I'm noticing that quoting me out of context has become quite a small trend among technology news sites.

Let's take a look at some of the recent examples ...

Silicon.com
"According to one author [linking to an article referencing me as the source of information, info below], email blacklisting and disinterest in email marketing has already made RSS feeds the only viable way for markets to get the attention of the online public."

Silicon.com
"Email marketing hit by spam and falling customer conversion, claims new book."
"Rok Hrastnik, author of Unleash the Marketing & Publishing Power of RSS claims email marketing is no longer an effective way to deliver information to customers and readers."

Spamroll [referencing the article above]
"Why thank Andy....? Well no opinion was expressed on the validity of Unleash the Marketing & Publishing Power of RSS, by Rok Hrastnik, that's why. Finally someone shows a little skepticism by not going overboard with a glorious review of what I suspect is bunk."

All of these three pieces have two things in common:

a) None of the authors have actually read "Unleash the Marketing & Publishing Power of RSS" yet [the author at Spamroll actually notes that, so no problem there].

b) All authors are in a way saying that I'm claiming that e-mail marketing doesn't work anymore.

c) Only two have this in common, and that's the fact that they both reference an article on Silicon.com, further losing the original meaning.

The problem is simply this: I never stated that e-mail marketing doesn't work anymore. Quite on the contrary: e-mail marketing still works, but it is burdened with delivery, security and credibility issues.

Furthermore, I never suggested anyone replace e-mail marketing with RSS, but actually emphasized in my book that RSS and e-mail should be used together, giving concrete tactics on how to do it best.

Conversation Analysis

I did however "say" this:
"Rok Hrastnik, author of the new RSS marketing e-book, "Unleash the Marketing & Publishing Power of RSS," is warning marketers that email may no longer be an effective form of delivering information to customers."
[PR release]

Yes, e-mail is not an effective form of delivering information to customers, simply because most e-mail is never delivered. That's a simple fact. But that doesn't mean that e-mail no longer works as a marketing tool. And yes, it's perfectly true that e-mail lost a great deal of its power ... but it's still working.

Now let's see what this turned in to ...

Silicon.com
"According to one author [linking to an article referencing me as the source of information, info below], email blacklisting and disinterest in email marketing has already made RSS feeds the only viable way for markets to get the attention of the online public."

Where did I ever say that RSS feeds are the only viable way for markets to get the attention of the online public? I certainly don't think so, and I certainly haven't said this anywhere.

Now let's inspect the next (originating) piece ...

Silicon.com
"Email marketing hit by spam and falling customer conversion, claims new book."
"Rok Hrastnik, author of Unleash the Marketing & Publishing Power of RSS claims email marketing is no longer an effective way to deliver information to customers and readers."

Yes, it's true that e-mail conversions have fallen, but using that as a headline to an article that carries my other statement (and actually revolves the article around it) implies that I'm claiming that e-mail marketing no longer works ... which of course I'm not.

There's a tremendeous difference between saying "e-mail marketing no longer works" and "warning marketers that email may no longer be an effective form of delivering information to customers".

a) If a marketing tool does not generate a positive business impact, it does not work. E-mail marketing does generate a positive business impact, so it does work.

b) If a content delivery tool does not deliver content, that it is no longer an effective form of delivering information. E-mail does not deliver most content, so it is no longer an effective form of delivering information to customers.

Do you see the difference?

There's also a difference between "e-mail" and "e-mail marketing".

BTW - I'm holding no grudge whatsoever against the authors of these articles, since these quotes really can be missunderstood.

I would however be extremely happy if all articles referencing by book actually said what the book says:) And yes, if reporters are interested in writing about the book, they can easily drop me an e-mail and get a review copy.