The MothersClick mess is slowly sorting itself out. The founder emailed today and apologized. I apologized back.
Tonight I came across a post by their PR firm that is infinitely interesting to me (via DJI, a really excellent blog).
What this comes down to is this – I didn’t write about MothersClick because I don’t remember being pitched by them or their firm. Maybe it was a hellish day and I missed the email or call. Maybe I or Marshall looked at it an passed for some reason. I really just don’t remember, and a recent email purge has wiped out any history on my end.
I did write about Maya’s Mom, a competitor. I already know the founder and had written about them before. Updates are always easier than new reviews. Plus Maya’s Mom raised an angel round from a very well known group of individuals, which is news itself. So I made a recent post about Maya’s Mom in complete innocence, not even thinking about the storm that would result. Trust me, if I had known, I would have just not written about them. The fallout has all come this week, while I was on vacation, and today I flew home early to be able to deal with the media attention this has gotten. Not the way I wanted to spend my time away.
But the PR Firm post has really made me think. I don’t want companies to spend cycles with PR firms talking about strategies for getting in front of us, and how to deal with not getting a post on TC. I also don’t want entrepreneurs to be afraid to take a shot at me, or for PR firms to be giving clients advice on how to “stay on my good side”. We’re all human, and I’m used to taking shots. Plus, controversy is interesting. When the founder of MothersClick emailed and apologized, I assumed she did that because she felt that it was the right thing to do. My apology back was certainly heartfelt. I don’t want to have to wonder if that apology was drafted by her PR firm and sent to me as a business decision (and I’m assuming that isn’t the case).
Putting journalists up on a pedestal is very old media. Everything about TechCrunch, and most blogs, is about access. Comments are open, for better or worse. My email is on the about page. We have a company submission form. We even hired an analyst who’s primary job is to go through submissions and make sure we don’t miss good companies.
But clearly that’s broken, as evidenced by this encounter. MothersClick is a perfectly good startup that we would normally cover. Lots of other people did, if that means anything. But we missed it, and I’m pretty sure we miss a lot of others, too.
I don’t know what the right answer is to fix this, but it’s something I’m thinking about.
And I’m sorry if I sound like a 13 year old girl writing in her diary. Maybe I do. But I am just as new to all of this as everyone else, and I stay up at nights thinking about how to do the right thing.
That’s what I love about the blogosphere — you get to think things out loud and get in the conversation when it needs to happen.
Often times, it happens quickly (this whole thing happened in two days).
Other times — it can take a month (WOMMA, I’m lookin’ at you!)
Cheers
t @ dji
PS thanks for the kind word, mike
Mike,
A few thoughts that come to mind:
- publish a list that includes “companies we haven’t yet covered” – i.e. something that pulls companies from you email, posts them to a list (possibly without a link UNTIL you do review them)
- made public, such a list would be a resource for you and for the community. I’d suggest also adding the DATE added (Month and year is probably sufficient) which itself would be another useful piece of info)
- then when a new email comes in, if the company is on your list you at least have some prior knowledge of them and roughly when (i.e. when you added them) which should help searching through emails.
- if a company is not on “the list” then that to is a potentially helpful hint that you might want to take a look further – and you could have a policy of adding the name & date when the emails are published.
- you might further have an open comment thread somewhere along the lines of “Of the firms we added to the list last week – who should we really not miss covering” (these posts, whether to the main TechCrunch or to a new place/feed would likely have light content, heaving comment traffic)
- for internal use ONLY you might also use some tool that would allow you or other TechCrunch staff to leave a quick comment when you make the decision NOT to cover a given firm with a note as to why – thisnk of this like comments on code checkin for developers – not much fun, but really important to know why you did something in the future. I’d suggest a comment tool that would overlay the comments on the same page – so that the act of reading, reviewing, or adding a comment happens in synch with adding new companies/editing older companies.
Sorry to hear that you cut your vacation short!
Shannon
I’m in the same boat as Mike and I’ve simply given up. It rips my heart out to see so many companies and other bloggers who want to get noticed and hope that someone “important” will bless them, but there’s no way I can get to it all. So, instead, I asked people to post their companies, or blogs, in my comments.
Keep it up Mike and remember that your service is that you are a filter. You keep us from drinking the firehose, but tell us what is important to pay attention to. If every company gets on TechCrunch “just because” then your value will go down.
Hi Mike –
Thanks for the thoughtful post. (And the link – I guess! Though this ain’t exactly the way in which I’d have wanted to gain a link from TC!)
There are already some good suggestions here about how you might re-think your procedures, but, honestly — the procedures are not broken, it is people’s expectations (of you, and of what a TC post might do for them) that need re-adjusting.
So you know, the Mothersclick apology was sincere. The client saw how reactions to their comment had grown beyond their expectations, and they felt bad about it. (Meanwhile, as you probably guessed from my post, we were also pretty upset.) They wrote the apology and sent it on their own.
Here’s my own apology: I am sorry that we weren’t able to wrangle this client’s outsized expectations. And I am really sorry that your vacation got screwed up! May your next vacation be somewhere without Internet access.
Thank you very much for your post. I believe there are a number of companies who think it is a nightmare to get journalists to mention them….and we are part of it! (This does NOT include Techcrunch UK who are really helpful and great by the way !).
But when you are launching a startup you can hardly afford to pay for a PR agency. Even if it is the only way for journalists to pay attention to you.
Sorry if I sound silly or childish (my turn!) but could somebody actually tell me why journalists (newspapers, magazines…) cannot read what we send them: press release, emails, …?
I really thought that kind of process were over, and your post is therefore very encouraging!
Thanks for being honest, open-minded and so much dedicated to us and to your job.
All the best
Sylvia
This is definetely a humble post. One of those “turn the other cheek” type of posts when the media attacks.
Hi Mike,
Well, you had an emotional week to say the least. The Wall Street Journal article was great and then you got attacked on the other end with this story.
Sorry to hear you had to cut your vacation short. As someone that works all the time it is tough to prioritize and focus on ALL the things that are important in life and family is a very important part of it. I hope you don’t have to cut your vacations short in the future for things like this.
I also agree with Scoble. Don’t start covering too much just to cover your ass. That would dilute the value of a filter that you do provide. A list of companies that you did not cover and why, however, might turn out to be hugely popular. It would be opinionated and people would be very heated about it but I am sure it would draw a lot of attention and after all, that is what you are after.
Mike
Mike,
As a PR guy even close to your inner circle, I have to say I agree with the sentiment that you SHOULD be selective. It’s why your readers are interested in you. It is OUR jobs (PR people and the companies we represent) to be interestING to you and your team.
Sylvia’s comment got me thinking about where obligations lie. I think the pitchers are obligated to set client expectations, come up with relevant, on-target pitches and be diligent and thoughtful about follow up, including knowing when enough is enough. We should also meet you where you are and figure out the best way to pitch you, not the most convenient way for us.
Your job is to read everything sent to you, dismissing as early as you like those notes that are clearly off the mark. (Sorry if it’s tough to keep up, but you’ve created your own monster.) However, you are not obligated to respond. In those cases you do, however, you should keep the conversation going or at least close the loop, even if it’s with a ‘Hey, I’ve thought about it and I’m not going to cover this because XXXXX.”
That first line should have read “As a PR guy NOT even close…”
Mike, for as long as I find TechCrunch relevant, interesting and informative, I will keep reading it. You shouldn’t have to appologize about things your readers don’t care about!
> Keep it up Mike and remember that your service is that you are a filter. You keep us from drinking the firehose, but tell us what is important to pay attention to. If every company gets on TechCrunch “just because” then your value will go down.
I agree with Robert and it’s why I have problems knowing that TC is heavily influenced by who knows Mike (though I did appreciate the candor Mike showed by declaring that a few days ago). I can’t see into those relationships, and so what am I left with to judge the quality of the filter. It just made me kind of feel like an outsider, where TC used to make me feel like an insider. Anyway you gotta do what you gotta do, and honest disclosure is a good step in whatever path you’re on.
motherslick is definitely more 2.0 than maya’s mom. So it would make sense to do a post on them. I have seen on your blog many times that you will blog on one company and then find another in the same niche and compare the two.
Similar to what you were doing with the startup home pages in the beginning of techcrunch
Geez, why does everyone care about PR? As a professional high-tech publicist, if I can’t get my clients media and/or blog coverage, I just tell them to make their own news. Just existing is definitely not enough reason for anyone to have to/want to write about your product, service, or whatever.
As for TechCrunch, I regard it as a sampler of what’s out there, not a ProductPedia.
A quick Google news search didn’t reveal any sort of funding announcement by Mothersclick. I saw the launch release and didn’t see anything related to how it was funded at all. I could be wrong but TechCrunch is pretty news driven, for one, with a VC slant on top of that. Of course, not all articles focus on somebody raising capital but a good chunk do. I’m not surprised, then, to see emails from their PR firm going unnoticed by TechCrunch staff. What would you have to offer a relatively VC-focused blog in terms of news if you aren’t announcing anything related to funding? Particilarly as a small player. If TechCrunch covered every social networking site that launched, nobody would come here. A quick google news search provides that.
It’s not the first time I’ve seen a vendor pressure a PR firm without realizing it’s their fault for not being a fit for a specific media outlet or story. They outsource PR because they aren’t or can’t be media savvy, I know – but there’s more to landing in the news than simply hiring somebody to hack the press for you.
I’m kind of shocked to see a firm take the stance of “hey, we told ‘em not to do it” but bravo in my opinion. They might lose a client but for Mothersclick it was probably a very valuable lesson learned.
It’s a little silly that it caused this much of an uproar.
How about opening it up to the community? As mentioned above, you could post a list of sites that haven’t been covered. Instead of adding them yourself, though, have those wanting coverage for their sites add themselves to the list. Then, people can vote to communicate who they would like to see covered.
^ i agree. it would be foolish to make lists of the companies he doesn’t cover – why would TC owe anybody this? he’s covering what’s of interest to his readers. as a reader, i’m not interested in there being a list or anything along that line. that taken to any major media outlet as an idea would never fly. nobody in business or here is entitled to anything really.
mike doesn’t owe anything to anybody – i think people want exposure here, but with any media or blog of any authority, you have to be a fit, you have to have a story, etc. – beyond simply existing. i would not come here if it covered topics any other way.