Yes, We Can Write Our Opinions Without Contacting The Company We're Writing About First
from the stop-telling-us-otherwise dept
This happens all too frequently. I recently wrote a short post about something that was apparently happening with YouTube and soon after received an angry email from a PR person at the company first scolding me for not contacting Google PR first and then demanding that I insert some PR babble paragraph that said nothing that addressed the key questions raised in the post in "response." This made no sense to me. If I got something factually wrong, I have no problem having someone point out what was in error, but demanding that I first contact them and then include a meaningless statement is ridiculous. If the PR folks have something to say, they're free to take it up in our comments.It seems that Michael Arrington, over at TechCrunch, has run into something similar (and I'm sure it happens to him all the time as well). After briefly (really, in passing) mentioning the infamous Video Professor in his post on marketing scams, the company first tried to get him to post their response, and when he told them no (in less friendly words), the company instead complained to the Washington Post, who syndicated the same TechCrunch post (as it has done for a while with TechCrunch posts). The real issue, of course, is that The Video Professor didn't like getting called out on its marketing practices. The company is notoriously sensitive over its reputation and has gone legal on people multiple times in the past. At issue is the fact that people are told they're getting a "free" product, but don't realize they're really signing up to pay a lot of money if they don't follow the fine print carefully. Arrington called this a "scam" and plenty of folks agree. The Video Professor did not agree, but if that's the case, it has every right to clarify its own marketing material, rather than going after those who call them out on their less-than-clear practices.
But the bigger issue with these types of situations is that companies need to realize that just because someone doesn't like the way you're acting and states an opinion, on that subject, it doesn't mean that they first need to contact you or get a meaningless PR quote from you. You have a right to respond, but on your own website -- or within open comments if they're available (as they are on this site). For too long, companies have hid behind bland PR statements and the willingness of the press to "balance" stories with an accusation and a denial, but no real effort to get to the bottom of things. That's changing, and it's time that companies and their PR reps caught up to what's happening.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogging, conversation, journalism, opinions
Companies: google, video professor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PR people? really?
If any of those PR ppl are reading this. Have you ever heard of good will?
PR people, I thought you guys are professionals? How did you miss this negotiation 101? Or do you believe that you are powerful enough like the King of Ye Olde England who can behead anyone who has an opinion you don't like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR people? really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What publicists don't know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What publicists don't know
This site is 100% opinion, and that also implies that much of what is written here isn't fact, just opinion.
I'm good with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What publicists don't know
What are you talking about? Of course there are facts. What are the posts commenting on, if not facts? This isn't a philosophical website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What publicists don't know
Opinions may or may not be facts (ie, you have an opinion that is true).
You guys must be bored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What publicists don't know
Hey, I just bought a new computer... wait, I'm not a journalist. It's my opinion that I just bought a new computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What publicists don't know
There is no spoon....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What publicists don't know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What publicists don't know
I don't know what Mike claims as far as being a journalist (I can guess, but I'll refrain from doing so here), but I'll say that I'm a journalist. I've only been professionally published a couple of times, and don't earn my main income as a talking head, but trying to distinguish, somehow, between who is and who isn't is attempting to shut people up, especially when tied to talk about "rights and privileges".
If you want people to shut up, say so. A free country, and all that. And I'll retain my right to call you a promoter of tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What publicists don't know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Professor is a scam. Also this is hilarious:
https://twitter.com/JohnWScherer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a reason the Birther's movement was in the news for so long and it had nothing to do with any real evidence in support of it. But to be fair, their side was repeatedly presented by the mainstream media nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't surprise me, Seibel people were the same way back in the late 90's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
I'm not PR but I am on the vendor side working with our bloggers, and I do my best to get back with a quick, non-obfuscated answer and hopefully make your piece better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he has not denied it, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Right of Reply'
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071_3-1017333.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Right of Reply'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair...fairness...fairness doctrine...other tripe
Compound that notion with the idea that the only way to present things in a fair and unbiased way is to provide column-inches of news print, seconds of radio/television time, etc. in equal portions to all parties.
This is the basis upon which so many of these PR folks tend to operate. They mistakenly believe that anything said in public must be "balanced" by the opinions which they have been paid to espouse.
It is also the point on which those that support the so-called "fairness doctrine" laws preach. They hate that commentators, whether they be on the radio (conservative talk radio is populated by devils), the television (Fox News, and Glenn Beck in particular, are baby-eating Pro-Lifers) or the internet, are not required to present opposing points of view.
When it comes right down to it, these folks all want to take away freedom of speech in the name of their idea of "fairness".[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catchy headline but oversimplifies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two sides to every story
It's very typical for a journalist to at least attempt to contact the "other side" for comment to try and get the whole story. Sometimes they get a statement that's useful; sometimes they get PR double-speak. Sometimes, the other party "could not be reached for comment".
I could see how a company that's used to that kind of journalism might be upset at not getting a chance to say anything from "their side" of a story. Not being allowed time on the stand (instead of just a comment after the fact) to speak to your own defense wouldn't be acceptable in a court of law, and the court of public opinion is often harsher in its consequences.
I can at least see where they're coming from.
Granted, trying to "demand" you publish a statement on your own opinion blog, and having that statement lack any relevance to the topic at hand, doesn't do them any favors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would put every single 'critic' out of business.
None of this was an issue as long as some corporation could pay some newspaper to have it's 'critics' say certain things - is that right? Why is it an issue now?
It's what food/movie/music critics have done for many years and built an entire career off of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let's use the UK as a test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has a PR department?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion pieces
The trivia about some "artist" doing "something" (I didn't read it, of course) was REALLY long!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]