Blog Posts About: spam

Dear SSPR,
You have been sending me emails for months now, apparently from someone named Sarah who always has a "Story Idea:" for me. Since then I have asked three times (including a voicemail) to be removed from your distribution list. What happened today?  I received another email from Sarah about another awesome "STORY IDEA".

I've given up trying to stop your emails. You obviously don't care about my requests, or care that you're proving to me and a lot of others that you accomplish the opposite effect of PR - you demean your clients in front of the very people you're trying to reach. I would never write a story after receiving a pitch from you.

I know that stories from bloggers mean a lot to your clients. Do they know your tactics?  Do they know that you don't respect requests from the very people you are asking to write stories?  Do they know people like me consider you spammers?

I think the PR industry has a place in the online world and there are hordes of smart people in PR who have found the right ways to work with bloggers. I just received a pitch today from someone who had read this site and personalized their message. I respect them for taking the time.

You, SSPR, have a very long way to go. Like any relationship, your efforts must be built on honesty and respect. It has to be built on personal connections.  Every time you send an unwanted email and ignore removal requests, you are insulting me, yourselves and PR industry as a whole.  It's called spam and no one wants more of it.

What I want is for you to understand what is wrong with what you're doing.   Here are a number of resources and perspectives for understanding how to pitch bloggers.

Matt Haughey: How to Pitch Bloggers

Getting to First Base: Social Media Marketing Playbook (e-book)

Pro Blogger: 21 Tips on Pitching Bloggers

Stowe Boyd: The Growing Backlash Against PR Spam

I suppose I should be thankful in some ways, you've suceeded in giving me a "STORY IDEA", though I doubt it's what you wanted.

PS - I see you've made it onto the PR Spammers wiki.  Congrats on that.

Updated:

Just after posting this entry, I was contacted by Belinda Banks, Executive Vice President at SSPR, who was apologetic and said that change is happening in the company. From her message:

We have addressed this situation internally, not only with Sarah but with our entire staff, especially all of our new team members. Inaccurate pitching is a personal pet peeve of mine and we are striving for each staff member to resonate that same theme.
I appreciate Belinda's response, but at the same time, the proof is in the pudding.  I hope we'll see real change from them and others in the industry. 

It started with a tweet.  Eddie Codel described Boston's streets as "Kafkaesque."  I found it on Wikipedia (it means disorienting), along with a listing of other name-inspired words. One caught my eye: Machiavellianism. The first line of the Wikipedia entry:

Machiavellianism is the term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain.
It comes from Nicollo Machiavelli, a Renaissance writer, diplomat, etc. known, in part, for principles of conduct that are marked by cunning, duplicity and bad faith. His most famous work is The Prince.

Upon a bit more investigation, I found that there is a personality test called a MACH-IV test that gauges a person's Machiavellianism.  Apparently there are "high machs" (likely to agree with Machiavelli) and "low machs" (unlikely to agree). Most people are in the middle (I'm a low mach).  Take the 20-question test here.

When I first read about all of this, I couldn't help but think about the spammers and blackhats of the web.  Aside from the trash that they produce, I'm fascinated by the people behind the spam.  Who are these people?  How did they get this way?  What motivates them outside of money? Do they know right from wrong? How can they justify their decisions?

Viewed with a Machiavellian lens, I see spammers a little differently. It makes me wonder if spammers are born vs. made. Perhaps this is the source of my fascination - that spammers aren't just unethical, but possibly a bit mental. An insightful article in Salon has this quote:

McHoskey's article argued that high Machs possess, to a greater or lesser degree, the qualities associated with classic psychopaths: a lack of remorse, pathological lying, glibness and superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth.
Sound familiar? Here are a few interesting questions from the MACH IV test that is based on Machiavelli's "The Prince" (on an agree/disagree scale). How do you think a spammer responds compared to you?

5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.

If nothing else, I can now start to incorporate this word into my day-to-day life.  Instead of obscenities, spam will now just make me say - oh how Machiavellian! Or, maybe it'll actually be - oh how $#@&ing Machiavellian!

How fun.  Imagine my delight to wake up the last couple of days to find thousands of bounced emails - all with my address in the From: line.  It's such an honor to see my address associated with other legitimate brands that are so proven in the fields of appendage enlargement. 

Here's what happens...

A spammer needs to send spam emails and they don't want to use an address associated with them.  So, they add someone else's address to the From: field of the email.  When the email bounces, it comes to the person's address. In this case, me.

Spoofing is a pretty common problem, but still painful. Apparently, there is little that can be done aside from filtering the incoming messages and hoping that people don't think you're sending the spam.  I'm looking into adding an SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record, which can also help, I hear. Any other tips?

The arms race between spammers and bloggers continues and I often feel like I'm on the front lines.  I'm so thankful for tools like Akismet that automatically prevent bots from spewing bullshit in blog comments.  

However, there is an insidious human element that has been rearing it's head with greater frequency. These are commenters that appear to be leaving an on-topic comment, yet use a link and name that reflects their true motive - to make a web site appear higher in search results. Many of these comes from spam farms where people are paid to post honest-looking spam comments. [See Jake's weird experience with a spammer.]

Here's an example from this site:

---------------- 

----------------

This kind of comment presents a sticky problem.  The commenter understands our motives and gives us a nice compliment.  Yet, in my view, they are much more motived by the "Phone Cards" link than communicating with me. I deemed this spam, reported it as such and deleted the comment. Another example:

----------------

----------------

Again, they spent time to understand the content and say nice things.  Yet, again, I have to assume that the only reason they left the comment was for the "page rank" link.  Reported and deleted.

The hard part is when well-meaning commenters are using tactics that are reminiscent of spam.   Example:

----------------

----------------

In this case, the comment was very much on topic and it was (mostly) obvious to me that the priority was communicating with me vs. dropping a link. I left this one alone, even though the link to "Computer Consultants Kit" is quite suspicious.  

I've been struggling with this for many months.  My instinct says to have a zero tolerance policy and delete anything that resembles spam. Yet, where do you draw the line?

For instance, if I leave a short comment on someone's blog and use the name "Common Craft", could I be guilty of spamming under my own policy?   Does it matter that it's linked to my company vs. a 3rd party? What if the link was "Plain English Videos?"

Right now my policy is to have a hair trigger when it comes to comment spam.  If I even catch a whiff of the stuff, the comment is deleted.  I refuse to become a means for low lifes to get a free ride. I'll stop now before I get too emotional.

Do you have a policy? Where do you draw the line?

As Darren would say, this is a boring site note.  I have finally turned on Captcha for comments to blog posts.  This means that, in order to post a comment, you'll have to answer a simple question to prove you are human. I have a feeling you'll pass the test with flying colors.

More than anything, I want to know if you have any problems with the system. Thanks.

Updated: I'm testing a new system that I can't discuss right now (it's in private beta).  This means that you may not see the captcha question as described above.  

We're taking off for Sayulita, Mexico, where our good friends are getting married next week.  We'll be back in action on November 12th. Until then, we won't be returning emails and answering phones on time.

Part of this vacation includes a vacation from dealing the beloved comment spammers.  Comments are off until we return. Adios amigos.