So, suddenly #pitmad has become a feature in my life–not only did I score a book contract from my first #pitmad event, I’ve written about #pitmad, and yesterday I subbed as a picker for my publisher, who was too busy to participate the ways she had in the past. Here’s me:
It was an exciting day made more exciting by the fact that our modem is half-fried. I saw and faved a lot of cool stuff. But let me get to my point–there were some things I learned being on the other side:
1) The more precise the pitch, the better. If the pitch included details about place, character, etc, I was more inclined to fave.
2) Profiles. Being a newbie I wanted to be careful, so I checked out the profiles of anyone whose pitch interested me, and I was frustrated by those that didn’t feature good information or links to personal websites.
3) Multiple pitches, part one–pitching several times throughout the day is a good idea, but there are two danger areas: a) the power pitcher who clogs the feed, and b) the multi pitch that is so repetitive that it actually reveals how thin the story is. Which leads to . . .
4) Multi-pitch, part two–yes, you only have 140 characters to get the idea across, but maybe not? I found that if I was interested in a pitch I looked at all the other versions too, and I liked it when the other pitches added new information. If that is the way others are reading pitches, then it might be time to start thinking about tweets as individuals and sets, not either or.