I really don’t like press releases. So when Portland-based search engine marketing firm Anvil Media posted something about press release optimization I was immediately skeptical.

But this post was refreshingly different because Anvil Media was honest about one thing: no amount of optimization is going to help a press release that isn’t newsworthy to begin with.

You can’t just wave a magic wand and presto your press release is optimized. It actually requires a lot of creative and strategic thinking. This became very clear after speaking with one of Anvil’s search engine experts, Nick Herinckx.

After a lengthy discussion with Nick, I came up with these four basic steps to better press release optimization:

• Step 1: Build a compelling story that influential journalists and bloggers will want to cover. This is a must-have before any reputable site will link to your company. There is nothing more wasteful than gratuitously stuffing your boring press release with a bunch of links and then paying for it to be distributed. Simply stop doing it and you’ll be better off.

• Step 2: Know your keyword search terms. This is best done by a trained search engine professional (hint: Anvil Media) but you can start off by using Google’s free Keyword Tool. Tip: Don’t just look at the number of monthly searches for a particular keyword. While the temptation is to think more is better it also means there is more competition around that term and will make it much harder to get noticed. If you have the time, create a list of all the search terms that describe your company and then manually go through them weeding out any terms with lower than 100 monthly searches.

• Step 3: Add links to your press release that reflect your top keyword search terms. For example, Anvil uses the anchor text “social media marketing firm” in their press releases (rather than just “Anvil Media.”) The reason for this is twofold: 1) To help search engines associate that term with Anvil; 2) To provide a hint to the journalist or blogger reading your release to use the same link or anchor text in their coverage of your company. The key is to get inbound links to your site from reputable sources. Again, the best way to do this is by carrying out Step 1 every time. Tip: Don’t over link. Search engines will only count one link with the same anchor text. Instead, limit yourself to two or three links, one using the exact anchor text and two using variations.

• Step 4: Use a quality newswire services to distribute your press releases. Yes, these are the ones you pay for although PitchEngine offers high quality news distribution for free. You can also post your press release to free distribution sites but know that they aren’t looked upon as favorably by search engines as the paid sites. In either case, make sure that the distribution service permits you to customize your anchor text (see Step 3).

Still, the biggest obstacle to press release optimization is determining what is newsworthy in the first place. There are no shortcuts here either.

But there is one thing you could try. You may remember that I developed an online news vetting system a few years back to help communicators identify the most newsworthy elements of their stories. It was developed after much consultation with journalists and bloggers. It doesn’t look pretty, but it works. Give it a try and let me know what you think.

If you still need a compelling reason to explore humor in PR, this post is for you. This week, a company called SonicMule decided to do add humor to a new hire announcement and it resulted in a major PR victory.

For those of us who work in PR, writing and pitching the new hire press release is akin to selling encyclopedias door to door. It’s an exercise in futility as few journalists, if any, are ever interested. But, as SonicMule proved, it doesn’t always have to go that way.

By injecting a little humor into their new hire announcement, an editor at the Wall Street Journal’s Venture Capital Dispatch blog took notice and not only covered the news but thanked them publicly for it. Let me repeat that: THE EDITOR THANKED THEM! Here’s the actual headline: “Thank You, SonicMule, For Having Fun With A Press Release.”

Perhaps more interesting is that SonicMule didn’t have to go overboard with the humor to score that killer headline.

For example, instead of issuing a typical quote like: “we are delighted to have [insert name] join our company,” SonicMule CEO Jeff Smith opted to poke fun at the new hire. And that’s all that was needed. As the editor himself pointed out: “The genius here is that they didn’t go over the top with it.”

Here are a couple of good points to remember when using humor in your PR efforts:

1. You don’t have to be Jon Stewart to get results with humor.

2. When using humor in PR be careful not to take it too far as it may cast doubt on the veracity of the news (or overshadow it completely). PR firm Elasticity experienced this first hand when their unorthodox but hilarious new hire announcement caused major confusion over at BusinessWire and PRNewswire.

3. Journalists are desperate for press releases or pitches that exhibit some originality.

In the comments section of the WSJ article, one reader warned that thousands of PR people will now try to emulate SonicMule’s approach when pitching WSJ journalists: “…what was once novel will become as hackneyed as the precursor versions of press releases…”

But the reply from the editor was pure gold: “…but at least the releases will be more creative and entertaining to read.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Rich Becker of Copywrite Ink has an interesting post today about how the lines between advertising and PR are blurring. I’ve been noticing this as well but I wonder if all this blurring could eventually lead to the replacement of many PR functions by advertising.

Here’s why I think this:

• People in advertising are better at telling interesting stories.
• They are not afraid to be provocative.
• They are free to explore all kinds of creative solutions to problems.
• They know how to create content for today’s attention spans.
• They are students of human behavior and culture.
• They are adept at using multimedia esp. video online.
• They have a strong background in the arts.

We are a content obsessed society looking to share the next piece of what Peter Shankman recently described as “finder’s candy.” In other words, that entertaining or remarkable piece of content that you just have to share. Who is best to feed this beast? In my opinion it’s advertising.

So what does PR bring to the table? The most important thing is crisis communications (and perhaps investor relations).

But in all honesty, drawing lines in the sand between PR, advertising and social media is kind of a useless exercise. What we really should be focusing on are skill-sets and the individual or group who is best suited for the job.

What are your thoughts?

Update: Some further reading:

(Many) Advertising Agencies (Still) Don’t Understand Social Media

Excerpt: It is far easier to spend millions on something cool and creative and hope to generate some short-term buzz that might lead to a measurable sales boost. But then what? What is the next call to action?  If the next campaign is not as fun or relevant, will those fans still rise to the bait and help promote it, or, will they fail to engage and ignore it?  Will someone who became a fan thanks to this fun campaign have reason enough to rally around the brand in a crisis? Advertising agencies don’t think such thoughts.  It is not in their DNA.  It’s not their fault, but neither should they fool themselves into thinking that this stuff is easy. Relationships buoy campaigns.  Campaigns do not create relationships.

Is Social Media Too Boring for Advertising Industry?

Excerpt: Whether “PR” or “Advertising” drive Social Media strategy has very little to do with which discipline better understands the New World Order.  It has more to do with which group is better prepared to wade in — and never leave — the proverbial community pool.

Last week I posted a toon about Twitter selling ad space on the Fail Whale. At the time it was just for fun, but a few days later I started to wonder if Twitter should consider it a legitimate revenue opportunity.

Though the frequency is a lot less than in the early days of Twitter, I still get a visit from the Fail Whale several times a week. And if I see it, so do millions of others who are on Twitter at that time. That smells like an opportunity to me.

Now the question is who would buy an ad on the Fail Whale and what would they be willing to pay for it? I asked a few ad people and also posed the question on Twitter.

Jason Falls, a former ad guy at Doe Anderson, pretty much captured the prevailing opinion:

“I think selling ad space there would be dumb. It’s monetizing your screw ups for nothing more than monetization. You don’t want the Fail Whale to show up. If you did, you’d make the system crash more often, which would drive users crazy. Wait, Twitter does that anyway.”

However, there were a few brave thinkers who thought it might work given the right brand and/or product and, of course, the right sense of humor. This is where I think the opportunity lies. Why not market the Fail Whale ad space to companies whose products or services address failures?

For example: say you work at an auto repair shop like Meineke that either fixes failures (e.g., brakes) or tries to prevent them (e.g., regular maintenance). An ad on the Fail Whale could serve as a clever way to get that message across to millions of people. Imagine a text bubble coming out of the Fail Whale’s mouth or blowhole with the message: “Check your brakes or die! [insert company logo and link].” Sure, it wouldn’t be easy to pull off. But I think many ad agencies would love the challenge (e.g,. Wieden Kennedy).

Would people be annoyed? I don’t think so. At this point, most people have come to terms with the Fail Whale. There’s even a Fail Whale Fan Club with thousands of members (you can even buy Fail Whale products). But, even if you were annoyed, would it be enough to make you delete your Twitter account? Of course not.

So what could Twitter charge for an ad on the Fail Whale? I’m still waiting to hear back from the ad experts on that one.

I, for one, hope Twitter gives some serious thought to this idea. After all, hasn’t the poor Fail Whale suffered enough. Give the Fail Whale a chance to become the “Cash Whale.” It’s the right thing to do.

In this age of product-recall overload, it's easy to become inured to the daily flow of releases from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But if there's one exception, it would be the recall of about 1 million baby strollers last week by Maclaren, the gold standard of its industry.

Much has been written about this issue--which involves sharp hinges that have amputated children's fingers--ranging from the mechanical problems to how the information was handled. One sensible blog post came from the Harvard Business Review, which offered practical advice for any company unfortunate enough to find itself in such a position.

It is perhaps telling enough that such basic guidelines bear repeating from an article written in 2001, an indication that many businesses apparently remain clueless about addressing the very real potential for such crises. But the most disturbing illustration of this corporate density actually came in the form of a comment posted at the bottom of the blog, believed to be from the Maclaren CEO Farzad Rastegar himself. [Full disclosure: The comment in question has been attributed to Rastegar by the New York Times, but I did not confirm that it was written by him.]

One of the many criticisms has been the dearth of immediate information from the company after reports of the problem began to surface. To that point, the purported Rastegar note blamed an "early leak in the agreed joint recall announcement planned for November 10th." According to the comment:

"This leak was as a result of inadequate procedures to protect the necessary confidentiality of process in order to ensure that the objectives are not compromised. The result of this early leak was panic amongst parent[sic] and tens of thousands of calls and website visits to the wrong addresses. All of this with a company team that was preparing for the following day.[sic] When our staff were arriving for their final practice run oon[sic] November 9th, they were mostly unaware of the explosive media coverage with misinformation packed with conjecture. It was a quick awakening. We have tried to deal with it as best as humanly possible but the crash of the systems was unavoidable and the subsequent task of bringing things back on line was equally more challenging. Should we have assumed that things could go wrong in this process.[sic] The answer is yes, absolutely. However this is a first for Maclaren and we are learning fast."

There are so many problems with Maclaren's response that I'm not even sure where to begin, not to mention the dubious syntax, spelling, and punctuation of the comment above. But here are a few:

Unpreparedness. Maclaren's most obvious failing was its woeful inadequacy in dealing with the prospect of leaks, which have become almost inevitable on the web for issues of magnitude and controversy. This was underscored by the company's paralyzing website, phone, and Twitter problems, which would have likely occurred regardless of any breaches of confidentiality.

Oblivion. If it's true that the staff was "mostly unaware of the explosive media coverage with misinformation packed with conjecture," are they living on another planet? It should be routine for any communications professionals to know what's being said about their employer, especially under these conditions.

Slowness. The Rastegar comment says the news was leaked while the company "was preparing for the following day." Corporations must learn to act with far more sense of urgency in these instances, thinking in terms of minutes instead of days. When information is spreading like wildfire, speed of response is critical to have any chance of being heard above the din at all.

Insensitivity. As of this writing, the Maclaren website does not have a link to recall information on its front door. There is a temporary pop-up window acknowledging the recall, but it contains no links to further information or status updates; once it is closed, we are shown pictures of smiling families and a section labeled "Safe" that treats us to happy music and cartoon-like animations--hardly something I'd care to see if my child had recently been maimed.

Misjudgment. If the post is in fact written by Maclaren's chief executive, why was it? The typos indicate that it wasn't vetted beforehand, and a relatively obscure comment section is hardly the appropriate forum for this communication. In fact, the post has unwittingly elicited negative responses that continue days later. A good PR professional would have at least rewritten the note to avoid the backlash and the perceptions cited in the bullets above.

The bottom line is that all companies must have disciplined, code-blue systems in place for such emergencies, where top-level executives from the CEO on down can be assembled within minutes, virtually or otherwise. If there is time to include a crisis-communications expert, all the better, though not at the expense of expediency.

The goal should be formulation of an official response within an hour after the company learns of the situation. Any later than that and it likely won't matter, as far as the web is concerned.

That might seem like a Herculean effort in most process-laden corporate cultures, but consider this in the order of priorities: What other company affairs are more important than a breaking crisis that threatens to permanently undo your long-established reputation?

To that end, I believe that the most egregious problem in this case study is the insensitivity of Maclaren's site. People can forgive and forget mistakes, but an apparent lack of appreciation for the gravity of such situations can leave an indelible impression.

This Halloween I was visited by a demon that has haunted me for decades. It was brought to mind by this Tweet from Tom Foremski, an old pro from the Financial Times: "Are there new rules for embargoes? I'm not sure if there are..."

If there's one subject that will always elicit a frothing response from me, along with politics and sports, it's embargoes. Whether it's the kind that restricts news or bans Cuban cigars, I would rise from my deathbed to vilify either atrocity.

Unfortunately, my expertise in international trade is limited to my eBay account, but I do know something about the media version. So much so, in fact, that I have been blamed personally for the ridiculous notion of "breaking embargoes on the Internet."

After I helped found News.com at CNET Networks in 1996, one of my responsibilities as managing editor was to codify our operating principles. It was early in the online news game, so stuff like linking, privacy, cyber-ethics, and "Netiquette" was virgin territory. One of the issues was embargoes.

Our policy was simple: We did not agree to them, except for extraordinary circumstances. And for doing this, News.com became a poster child for the perceived recklessness of online media at the time.

Let me say this for the record, in no uncertain terms: An embargo can be considered violated only if the recipient agrees to it in the first place.

For some reason, many companies and government agencies seem to think that simply receiving so-called embargoed material automatically means you have agreed to it--even if you never knew the information existed, let alone had consented to any restrictions, before it landed in your inbox or mailroom unsolicited.

It would be the equivalent of my mass-emailing a contract to sell my house for $10 million, then holding its recipients to the provisions of the "agreement." When they rightly tell me to go pound salt, I would cry foul and claim that they broke the rules.

Because News.com did not agree to embargoes, therefore, their restrictions did not apply to us. It's impossible to "break" a contract you never agreed to.

My objection to the concept began in the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times in the 1980s, when government agencies routinely placed embargoes on information for no reason other than mindless bureaucratic process. After I expressed my dismay at the practice, a colleague told me a story about my then-boss, the national editor, Norman Miller.

When Miller was D.C. bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal years earlier, he found it ludicrous that the White House embargoed the federal budget in a post-Watergate capital known as much for its news leaks as it was for the Washington Monument and Marion Barry's crack pipe.

Half of his reporters had agreed to the embargo, while the other half didn't. You can guess what ensued--beat writers avoiding investigative reporters, staffers trying to eavesdrop on coffee-room chatter, leaks reported by some that got their co-workers in trouble. The frustrated Miller, as the story goes, just decided to break the embargo and run with the full budget report, to the outrage of the administration.

(Full disclosure: I never attempted to confirm the story with Miller for fear that he might debunk it, and I've been telling it ever since. But if you knew Miller, a former Navy prosecutor who won a Pultizer in the 1960s for exposing a huge scandal in commodities trading, you'd have no reason to doubt its veracity.)

Yes, I have heard all the reasons that ostensibly justify embargoes: giving everyone equal access, providing enough time to digest information and ask questions, etc. But to my mind, the only restrictions that hold any water involve national security, as in arrangements for Pentagon "pool reporting" or journalists embedded with troops on the front line. An embargo on a product release doesn't exactly rise to that level.

What makes far more sense in this age of equal opportunity for content is for companies to write and publish the news themselves in accurate and accessible stories, as opposed to the stilted and jargon-laden format of traditional press releases. If companies are truly concerned about accuracy and equal access, why not simply do it right the first time and release the information to the world simultaneously, with no restrictions?

Even if the previous arguments for embargoes were legitimate, they're at best obsolete. In the ethos of the web, as we should all know by now, nothing is off-limits. Besides, as my Beltway experience illustrates, I learned early in my career that the real motive for imposing embargoes is to retain as much control over the news as possible--just for the sake of doing so, not for any logical or practical reasons.

As for my being blamed personally for all this, it occurred most recently when I met an executive of a national PR agency last year. Upon learning that I worked for CNET, the first thing he asked was: "Why do you break embargoes?" The exasperation of my reply matched the impertinence of his question.

Bottom line: If you are a PR professional or a government communications officer who insists on trying to control the timing of information, do not send it unless you are sure that the recipient has a policy to agree to embargoes. Then contact your targeted reporters and bloggers directly and discuss the specific provisions.

But my advice is not to bother trying. And if your bosses won't budge on the subject, use this post to show what veteran journalists think of embargoes and why they're unnecessary.

Even in the days when prosperous newspaper companies seemed to print money along with the news--an increasingly distant memory--some recent revelations about top editorial salaries would have arched more than a few green-shaded brows.

First there were reports that former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger was pulling down a cool $570,000 at ProPublica last year, and now we see that the new editor in chief of the Texas Tribune is making $315,000. What's sure to stoke flames even more is that these two online publications are publicly funded entities.

It's a little surprising that such princely sums have not generated more ire, considering the public's disposition toward compensation these days as expressed in highly vocal opinions over salaries paid to CEOs of TARP-infused banks. Granted, the banks have gotten taxpayer money, as opposed to the private foundation funds that have kept many non-profit news sites afloat, but there have been some suggestions to use "bailouts" and other public money to finance news outlets as well.

We at Newsvetter don't begrudge anyone for making a decent (or decadent) living, but something tells us that others might not look so kindly upon these numbers. And in this age of fiscal scrutiny, especially involving the corner offices, we wager that many more top salaries will fall under a microscope if only a cent of public money touches their corporate coffers.

So what should these companies and organizations do? They have two options, in our opinion: Either take a very public and sizable pay cut or announce their salaries first, before an angry mob does it for them, skewering them with their pitchforks.

We'll go out on a limb and guess that volunteer pay cuts won't be forthcoming, so here's our advice:

• Meet with outside compensation consultants to determine if in fact you can make a reasonable case for your salaries.
• Consult with PR reps to draw up inflammatory-free language explaining that the salaries are competitive and justified.
• Explain that these salaries were approved by the board of directors, as is typically the case for senior management.
• Get your execs on TV interviews and/or YouTube to show that they're not barricaded behind their antique commodes.
• Provide data, if available, that illustrates the going rate for executives who hold similar positions in the industry.
• Blog about it and invite comments. It won't be fun, but at least you'll know what's being said and have a chance to respond.

The most important point is to take the initiative, rather than be forced to react to news reports that are almost certain to be negative. If you work at a publicly traded company, the salaries of top officers are listed through the Securities and Exchange Commission anyway.

As we have said many times in other instances, it's always best to get out in front of a story and set the tone for the conversation, or at least try to--especially if it's not a pleasant one.

Countless articles are written every day decrying the demise of journalism and all of democracy along with it, but many of them are little more than personal rants from recently unemployed journalists or romanticized writings that pine for a "Front Page" era that never really existed in our lifetime.

One observation made in various venues lately does resonate, however, and it has important consequences for the PR profession as well as the media. It involves the decline of "specialty" beats.

At one time it seemed a requirement for any ambitious newspaper to have a stable of reporters who focused on specific areas--such as science, religion, economics, legal affairs, and environmental issues--beyond the traditional police and city council beats that were considered necessary but pedestrian. (For those of you who are fluent in marketing-speak, think "verticals.")

The formalization of specialty beats is a relatively recent one phenomenon, at least on a historical timeline. A generation ago, newspapers didn't even have separate sections devoted to business, lifestyle, food, and certainly technology.

The idea was sound, to become expert in topics that are of particular interest to readers. But as resources have dwindled, these so-called specialists have been viewed as a luxury that can no longer be afforded.

So in their Sisyphean struggle to survive, many mainstream news organizations are doing exactly the wrong thing as they cut their staffs to the bone. Thinking that they need to keep the most versatile reporters to cover the broadest range of subjects--aka, doing more with fewer resources--editors are turning everyone into general-assignment reporters. It's the ultimate destination of a misguided path laid long ago to be all things to all readers.

An article in The Nation underscored the problem using a compelling example: The firing of science writers at the height of the swine flu epidemic:

"It's no secret the newspaper industry is hemorrhaging staff writers and slashing coverage as its business model collapses in the face of declining readership and advertising revenues. But less recognized is how this trend is killing off a breed of journalistic specialists that we need now more than ever ... who are uniquely trained for the most difficult stories, those with a complex technical component that are nevertheless critical to politics and society."

Although the immediate effects of this transition will obviously be felt on the news side, PR professionals who recognize this trend first can gain an edge on their competitors--or, at the very least, ward against potential disasters created by journalists who misreport a client's information.

In the silver-lining department, there is an opportunity for PR reps to become subject-area experts and shift the balance of power. In this age of declining faith in media accuracy, corporate newsrooms and blogs can draw journalists to you, rather than the other way around--even for H1N1 information.

Unfortunately, there are far more negatives to this universal dumbing-down syndrome. But here too, one can take preventive measures in an age where getting it out first often trumps getting it right. And we all know who gets blamed when a client's information is erroneously reported. (That's right, Sparky, it's you.)

So here are a few tips to keep in mind:

• The importance of simplicity: Communications with the media need to be clear, concise, and compelling. Identify the most newsworthy elements of your news and why it matters to them. Run your elevator pitch by someone outside your PR department (like your mother) to make sure a non-specialist will understand it.
• Know your media target: Research your reporters before contacting them. Don't rely on information from third-party media databases and corporate press lists because they probably contain erroneous or outdated information.
• Corporate blogging: Minimize the use of the dreaded press release and focus instead on developing your own corporate news channel that distributes information via blogs, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, or some other platform that you control. This will get your information to both consumers and the media.

With any luck, we can collectively stave off this intellectual downsizing through new conduits of information. After all, it's all just content--no matter who provides it.

Only a scant few months since publishing the first "Field Guide to Common Journalists," Newsvetter's media anthropologists have turned up an exciting new species.

This hitherto undiscovered genus is something of a hybrid, neither fish (journalist) nor fowl (PR rep) by classic definition. Instead, it appears to represent a nascent breed of information professional hired by companies to report their own news.

The name of this particular missing link is Rich Hammond, a veteran hockey writer from the Los Angeles Daily News, who has just been hired by the Los Angeles Kings as a "beat writer/columnist for LAKings.com, the club's official website."

Other sportswriters have been hired by teams in previous years, namely baseball reporters for MLB.com and football writers for specific NFL franchises, and far more have been recruited as traditional publicists. But the Kings specifically cited the "changing world as it relates to the landscape and consumption of sports news content," in their announcement last week. Team spokesman Michael Altieri was more specific, saying in an interview that "there's been declining news coverage of us."

Companies have increasingly begun to create and package their own content to resemble independent news, using PR professionals. This has been an outgrowth of necessity as much as innovation: As news outlets continue to decline, so have the number of reporters to target for story pitches.

But the Kings have taken the concept a step further by hiring a seasoned reporter as a staff "beat writer." It's an idea that makes perfect sense.

A few years ago Mike Sitrick, spin doctor to the stars, explained to Los Angeles magazine why most of his employees were former reporters: "I thought it would be easier to teach journalists what PR is than to teach publicists what journalism is." Sitrick--whose clients include Paris Hilton and Michael Ovitz--was speaking of reporters' ability to manage the news, but it is a logical extension to have them write it as well.

Not surprisingly, the Kings' move has drawn the usual questions about ethics and credibility. But as we've noted many times, commercial media are hardly immune from corporate influence either. And even if they were, how different would Hammond's daily dispatches be from their standard beat reporting?

We suspect that most rabid fans would rather have such information than none at all, regardless of whether it comes from journalists or PR professionals. And considering the latest Pew Research report that credibility of the press is at a 20-year low, we doubt many readers will care who's signing his paychecks as long as they get their fill of stats and injury updates in a timely and accurate manner.

This is not meant to sound Pollyannish; quite the contrary. We don't expect Hammond to break any scandals about the Kings' owners or management anytime soon, despite the promise that "Rich will have full editorial control in his new position."

The simple fact is that much of what appears in mainstream news stories could easily come directly from their subjects and sources--a concept that's central to Newsvetter's philosophy. Even when media outlets were fat and happy, so-called enterprise and investigative reporting represented but a tiny fraction of the general news flow anyway.

The future of that type of journalism may depend on another evolutionary link.

If you're old enough to remember when the web was called the Information Highway, you may recall a site called Suck.com. It was an irreverent daily zine (remember those?) launched in the summer of 1995 with the irresistible inscription, "a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun."

Yet what I recall appreciating most about Suck was not its wit or originality, but something only a bona fide ink-stained wretch would notice: Its use of hyperlinks.

You see, for a Luddite who once literally pasted together "takes"--newspaper lingo for typewritten pages of a story--before sending them off to the typesetting pool at the L.A. Times, all this online stuff was quite liberating. Hyperlinks were a game-changer for reasons of perspective, structure, emphasis, and even ethics.

Suck, however, couldn't be bothered with such mundane considerations. It capitalized on linking for a very different purpose, to enhance its writing with a devastating combination of humor and sarcasm.

My favorite example of this understated practice was what I call the "punchline link." Case in point:

"Every day, we confront the strange brew of dread and anticipation that comes with sifting through the drift and drivel that's dumped into our mailboxes. The keepers, generally hand-scrawled hate mail, or the occasional scrap from a prison paramour, are as easy to spot as the garbage, which usually bears Ed McMahon's countenance like a royal crest."

If you followed the lone  link in this paean to junk mail, you saw that it pointed to the erstwhile Sharper Image. To me, Suck was the original master of this art.

Unfortunately, even in their relatively short lifespan, such clever and elegant use of hyperlinks is all but lost. Rather, they have become buried in the universal junkyard that passes for writing today. Worse still, they are forced into syntactic prostitution as advertised keywords.

There is a reason for this nostalgia, other than just the self-indulgence of middle age. It serves as a reminder of why this medium is so powerful for prose--and why we, with our Prussian writing objectives, feel compelled to infect others with our unhealthy obsession on points such as these:

• Context. For old-school journalists who insist on such nuisances as supporting their claims, hyperlinking is a perfect way to divulge the direct source of public information without spending time rewriting background material. It's good for readers too: Those who are already familiar with a topic aren't subjected to extraneous explanation, and those who want to know more can drill down through the linkage to their heart's content.
• Depth. For even moderately prolific writers, linking is an ideal way to strut your stuff. An archive of, say, 50 stories will produce a surprising number of opportunities to link back to previous articles in your database. This serves the dual purpose of providing context while underscoring your authority. (A third reason is ancillary traffic to your blog or site, but that's not the point here.)
• Impact. Links are like martinis. Served at appropriate intervals, they lubricate the pace of conversation as well as its participants. Neither, therefore, should be abused: If you overdo it--the links, that is--they will lose their effectiveness and, depending on one's browser settings, make the body of your text look like it has some kind of pigment disease. Remember, graphical disruptions are just as bad as verbal ones.
• Reference. Not long ago there was a debate in certain journo-wonky circles over the use of "retro" or "pop" terms and citations in stories. The complaint was that such references alienated younger and/or overseas readers who didn't grow up in the same culture as the aging and/or insensitive writer. My coward's solution: Use hyperlinks liberally. Not only does it forgive our literati indulgences (sort of), but it also dares to educate the uninitiated.
• Writing. As Suck shows, links adds a dimension of communication that is impossible to achieve in a book, newspaper, magazine, or other static medium, at least with such economy. (Like this.) Here, it is the equivalent of a visual but unspoken action, like the stand-up comic who feigns modesty by begging the audience to stop their applause while discreetly gesturing to keep it up.

Now for the bad news. Depending on how important posterity is to your work, you may want to be especially circumspect in your choice of linking destinations. Because Suck's archives are the equivalent of stone tablets in Internet years, most of their best links are dead.

And that, appropriately enough, really does suck.