Jeremy Pepper has a new rider on the cluelesstrain … and these people are riding in the short caboose.

alarm:clock is phishing like a homeless troll. So, if you’re in for shooting into a barrel, come along as we answer Jamie’s plea for answers.

So you flack defenders have a good argument rebutting point #4. How about points 1,2,3 & especially 5?

Vague generalities and ancedotal evidence are rarely successful in creating a valid argument. alarm:clock’s post is rife with banalities.

1) They’re full of baloney. In their pitches…
#1. Anecdotal ‘evidence’ of a journalist’s dysfunctional relationship (or inability to maintain one) with his PR girlfriend is hardly sound rationale for ‘firing your PR firm’, regardless of your desperation to prove a negative. You are not transparent in your posts (where is the author) and you provide no links/names/verification of your claims. People tend to deny you any credibility points with such thin arguments. Unfounded generalities are never a good way to argue points, Jamie.

2) Journalists prefer direct contact with the startup…
#2. Well, first of all – we know that. Our job is to bring the opportunities to you. Ya’ see, this one is too easy. Your comment shows that you see PR solely as publicity. Any knowledgeable person knows that PR is multi-faceted. You get what you pay for and if you research your PR firm hires as poorly as you researched your post – you deserve what you get.

Also, you write, “PR agencies get in touch when it is convenient for them” and that’s just goofy. Bad PR practitioners might do that, but good ones (see above about getting what you pay for) would not. Practitioners know that they will be successful if they meet the needs/desires of the journalist. They contact on the journalist’s timetable and in the manner the journalist prefers (RSS, email, etc.).

It may just be that alarm:clock’s bad experiences are due to their own naivete and ignorance.

3) PR agencies don’t get the new model…
#3. More generalities and no evidence. Now, had you stated something like “PR Agency XYZ doesn’t get the new model,” people might have listened to what you have to say. Instead, you rant. No wonder the only attention you seem to draw at alarm:clock is that which is pointing out your flaws in establishing a credible argument.

Many do get the new models. More will in time.

4) Look at the startups that do PR best…
#4. Well, I think even you have come to terms with this faux pas. Please do some research before you try to post. This was the only part of your rant that offered up any attempt at evidence – and, you got it wrong. Sad.

5) Its a big waste of money…
#5. Waste of money? OK, yes I’ve seen some pretty bad campaigns and pitches that would make your head spin. But, the reality is that ‘a good plan’ is worth the dollars. Do you not realize that – in a publicity function alone – one good placement can be worth 10K or more? Probably not. You know, coverage on a local news cast (compared to a :30 spot) could easily be 10K, and even more if you count the 3rd party credibility bump you get if it is positive.

alarm:clock comes from the remains of Red Herring. Perhaps it would be best if all future posts in alarm:clock are printed in red type, much like the namesake ‘required caveats’ the term represents.

Ya’ see, it may be that this post by alarm:clock is an attempt (badly designed as it may be) to generate some viral juice leading to interest/sales/buys of their product. Well, if they have a product. That remains to be seen. OK, I bit. Now, glean joy from my 3 reader links.

Hey, here’s an idea. Hire a PR firm that ‘does’ get it. Then you can focus on that product.

Come on, alarm:clock. The bell is ringing and you’re not answering the bell. Perhaps the bell tolls for thee. Yep, that’s it. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist the snarky references. It was too easy and I’m tired.

communications, public relations, PR, cluelesstrain, Pop-PR, infopinions, alarm:clock, alarm:clock