When “Content” Isn’t Enough

With increasing frequency, emails of this format have been hopping into inboxes around the planet:

Dear [blogger],

[Some organization] has a new website for info on [some new product]. Could you blog about it to get some more exposure for it?

[random URL here]

Thanks,
[Someone you don’t know]

At this point, maybe the URL gets a click, and the almost inevitable reaction is “thanks for the spam.”

But what if the note doesn’t come from an organizational flack, but instead comes from a passionate true believer? Is “content” always king, prima facie, or does “content” have other, subtle dimensions of intent, and purpose, and earnestness that augment the words on the page?

Chris Pirillo recently received the following email:

The typical initial steps and instinctive reaction follow. Pirillo:

“My first thought was: ‘Why do these PR flacks even bother?’ I immediately shot an email off to my MSN contacts, asking about this person. They searched the company directory and came up with no results.”

Upon deeper digging, however, a surprise was uncovered:

“The name was passed around and, ultimately, it belonged to a stepson of a Virtual Earth team member! It wasn’t marketing spam after all – merely an innocent request by a kid who is very proud of his father’s work.”

The same words, sent in the exact same way, carried two completely different meanings. In the “default” case, it’s just another shill hawking just another product. In the second, it’s a real request from a real person who is not even directly involved with the product, who happened to think it (and, more importantly, the folks involved with it) were neat, and wanted to get the word out.

Same words. Same medium. Very different meanings.