You have declared that all email pitches suck. You have made it clear in a variety of venues (including a comment to this post and another comment here) that PR professionals, if they are going to do their jobs and get visibility for their clients, must find other ways capture the attention not only of bloggers, but of journalists. You have declared that "real journalists" with whom you spend time have told you exactly the same thing.
You have told those who take issue with your declarations that they are defending the indefensible (something to which I have responded in this blog, a post to which you have not commented).
Given your intractable position repeated in multiple places, Robert, I wonder if you'd be willing to comment on the findings of the 2009 PRWeek/PR Newswire media survey that found that 80% of journalists prefer to receive pitches by email. Journalists maintain this preference even though these pitches generate a paltry number of actual stories because they are so often off-target.
That's right, Robert. An overwhelming majority of journalists want to get pitched by email. To put your assertion that PR is dead because of its use of email pitching into even greater context, the survey found that only 7% of respondents said they don't want PR people contacting them at all. The rest evidently find value in getting pitches, even if they have to sift through the garbage to find the gems.
I wonder if you might be willing to concede that things may be different in the tech journalism/blogging world than the rest of the world, and that you're viewing the situation with blinders on? I wonder if you might admit that all email pitches don't suck when faced with the incontrovertible evidence offered up by 2,174 traditional and non-traditional media reported in the survey (including online reporters and bloggers)? I wonder if you're willing to simply admit that you're wrong?
Don't take my word for it, Robert. You'll find a summary of survey results here.
Of course, PR people should use multiple channels to do their jobs. If a journalist or blogger says he prefers not to receive email, email shouldn't be the tool used. In the tech world, email should be used judiciously, but if it's the method a journalist or blogger prefers, it should be used. And I'm sure you'll find it heartening to know that 31% of the survey respondents say they have been pitched via social media channels, like Twitter and Facebook.
And, as I've said countless times, there's no excuse for the flood of PR spam that violates every principle of professional communications. But there are bad actors in every profession (even bloggers and videographers), and no amount of whining will make them go away.
All of which makes it hard to dismiss a statistically valid study that shows 80% of journalists (and the sample included bloggers) prefer to be pitched by email. It's hard to dismiss rock-solid evidence, isn't it?
I anxiously await your reconciliation of this evidence with your assertion that all PR email sucks.
P.S. I'm done blogging and podcasting about this non-issue at this point, but I will respond to comments.