A Dialogue With A Guest-Post Spammer
Names changed to protect the guilty.
My name's Mickey Marketeer and I'm a writer for Not Adequately Supervising Me LLP [note: an actual, established, multi-state, apparently reputable law firm]. I'm conducting interviews with leading legal experts from around the world as part of a consumer education initiative, and if you’re interested I would love to guest blog for Popehat!
I have attached a few exclusive interviews for review that I think your readers would love, and you can find examples of my work in other areas at [three marketeering shitholes].
Thanks for your time!
Not Adequately Supervising Me LLP [followed by the actual law firm's phone number, web site, address, etc.]
Attachments: Multiple Embarrassingly Generic "Interviews" With "Experts" On Legal Topics With No Connection To Popehat
It's nice that you offer. You see, offers to guest blog are one of our favorite subjects at Popehat.
In fact, posts mocking guest-post-spam are among our most popular posts.
So: I'm always thrilled to have a new guest-post solicitation to write about.
I’m sorry you feel these are spammy. I find these interviews fascinating! And I would appreciate it very much if you didn’t write about my inquiry.
Thank you, and great job with Popehat – very funny stuff.
It's completely spammy. Don't insult your intelligence or mine. I would bet a kidney that you never read our blog before sending this solicitation. If you had, you wouldn't think for a nanosecond that any of this stuff was appropriate, you would have seen that we make fun of guest-post spam, and you would have seen that another favorite topic is bad marketing by lawyers: http://www.popehat.com/tag/marketing/.
Mickey, the firm you are working for appears to be a reputable and normal one, not some fly-by-night mill. This is an extraordinarily reckless way to promote it. I'm in a good mood, and having read this stuff you sent I think that writing about your solicitation would feel a little like clubbing a baby seal, so I'm not going to name and shame, as is my normal practice to deter this conduct. But you're taking a huge risk. Leave aside that only marginal blogs or crass marketing sites will ever play ball with this stuff. Sooner or later you're going to spam someone like me NOT in a good mood, and they're going to take a huge dump on your client's web presence.
Marketeers like this stuff. Actual bloggers, including lawyers who care about writing, despise it. I refer cases all the time, but I would never hire or refer to a firm that markets like this.
Play at your own risk.
Thanks for your advice and discretion.
1. What makes guest post spam "spammy" is not that the proposed topic isn't "fascinating." What makes it spammy is that the marketeer has directed it to a wide range of blogs without any assessment of whether the topics, tone, or level of detail are suitable to the targeted blogs.
2. I expect comment spam and guest-post spam and similar cheesy marketeering from solos and small firms and places that don't know any better. I was completely floored that a seemingly mainstream and reputable firm would have hired a "writer" on staff to do guest-post-spamming. Someone there is seriously asleep at the switch. Why would you hire lawyers with that kind of bad judgment?
3. You know what kind of guest-post-spam might make me bite? Something that offered as an example a detailed, thoughtful, and non-generic treatment of an issue. Generic, Sunday-supplement "we can send this anywhere" stuff is one of the markers of spam and cheesy marketeering.
4. Why does this stuff make me so mad? I put a lot of work into writing here. My blog is not a tool for clumsily marketing your law firm.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- With Apologies To Baron Macaulay - November 18th, 2014
- Shirts And Shirtiness - November 17th, 2014
- A SLAPP False Alarm Out Of Chicago: The Law Is An Ass - November 12th, 2014
- Roca Labs, Lacking A Hornet Nest Into Which It Could Stick Its Dick, Has Sued Marc Randazza - November 11th, 2014
- "Digital Homicide Studio" Abuses DMCA To Lash Out At Reviewer Jim Sterling, Gets Fair Use Wrong - November 11th, 2014