as an addendum, if her posts have become more petty, less professional with time, and she spends her energy on this, it will make her untrustworthy in her line of work. People don’t like working with meanies.

Thanks so much for your comment! Ever the sage, you’ve offered several insightful thoughts that have my mind racing.

First off, I think it’s great that Gina has started correcting her original methodology–but, as you say, the feedback that can be valuable for growth/learning is missing. The Bad Pitch blog is a great example of judgment in the new media age; we as an Internet public can see the emails, make our own evaluations, and as PR pros, learn from the mistakes of others.

What to do with the wiki? It seems like a lot of petty maintenance. To me, it now presents this paradox: Gina values PR enough to promote the tips inbox, but conversely still keeps this list, a virtual laundry list of every tech PR firm, as a public symbol of disdain for the profession.

Is Cision/Media Map to blame? I found her at ginatrapani.org in Cision, and used it to send her the above email. I’ve never pitched Gina–my clients don’t fit the blogs focus–so I’m not sure how she handles inappropriate pitches or emails to her personal addy. Does she respond back? If not, I’m not sure people would know not to pitch her at that address.

As you mention in your post, it goes back to relations, especially with bloggers. It does take more time, but the mutual relationship can be beneficial. I am thankful for the reporters and bloggers that let me know when I am off target. That, however, does take time. Ultimately, it’s about trust from both sides. On a professional level, I’m not sure I could trust someone who devalues an industry by maintaining a public list without offering feedback. It’s one-sided, and that’s not what a relationship is about.

Robert, as always, it’s a pleasure seeing you drop by!

Something new that occurs to me, Gina is now correcting some of the problems with her methodology. Hmm? OK, so she is correcting her improper actions, yet her wiki remains. Did she write to those that she felt were offending her and let them correct their actions? She’s learning from feedback via blogs & twitter. There is a bit of a disconnect here.

Are those that bothered her not worthy of feedback, too? (I’m talking about the feedback that doesn’t adversely impact one’s reputation.) I’m betting the answer is no, at least to her. There is a problem here.

Remember, we’re trusting Gina that these e-mails she received were not relevant. I’m not saying she’s lying, but has anyone actually seen examples of the e-mails? Think of the Bad Pitch Blog. At least there we can see and judge for ourselves if the pitch was off target.

Your example of unsubscribing from her blog, is a good illustration as to the payback she can receive, too. However, I think we all know that 99.9% of her readers won’t react that way.

When these “punishment” instances occur, especially if they are like Chris Anderson’s impudent and irrational example, then they are wrong. They should be condemned.

I don’t know either Chris or Gina, of course, but she does not seem to be vitriolic. So, if she continues to be willing to modify her approach, that’s a good thing. I do agree that her wiki seems to be more and more petty as time goes on. Do we really expect Gina to vet each addition to the wiki? I don’t.

The wiki can stay or go. Leave it up there, but I bet time will close down any edits, actually. Her point is made. I went to the wiki and signed in to see if it could be edited. One must ask for a code to be allowed to add to the list. This is a good sign, but how long (really) is Gina going to devote her time to the wiki? Not much, if any, in the future.

Lastly, the point of contention in all of this is the e-mails to her private/personal address. Those that did that are guilty of bad practice. Good practice takes time. Even if they trusted, say a Cision or other company’s list (sorry, Cision, not meaning to single you out), we are all really required to do some follow up to see if each one is the appropriate e-mail address preferred by the recipient.

Remember, good practice takes time. The model for pitching and billing for hours may need to change. That time is something I bet most clients (and even agencies) are not eager to see add up.

May be a rumor, I can’t check from home … but while it does not excuse bad behavior, if it’s true then it certainly might explain some of the bad practices re: Gina.