Help a Reporter Out: Too much of a free service?
I’ve been noticing a lot of freelancers complaining, some bitterly, about Peter Shankman’s Help a Reporter Out service, also known as HARO. The common theme of complaints is the volume of off-target responses reporters get from potential story sources.
(For the record, I don’t know Shankman, I’ve never used HARO, and I rarely use Profnet, another journalist-source matching service. Not because I’m against services like these, but more because I like prefer finding experts through research and Google, and mining my own sources. I completely understand why freelancers/journalists love avenues like this and I wouldn’t think twice about using them in the future.)
Here’s what I don’t understand, though. HARO is basically a free hookup service for freelancers/journalists and potential sources. Shankman started this “thing” because he likes networking, had a huge source list, and thought why not do something a little more formal with this talent and the assets. (I’m assuming he also gets good PR and builds his brand — his name certainly has burst onto the scene — so it’s not a completely selfless act.) We freelancers don’t pay for this service, nor do the publicity seekers; it’s there because Shankman’s decided to take this on and we agree to play by his rules when we sign up. So why do some of us feel entitled to slam HARO (or Shankman) when others aren’t playing by the book?
I’ve read through Shankman’s thrice-daily call for sources. He does a good job establishing the rules for sources, even going so far to publicly lambaste sources who &uck up bigtime, like the university press officer who forwarded a query that ended up on some professor’s web page — complete with the writer’s e-mail address. (Granted I’d be pissed about that — but not at Shankman.) I don’t think Shankman is charging sources to participate on his list, nor is he asking journalists to pay up. (Would that even be ethical? I don’t think so.) If you get some good leads, you’ve beat the system. (And I’m guessing writers *are* getting good stuff, else it wouldn’t be as popular as it is.) If you get a mailbox full of CheeseWhiz, well, you’ve gotten what you’ve paid for.
Here’s what I’d do to ensure my pitch beat the system:
- Tell potential sources exactly what I want, who I want, and when I want to hear from them. “I’m looking for a woman between the ages of 35 and 55 who is going through a divorce with her second marriage. I need to have sources lined up by September 15.”
- Tell them what I *don’t* want, too. (“I must quote MDs who work with a university-affiliated hospital. I cannot speak with healthcare consultants, PR reps, or MDs who are not affiliated with a university hospital.”
- Set up an e-mail address I only use for HARO (or Profnet). That way I can protect my real work address from getting in some idiot’s hands. Even better, I’d set up an e-mail address for each specific request for sources.
- Be specific. I’ve read through tons of reporter’s queries. Many of them are so vague it’s no wonder so many off-target PR pitches result. Example: “Know any breastfeeders?” versus “I need to speak with women who’ve had negative social experiences while breastfeeding a toddler (between ages 1 and 3) in public. I am not interested in breastfeeding products or experts — need real-life stories here. Thanks!”
So, do you think it’s fair to bitch, moan, and whine at Shankman/HARO? What does he or his service owe you beyond a chance to connect with sources you might not otherwise meet? Post your comments below. [db]
If you liked that post, you might also like:
Sep 12, 2008 Cool tools, Sources
Diana, I’m glad you wrote this post. I think it’s quite unfair to criticize Peter Shankman for the idiotic actions of some of his respondents. Some are PR people and should know better than to spam reporters or to answer when a reporter has specifically asked them not to (i.e. I got a bunch of vendor PR firms in response to a query where I stated “NO VENDORS.”) To his credit, Shankman – whom I know only through using his service — goes to some lengths to scold the ne’er do wells. Don’t like the service? No one’s forcing you to use it, Profnet, or any other matching service. I think some of the problems — being overwhelmed by responses, many of which are off-topic, some of which are spam, are the inevitable consequence of huge growth through the ease of social media.
Is it better to “pound the pavement” yourself? Sometimes yes, sometimes no — it depends on the story you’re working on, quite frankly. But that’s another topic.
Elaine
Elaine, thanks for commenting. So, do you think using the delete key is a fair price to pay for the service? It seems like that’s what a lot of freelancers/reporters are complaining about: “Wah, i have to sift through a lot of garbage.” Frankly, I’m not feeling sympathy here. It’s the price you pay for a convenience.
Diana, I do think it’s very easy to hit that delete key — and you’re right, don’t complain about getting something for nothing! I also don’t feel that I owe a response to everyone who emails me from HARO – that would be too time-consuming. Respondents should understand the rules of the game, which is that you’re not going to get a response from a reporter unless that reporter is interested. I also think reporters should take into account that many people responding to HARO queries aren’t PR folks and therefore don’t understand how journalism works. Give those “ordinary” folks a break!
I’ve had phenomenal success with HARO, and I’d much rather swift through a few off-topic emails than search for sources on my own. It’s a great resource!
Diana:
Thanks for the post – Funny – this is the first I’ve heard of “a lot of freelancers” complaining – In fact, when a freelancer DOES complain (to me, anyway) I bring their complaint up with the person sending the off-topic pitch. Usually I work with them to improve their pitching skills. Occasionally, if they do it deliberately, I boot them off the list and on rare occasions, publicly out them to 30,000 of their peers.
If any of these reporters would care to chat with me about it, I’d be happy to address their concerns.
In the end, though, I think the service I offer has benefits that far outweigh the few negatives you’ve heard.
Thanks much again for the post – Have a good weekend!
-Peter Shankman
Hey, Peter — thanks for commenting. I probably hear it a lot more than you do because I hang out with a lot of writers who want to vent among themselves and not bring their issues to management. (Venting about off-target pitches to other writers comes second to venting about editors who don’t know what they want.) I have heard you’ve been very good about handling off-target pitches when you’re informed of them. But really — the judicious use of the delete key could solve the run-of-the-mill problems here.
I’ve never used HARO before. I, too, have been one to go out and scope out sources on my own. And I actually enjoy the process, meeting new people and such. I can see how this would be very beneficial to writers of all types, especially with deadlines approaching, and I’m definitely more intrigued after reading your take!
I love it when people complain about free stuff. Really, if it’s that much of a hassle, unsubscribe. It haven’t used HARO before, but considering I’m straddling both sides of the fence (I run a PR company AND I’m a freelance writer/journalist), I think it’s an awesome service especially when you consider the cost of ProfNet for a freelancer is $950/yr.
Well I am sure that he is getting himself some free press out of the deal, that is so little in exchange for the service he is providing, which as Robin pointed out above can be costly, that it seems a small price to pay to chat him up. The way I see it there will always be people who live to wine about anything they can find that is wrong. If they want to find fault they will, but they need to get a grip as far as I can tell the man is trying to help.
Hi Diana, I know I’m repeating some of the comments, but just to add to the cry: folks should stop complaining about this free service if they don’t like it, and simply unsubscribe. Peter has created an excellent free resource and it’s all in how you use it. If this resource then gets him a little publicity, then fine – doesn’t he deserve it if he’s doing a great job and helping folks?
Not only is this part of the territory when putting out these kind of requests as opposed to going out and actively looking for what you need, you can also get good leads from off-topic responses. I’ve got some great feature ideas from these and some great commissions as a result.
Just wanted to add that HARO has been AMAZING for me in the past. I’ve used it a half dozen times and sure, I got some responses that were not quite what I was looking for. But more often than not, I got direct hits. Once I had someone respond even though her answering my questions did nothing to help her client. (Her family fit the bill for a really obscure “real person” source I was seeking.)
Keep it up, Peter! HARO rocks!
That said, reporters should really try to be as specific as possible. Diana’s example is perfect, especially pointing out what you want and what you DON’T want.
I just tried HARO for the first time.. actually, this is the first time i’ve tried getting sources for any article.
It was amazing! The very next day I had 15 emails, of which several were from PR people, but even a couple of them were relevant to my story.
I agree… all thats needed is a few clicks of the delete key. The rest of the information, at least for my query, was exactly what i needed.
[...] source-finding services, namely too many off-topic responses, which you can read more about in this post about it on The Renegade Writer blog. Get around that by making sure your queries are as specific as possible. And state up front that [...]
I’ve posted four queries on HARO. The first time was a train wreck – I wasn’t specific enough and I received multiple off-topic pitches. I recently posted my fourth query, I was painfully specific, and I still got off-topic pitches. One of these recent pitches was for members of the military who had done a tour in Iraq (I was very specific in the query). I received a query from an agent who had a client who had worked in Iraq. Operative word – “worked”, not served. I blasted her even though it appears that she was affiliated with a movie production company; she apologized (I guess because she thought I’d tattle to Peter). Another query I posted was for psycohologists or psychiatrists for families or couples. I got a response from a gentleman in CA who coached people on gay issues. I have received multiple good contacts, which have enriched my ideas and queries. And beware the PR people! In my experience I have come to realize they are more interested in getting their client’s name in the spotlight, not helping the writer with their current assignment. I went back and forth with one PR person so many times, I told her I was starting to feel uncomfortable about it. I got the answers to MY questions in her next email. As a new freelancer who doesn’t yet have her first clip, I’m somewhat timid about complaining to Peter. So my advice – be overly-specific, and prepare yourself for those pesky PR people who will try to jimmy the lock on the back door.