The Publicity Hound’s Blog  

PR Web: Disband your Press Release Police

21 Responses

1. Walt Shiel Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

   Only once, last spring. As I recall, they didn’t like the lighthearted tone for what was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I refused to rewrite it and took my business elsewhere, using my own list of media email addresses and another distribution service. It cost me more (time and money) to achieve similar distribution but I think they were way off-base.

   Maybe we should all suggest that they study your “89 Ways” tutorial…

   Walt Shiel
   http://SlipdownMountain.com
   http://FiveRainbows.com

2. John Whitcomb Says:
   February 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

   Hi,

   I wanted to share my story of PR Web with your readers. I too have been hassled by the press release police. Two of our releases we submitted recently were too commercial. I know press releases are written for the consumer, but if it can’t be written at least a little commercial what value does it hold for a company? Also, one of the ways they tell you to fix it is to make sure if it’s a tip sheet it has to say so in the headline. If not, I guess the people at PR Web are not able to figure it out despite the bullets and the fact that it says tips.
   I do want to say that the rep I spoke with said it gets flagged by some kind of system so I question if any real eyes are even reading it?

3. Donna Gunter Says:
   February 14th, 2008 at 4:45 am

   Joan-

   I just had the exact same experience with PR Web last week and got the same phone call. It was the first release I’d created in awhile, and was using a new strategy (to me, at least) of making one of my articles into a tips release, so I caved in quickly to get it out..;)

   I had never before encountered this, and thought it was odd, so I’m glad to know I’m not the only one..;)

   Donna

4. Erin Campbell Says:
   February 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

   I guess I should have blogged about my own experience! After attending your recent “How to Create a 12-month Media Plan,” I started writing releases that weren’t typical by yesterday’s standards. When I tried to submit one release that tied into a relevant topic through PRWeb, I was told it wasn’t newsworthy and was given some guidelines for how to make it more so.

   I wasn’t as patient as BL Ochman so I got a refund and took my business elsewhere. I was pretty surprised that PRWeb had such strict guidelines for the releases it would accept.

   I’m happy to see so many people raising this issue. Hopefully PRWeb will reconsider.

5. Joan Says:
   February 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

   Your experience, Erin, is a perfect example of what’s so sad about this whole ugly mess.

   The BL Ochmans of the world take the time to complain, fight the good fight, and then blog about it. Many of the others who feel like they’ve been screwed simply take their business elsewhere.

6. B.L Ochman Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 2:44 am

   I got a call from Jiyan Wei, Online Product Manager at PR Web today, who went on and on and on defending their practices and their “standards” and saying that my release was an OpEd piece, blah blah.

   I suggested that they may need to have a Feature Wire for those of us whose writing style has evolved with new media and that they might need to talk to their search partners about these issues.

   Frankly, I am not feeling like I want to use their service again at this point.

7. Joan Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am

   PRWeb is clueless.

   I wonder how many more customers have to defect before the light bulb goes on.

8. Robert Says:
   February 20th, 2008 at 12:05 am

   Sound like PRWeb have gotten into the censorship business…call the cops.

9. Deanna Says:
   February 20th, 2008 at 12:14 am

   Hi Joan -

   Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I have a press release right here that I was about to submit to PRWeb, and sure enough it includes words like my, your, etc., though in the context of a quote. To me it seems fine, but obviously their press release police don’t see eye-to-eye with all of us!

   I’d love to find a different service to use, but I’m not sure what the best alternatives are.

   Thanks, - Deanna.

10. Meredith Says:
    February 20th, 2008 at 3:40 am

    I was using going to use PRWeb for my clients, but after several incidents of having to rewrite releases to meet their “rules”, I am searching for a new service. The changes required made the releases sound stilted and boring and - unsuccessful!

11. Dr. Wright Says:
    February 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    I stopped using them because of this tactic. I used to get very high scores on my press releases and then when they sold the company, suddenly they were keeping my money and telling me I needed to pay more for them to fix my release. I no longer recommend this service to anyone. This tactic is a rip off.

    Thanks for sharing this, I am glad to see I am not the only person with this experience

    Dr. Wright
    The Wright Place TV Show
    http://www.wrightplacetv.com

12. Tony Says:
    February 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Finally PR Web is stepping into reality with all the other wire services such as PR Newswire, Business Wire, Eworldwire etc. They gave rise to the term release spam by the AP. That is why they refuse to accept any releases from PR Web. Just talk to one of their jurnos and you will get the big thumbs down when you mention their name. They used to have a foothold on the web although that has faltered as well. It really depends what you are looking for, is it web only or legitimacy with the journalists.

13. Ron Scott Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 12:34 am

    Sharon Dotson asked me to make comment on PRWeb, so here goes.

    IMHO, those paying the exhorbitant fees PRWeb charges for its “services” might want to seriously consider taking their business elsewhere. Editorial policies aside (a problem I experienced occasionally myself) everyone might want to attend to the elephant in the room. One can get the same level of exposure for $20 or less.

    If you compare PRWeb’s “readership” statistics with the subject website’s referral logs, you will discover that their stats obviously bear little resemblance to actual readership, e.g., 100,000+ “reads” and only 31 visitors to the subject site. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the “reads” they report aren’t reads at all. Even the worst copy would generate more traffic than that.

    I’ve published scores of releases on a half dozen other sites and I’ve learned that a well written release will typically generate a 3% return on reported reads, i.e., for every 1,000 reads, one can reasonably expect 30 website visitors. If PRWeb’s stats were accurate, one would see around 3,000 visitors for every 100,000 reads which is definitely not the case.

    More to the point, if you divide the number of visitors that are actually driven to your site or your clients’ sites into the exorbitant fee ($80 to $380) you pay to get one’s day’s exposure on their home page, and a month’s inclusion in Google and Yahoo News and you’ll find the results dismal to say the least. One can get the same level of exposure for less than $20 any day of the week. Even banner ads are more cost effective.

    PRWeb’s search engine optimization (SEO) services are also totally bogus. You’ll never find one of their releases residing on the first page of Google’s natural search results for any keyword or keyword phrase apart from an obscure brand or company name. What value optimization if the only people seeing the release in Google’s natural search results are people who are already familiar with the company and its products, services, and brand name?

    As for the so called “big boys”, PRNewswire and Marketwire, I suggest you take a look at their Alexa traffic ratings over the past three years. You’ll see that their popularity as well as PRWeb’s has really plummeted the past two years.

    To do that just enter their URL addresses at the top of the following page in the “Get Traffic Details” window http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500 and then click on the 3yr chart.

    Caveat emptor.

14. Sharon Dotson Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am

    I can’t do the numbers like Ron Scott but I am very interested in reading his comments about PR Web and its real exposure. This whole exercise has been informative,to say the least.I would like to know more.

15. Joan Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Here’s a good alternative to PRWeb.

    Buy a subscirption to Expertclick, the Online Yearbook of Experts. You get a spot in their online database of experts, searched frequently by journalists, and you can post up to 52 press releases a year at no additional per-release charge.

    Mitch Davis and his team won’t hassle you. By the way, tell them I sent you and they’ll knock $100 off your subscription price. Learn more at Expertclick.com

16. Carolyn Howard-Johnson Says:
    March 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am

    Joan:

    It seems censorship is rampant these days, and going from bad to worse. I do–yes, I really do!–understand wanting to keep media releases polished and professional, but barring a few very obvious parameters, what exactly is good taste. And what exactly does make a release interesting (or boring.)

    It seems PRWeb is treading on some very sacred ground here but that might just be me. I hate censorship wearing any color coat. Heck, I even have my SPAM filter turned to zero. It’s not because I relish deleting stuff but I sure don’t want someone else telling me what I can and can’t read. What if it filtered out my Publicity Hound?

    And if I have to go back to review a SPAM folder, then I might as well just do the deleting up front, before I miss something timely or look as if I don’t bother to answer my mail.

    By the way, would the PR Cops catch me for not putting question marks after the sentences above which really aren’t intended to be questions? I use them as a rhetorical device. And would I have to write back and give them a lesson on editing if they chose to be picky? What would they say about that sentence that begins with an “and.” Wrong? Nope, not when they’re used to continue a thought in the paragraph above. In fact, rarely wrong at all. That’s how we talk, so that may make a PR release a tad more colloquial, therefore a bit more readable, too. Maybe I’ll send them a copy of the Frugal Editor.

    Sorry, couldn’t help the rant. Geesht

    Carolyn Howard-Johnson, award-winning author of the HowToDoItFrugally Series of Books for writers, including the USA Book News’ award winners The Frugal Editor http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978515870/
    and The Frugal Book Promoter http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193299310X/

    Blogs: http://www.TheNewBookReview.blogspot.com , http://www.sharingwithwriters.blogspot.com http://www.TheFrugalEditor.blogspot.com http://www.authorscoalition.blogspot.com
    Now blogging on War. Peace. Tolerance and Our Soldiers at: http://warpeacetolerance.blogspot.com

    Squidooing at http://www.squidoo.com/HowToDoItFrugallyforAuthors
    Join my Squidoo fanclub at http://www.squidoo.com/member/join_fan_club/Carolyn

17. Jiyan Says:
    March 8th, 2008 at 3:17 am

    Hi there,

    My name is Jiyan and I am the PRWeb product manager. I’ve been tracking the discussion for a while. I think a lot of good points have been raised in this discussion and I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to represent our perspective.

    Our ultimate goal is to ensure that our customer’s news releases achieve widespread distribution online.

    In order to achieve this goal, we engage in a number of strategies including partnering with other content providers, making our news friendly to search engines, distributing directly through RSS and e-mail, etc.

    Our editorial standards are then aimed at creating standards that ensure that our client’s news release is formatted to meet a broad range of requirements so it can be distributed far and wide.

    It is not our intention to tell people what to write or how to write it, much less to censor anyone’s message.

    I’ve attempted to address many of the comments and critical points made in this thread on my blog at http://www.newinfluencer.com/online-distribution/prweb-editorial-standards/

    I’d be happy to have you drop by.

    Thanks,
    Jiyan

18. Ron Scott Says:
    March 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Just wanted to thank Jiyan for “clearing up” the PRWeb readership stats problem for us in the following statement on his/her blog. I saved a copy of the entire entry in the event it disappears.

    “It has been suggested that we falsely claim that an average press release is read by 100,000+ people. Many of our press release receive this many “impressions” (times the news release title appears in various places online we can track) but if you check your analytics, you will see that the actual reads (times someone clicks-through to access the full content of the release) of the news release is a fraction of this number.”

    I didn’t “suggest” PRWeb’s readership stats are false, I stated it as a fact and Jiyan’s response confirms it. PRWeb “readership” numbers aren’t readership stats at all. They’re merely a report of the number of times the title of an article appears in cyberspace buried on thousands of virtual bulletin boards and feeds obscured by Aunt Nancy’s recipe for bean soup and Google ads no one bothers to read either.

    So why doesn’t PRWeb disclose in big bold letters that the “reads” they report aren’t reads at all. Better yet, why don’t they report actual reads?

    Check out the following page on the Federal Trade Commission’s website where it explains in detail the laws governing truth in advertising.
    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.shtm

    You don’t have to be a lawyer to see how and where this might be resolved. To save your PRWeb readership reports for future reference click on “File” menu, click on “Save Page as”. Who knows, you just may have need of them. Even Nordstrom’s won’t refund your money without receipt.

19. Jiyan Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 1:35 am

    Ron,

    Thanks for providing me with an opportunity for further clarification. I have taken the liberty of adding a screen shot of our analytics to my posting, also available here: http://www.newinfluencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/prweb_reads.gif

    This screen shot shows you that we do in fact represent both ‘impressions’ as well as ‘reads’ in our analytics. We also clearly define what both of these mean in our help menu (also indicated in the screen shot).

    Our ‘reads’ are actual reads - impressions are clearly defined in our help menu as “any time the headline (and possibly the summary) is displayed at any of the distribution points PRWeb has the ability to track. This includes PRWeb’s home page, browsing by day or category, and news feeds.”

    Again, thank you for the opportunity to clarify any confusion.

    Regards,
    Jiyan

20. Ron Scott Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 2:53 am

    Jiyan,

    Obviously, I owe you an apology. Admittedly, I haven’t published a release on PRWeb for almost two years now and it is apparent you’ve taken steps to clean up your act.

    Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the value of your search engine optimization services since your press releases do not get favorable treatment on Google save for brand and company names. Anyone can get on the first page of a news search for a short period of time embedding highly popular keywords in the title, summary and article but your press release template continues to fail to get favorable Google treatment when it comes to natural search placement.

    Regards,
    Ron

21. Jiyan Says:
    March 12th, 2008 at 6:55 am

    Hey Ron,

    I’m just glad I could clear up any confusion over our metrics. Additionally, we really look at these types of conversations as an invaluable opportunity to engage with users - both current and former.

    At any rate, I can see from your Web site that you have a lot of experience in this area so I’m going to provide a concise answer in this thread and a more comprehensive answer via e-mail to you.

    Our primary goal is to get the news release distributed as broadly online as possible. Clearly, a story that is picked up and republished in a variety of locations online is going to have some positive long-term search benefits.

    That being said, there is no magic bullet for a top-ranking in a search engine. Online news releases can be considered one tactic in a broader strategy aimed at achieving great results for targeted queries. That being said, getting really great Web search visibility is an ongoing process that requires both time, effort, and guidance from experts such as yourself.

    J

Leave a Comment