<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Last Friday, I posted \u201C12 Tips For Getting Your Startup Featured on Mashable,\u201D which, based on  most of the comments, I think opened a very constructive dialogue with those seeking coverage on our blog.  I also noticed a big uptick in the number of new submissions, which, hopefully reflected in some of our posts this week about new startups.  \nIn any event, after receiving an exceedingly bad pitch yesterday, I half-jokingly tweeted that I thought I might do a \u201C12 Tips for How NOT to Seek Coverage on Mashable,\u201D and received an overwhelming response, so, I decided to whip something together.  Unlike the the tip in my previous article which I think are probably fairly generic ideas, some of these might sound more like personal pet peeves (and are labeled as such), but trust me, they\u2019ll make both of our lives just a little bit easier.  \nBottom line: You\u2019re busy, we\u2019re busy, so let\u2019s work together to do a better job and save a few precious minutes of everyone\u2019s time per day, shall we? ;)\n\nLegitimate Issues That Create Problems\n1. Sending an Invite from Your App \u2013 This is a big no-no.  The main problem with sending us an invite via your app is there is a good chance we won\u2019t see it.  We\u2019ve signed up for hundreds of different applications through the years, and we have filters designed to keep the notifications (BACN) that most of these apps send out of our main mailbox.  \n2. Referencing Your Media Coverage on Mashable Competitors X, Y, and Z \u2013 We have a good relationship with most of our \u201Ccompetitors\u201D and will link to their coverage when they have something interesting or a juicy piece of breaking news.  However, if you\u2019re a startup with Launch Date X, we\u2019d like to know about it beforehand, not after it has already been covered by a half dozen other blogs.  We will honor all embargos if you would like to do it this way.  \n3. Private Message on Social Network \u2013 We get A LOT of application invites and messages on Facebook.  We don\u2019t really mind it, but again, you\u2019re lowering your chances of actually getting your pitch seen, since we spend a lot more time in our main mailbox (the news@mashable.com email) than the 38 different private message systems we have via different social networks.  \n4. Trying a Backdoor \u2013 We love establishing quality relationships with sources.  Unfortunately, we actually do sleep, which means if you send a message to one of our writers at 4am, they may not get it to it in a timely fashion.  However, our news@mashable.com address is monitored just about 24x7 these days and we all see what comes in, so this is the best way to reach us.  \n5. Contacting Pete \u2013 While he is a Forbes 25 Web Celeb, a Valleywag regular, and would love to check out your startup at some point, Mashable founder Pete Cashmore is also insanely busy with things beyond editorial.  Much like some of the other less efficient modes of pitching us, if you contact Pete directly, there is a good chance he won\u2019t see it and get it to our editorial team on time.  \n6. Unsolicited Phone Calls \u2013 Most of our phone numbers are private, but nonetheless, some sleuths are able to find them and cold call us.  While we love setting up a time to chat with you and demo your product, unsolicited calls during our workday are a huge distraction.    \nPet Peeves\n7. USING ALL CAPS \u2013 It baffles me that people write subject lines in ALL CAPS.  For one, this means that less of your subject line shows up in the preview screen in Gmail, meaning you have fewer words to convince us that your story is worth covering.  Second - and this is like mid 90s Internet etiquette - it\u2019s considered SHOUTING.  Finally, it also seems that ALL CAPS is at least one red flag for spam filters, so if you use them, your message might not even get through to us at all.   \n8. Misspelling Our Names \u2013 Kristen Nicole\u2019s name is Kristen, not Nicole.  And not \u201CKristin\u201D either.  Sean is Sean, not Shawn.  And if you can\u2019t spell Adam, Mark, Paul, or Stan, then God help you.  We\u2019re not vindictive people, but, when you mess up our names, it makes us think you don\u2019t really read our blog, which hurts our feelings (not really, but come on, this should be easy).  \n9. Trying to Setup a Lunch \u2013 While we would love to go sit down to a fine meal with you, unfortunately, I don\u2019t think a Mashable staffer on the editorial side has been \u201Cout to lunch\u201D since Pete started this whole thing a few years ago.  The blogger lifestyle isn\u2019t for everyone of course, but the fact of the matter is we generally don\u2019t take more than a 10 minute break during our workday, let alone a couple hours to enjoy a three course meal.   \nYou Have To Be Kidding Me?\n10. Not Including a URL \u2013 This should go without saying, but you\u2019d be surprised.  In reality, the most important part of any pitch (for new startups anyhow) is your site, and without including a URL, you\u2019re screwed.\n11. Not Offering a Preview of Your Private Beta \u2013 While it\u2019s great to learn about \u201Cstealth\u201D startups, there is a limit to just how \u201Cstealth\u201D you can be before receiving coverage.  For example, I wouldn\u2019t have covered TheBlackApp yesterday unless I was able to uncover some details beyond what was on their landing page.  \n12. Pitching Old News \u2013 Sending us an old press release is a lose-lose.  For starters, if we research it and see it has been covered a dozen times elsewhere, we probably won\u2019t cover it.  Additionally, if we research it and see it hasn\u2019t been covered anywhere, it makes us question if maybe the story just wasn\u2019t newsworthy in the first place and now you\u2019re just \u201Cworking your way down a list.\u201D  However, if you\u2019re pitching a new story and want to include old news as a frame of reference, that can be useful.\n"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2008/04/18/bad-pr-pitches/>