Beautiful! Thank you HARO for providing a wonderful service, and constantly improving.

Thank you Peter for defending the customer “source” standpoint!

I appreciate you doing a lot of extra work on the back end in order to provide a better experience for all your users. What great customer service.

Makes sense Peter, very well done.

Thanks HARO. This is an amazing service and it’s nice to know you listen, as well as take action.

Great! Sounds like you listened and came up with a solution that should satisfy everyone except the abusers. Perfect.

Makes sense – and an administrative ‘story’ written in such a way that it was so interesting, I read it through:) Well done!

Thank you on all fronts for creating a valuable exchange that benefits so many.

Thanks for making this change — as a loyal “source” I was one that skipped the “Anonymous” queries because I like to know where my information is going. To be fair, I never respond to queries that don’t apply to me or my company — that’s a waste of everyone’s time. Thanks for the improvement!

Thanks. This seem like a good move. I have to say I love HARO. I just posted a query for the first time and thought I had to check anonymous in order to mask my email. I was surprised when I saw my query plastered with “anonymous” when I didn’t intend for that to happen. I still got 20 responses within 24 hours. They were rich and right on target.

Excellent plan.

Well said, Peter. See you next time you’re in CLE.

Hi, Peter,

Thanks for your new policy, although IMHO delaying the non-anonymity privilegtes for non- top-tier media is a year too long. Why do that if they’re not top-tier and have no reason for cloaking themselves? The reality is we writers need to know who we’re writing to in order to shape our responses to that particular media source. Don’t the media themselves always say make sure you read what we do before you pitch us? Too bad the “big boys/girls” have to protect themselves. Sure hat’s understandable and acceptable, but it’s impractical from a free lance journalist’s and truth-be-told, the media’s points of vieew. And for God’s sake, can’t journalists set up an automatic message such as “Thank you for your submission. We’ll get back to you if we can use your work”? This would take no time from media sources who have pitched their queries to us free lancers, and it takes no time at all.

Thanks for the change. It was very annoying from the responsible publicist’s point of view to respond to an anonymous query.

HARO is such a wonderful asset to to PR community. Keep up the great work Peter.

Good idea and very well presented. Thanks

Peter, how about if you identify the media outlet but not the reporter? The email I would send to an NYT reporter is considerably different than the one I would send to Forbes on the same subject. I still can’t justify spending time to put together a good pitch and to align the people within my organization who would need to be involved if the reporter responds, when I don’t know the outlet. When the deadline is short, I need to know before I respond, is this expert available? what customer(s) are currently available for interviews? Getting those answers take time and involve others in our company whose day job is not PR.

Thanks for the change and for the background info – very interesting. I also enjoyed the ADHD Version!

Bravo!!

Peter, your thoughtful explanation is 1) great news 2) your usual candid ‘let’s all be adults while watching out for abusers’ self and 3) a workable plan. Though I do like D’Anne’s suggestion that you identify the outlet. As she says, for most of us, each pitch is tailored specifically. Thanks for listening. You’re the best!

This is great! I am glad I took the time to read through this…Thank you HARO! It makes complete sense. This is a wonderful platform and we can afford to have anyone “abusing” the anonymous option and we certainly do not want anyone gather info in a devious manner. I see HARO as a positive, collective, honest system – so let’s keep it that way (not accusing anyone of NOT being honest – I was just saying)…Have a great Friday and weekend everyone!

Thank you Peter – We don’t do traditional in your face advertising – we’re all about making personal connections – this is an amazing service for us.

“What D’Anne said”. Seriously. PR peeps are always told by journos to target the pitch. Kinda hard to do if we’re throwing totally blindfolded, since some of the descriptions can be (intentionally?) vague. Otherwise, good move.

Glad to see the change, should improve results for all and reduce wasted time.

Peter, you read my mind. Thank you for making this change. It is really frustrating to have to decide each time: should I take the time to answer this query if it’s “anonymous”? Not infrequently, I just passed on it because I didn’t want to take the time to write a long essay in response to their question, only to find out the size of the audience didn’t justify all that time. I really think you should only do it for ‘top tier media’ – that you filter through on your end, rather than wait for us to tell you who turned out to be unworthy of being “anonymous,” especially now because these people can take advantage of the fact that we will all think they are ‘top tier media’! I would be happiest if no one was “anonymous” and we could write our answers in a way that best suits their audience. Time is precious.

Many of us journalists went anonymous after people saw a notice in HARO and went directly to our editors, bypassing the journalist in hopes of getting more or better press. Too, some editors do not permit their writers to reveal upcoming story schedules. I do not have the right to reveal that I am doing a story on X topic for Y magazine’s Z issue Please retain my right to be anonymous.

Peter, this is a great move. Thanks for keeping the process as transparent and efficient as possible!

Great, I couldn’t agree more. Frankly as a writer, what I keep under cover are topics – in the sense that there are certain stories I’m not prepared to share with others until they’re quite far along (I don’t want to get scooped!) – I wouldn’t be putting those on HARO for tens of thousands till I was ready anyway so no reason to hide my name.

D’Anne — send a short email. No reason for you to go bananas working on it till the reporter makes contact back with you. Suggest what you may have as a source and start an email dialogue.

I’d say good call. The anon post sometimes felt a bit shady.

Thanks for fixing this Peter! I’m one of the experts who did not respond to the suddenly hundreds of anonymous queries and have probably missed some opportunities, but not enough time in the day… I for one, am happy with these changes!

I like what you’ve done but would also appreciate knowing the outlet even if the reporter is kept anonymous. It’s important to know who you are pitching to.

Being someone on both sides of the argument, I get it. One of the things I like about HARO and have from the beginning, is how you also see the situation from various sides and try to make it work for all involved. I definitely have responded to fewer requests and as a small outlet also, want only responses from people who know who we are. Thanks Peter.

Good work, Peter. I understand journalists not wanting to be spammed, but from the other side of the equation, I almost never respond to anonymous queries. Appreciate your making HARO a “continuous improvement” organization. Props to you!

Thanks, Peter. I was one of the “50% drop-offs” to those anon queries. It just felt like pitching through a one-sided mirror, or if the reporter accepts your pitch and then you actually don’t feel their outlet is appropriate for your client, it’s kinda embarrassing.

But, I did appreciate it when the reporter would give somewhat of a description of where they are from i.e. ‘major newspaper outlet’ or ‘radio program heard in state A, state B’ etc. Sometimes, the ‘guessing game’ was kinda fun!

Yeah, sick, I know :-)

Thanks again!

Thank you Peter, I do appreciate the anonymous patter being limited. In my industry (Weddings and bridal) I could recognize that many were of limited value to our members. I always appreciated the fact I could Google the writers name as it gave me a secure feeling that I could forward to my members and experts without fear of creating a competitor. I agree with several of the comments above and prefer knowing what org is soliciting.

Keep up the great work.

I’m a manufacturer so grateful for HARO and the connections it presents to me 3x a day. But even more – Peter, you are an inspiration on how to do business right. Your honesty and transparent reasoning is so appreciated, and it’s no wonder you’re as respected and successful as you are. Bravo and thank you for your most excellent service and business practice standards.

So happy to see this change. Thanks, Peter! I too have skipped many anonymous sources due to lack of information – how do I pitch someone on target without knowing who I’m pitching? (like D’Anne said above)
Sources can still use a masked email address and even a different name – that doesn’t make a difference to how I’m pitching. But, the media source is a very important part of information!

I’ve been on both sides of this fence: source and journalist. The problem with revealing the name of the outlet is that the publication’s competition reads HARO three times a day, too. So if it says someone at Forbes is working on a story about how the recession is not ending and they want to talk to small business people, the NYT reporters can scoop them.

Another reason journos use anonymous buttons: it’s a fierce world out here for assignments. When other freelancers see “furniture trade news” has someone writing a story for its pages, they bombard the editor with introduction letters and pitches asking for work, too. I once had an editor peeved at me for using HARO and bringing down a storm of extra work on her head in that regard.

My solution would be to make everyone anonymous, and tell sources it’s a blog or publication, trade or consumer slant.

HARO has been a great asset, thanks!

Thanks Peter – like everyone else, I have to agree with D’Anne. The more I can target my pitch, the better, especially for a busy small business owner!!

Good call. I had noticed the uptick in anonymous requests of late.

Fantastic change! Thank you!! :-)

Thanks for the change, I quit submitting for clients when everyone became anonymous, it just became ridiculous. Its sometimes difficult enough to pitch when you have a new client and are having to write it all from scratch rather than pulling pieces to add to a pitch. I do agree that it would be nice to know the outlet so that I can pitch more on target, so as long as I know what outlet I don’t necessarily need to know which reporter (or work it out so that we can pitch more accurately to the type of outlet).

As always, its great to have HARO and I thank you and your team for all the hard work it takes to put together this service.

This was a great idea. I use HARO in an effort to publicize our nonprofit. I’ve had a number of instances where my schedule/priorities had me checking my email very shortly after a query’s deadline. I had one instance where I was able to “Google” the reporter and was able to provide information. It was evident that the reporter still had a need, even though the posted deadline had passed. I realize that deadlines are posted for a reason, but a little added flexibility is one more reason I think this is a good change.

Question– how does letting queries from journalists who are clearly not top-tier (via their email address) go through as “top outlet” solve the problem? You are relying on us to report abuse, but in reality, I still probably won’t be pitching blind queries because it can be counter productive sometimes. If I knew that all blind queries were truly top-tier, that would be different, but I feel journalists, bloggers, freelancers, etc. are still going to abuse this function. Instead of clicking “anonymous,” they can now simply write in “top tier.” Hope I’m wrong however!

This is a critical change that you’re implementing – thanks for listening. This makes me feel much more confident in responding to queries again.

Thanks!

I’m not sure I get the “we listen”. Every time I’ve written HARO with a question or comment I never get a response.

Good change. Thanks, Peter.

Fabulous change. I had stopped submitting responses to queries that didn’t list outlet. First, it limited the my ability to determine if the outlet was a good fit for our target and customize the pitch accordingly.

Peter, hats off to you and your team for continuing to tweak and grow a successful service!

I’m sure this will go a long ways to improving the quality of the queries. I’m surprised that the system was abuse-able in the first place – I once tried to post an award opp for a tech analyst who wished to be anonymous, and was immediately rejected because it wasn’t a media request.

I vote with D-Anne. Include to media outlet to help targeting.

Ditto D’Anne. There are not enough hours in a work day to organize the appropriate responses, experts and customers…etc. without knowing the Media Outlet and the end target reader. Thanks for all you do Peter!

Yes! I was hoping something like this would happen. I am not interested in being interviewed by many outlets and blindly contacting sources didn’t work for me. So, thanks!!!

I agree and think this is a great change. I had stopped responding to most queries as a result in the past few months.

Strong work!
– Jeff

Sounds like a great middle way for me! [for the record, I’ve used the anonymous route once because my freelance reporting gig may have interfered with my day job and I didn’t want to create a conflict for said day job. It worked fine, thanks to HARO!

Deb

We are thrilled that you are making this change – it was very much needed! Many, many thanks!

Jennifer

I appreciate this tweak in the system. In the beginning of HARO, I assumed anonymous meant it was a major news outlet that didn’t want the competition knowing what stories they were working on. However, I’d stopped sending anonymous HARO’s after a while because clients want to know where the info is going. Thanks, Peter!

Awesome! I’ve been waiting for this! And, for the record, I agree with D’Anne too.

I agree with D’Anne, but can understand that in some rare instances an outlet should not be required to tip their hand on a story. However, perhaps in those instances, you could categorize the anonymous major outlets to provide more info so we can pitch appropriately. ie: top 25 daily newspaper, Business/tech/finance mag circulation >1 million, Nat’l TV talk show, top tier blog (perhaps a threshold in alexa ranking to qualify as top tier), nationally syndicated columnist, wire service, etc

I agree. I never respond if I don’t know where the info will end up. Seems like a good change to me, as is the email change.

One other change I’d like to see though, is people putting more complete info in the top query line. I can’t tell you how many times I look at a query, thinking it applies to me, only to find that it’s not even in my area, or they’re looking for only people in a specific industry, etc.

Thanks Peter, keep up the good work!

I’m always impressed with the care and respect with which you treat your “customers.” I saw that up close and personal during your presentation to the Cat Writers’ Association last year. You make it possible and pretty easy to want to trust you and your business. THANKS.

Peter,
I’ve been on both sides of the equation in my 45-year career, but anonymity does not engender trust or confidence . . . or my interest in responding. I’ve been using HARO from almost your beginning and love it. My placements went way up and I now recognize many of the regular users. But IF “anon.” is necessary, yeah, at least let us know the publication/medium. Also . . .
I have to agree with the good rabbi: “And for God’s sake, can’t journalists set up an automatic message such as “Thank you for your submission. We’ll get back to you if we can use your work”?”

And remember what philosopher Robert Fulghum said: “If we all hold hands, we are more likely to get across the street safely.”
Cheers to you and the cats!
Preston

Thank you! Some of those anonymous people were asking for too much free info up front. I didn’t want to give another author or blogger voluminous material for a book or blog that would compete with my own. I even asked one anonymous person to identify him/herself before I would give away the whole store. Of course he/she never did. Your earlier advice about giving credentials and letting the reporter call to interview worked many years ago, when reporters were all professional and didn’t mind writing their own pieces. Now most want to just cut and paste. I’ve tried it both ways. Giving credentials and asking for a call rarely works anymore. When I include all the info in the email, it is more likely to be used because it is less work for the reporter … but more work for me :-( So I’m one of those sources who had to ignore queries because they were not worth the time spent. This new system sounds better.

Peter,
Fair…is the key word here and that is what you are proposing for all. I am looking forward to the change. BTW, reading your book “Can we do that – Outrageous PR Stunts” and will be reaching out to you in the near future to assist with making ScareMeNots a household comfort.

Thank you, finally! Hard to make an on-target pitch when you don’t know what or where the target is!

As usual you are providing a phenomenal service to us all. Keep up the great work!

The matter of the Anonymous feature is quite fair. However, as an independent freelancer who has only been published in small to mid level sites and small blogs, I don’t think limiting queries to top Alexa ranked outlets is fair nor in the spirit of what HARO set out to do. I’ve had one query posted to the list before, pre 2.0, and I’d hate to be rejected if I tried to submit another one merely because it might not be destined for the NYT or similar. That’s kind of elitist thinking.

I really appreciate the end of cloaking. As so many have already said, and I have e-mailed Peter before, I can’t ask the authors I represent to put effort into a seldom-read blog—but I will ask them to reply to a writer for a major magazine. Regarding limiting queries to Alexa-ranked sites, I also object to that, because occasionally I need comments for a Parenting Press newsletter (one of which is paid circulation only) or for my other major gig, monthly articles in the Independent Book Publishers Association’s PRINT newsletter (3,500+ subscribers). Using Alexa does not measure password-protected or print circulation.

I notice you did not run my last query, while one of your competitors did. To expand on Chris in #67, the newsletters I write for don’t have NYT-size circulation, but what you can’t measure is the readership, because so many of my articles get reprinted in other newsletters/on web sites, and a few get reprinted in books and so have very long lives and broad readership.

Peter, you do a great job and deserve all the success you get!