Vetting Your Press Release

By Matthew C. Keegan

Making a living from the world of writing means taking extra care to thoroughly examine what you have written before finally releasing it. When I have any document to write, I generally will write it and edit it in one sitting but save my most important final edits for another time. By separating this last measure, I usually come up with something that sounds clearer and reads better.

I have been on a surge these past few months having penned more than 15 press releases for six different customers. To date, each release has been satisfactorily written and submitted to separate press release sites.

One area of vetting which isn’t as apparent is the usage of anchor links within the release. Across the board, all major press release companies require that a separate fee be paid for the privilege of including anchor links. This fee can range from $30 to $200, a small fortune for some small businesses.

Recently, I nearly saw one of my releases delayed by a full day because I used links without paying for the upgrade. Once I was alerted to the mistake, I quickly made the correction and resubmitted. The release was still able to go out on time.

The moral of the story? You can write a jam up press release but remembering the various submission requirements for each distribution company can be a job in and of itself. I would have hated to see the release delayed and it could have cost me an important customer. Fortunately, the reminder from the distributor and my quick action averted what could have been a disaster.

One more step to consider in the press release vetting process!

Copyright 2006-2008 – For additional information regarding Matthew C. Keegan, The Article Writer, please visit his blog for wit, quips, and freelance writing tips.

Are Paid Posts Polluting The Internet?

For the record: this isn’t a paid advertisement. I don’t want to incur the wrath of the Google gods for doing something that violates their TOU by suggesting that it is.

What this article is about is PayPerPost and ReviewMe, two paid blogging models that are popular with some bloggers. I’ve participated in both programs previously, but discontinued paid blogging about the same time that Google announced that penalties were forthcoming. Penalties or not, I was no longer interested in monetizing my blogs through paid posting.

Matthew Mullenweg, who is one of the architects behind WordPress, recently discussed on his Photo Matt blog TechCrunch’s decision not to accept PayPerPost/IZEA advertising after surveying their readership. Mullenweg added, “Their readers made the right decision and voted that it would be disingenuous to accept advertising from a company that, in Michael’s words, pollutes the blogosphere.”

I realize that the words uttered were from Michael Arrington who has a “history” of airing his overwhelmingly negative opinions about PayPerPost, founder Ted Murphy, and the PPP model. Oddly, TechCrunch works closely with TextLinkAds, the company who started ReviewMe. I’m not sure why one business model would be different enough to justify then the other one or whether what PPP does pollutes the internet, while ReviewMe is deemed acceptable.

I’m not taking a position in this debate, but I would hate to be in Ted Murphy’s shoes as the entire PPP model is under attack (talk about job insecurity!) Google has penalized bloggers who use PayPerPost and Murphy is finding himself responding to these attacks by leaving comments (diplomatic ones, at that) on blogs discussing PPP.

Google has changed the way that many blogs do business, leaving some bloggers scrambling to make up for lost revenue. It’ll be interesting to see whether the paid posting model can survive or whether it will be abandoned by bloggers, advertisers, and by the companies providing this service themselves.