if you made Oprah, Bill Gates or Barack Obama famous. A PR visionary who can accomplish miracles is held the very high standards as it should be. So, I think even your approach to this criticism reveals a defensiveness that belys and underpinning of truth in my contentions and opinions.
Biased – I should reveal a secret to you. I did develop an “opinion” about your site, your tactics, and your credibility from studying your site and all the things you claim. The secret which will help you the most is in knowing that your site, with all its flaws, is the digital representation of who you are. As a person, as a professional and as a viable solution for your potential clients. The bottom line here is, by noticing one inconsistency, it was easy for me to do at least a cursory evaluational of your services. There was no bias, the opinion was derived from data on our site. There is the minute liklihood that some of my contentions are off base, but not all of them. For the argument, I am now poking holes in everything you contend. They are big holes. You are defending your whole existence, while I am just pointing our things I see, or things anyone can see, that will hurt you – your business – and the PR profession as a whole in the future.
Respect and understanding of the media – You admit to pitching these people. You suggest that it can be done in ten seconds. You further advertise training that can make news out of nothing. You could have as easily promoted these ideas and products using sound and transparent public relations lingo. As a suggeston off the top of my head; ” This CD contains years of valuable insights that will enable any PR to more effectively protray news and ideas to key media outlets. Through using these simple, proven techniques the basis for continuing, solid and effective relationships with key media outlets will be established.” Too wordy, I know, but you find the core ideas in that. Where is the respect in selling now news as news?
An experienced man – I think we are talking about two kinds of experiences here. Yours obviously comes from traditional advertising and marketing. I think you were also a very good journalist at some point. The problem is, you, like so many, are trying to superimpose one profession atop another. I would be tempted to bet that the quote you suggest came from a marketing guru. My suggestion at this point, would be for you to be a little more introspective. Send us some evidence of your contentions. I do not mean pictures of you with Oprah either. Site metrics, clips from the CD’s, or any conjunctive supportive evidence of your contentions, and we will review them. But, the main thing this post was designed to do is now being accomplished. A discourse has surfaced that may well change the way people view PR online. You want me and everyone else to value your experiences. Fine, pitch them properly. Acknowledge and deal with my experiences too. Ask what is wrong with the site, the lingo, the premise and the symbolic negative aspects. Instead you are pure defensive on every front. this is not good Pr in itself.
Journalism - I am not a journalist. My expertise is in technology, engineering, spatial conceptualization and the mechanics of the social Web. I also deal with ethics and the philosophical basis for next generation innovation and viability for clients. I am however, a technical writer and blogger of some repute. Just so we are clear on this.
Lastly, I would just like to say that I actually do not like be overly critical. I know this seems mutually exclusive of this post, but it is true. However, being engaged so deeply in everything Web 2.0, and hav ing the networks and friends we have accumulated on this journey, has set before us a task. We intend to point out and if we can eradicate every single negative influence we can on our profession. Does this mean we are perfect? By no means. But, making the effort itself, will lead us, our constitue3nts, and perhaps even those “negative” influential evangelists of PR toward something better. We have all been subjected to undue criticism and hardship because of the very kind of tactics you appear to employ. Who made this our job? We did. I think in the end, everyone will benefit from an open argument or discourse about what PR is and decidedly is not.
I think my partner has laid down the gauntlet, as it were. We can be wrong just like anyone else, and out of fairness she offered to review these CD’s. The rub here is obvious however. If we review these, and go through them with a fine tooth comb. Will we be able to review them as PR viable, or simply tricky tactics for would be PR experts?
We are prepared to go to either extreme and make these instructions world famous, or on the other hand effectively ruin them as sources of viable PR practice. I leave it up to you. One thing I am sorry of, is that causing pain to anyone makes me physically ill. The necessity of it however, can save a million ills for so many. Please let us know your suggested course outside of suing us. As for that, have at it. These are reviews based on scalable input.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Margo Mateas on 20 January 2009:
There are 504 references for “The Media Relations Maven” and 236 mentions for “Margo Mateas” on Google and Yahoo both. That’s title specific, and plenty of links from all over the world. I also employ a top-rated SEO firm that works with Google analytics. I am shocked that you would make these allegations without even taking two seconds to Google me to see who I am. You are not my SEO firm, and Doug does not do SEO work for me. You do not have access to my site or my site statistics, so — for the last time — stop spreading false information. In regards to my CDs, my reputation speaks for itself in volumes — all over the world and the Web. Also, I wrote you to invite dialogue, plus my website has my email and you did not make one attempt to contact me to ask questions or “continue the dialogue.” I am “responding aggressively” because you are slandering my reputation and the quality of my goods and services which is both illegal and unethical. If you were a journalist, you would have contacted me with your questions and concerns before taking your false claims public.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
Margo, I did Google you and I do know who you are. Also, we do not spread false information. If someone does, that’s Compete – for those ARE the stats shown for your site by what you call a “third party.” If they are inaccurate, the way to prove it is by showing your Google analytics.
60000 visitors do not Google “The Media Relations Maven” or “Margo Mateas” – there must be other keywords that send traffic to your site. FYI the most popular are “media relations companies”, “pr and media relations” and a few similar.
Again: we did not attack who you are. We do not deny your professional expertise in the “media relations training” field.
Show your stats, Margo or admit your mistake. Demanding and calling wolf will not solve the obvious problem.
Please explain: how do you “invite to dialogue” when you threaten to sue?
As I said: send the CDs, we review them and if they are good, we give you the due apology and credit. That’s as fair as it goes.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 January 2009:
Oh, and that top SEO company you employ… fire them! I do not even want to start telling you what is wrong with your site. It would take too much of my really valuable time.
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 January 2009:
Doug, I respect that PR and admire your sincerity. All I am questioning are the points I mentioned. Any idea that I am labeling Margo as unethical are confusing the intent. I am saying; “It looks like” and etc, therefore, it is perceived that way. These course may in fact be the definitive works on pitching the media and etc. It just does not appear that way given the wording, and the 60,000 data. One takes credibility always from the other. So, a larger point is; “What kind of PR and media expert would have a site with even questionable tactics or text on it?” I hope you see my point.
Thanks so much for your input.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 January 2009:
Is your text, site, wording and other media indicative of what you really want to convey? I am trying to give a lesson in proper presentation, while you want to threaten and intimidate. Obvious flaws in your PR and media strategy. Do you approach other criticism in this fashion Perhaps the lesson is well placed. You may not believe this, but I am not trying to hurt you.
Comment by Doug Motel on 20 January 2009:
Phil,
I think the suggestion to hear her products is a great one. One of the things I was thinking just Monday morning listening to my most recent product from her about pitching to national TV (listening while on that hated elliptical machine at the gym) was how free of attitude she was about producers of print and TV news. She is consistently urging us to put ourselves in their place and make their job easier. Her LACK of “Us Vs. Them” in her work is something that has inspired me to keep myself more in check.
I also think that the question about whether or not she is trying to convince buyers that they can sell “no news” is just very big misunderstanding. She simply recognizes that some of us might not realize that there is an appropriate place to have your client’s story told even if it APPEARS that there is no story on the surface. Most of her work is about saying “look, no editor is interested in doing a vanity story about your client, try to unearth the kernel here that relates to the editors readers and build on that”. I think that once you hear her work you will find that she is training us to have better ethics and make everyone’s job easier.
I will exit from this story because it is clear that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that if I did not know her and I read your blog entry, I would have thought that you were saying she was a “goofy” “charlatan” who had zero qualifications other than to steal from me and I would have thought “thanks Phil for saving me from wasting my money THAT poser”. But in your responses you do not seem to perceive this post as the very strongly expressed “dissing” that I read it as.
One last note though because for people reading this I would hate to see more SEO misinformation. When Mihaela says
“You cannot get the traffic you claim with less than 100 links to your domain, with no links whatsoever from a reputable directory, with a site that has never even been bookmarked in a social media resource. You cannot, and if you’d know a little about the Internet and how things work online you wouldn’t make such claims.”
This is a GROSS simplification of SEO and a common myth that keeps getting spread around. My company has filled brand new web sites with fresh original content that has been optimized for just the right keywords and have seen our client’s get huge amounts of search engine generated traffic without any links whatsoever. So hopefully you can set the record straight on that one. Links make the job easier but it IS possible to get traffic from having only content.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 21 January 2009:
You are right, Doug: fresh content can do wonders. Are we talking about fresh content in the case of the site in discussion? Where is it at, I couldn’t find it.
What edits do you suggest that we do to the beginning of the article to make it clear that we do not want to slander the Maven? Deleting the article is out of the question you know…
Comment by The Media Relations Maven on 21 January 2009:
Mihaela — in one of your responses, you stated: “Again: we did not attack who you are. We do not deny your professional expertise in the “media relations training” field.”
Perhaps you overlooked them, but here are three clear examples of that:
#1) “From writing contracts “with teeth”, to forcing clients to pay more for the same work, the Maven is a business partner’s worst nightmare.”
#2) “Fact – The PR Maven is a true public relations professional’s worst nightmare.
#3) Any profession in the world hates the charlatans. The job of doing things the right way has its own pitfalls without the negative stigma people like this cause. The Media Relations Maven would be better characterized as the Goofy Media.”
These statements directly attack who I am and my expertise. If it is not your intent to defame me, as you said, remove those statements.
Also, my image is copyrighted and cannot legally be used on any other site without permission, so the photos need to be taken off the site.
If you make these changes to the post, I think we can agree to disagree — and just leave it at that.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 21 January 2009:
I understand, Margo – we will make these updates.
But, I will not remove your photo – you have them for download on your site and you do not specify they are copyrighted. We could easily publish a screenshot of your site instead – we end up in the same place. Screenshots are not illegal…
Comment by Mark Buzan on 23 January 2009:
Mihaela,
With respect to your answer that you did not call the Maven a scammer, I must agree. Instead, you called her a charlatan….wow! Are we not playing with words or at least back peddling?? To have made this attack without in the LEAST having first reviewed the products in question speaks frankly to a complete lack of professionalism. I’m not certain if you hold a professional PR designation in your country or even if you are a member of your respective Public Relations professional organization but I can hardly believe that denigrating another PR professional would win you any points amongst your peers. In Canada where I practice, your conduct would in fact be in direct contravention of NUMEROUS articles of the Professional Code of Ethics! I would point you in particular to article 4: http://www.cprs.ca/aboutCPRS/e_code.htm
The fact that you seemed “surprised” by the response is quite baffling. I’ve reviewed your website…aren’t you an Online PR Specialist? You couldn’t have seen this come in a world of Google Alerts and RSS readers?
I can say that I too have used the Maven’s services and found her incredibly knowledgeable and astute.
Comment by Margie Zable Fisher on 23 January 2009:
I attended a Pitching Workshop led by Margo Mateas a few years ago. It was sponsored by Bulldog Reporter, so I thought it would be credible. I was not disappointed. I was extremely impressed and just pulled out her handout from “The Ultimate Media Pitching Workshop,” which I have referred to often over the years.
I have also spent money on one-on-one consults with Margo to fine-tune some of my pitches. Margo is nothing less than masterful.
If you checked out her products, or attended her workshops or had a consult with her, you’d understand that Margo shows you how to create news, not how to pitch something that isn’t news. She actually says that pitching reporters on attending a Grand Opening event is lame, unless you create something that is truly newsworthy and of interest to the media. Perhaps you may have taken the title out of context.
I have had a P.R. business for 8 years and sell my own DIY PR products. I respect anyone who wants to say anything negative about my stuff, but only after they have tried out my products. I also offer a money-back guarantee.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 23 January 2009:
@Mark, I think you are confusing who said what here. I didn’t call Margo anything. OK, maybe a liar, for declaring on her site an impossible number of visitors – I think this goes against your article nr. 3:
I was sarcastic when saying I am surprised by the response. I know Margo sent emails to you, or are you seriously implying that you have Margo Mateas as keyword phrase in your Google Alerts?
I could as well invite PR specialists to comment here – they will certainly revolt against the idea of “pitching journalists with no news.” If you are a PR and you do this, you make the job of the other PRs more difficult and you give this profession a bad name. Journalists HATE no news pitching. These are the only two points that really bother me, as a professional.
What we try to do here is to educate the public as to what is and what is not ethic PR.
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 23 January 2009:
Margie, I believe anything you say, but then, how would you “translate” the following:
This is how Margo describes her product. You find it here
It’s not my fault that the sales pitch is misleading and doesn’t convince me that:
We are on the Web, Margie. Sarcasm is easily taken ad literam, and critique is often perceived harsher than meant (proof is this article, which didn’t have as intend to hurt Margo, but to point out some issues that lead to grave misinterpretations.)
Comment by Phil Butler on 23 January 2009:
Hi Margie, Thanks for your comment and I respect your view. I wish you would try and understand that I was not condemning these tutorials, as I obviously have not had the time or inclination to view them. I did however look at the examples via video on the site, and was not overly impressed. My contention with the Maven was invoked because of the “impression” left by what myself and other people were left with. So, it is the digital representation, and rather obvious marketing flaws for the site and these products that is the rub.
These things have been portrayed correctly in this post. If you disect the wording, you will see that I am inherently careful about making the distinctions. This is not about Marge BEING a charlatan, it is about her site portraying this. These verbal, visual and other cues, effectively label the person who owns a site as something less than expert with regard to some variables, and lead anyone to conclusions about lesser known facts. I just did a post about a fantastic site, that any PR or marketing person should emulate. Visit this article and the site in question, perhaps you will see what I am talking about. I feel bad to an extent, because I know Marge is upset about this. However, I am glad in that I know she will benefit, others will, and even we will out of this discourse.
I hope you can see my point. No one will ever know how many clients Marge has lost because someone perceived her to be just as I described. A first impression of something less than a digital online specialist. We all make mistake, we are not immune either, but we take criticism and then adapt.
Thanks so much,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 23 January 2009:
Hi Mark,
I respect your opinion as well. I guess I am asking too much to expect people to read posts more precisely. I never called her a charlatan, but meant to suggest her text and sales methods, atop other variables of the site, made me perceive (and probably others) the probability was there. Selling is a tough go these days, and especially in the digital realm. Margo’s methodology for the site, is essentially Web 1.0 as it has been termed. To be perfectly honest, I was not thinking about hurting Margo, but was once again assailed by design, methodology, and the presentation of her and her expertise as if it were from a hyped or false professional.
This is the gist of this argument. You are not disecting my language, but I have disected hers. As Mihaela has mentioned, we are about helping. The methods for doing this can often seem cruel, but what has Margo done to her potential business in making these errors? I hope you see my point. If no one calls foul or BS on people, they just go on and on thinking they are doing well. Of course I did not review the tutorials, the portrayal of them on the site prevented me from thinking I would ever want to. The content of the discs is not what was criticized, how could it be.
I would like to see someone come on and comment on Margo’s behalf that testifies to her digital communication skills and online presence. This is what 60,000 users and donlaodable images, and testimonies convey. Finally, I could get 50 people to come here and comment on how goofed up this site is, and how Phil Butler is the nicest guy and most knowledgeable Web guru etc, etc. I have not. We have contacted Margo, and Mihaela took down some stuff for the sake of being nice. I agree with this of course on one level, but disagree on another. Please understand this, and believe me because I am not exaggerating.
If I wanted to truly paint Margo as a charlatan or anything else for that matter, it would already be a digital fact, if we can call it that. i am not manipulating anything, or being cruel. Here on the Web, the punches come quick and hard sometimes. The learning curve is steeper and many people are much less inhibited in their behavior. Margo did a lousy job of conveying who she is and what she offers. This is what is being criticized. I am happy she has helpd yu and other people, but the point is, she and many people who might get her help will be harmed because of bad online image. Appearing as a charlatan online is as good as being one in this sense.
I hope we can work with Margo and vice versa to help one another in the future. However, my argument as to the site’s imagery, and the intonation of the pitches for these porducts will stand until they look better.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Mark Buzan on 27 January 2009:
Phil & Mihaela,
There are professional ways of disagreeing and then there are rants. Giving someone an “award” for poor professionalism without the benefit of even reviewing their product or first contacting them for comment is exactly the kind of thing we resent about certain media when representing our clients.
Comment by Phil Butler on 28 January 2009:
Mark,
Sorry it took me a while to respond. We are not disagreeing, we are pointing out. Of course we did not test these products. It is not about the products themselves but rather the perception the site, the text, and the advertisements for these products convey. How many people visited the site and had exactly the same reaction? This is all we are saying. Marge is no alone in this, as there are literally thousands of similar sites. I kjnow that there are aspects of our own site which convey the wrong ideas. I have been told this. We are having it relaunched next month.
I am reviewing your site now. I will take the time to email you before writing an article either good or bad. I will not however, email every PR agency we write about. So, you get a treatment that even Edelman did not. How is that for fair?
Always,
Phil
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 29 January 2009:
Mark, I personally reviewed Margo’s site – the SEO value and identified the traffic paths to it too. She states she gets 60000 visitors in a year, which is misleading for her readers/potential customers – this is what makes a bad image of otherwise a very good professional. Her site sends the wrong message – this is what was analyzed here.
You know, http://www.pamil-visions.com, our corporate site, is even crappier now? We didn’t have time to update the design, the texts, practically nothing. It’s web 1.0 – like yours, but prettier
– and it is losing us business. But we do not mislead with the information on that site. We do not give clients a false appearance of what we are capable of. Do you understand? If you don’t, then probably PR is not the right business for you.
Pingback by PR Models Classics and New Trends on 22 April 2009:
[...] is. According to Princeton this is “someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field.” We had a clear maven example in one of our PR Goofy Awards. The self declared maven has usually a very aggressive approach – [...]