Warning: Use of undefined constant user_level - assumed 'user_level' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/0/d104357061/htdocs/prbc/wp-content/plugins/ultimate_ga.php on line 524
We’ve all heard about the evolution of communication methods. Fax was the new snail mail. Email is the new fax. Twitter is the new email. Snail mail is passé.
So what does this all mean? Some like it in 140 characters and some like it with a postage stamp on it.
As PR pros, we pride ourselves on adapting our communications styles to best meet the needs of our audiences. If a client prefers phone calls to emails, phone calls it is. If a reporter doesn’t accept follow-up calls, we send follow-up emails.
My question – is there a right and a wrong way to pitch? More accurately, is it wrong to mix your pitch mediums?
I typically pitch via email, keep the message concise and spend time researching the reporter’s recent articles prior to pitching. If I call to follow-up, I wait a decent amount of time after sending the email and I make certain I can offer added value beyond the pitch (i.e. I don’t call and only ask if my email was received.)
I realize reporters are super busy. And I am always grateful to those who answer my emails, especially those who politely decline or refer to me a colleague who is working on a story that my content could tie into. But my question is, am I wrong to follow-up with a phone call when my emails (initial and/or follow-up) are ignored? Should it be only emails or only phone calls?
While my job is to follow-up and follow-through to ensure no opportunity is overlooked, I wonder if I am blacklisting myself by making follow-up calls and mixing pitch mediums. Is there a better pitching strategy that PR pros could employ?