So, with my new found practice of commenting on all things Blog, CMS, PR, Marcom and Multimedia, I begin with something I’ve noticed lately.
Pejorative generalizations. Hey, they proliferate online – especially in blogs.
I know I’ve generalized before. Anyone that says they haven’t would either have to be a fool or a liar. See, there I’ve done it again in that very sentence.
Several instances online, of late, have given me reason to pause and reflect. I’m writing about one of them here. I have never met Jackie Danicki. My sole exposure to her opinions comes from her ‘big blog’ at “tBBC. I am certain that she is a good, respectable and respected person. Please keep that in mind as I write and I’ll remind you again when I conclude.
If you are interested in my thoughts, please read on …
Jackie writes of “the expression of disgust and revulsion on Adriana’s face when Perry and I (Jackie) told her of the widespread fake blogging that we heard of firsthand, from people who are actively executing fake blogs for companies.” Jackie says it “was priceless.” Jackie is referring to her allegations that some Los Angeles “PR flack” is telling “lies to big corporations and promises them good coverage on their ‘big traffic,’ fake blog.”
What Jackie has just engaged in is an act of questionable sense. She has effectively condemned L.A., PR and big corporations quite nicely without once providing a scintilla of evidence. Jackie states that the “big traffic” blog is seemingly “authored by an anonymous nobody…who just so happens to pepper his commentary with glowing mentions of the PR company’s clients, and negative remarks about their competition.”
She posted this accusation four days ago, April 5th. I commented on April 8th. A day later, Jackie has yet to respond to comments in her blog on that post. Hey, it is the weekend and she may be out. But, I’m wondering if there will be a ‘conversation’ in her ‘big blog’. Comments to her have been there four days. Long enough, one would think, to reconsider the lacking information. Long enough to join the conversation.
Now, I will start a conversation with Jackie through my blog.
Jackie, you have made a rather damaging claim against someone’s character and practices. Your blog post is lacking in several areas. I will cite four here.
- the name of the person that did this
- the name of the PR firm engaging in these practices
- the link to the offending blog
Now, those three are enough to make anyone wonder about your post. But, the lack of those three brings up the fourth. Transparency.
You make claims. You do not provide evidence. There is a fifth missing item, too. A clarification.
Jackie, I want to ask you about the ‘negative remarks’ you claim the ‘fake’ blog is publishing. Could those be like the ones you are making? You cite this blog for not being transparent, yet you do not give us a link to the blog, the company’s name or the person’s name. Well, your post makes ‘the Big Blog Company’ look remarkably like the ‘big traffic’ blog you so disdain. And, your accusation could look like a ‘fake’ one, too.
As for your ‘anonymous nobody’ comment, let’s remember that with 8 million or so blogs, and the millions of people online, you may well be relatively anonymous amongst the general public. You may well be a ‘nameless nobody’ in their eyes should they surf up on your ‘big blog’ company. Transparency is not a one-way mirror.
What if I was a potential customer? Think of the possibilities if a potential customer had the same reaction to the post as I have.
End-users beware. Whether here or there – anywhere you read anything – take it all with a grain of salt until you do your own follow-ups to see if there is merit in anything you read. Skepticism is the key. Embrace it. Learn from having practiced it. I have followed up the only way possible. I commented in Jackie’s blog. Without names or a link to this nefarious blog there is nowhere else to look for a clarification.
I could write something pejorative about bloggers. How about “pajama wearing” or something worse. I could even start in on consultants.
I won’t, though. I will ask questions. Until they are answered, I really don’t know what to think about all this.
I have to wonder if there may be something else going on here. Jackie is a consultant trying to get people to pay her to help them start blogging. She has competition. More and more PR companies are rolling out ‘blogging’ offerings to their clients. I see six examples of tBBC’s work represented on their site. None of them are large corporations. Jackie, are there any underlying (not transparent) reasons for your writing that post? I’m asking. I don’t know. Is it a tactic to try and bring disrepute upon PR people? Was this an attempt to lift yourself up while tearing them down?
Students, please think twice (maybe, three or four times) before you ever post something like Jackie’s post.
It is a longtail, and in this case, some posts might be more dangerous than being a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Everyone, please remember that I am certain that she is a good, respectable and respected person. There is no tongue firmly planted in my cheek, either. Good people can forget to clarify. Good people can make mistakes. Please keep that in mind as you ponder this post of mine.