I got a call last week from Media Monitors, asking if I would like to be included on their media release distribution list, wearing my hat as editor of a series of niche B2B tech websites.
I don’t mind receiving some releases for this gig, even though it does not really do news.
But the call from Media Monitors was odd, because when I asked them what kind of releases they would send me the only classification they had was “Technology.”
So I explained that I only wanted certain types of technology press releases. I named the topics the sites cover.
Media Monitors simply could not get that granular. In fact they could not get any more granular than “Technology.”
After a very odd conversation in which Media Monitors’ representative seemed to display no understanding whatsoever of the concept that being on a list with a topic as broad as ‘Technology” could mean that I get rather a lot of material of zero use, I managed to stay off the list.
Now at least they asked. That was nice … if inconsistent. I’ve ended up on Media Monitors’ lists before without opt-in and getting off was tricky because the company’s switchboard did not even know they have a press release distribution service! They put me through to someone who was very rude and unhelpful.
Surely these people can do better on that front, but also on the interactive front? Why not let users of the service create a folksonomy to classify releases and sift them better?