I think you should have just taken a screenshot of the post..or better yet, taken a photo of your monitor and then sent it to them with an outrageous invoice!
Have to agree w/ Andrew. You should have charged them $1200 for the reprint… Then you tell them they also have a free option if the use their own printer and paper.
In serious note, though, this is to teach us (tech-lings) that not everybody understand tech, yet, they have a need for it.
While at first this reprint request seems old old old school (and it is), perhaps there is money to be made by adding a publishing wing, putting together volumes (with updates) for those that want those. You have Crunchbase, for example, will that also be on CD? The thing to remember in business,as you know, is that you have to service the entire market, late and middle adopters as well as early (if you choose those market segments).
Some companies like to reprint their press mentions with a logo and the masthead from the publication. They use this for sales. Most print pubs charge for this sort of use. That’s probably what she was asking about.
I don’t see why you’re kicking up a fuss about this. It’s only polite that she ask for permission to reproduce any material/article on your site, as any self-respecting business would do. Why go the cynical route, which looks rather silly on yourself?
And if she hadn’t requested permission, and had just made a PDF from the blog, what would have been the reaction here?
In an age when you can’t make a screen cap from the Wall Street Journal online without them embedding a disclaimer that it’s only for your personal use, and that you have to ask for copyright permission, why is this so terrible just because you are a blog and not a print publication?
From a copyright viewpoint, she did the responsible thing to protect her client’s interests and that gets her raked over the coals. Why?
I agree with the other posters here, you left some money on the table here.
Here’s some free advice for Quovis (assuming it didn’t know what the heck it was talking doing): Spin the request as an early April Fool’s joke, and that it was meant to be funny.
However, as David, Steven, cathyd and Joe noted, maybe the request was legit and a professional courtesy. Though, if that, it still shows a lack of understanding due to poor wording/communication. Likely, the sender was a junior level staffer who was given an assignment and didn’t do her homework on who/what TechCrunch is.
-Mike
Thanks to Mike Driehorst for supportive comments, but regardless of where the staffer is in the hierarchy or the blogosphere experience level, simple human decency suggests that this is not…not…not a capital crime she committed. There are lots of instances where people have sued other people for not asking permission to reprint. So the word “reprint” is imprecise. So what? That is now grounds to ridicule someone on the ‘net? What would have been TechCrunch’s response if they had received an anonymous copy of a Qorvis press kit that included a posting they didn’t ask permission to include?
I have a radical idea. How about dropping the snarkiness, the “gotcha” approach to every single communication with PR professionals trying to do their jobs, and maybe have a real conversation about substantive issues, instead of moving the rules every time someone tries to approach you as if you are a …gasp!… professional?
[...] PR firm Qorvis communications got some negative press this week. Michael Arrington called their knowledge of the market into question by reposting an [...]
She was asking to reprint one of your articles, most likely as press material. Maybe collateral media showing an article you wrote about a client of hers.
It was the right thing for her to ask for permission. Cnet, PCWorld, Digital Trends etc have a whole seperate department dedicated to handling reprint requests - and yes, they do charge for their use. It is typically for X ammount of prints and a license time that says they can use the reprint for up to one year.
This means you are hitting it big time Michael, and it could add an extra revenue channel to your company. Go for it.
Congratulations for picking on and publicly humiliating a college intern who was giving you the courtesy of asking permission to use your content for our benefit. Given how dumb this issue is, I’m baffled at the extent to which you all have gone to attack this smart, capable young woman. I hope you feel great about yourselves.
Have a great long weekend.
Seth Thomas Pietras
Senior Director
Qorvis Communications
I’m not sure you understand the amount of time that firms like yours take up by throwing random crap - mostly press releases - our way. To then send yet more email that shows you don’t know that we are not a print publication is yet more time wasted.
I took the time to post this in the hope that PR firms will begin waste less of my time in the future. In that way, it is an investment.
It may very well be that your intern is smart and capable. Combine that with an ability to do a Google search before sending out emails like this, and you’ve got yourself a winner. A quick tutorial to your staff on what a blog is and isn’t might be a good idea too. Or, as a last resort, actually visit my site.
You did not request permission to use my content. I get requests like that occasionally and know what they look like. You asked for a reprint of an article, which print publications do. So, in addition to wasting my time, you are also a liar.
Finally, I am not humiliating your intern specifically. Her last name was removed. I am “attacking” your firm, not an individual.
If you take this kind of liberty when you spin your clients - specifically twisting the facts and then injecting emotion into your message, I feel badly for them. They deserve competent and ethical representation.
This is your forum, so you may call me whatever you like, but I believe her intent was clear. And please take another look at your screen shot. Our college intern’s full name is right there.
Well Seth I guess I’m an idiot then, because I thought she wanted me to send her a “reprint” of an article like she said in the email. Asking permission to link to a story is easy enough.
And by the way, please take me off your distribution list. forever.
Also, I note from a link above that the FBI raided your offices in late 2004. Super shady.
And by the way Seth, most of the commenters here also didn’t know what you were asking for. And a couple of PR blogs have linked here saying you guys obviously don’t know what you’re doing.
Mike continues to defend the indefensible. Why is it so hard to admit you took a cheap shot at this person? You have to muddy the waters even more?
She asked you for permission, you left her full name in the posting you made to humiliate her, and now you can’t even be a man and admit you made a mistake?
Very thin skin for a blogger. Put on your big boy pants, will you?
Steven, at this point I’m glad I left her name in that one time above.
This post is going to move from crunchnotes to techcrunch, as an example of how arrogant PR firms are getting, and how not to deal with the press.
given how little of our interesting news ever moves through PR firms, blacklisting Qorvis’ clients, including amazon, adobe and cisco, isn’t going to be very painful for me.
[...] Ridiculous? It is an interesting thing to consider: How you do reference things that are dynamically generated? Even if they are cached, is there a published checksum for the content to warn of change? Ah, the fun begins. (tags: reprint checksum vetting sources references) [...]
I hope this is going to make TC if it highlights where old school firms and practices have to collide with dynamic content of the blog format variety.
If Qorvis had just printed to a PDF or taken a screen shot, cited the source, and moved on with the business of whatever pays the bills — my guess is this thread of comments would be a few hours more time devoted to new TC content.
To the comment about cNet having a “staff” that deals with reprints. Okay. Fine. But, this is also the same cNet that you can’t embed their video content (that is plastered with their branding) at a time when that is a must have feature for relevance and eyeballs. I say whack the reprint team and get to work on video embed support and get the blogs front and center vs. tucked in the back after the headlines.
Saying TC or CN should have a reprints department or function solely for the purpose of monetizing dwindling legacy media requests… seems like an upside down economics model to me.
I’ll jump in this one late, Michael. BTW, nice seeing you at Flickr B-day, and I’m now in LA so it’ll be fun to see the interesting dance at PopSugar/TechCrunch party. I expect a really bad clash of cultures so I’ll be taking tons of pics.
This is more that an intern was given a job with no clear direction (I am just guessing - and full disclosure, I know people at the top at Qorvis from when I started my career in PR).
It’s a shame that this had to happen, and that she became fodder for a post. It’s something that didn’t need to happen.
And, I hope that this doesn’t cross into TC - the girl, if she is an intern, doesn’t need the pain.
But, yes, it was a bad email and shows that she didn’t even look at the site first. I’m also confused on what client might have been on TC, bc they are a PA firm.
Haha, silly PR person, trying to obey copyright law and rightfully compensate blogger for their work! How dare they be so clueless on how the Internet works! Like they would want to have a canonical copy of your post for reproduction purposes to ensure that the content didn’t change after it was linked! Silly people trying to follow the law and basic common sense!
Seriously, before you start telling people they don’t understand technology, brushing up on copyright law and the proper use of reproduction for commercial use would be clever.
Lambasting a college intern over something that you don’t seem to understand (like the term ‘reprint’ applying to all reproduced content, not physical goods) just makes you look like you spent a couple of hours in the clown makeup chair before showing up to fail miserably today.
The word “reprinted” appears in your post from February 26 titled “Nice Job, Mainstream Media”. What is the meaning of the word “reprinted” in that post?
[...] I’d call PC Magazine Editor in Chief Lance Ulanoff’s article about Facebook (reprinted here by Fox News) a hit job, except that it is so utterly devoid of logic and actual analysis that it really can’t be classified as anything other than a sad commentary on the state of technology reporting in mainstream media. [...]
[...] Anderson at Wired called out a bunch of supposed PR pros for poor pitching. CrunchNotes does it. And, when it occurs often enough, the BadPitch Blog does as [...]
guess Qorvis hasn’t broken on through to the internet, yet. amazing that it wasn’t a hand-written letter
[...] I think Mike should have quoted them some outrageous fee to print it off for them.read more | digg [...]
I think i’m more suprised/shocked Michael responded to an e-mail than at the initial reprint request.
I think you should have just taken a screenshot of the post..or better yet, taken a photo of your monitor and then sent it to them with an outrageous invoice!
Have to agree w/ Andrew. You should have charged them $1200 for the reprint… Then you tell them they also have a free option if the use their own printer and paper.
In serious note, though, this is to teach us (tech-lings) that not everybody understand tech, yet, they have a need for it.
While at first this reprint request seems old old old school (and it is), perhaps there is money to be made by adding a publishing wing, putting together volumes (with updates) for those that want those. You have Crunchbase, for example, will that also be on CD? The thing to remember in business,as you know, is that you have to service the entire market, late and middle adopters as well as early (if you choose those market segments).
By doing this haven’t you just given them what they wanted anyways. More publicity.
still I have to agree with Andrew.
As you failed to block out the name “Kathryn” on the “To:” field, I did a quick google search for “kathryn qorvis” and immediately turned up this:
http://www.qorvis.com/an_influential_firm/bios/phelps_k.html
So now the rest of us need only send her our quotes for blog reprints, and bang. Easy money.
Cesar - not sure how, i don’t even know what article they want a reprint of.
Brade - not that i’m all that concerned, but it was a different Kathryn.
Some companies like to reprint their press mentions with a logo and the masthead from the publication. They use this for sales. Most print pubs charge for this sort of use. That’s probably what she was asking about.
She probably wants to do a paper reprint to hand out at a conference. Is that so awful? Sheesh.
But a TechCrunch Book with all posts would be great… The TechCrunch Archive 2005,2006,2007 … etc.
I don’t see why you’re kicking up a fuss about this. It’s only polite that she ask for permission to reproduce any material/article on your site, as any self-respecting business would do. Why go the cynical route, which looks rather silly on yourself?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49849-2004Dec8.html
UR PR FIRM IS TEH FAIL
And if she hadn’t requested permission, and had just made a PDF from the blog, what would have been the reaction here?
In an age when you can’t make a screen cap from the Wall Street Journal online without them embedding a disclaimer that it’s only for your personal use, and that you have to ask for copyright permission, why is this so terrible just because you are a blog and not a print publication?
From a copyright viewpoint, she did the responsible thing to protect her client’s interests and that gets her raked over the coals. Why?
I agree with the other posters here, you left some money on the table here.
Here’s some free advice for Quovis (assuming it didn’t know what the heck it was talking doing): Spin the request as an early April Fool’s joke, and that it was meant to be funny.
However, as David, Steven, cathyd and Joe noted, maybe the request was legit and a professional courtesy. Though, if that, it still shows a lack of understanding due to poor wording/communication. Likely, the sender was a junior level staffer who was given an assignment and didn’t do her homework on who/what TechCrunch is.
-Mike
Thanks to Mike Driehorst for supportive comments, but regardless of where the staffer is in the hierarchy or the blogosphere experience level, simple human decency suggests that this is not…not…not a capital crime she committed. There are lots of instances where people have sued other people for not asking permission to reprint. So the word “reprint” is imprecise. So what? That is now grounds to ridicule someone on the ‘net? What would have been TechCrunch’s response if they had received an anonymous copy of a Qorvis press kit that included a posting they didn’t ask permission to include?
I have a radical idea. How about dropping the snarkiness, the “gotcha” approach to every single communication with PR professionals trying to do their jobs, and maybe have a real conversation about substantive issues, instead of moving the rules every time someone tries to approach you as if you are a …gasp!… professional?
[...] PR firm Qorvis communications got some negative press this week. Michael Arrington called their knowledge of the market into question by reposting an [...]
She was asking to reprint one of your articles, most likely as press material. Maybe collateral media showing an article you wrote about a client of hers.
It was the right thing for her to ask for permission. Cnet, PCWorld, Digital Trends etc have a whole seperate department dedicated to handling reprint requests - and yes, they do charge for their use. It is typically for X ammount of prints and a license time that says they can use the reprint for up to one year.
This means you are hitting it big time Michael, and it could add an extra revenue channel to your company. Go for it.
Congratulations for picking on and publicly humiliating a college intern who was giving you the courtesy of asking permission to use your content for our benefit. Given how dumb this issue is, I’m baffled at the extent to which you all have gone to attack this smart, capable young woman. I hope you feel great about yourselves.
Have a great long weekend.
Seth Thomas Pietras
Senior Director
Qorvis Communications
Seth -
Assuming you are actually with Qorvis.
I’m not sure you understand the amount of time that firms like yours take up by throwing random crap - mostly press releases - our way. To then send yet more email that shows you don’t know that we are not a print publication is yet more time wasted.
I took the time to post this in the hope that PR firms will begin waste less of my time in the future. In that way, it is an investment.
It may very well be that your intern is smart and capable. Combine that with an ability to do a Google search before sending out emails like this, and you’ve got yourself a winner. A quick tutorial to your staff on what a blog is and isn’t might be a good idea too. Or, as a last resort, actually visit my site.
You did not request permission to use my content. I get requests like that occasionally and know what they look like. You asked for a reprint of an article, which print publications do. So, in addition to wasting my time, you are also a liar.
Finally, I am not humiliating your intern specifically. Her last name was removed. I am “attacking” your firm, not an individual.
If you take this kind of liberty when you spin your clients - specifically twisting the facts and then injecting emotion into your message, I feel badly for them. They deserve competent and ethical representation.
Mike:
This is your forum, so you may call me whatever you like, but I believe her intent was clear. And please take another look at your screen shot. Our college intern’s full name is right there.
Seth
Well Seth I guess I’m an idiot then, because I thought she wanted me to send her a “reprint” of an article like she said in the email. Asking permission to link to a story is easy enough.
And by the way, please take me off your distribution list. forever.
Also, I note from a link above that the FBI raided your offices in late 2004. Super shady.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49849-2004Dec8.html
And by the way Seth, most of the commenters here also didn’t know what you were asking for. And a couple of PR blogs have linked here saying you guys obviously don’t know what you’re doing.
ok, yeah. super shady.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Qorvis_Communications
Mike continues to defend the indefensible. Why is it so hard to admit you took a cheap shot at this person? You have to muddy the waters even more?
She asked you for permission, you left her full name in the posting you made to humiliate her, and now you can’t even be a man and admit you made a mistake?
Very thin skin for a blogger. Put on your big boy pants, will you?
Steven, at this point I’m glad I left her name in that one time above.
This post is going to move from crunchnotes to techcrunch, as an example of how arrogant PR firms are getting, and how not to deal with the press.
given how little of our interesting news ever moves through PR firms, blacklisting Qorvis’ clients, including amazon, adobe and cisco, isn’t going to be very painful for me.
[...] Ridiculous? It is an interesting thing to consider: How you do reference things that are dynamically generated? Even if they are cached, is there a published checksum for the content to warn of change? Ah, the fun begins. (tags: reprint checksum vetting sources references) [...]
I hope this is going to make TC if it highlights where old school firms and practices have to collide with dynamic content of the blog format variety.
If Qorvis had just printed to a PDF or taken a screen shot, cited the source, and moved on with the business of whatever pays the bills — my guess is this thread of comments would be a few hours more time devoted to new TC content.
To the comment about cNet having a “staff” that deals with reprints. Okay. Fine. But, this is also the same cNet that you can’t embed their video content (that is plastered with their branding) at a time when that is a must have feature for relevance and eyeballs. I say whack the reprint team and get to work on video embed support and get the blogs front and center vs. tucked in the back after the headlines.
Saying TC or CN should have a reprints department or function solely for the purpose of monetizing dwindling legacy media requests… seems like an upside down economics model to me.
I’ll jump in this one late, Michael. BTW, nice seeing you at Flickr B-day, and I’m now in LA so it’ll be fun to see the interesting dance at PopSugar/TechCrunch party. I expect a really bad clash of cultures so I’ll be taking tons of pics.
This is more that an intern was given a job with no clear direction (I am just guessing - and full disclosure, I know people at the top at Qorvis from when I started my career in PR).
It’s a shame that this had to happen, and that she became fodder for a post. It’s something that didn’t need to happen.
And, I hope that this doesn’t cross into TC - the girl, if she is an intern, doesn’t need the pain.
But, yes, it was a bad email and shows that she didn’t even look at the site first. I’m also confused on what client might have been on TC, bc they are a PA firm.
Mike don’t move this to TC. You’re literally destroying that poor girl’s future - you know it.
i heard qorvis got raided by the fbi and then got crunched by arrington and were never heard from again…..
I think Qorvis has got a good publicity by this post on TC! Did they pay Mike?
[...] From CrunchNotes: We Don’t Do Reprints [...]
Was it just a trick to receive free publicity knowing that TC has a huge traffic?
I can’t believe you left her full name on the email screen shot. I went to high school with Kathryn Stetz. This is hilarious.
This story is really amusing. I am sure it must be very embarassing for Kathryn as well as Qorvis.
Haha, silly PR person, trying to obey copyright law and rightfully compensate blogger for their work! How dare they be so clueless on how the Internet works! Like they would want to have a canonical copy of your post for reproduction purposes to ensure that the content didn’t change after it was linked! Silly people trying to follow the law and basic common sense!
Seriously, before you start telling people they don’t understand technology, brushing up on copyright law and the proper use of reproduction for commercial use would be clever.
Lambasting a college intern over something that you don’t seem to understand (like the term ‘reprint’ applying to all reproduced content, not physical goods) just makes you look like you spent a couple of hours in the clown makeup chair before showing up to fail miserably today.
Mike,
The word “reprinted” appears in your post from February 26 titled “Nice Job, Mainstream Media”. What is the meaning of the word “reprinted” in that post?
[...] I’d call PC Magazine Editor in Chief Lance Ulanoff’s article about Facebook (reprinted here by Fox News) a hit job, except that it is so utterly devoid of logic and actual analysis that it really can’t be classified as anything other than a sad commentary on the state of technology reporting in mainstream media. [...]
[...] Anderson at Wired called out a bunch of supposed PR pros for poor pitching. CrunchNotes does it. And, when it occurs often enough, the BadPitch Blog does as [...]