No single speech during the 20th Century shaped the lives of 21st Century Americans as did the I Have a Dream speech on August 28, 1963. It is great to be able to share it with you -- both the video of the speech and the text below. In our Presentation Skills Training session, we often examine aspects of this speech and extract lessons for all more
Ethical Considerations In Posting Comments to Blogs
Let me say first and clearly that I SPECIALIZE IN REPUTATION MANAGEMENT. I am drawn to controversial topics. I like seeing resolutions that are a win/win. So I am naturally drawn to any controversy centered on a product with significant brand value. It's what I am all about. If that sounds surprising, then let’s have lunch to discuss it. Others are interested in chocolate; I am interested in public relations and crisis communications. So here is what happened.
After being alerted to a blogger attack on NOKA Chocolate, a local small business, I did what I often do. I read the various posts and formed my own opinions. I saw it as an issue of semantics, primarily. The issue seems to boil down (no pun intended) to the use of the word "our" rather than "the" when describing the base materials used in their product. Further, it seemed that an exhaustive analysis of comparative prices was inherently flawed and failed to recognize the distinction between "price," "value" and "worth."
So I posted my personal opinions as comments on a number of blogs. It's not like it was some concerted campaign. I simply wanted to encourage an actual discussion to counter the mindless piling on that was occurring.
I never sought to disguise my identity, primarily using some form of "Dan" as a user name and even using my real e-mail, which is pretty much unheard of in the blogosphere. In the one case I used a different user name, I communicated directly with the blogger using my real e-mail address.
My interest in offering a differing point of view about the attacks was genuine and in no way did NOKA Chocolate sanction, approve or authorize it. (UPDATE: NOKA was not even aware that I had posted personal comments about the issue until days later, after this forum was already active. Further, the company's decision to engage DPK Public Relations was NOT influenced in any way by the posts.) And yet, this morning I find myself under attack (Correction: I first said "Samuel" was the one calling my actions into question, but many more did) outed as a mere public relations person. See for yourself:
As visitors to this site are aware, I am a big proponent of transparency and hold myself and my firm up to the highest standards of ethical conduct. As discussed in the article, "Managing Client Expectations: Your Public Relations Firm Must Operate in the Open," all public relations programs should face a high level of disclosure.
I did not disclose a tie to the business in question in my comments because I did not have any tie (now here's the sticky part) at the time. So I want to both assure those who feel I was out there flogging that I wasn't and at the same time, ask what would be appropriate, given the fact that my status has since changed.
Any thoughts? E-mail me. If you disagree, feel free to post a comment. Unlike those who questioned my ethics, I don't have any qualms in posting differing opinions.
And let me just say for the record that I am amazed by the lack of critical thinking shown by the vast majority of bloggers who post about the series of reports in question. Some seem more outraged by the fact that a PR person who (at the time) had no connections to the issue would dare to post comments -- even though I used my real name and address -- than they are about the author of the series remaining anonymous and offering nothing in the way of credentials that would make him qualified to make the judgements he does.
Transparency works both ways. I find anonymous journalism troubling because it leaves unanswered questions about possible motivations, conflicts of interest and lack of expertise. If the reader is comfortable with it, so be it, but I'm not comfortable with it.
UPDATE: The original intent of this post was to discuss the necessary level of retroactive disclosure for people who post to blogs then take on work specifically related to the comments that had been posted. In response to feedback, I have gone to each of the blogs where comments were originally posted and posted clarifications regarding my firm's interests and subsequent involvement.
FURTHER UPDATE: Since the company has released a statement on this issue, I'll defer to that statement on all matters specifically related to NOKA Chocolate. While I appreciate your comments, this is really intended as a discussion about OUR actions, not about NOKA. So I am not posting comments that aren't about OUR actions.
FURTHER FURTER UPDATE: I've retitled the article based on comments received suggesting that the former title, "Chocolatier Unfairly Attacked for Use of Pronouns" seemed inconsistent with my interests in keeping this discussion about OUR actions.
I took a look at your site and recommend it to my visitors. I agree with you on the importance of becoming valuable in many different areas. I believe that it sustains any entrepreneur during challenges that inevitably occur.
Full disclosure: I know Dan Keeney. Dan and I have worked together (not for NOKA). I have served with Dan Keeney on an association's board of directors. I know Dan Keeney to be a public relations professional and business counselor of the highest ethical underpinnings. And I consider him a friend. Dan invited me, as a fellow PR professional, to review this scenario and ongoing discussion and to chime in if I had thoughts - regardless of where my perspectives may fall. Strong friendships and collegial business relationships are dependent upon honesty, even if it is brutal honesty. And he knows that if I had something critical to say, that I would say it without hesitation. I do not represent Dan. I am not being compensated in any way for my comments. I have not read the 10-page overview regarding chocolate evaluation guidelines and how that applies to NOKA. I am not going to debate whether the company’s chocolate is good, pure, or anything else. The Internet, and blogs, and the seemingly infinite shelf-life of their content, have created new questions and challenges for PR professionals – and that is why I am writing. Dan first posted his own thoughts, without NOKA’s knowledge, on several blogs covering the issue. At that time, he did not represent NOKA. Several of his posts were similar or identical. And why not? Spam generally can be defined as unwanted messages (often multiple messages) directed to a receiver who likely has no interest in the content. Dan’s postings obviously represented another perspective in a debate that to that point was all one-sided. Since the barbs were essentially the same from blog to blog, his reflections on the situation were going to be consistent. Plus, there are different audiences across different blogs, so his postings don’t qualify as spam. Dan soon after was engaged by NOKA to help defend itself and share its story with key audiences. Simply because Dan previously shared his own thoughts about the issue should not disqualify him from representing NOKA – especially when his thoughts coincide with the company’s interests. If anything, sharing compatible views with a prospective client makes for the best kind of business representation. Those of us in PR relish the chance to engage in debate on hot topics and working on such projects. So it's not surprising that he found interest in the topic and posted about it. Dan’s comments were scrutinized when several people noticed that NOKA had become his client – although that relationship does not change the context and nature of his original posts. And rather than hide behind the shield of his counselor-client shield, Dan saw an opportunity to host a discussion about how to ensure ethical practices in the Internet age. Dan introduced the discussion on his own Web site and engaged critics in dialogue. And when someone said that he then needed to disclose his relationship with NOKA on the sites where he previously posted, he did so. These are not the actions of someone who is hiding from the truth. In fact, I find it disheartening that he continues to be chastised for transparent and reasonable discourse and for being flexible in accommodating requests for additional disclosure. Dan has shown nothing but respect for the thoughts posed by those posting on his site. I wish that more would follow his lead, and that reasonable minds could both work to reach resolution and understanding rather than just raise the volume. Unfortunately, the Internet doesn’t seem to facilitate that type of interaction.
Funny story about Petri that has some similarities. Early on a Saturday morning I was contacted by a prospective client with an immediate need. After jumping on my laptop and quickly ramping up on the issue, I contacted Petri to bounce around ideas. He, like me, operates a 24x7 operation and I know I can reach him literally anytime anywhere he is. After giving him a basic overview of the situation without divulging specifically who the client was, we mutually came to the conclusion that Petri's work on something remotely related probably presented a hint of a conflict. So we ended the conversation. At that point, I asked him where he was. He was on a drive from Houston to Baton Rouge to see ASU play LSU. I was sitting in an auto dealership waiting for my car to be serviced. The point is that PR operates at the speed of light these days, with anytime anywhere access to counsel. Despite the need for rapid action, as APRs, both Petri and I are always careful to examine possible conflicts and ethical considerations. Thanks for your nice words, Petri.
Petri, A nicely written defense of Dan, but you need to get your facts straight. You state rather than hide behind the shield of his counselor-client shield, Dan saw an opportunity to host a discussion about how to ensure ethical practices in the Internet age. Dan introduced the discussion on his own Web site and engaged critics in dialogue. Dan has hidden behind his counselor-client shield. When called on various bits of spin--either from his original postings on other sites or side comments on this page (or for that matter the original title of this page), he's thrown up some variant of I can't discuss that, as I'm now engaged by NoKA. The blogosphere exists as an extended series of conversations. The rules of ethics here are subject to the rules of etiquette. Dan went to several other boards, posted a defense of NoKA which said numerous derisive things about Scott of Dallas Food.org and his writing style, and then, rather than engage in debate, hid behind the shield of counselor-client privilege. That he's set up a forum here is to his credit, but what can be discussed? The original title of Chocolatier Unfairly Attacked for Use of Pronouns has been taken down after I pointed out that discussing pronouns and unfairly would seem germane to the topic. However, the main body of the initial post still includes attack. Why blogger attack rather than critical article or unfavorable review? And why are Dan's own postings on the various blogs (which he can no longer discuss) depicted as my personal opinions rather than derisive sneering or even simply as attacks on Scott of DallasFood.org? There's an awful lot of spin going on here and I'm calling Dan on it. More than that, there's disinformation. In the initial posting, there's this quote: I find anonymous journalism troubling because it leaves unanswered questions about possible motivations, conflicts of interest and lack of expertise. If the reader is comfortable with it, so be it, but I'm not comfortable with it. How is the 10 article series by Scott of Dallas Food.org in any way anonymous? Because the author uses a single name? Is the music of Bono, Sting and Madonna anonymous because they use a single name? And Scott isn't even using a pen name, as with Dear Abby, Miss Manners, Voltaire, etc. I encountered Scott's article via BoingBoing, a blog based on a print publication I encountered some ten years previous at a small press expo in San Francisco. Very little of any of this is anonymous and even the faces beneath the pen names can be turned up with very little effort. As for lack of expertise, are we talking about Scott or NoKA? The inverse of What does someone whose sole publication credit seems to be an article about chicken fried steak know about about chocolate is What do Canadian accountants know about chocolate? That sword cuts both ways depending on how you spin it, and the plain fact is that expertise and knowledge are not reliant on past laurels and accolades. Anyway, on the subject of ethical considerations of posting comments to blogs, everyone should remember that a blog is a weblog and the point of such is not to post press releases and then run away, but engage in a dialogue and discourse. To do otherwise is rude, which I find both unethical and also counterproductive.
Kevin: Thanks for your thoughts. Under normal circumstances, I would have continued the discussions at the various blogs where I posted comments, but once a PR person engages with a client, that kind of ongoing discourse isn't appropriate. My own views are no longer relevant because the client makes decisions on what is communicated. As for anonymity, my thoughts have to do with conceivable conflicts, motivations, etc. of the writer. It's also important to note that I'm not alone in pointing out these concerns. There's a terrific discussion at http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/355000 about these same issues.
Please list other instances when you felt Morally Compelled to rescue a misrepresented company, through numerous and lengthy web bloggings, without any thought of compensation. Especially helpful would be those times when your pro bono work did not culminate in your signing on as their pr flack. thank you
The Wal-Mart flogging issue was the latest. I posted on numerous blogs and, in the process, developed the point-of-view that eventually became the article post on this site that's been referenced repeatedly. It's one way I (used to) work through issues and see counter arguments in the process of writing an article either for my site or for publication. For instance, the Wal-Mart story was subsequently posted to the PRSA site (http://www.prsa.org/supportfiles/news/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=640) as a commentary. In the Wal-Mart case, I similarly was bucking what was the conventional arguments about Netiquette and I was always careful to disclose that I am a shareholder (although many blogs chose not to include that disclosure). I don't have a record of where those posts are, but one I do remember is on John Wagner's blog, On Message on a post entitled (here it comes), PR people, start using your common sense when it comes to disclosure. Hoo boy. I know this will just send people over the edge. Yes, I used my full name and posted my Web site because these were PR-related blogs.
Dan, I'm glad you changed the title of this thread. Not only was the original not what you apparently want to talk about, but it read as spin. Now on to the ethical considerations. In private email, I mentioned blog etiquette, including how most blogs allow all but the most flamey posts to stand. I can understand it not being in the best interests of your firm to have a public forum where your clients can be flamed, but by the same token, if they can't be flamed, they can't be honestly defended either. But on with etiquette. While you're of course free to host your own forum how you like (though will be judged by visitors if it isn't terribly open), if you visit other forums, there are some things that are simply wrong, namely sockpuppeting and astroturfing. Sockpuppeting is when someone creates an online persona who exists solely to say wonderful things about them or bad things about somone else or both. You didn't exactly do this when you showed up on other forums, since you did actually use your own name, but the tone was so chirpy one-sided it sounded an awful lot like a sockpuppet. For example, the Loooongggg bit: chirpy, and begging the question of why anyone with a short attention span would actually want to read a ten-page essay series unless perhaps being paid to do so or otherwise having a stake in the outcome. Probably the most famous sockpuppet is Mary Rosh: http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/ Take a look to understand why such practices are not just frowned on but ridiculed. That leads to the other blogging sin of astroturfing, what happens when some usually political PR firm decides it would be a good idea to set up a fake grass roots group and begins to repost the same boilerplate press-release-phrased-as-letter-from-concerned-citizen everywhere they can print it. Does this begin to sound familiar? Of course you could have just been inspired to spam your personal outrage across multiple blogs prior to being engaged by NoKA, but the situation certainly begs askance. For more reference, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing To avoid appearance of either, as a general rule, use your own full name wherever you post and do not repost the same text block as you've posted elsewhere. Rather, tailor your response to whatever people are talking about. You might also want to counsel your clients to prepare press releases which contain more information than indignation. Any factual inaccuracy or obvious bit of smoke and mirrors will be picked apart on the blogosphere in very short order. And continually refering people to a press release will ring rather hollow if the press release doesn't address the concerns raised.
Honesty is a really funny thing. Somebody can say something that is truthful yet not accurate. Truthiness really comes to mind. But I guess people in the PR business specialize in truthiness don't they? Truthiness seems to best describe both you Mr. Keeney and the folks at Noka. First my opinions on Mr. Keeney: It's not like it was some concerted campaign regarding Noka. Yes, it was. Although it was not a campaign to save Noka it was campaign to get yourself a job. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we all need work but I feel your statement regarding this lacks honesty. But it worked and that's half your win/win right? Your title of this page Unfairly attacked for use.. Scott @ dallasfoods.org did not unfairly attack noka. I think one could say he fairly attacked them. He set out to determine if Noka's products are worth the ridiculous prices being charged. I think it is undeniable that he proved, for most consumers, himself and myself, that Noka is *not* worth the price. Your inherently flawed arguement regarding value, price and worth is meaningless because value and worth can not be measured (and you know this you just wanted to make your potentional client seem more reasonable under the circumstances) so that is why Scott concentrated on price. All high end chocolate should taste great as Noka probably does. Now on to Noka. (DAN's NOTE: I'm taking out Shawn's comments about NOKA because they aren't relevant to this topic.) So good luck Mr. Keeny on your future campaigns looking for other clients with questionable business practices and self created crisises and good luck to Noka on selling its overpriced chocolate. Shawn in Toronto
Shawn: Thanks for the comments. Whether you believe me or not, NOKA was not aware that I had posted the comments. They selected my firm because of our extensive experience in the food industry and specific past work with other handcrafted food brands. This includes work on behalf of Saint Arnold Brewing, the oldest craft brewery in Texas. While at another firm, I also introduced U.K.-based Wholesome Sweeteners organic, all-natural sugars to the U.S. Additionally, I have worked on behalf of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Kroger, Giant Eagle, Subway Restaurants and helped Shiner Beers grow into a powerful national brand. It is common for a growing small business to secure the help of a public relations firm and we look forward to helping NOKA to educate the public about the fine points of chocolate quality and purity as well as about the optimal chocolate tasting experience.
I'm not going to get into a timeline, although I will say that my wife was looking at her watch and both our stomachs were rumbling. I will point out that the nature of my firm is to provide access 24x7 and we turn work around quickly out of necessity. For instance, I've written and spoken about the 10-minute window in which an organization needs to think through and issue a basic statement. This is all I'll say on this subject.
Dan posted a comment on my owne website, at http://james.cridland.net/blog/2006/12/29/noka-chocolate-and-you - curiously, before Noka did (though from different IP addresses, so don't go jumping to any conclusions). I think Dan's done a good job as a contractor to Noka: he read my blog posting (which was talking about the media, not about Noka) and responded to the points I was making. The 'pears' thing got copy/pasted- but it was relevant to the answer. He's done a great job. However, I think he's done a lousy job at pretending that he was entirely unconnected to the company. In fact, in my reply (at my blog, above), I use the words 'barefaced lie'. Sorry.
Now I'm beginning to understand why some clients think I'm nuts when I suggest opening up a public feedback loop when an issue arises. It can be painful.
Dan, regardless of how well identified Scott at DallasFood.org is, you did not clearly identify yourself or inconsistently did so. I never asked you to go back and make corrections, I took issue with your assumption in the first place that the internet is an anonymous place, and even if many people behave that way, is that a reason for you to do so as well? (Please go back and read your own article about WalMart.) Tossing it back to say that you are only behaving as Scott did is no defense, especially for someone in PR. (And you patronizing use of French is, well, patronizing.) You have profiles at each of those websites you're posting on and yet you do not use your website url? (Well, I've seen your profile at C&Z and DallasFood.org - I don't know how you identified yourself in other comments on blogs.) In my experience talking to chocolate makers and chocolatiers - the chocolatiers have always been willing to talk about where they get their raw goods. It is the chocolate makers are usually not allowed to. (In a conversation with a fellow at Guittard, he was surprised to hear my list of the chocolatiers that use their product, but he was not able to confirm any of them ... I suspect that many companies have this style of NDA.) You seem to think that because I don't know enough about Scott that I should ignore his article is silly. I'm a savvy enough person to read through it and see some places where he's jumped to conclusions without knowing his full name and CV. I'm also savvy enough to see how the statements Noka has issued are not addressing all of the issues he's brought up. I appreciate that you seem to be learning as you go along, but your personality and actions aside, in the grand scheme of things, I have as much interest in Noka's actual products today as I did a week ago.
When I originally posted comments, I had no interest and therefore no reason to disclose my identity. Later, on the advice of this board, I DID go back and clarify the change of status. I never suggested IGNORING the writer, just explained why I think it's reasonable to ask questions. The French was meant to be light, not condescending. Sorry that you took it that way.
Dan said: When I originally posted comments, I had no interest and therefore no reason to disclose my identity. I really don't believe you on this one. As someone who posted a NUMBER of very similar comments on all of the top-ranked blogs covering this story, and taking the shots you did at the credibility of the reporter, I find it highly suspect that you did so just, ya know, because. A couple of theories that immediately come to mind... A) you saw the story, did some commenting, approached NOKA, pointed them out, and then got hired. b) you were already talking to them, pointed to your posts are evidence of your worth, and got hired. I've been in this blogging world since it began and I've NEVER seen someone post pretty much the same comment to a number of different blogs, under a number of different names, and make an argument that includes ad hominem attacks and defend a company whose products have been painstakinly exposed as wildly overpriced. You simply cared too much, and put in FAAAR too much effort for it to have been, ya know, just like, your opinion.
I can say with certainty that the folks at NOKA were unaware that I posted my personal comments until AFTER we had been engaged to work on their behalf. I DID NOT call their attention to these personal comments UNTIL it became clear that my personal actions -- prior to being engaged -- were prompting suspicions of NOKA. We have been honest and forthright from the start. As stated elsewhere on this page, I frequently post comments about issues related to journalism, public relations, crisis communications, issues management and reputation management. Frequently, these posts become articles either for my site or for publication in various trades. Don't you find it ironic that there are numerous examples ON THIS FORUM of people who are hop scotching around the blogosphere posting comments in which they suggest that it is inconceivable that I would have done the very same thing? It's not uncommon at all for a person to get energized by something they believe is right or wrong and want to scream from every rooftop about it. That's all there was to it. I am sorry that you don’t believe me, but I do appreciate your comments and the fact that you took the time to add to the discussion.
Dan, -- I’ll point that very thing out…that there have been scads of people hop scotching from blog to blog flaming me ABOUT doing the very same thing and seeming to have not a bit of self-awareness of this contradiction. -- There is nobody doing the very same thing as you. For you to make the assertion that it is just a coincidence that you posted negative comments about the story, the author, and the whole idea of getting decent value for your money AND are now being paid by the company you defended...well...that's a bit of a stretch. Considering that both events transpired with a 24 hour period, it stretches beyond the breaking point IMHO. -- It’s not unusual at all for a person to get energized by an issue and want to scream from every rooftop about it. -- I don't know who is screaming here, but I do think it is rather unusual for people to espouse the idea that something has more value BECAUSE it is ridiculously expensive when they aren't on the receiving end of some of that money. If this is your opinion, I have a very valuable (worth about $40) five dollar bill in my pocket that you might be interested in. The way I boil this down is....it's very difficult to get someone to understand something they are being paid to not comprehend. -- But when it’s a PR person who does it, it’s inconceivable that it could be motivated by anything but $$ and client interest. -- You are overplaying the victim card here. -- I’m sorry you don’t believe me, but I can tell you with certainty that NOKA knew absolutely nothing about my posts until days later… -- That has nothing to do with my criticism. What you could try and convince me of is that you posted said comments *before ever hearing from* NOKA. Are you even going to attempt that? It would be difficult because you have already posted information that would seem to be contrary to that assertion (all your it's very complicated posts). The only way your comments could be considered valid is if they came from directly reading the article...and that's it. As it stands, it is beyond evident that other factors influenced your personal opinion. -- They [NoKa] are not out there slogging through the blogs, which is one of the reasons they did not offer a response more rapidly. -- You should go back and visit some of those blogs. A number of them now include comments from NOKA Chocolates. Was that you as well? Or was that them? Is there a difference at this point? Anyway. Good luck with this one. There's a reason people have a generally low opinion of the professional ethics in PR. Your article, and your actions, are a good example of why they are rational to do so. Enjoy the Day. -Roy NOTE: This is a reply to an email with the same substance as the above post.
Disclosure: I edited Roy's note to take out the word sinister. I had used it to describe what the blogosphere thinks of client motives and Roy had suggested that I was calling my clients sinister, which I obviously do not. And YES, the the NOKA Chocolate statement was posted at various places by DPK Public Relations. We used NOKA Chocolate as the screen name to make clear that it was the Company's statement. Thanks for your feedback.
Dan, I have to echo kitchenmage's feelings about blogger anonymity. Your characterization that people on the internet are anonymous is incorrect, especailly in the foodie arena. Many of us use our real names and those who don't are quite consistent with screenames (not everyone can have such a rare first name as I). I found out who DallasFood.org was within three clicks. Your reply above to Kitchenmage regarding these issues is unsatisfying. Her points have nothing to do with Noka and any engagement you have with them but everything to do with your actions and interactions as an individual. I think you might need to hire your own crisis consultant. You're certainly not practicing what you're charging for.
I've done what she suggested and returned to disclose retroactively the change in my status. I'm sorry if this seems insufficient. As for anonymity, I guess you have better detective skills than moi. The issue regarding qualification has to do with the dismissal of the notion that the couverture used is made to their specifications as to what's in it, where it is sourced and the process used, which it is. The writer dismissed this and called the chocolatier a liar. He used some wriggle words to protect himself (perhaps) from libel, but he made this incorrect assertion based solely on his palate. Without some indication of how skilled his palate is, it seems reasonable to question it. Hey, if you're satisfied, based on your finding out who the author is, then that's great.
It would be extremely simple for Noka to prove how flawed DallasFood's palate-based assumptions are- all they need to do is disclose the supplier of their couverture, as any other chocolatier does anyway. What was that about transparency?
For NOKA's position on that issue, I'll refer you to the company's statement at Dallas Food (below): http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=142
But as DallasFoods points out http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=83 this is a very unusual position for a chocolatier to take. It seems that Scott would be in no danger of incurring a libel case, as if Noka will not disclose the facts, they certainly would not be able to prove a libel case! They really should consider just telling the truth. Can you imagine, for example, a fast food company refuting a story about the provenance of their meat with a blanket statement of supplier confidentiality? And why does the supplier need confidentiality? Aren't they proud to be supplying the purest, most expensive chocolate in the world?
I for one, tracked the debate with interest - my original starting point was Boing Boing's reference to the Dallasfood article. I read it and was impressed - so I referenced it in Webmetricsguru.com, as I have done some research on buying demand via Search Engine queries. I'm also surprised NOKA chocolate are as expensive as they are - based on what I read - it's clearly a status symbol for people who want one - but is it really better than what you can buy for 1/10th the price?
Ahhh Dan. So you got hired by Noka after writing the comments at my site? It seemed obvious that, if you didn't work for Noka yet, it was only a mater of time. It's not clear from your comment here what you new relationship with Noka is--you could have started dating an owner. When did you get hired? Transparency and all. (and you could have told us it was a job interview if you really wanted to be transparent, say: I don't work for them...yet) As for the anonymous bloggers, well to begin with, you overestimate our anonymity. There are few truly anonymous food bloggers out there, most of them are writing under open pseudonyms. Like me. Anyone who really wants to figure out who I am can, it takes about 60 seconds. But I write (non food) under my 'real name' and am trying to keep the two aspects of my work somewhat disconnected. Having never been to Dallas Food before reading the series, I am not sure who writes the site content; others, however, seem to be able to pin a name and identity on the writer fairly easily. But I am confused as to what expertise or credentials you find lacking. The writer did research, presented many easily verifiable facts (some with links) and did a taste testing. the first two of these stand on their own and the latter is utterly subjective, even from a professional food critic or chocolatier. I have read the articles at all of your links, and I don't see any evidence that any of your comments were deleted from any site. Yet your rather snarky comment about differing opinions indicates that you feel that you were specifically censored. Were you? I know that I censored nobody: not you and not the people saying that you were all over the Noka posts. And, as I mentioned, I see no evidence that anyone else did either. I also notice that, while you went to each site you found with a story and posted a similar comment, you have not returned to any of them to continue the conversation or address questions asked of you. Questions that included do you work for Noka? Your lack of response, and primarily in forums where you've never been seen before, makes it seem like you are a Noka'er. And now you are. See why people are suspicious? In any case, I invite you to come back and continue the discussion with me, since apparently only my commenters hit your radar as unfair and I did not attack Noka's use of pronouns. *grin* I also invite you, as I did on my site, to send me the best representation of the presentation of Noka that you say is much of what makes it worth the premium++ price for an unbiased critique. You say the entire experience counts. I say, provide the experience. I'm not guaranteeing what will be said, or even that it will be at all nice, but I will happily gather some people (b&b owners, world-traveler entertainer friends, a vintner) together and unwrap the box in front of them so we all get the full effect of the presentation before we taste.
I only hesitate BECAUSE my status has changed and, as the company's advocate, my personal opinions no longer are relevant. If you are interested in NOKA's position, I will be sure to come back and share it with you and your readers.
Dan, for a guy who touts transparency, you sure don't practice it. I have some specific questions: When were you hired? Be precise, please. Within an hour or two of contract signing would be good. What were the circumstances under which you were hired? Did you know either/both of the Noka owners before you started posting? If so, how? If not, how did they come about contacting you to do PR? (Did you pitch to them or did they follow your comment trail? If you pitched, when?) Have you bought Noka chocolates? Before the kerfluffle? How does Noka chocolates expect anyone to confirm or believe their claims, which are their reason for the price, if they refuse to disclose the information needed to verify them? Where's my chocolate for tasting? *grin*
I thought my level of disclosure has been pretty remarkable, so I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. But I'm satisfied that you're not satisfied. I will simply say that my personal posts played no part in getting the business.
Interesting quandary. I think it all comes down to intention, personally. Why did you feel the need to come to the aid of Noka, specifically, and why so aggressively? It does seem a little suspect that Noka retained you so quickly after you came to their aid. If you were courting them at the time of your comments, I think you should have disclosed. If it's a bit of a coincidence, or if it's owned by someone you know, etc., then I don't think disclosure is necessary.
Thanks for your thoughts. I probably got a bit carried away because I saw them taking a pounding and I thought the posts were missing some key points. I don't want to suggest that I had no knowledge of them before posting the comments, but I was not engaged to do the work and was not working on their behalf or with their knowledge.
While I can see where you're coming from, and I at no point said that you were representing Noka (much though I suspected it), you have to admit that your posts on the many sites involved were very similar. The pear thing is duplicated almost word for word at least once, for instance. The tone of most of the comments indicated that you were seeing the issue for the first time, that you had just arrived by chance. You also used at least three aliases (Dan, Danno and AvidReader).
Thanks for your comment. I can see your point and apologize if it came off spammy. As you noted originally, I posted in a pretty tight time frame and really had just finished reviewing the series, so it was sincere and wasn't meant to mislead.
Mr. Keeney: As someone who claims an APR and allegedly is concerned about transparency, you should go back to each of your prior posts and disclose your connection to NOKA. Whether you were working for them at the time you posted, or you were hired subsequently is immaterial. Your ethical stance seems to be very closely tied to your semantics.
Kirk: Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it and will consider doing exactly what you say. I'll give others a chance to chime in. Requiring a disclosure of an interest that did not exist at the time of the post is something I've been considering, but since there was no interest at the time, I'm not sure I'm clear on why such a disclosure would be necessary. I'll watch to see if others agree.
You're either arguing a technicality (i.e., they had not yet signed your contract), or you are taking an Interesting approach to attracting new business, Dan.
Kirk: I've done what you've suggested, although I can't help but feel that such retroactive disclosure is an unreasonable standard. It suggests that as a PR person or attorney or stock analyst adjust course, disclosure of that fact needs to ripple through all prior posts. But in the interests of satisfying those who have raised concerns (hopefully), I've posted the clarification as you suggested. Thanks for your constructive feedback.
If a stock analyst writes a report defending a company hours (or a day or two) before his firm is hired to do investment banking, he or she DEFINITELY has to disclose the connection -- prospectively and retroactively -- as does the investment bank in everything they do. That's an SEC requirement. And most media disclose any corporate or family connections to businesses or politicians they cover, too.
•
del.icio.us
digg
facebook
I took a look at your site and recommend it to my visitors. I agree with you on the importance of becoming valuable in many different areas. I believe that it sustains any entrepreneur during challenges that inevitably occur.
the article seems useful.
Full disclosure: I know Dan Keeney. Dan and I have worked together (not for NOKA). I have served with Dan Keeney on an association's board of directors. I know Dan Keeney to be a public relations professional and business counselor of the highest ethical underpinnings. And I consider him a friend. Dan invited me, as a fellow PR professional, to review this scenario and ongoing discussion and to chime in if I had thoughts - regardless of where my perspectives may fall. Strong friendships and collegial business relationships are dependent upon honesty, even if it is brutal honesty. And he knows that if I had something critical to say, that I would say it without hesitation. I do not represent Dan. I am not being compensated in any way for my comments. I have not read the 10-page overview regarding chocolate evaluation guidelines and how that applies to NOKA. I am not going to debate whether the company’s chocolate is good, pure, or anything else. The Internet, and blogs, and the seemingly infinite shelf-life of their content, have created new questions and challenges for PR professionals – and that is why I am writing. Dan first posted his own thoughts, without NOKA’s knowledge, on several blogs covering the issue. At that time, he did not represent NOKA. Several of his posts were similar or identical. And why not? Spam generally can be defined as unwanted messages (often multiple messages) directed to a receiver who likely has no interest in the content. Dan’s postings obviously represented another perspective in a debate that to that point was all one-sided. Since the barbs were essentially the same from blog to blog, his reflections on the situation were going to be consistent. Plus, there are different audiences across different blogs, so his postings don’t qualify as spam. Dan soon after was engaged by NOKA to help defend itself and share its story with key audiences. Simply because Dan previously shared his own thoughts about the issue should not disqualify him from representing NOKA – especially when his thoughts coincide with the company’s interests. If anything, sharing compatible views with a prospective client makes for the best kind of business representation. Those of us in PR relish the chance to engage in debate on hot topics and working on such projects. So it's not surprising that he found interest in the topic and posted about it. Dan’s comments were scrutinized when several people noticed that NOKA had become his client – although that relationship does not change the context and nature of his original posts. And rather than hide behind the shield of his counselor-client shield, Dan saw an opportunity to host a discussion about how to ensure ethical practices in the Internet age. Dan introduced the discussion on his own Web site and engaged critics in dialogue. And when someone said that he then needed to disclose his relationship with NOKA on the sites where he previously posted, he did so. These are not the actions of someone who is hiding from the truth. In fact, I find it disheartening that he continues to be chastised for transparent and reasonable discourse and for being flexible in accommodating requests for additional disclosure. Dan has shown nothing but respect for the thoughts posed by those posting on his site. I wish that more would follow his lead, and that reasonable minds could both work to reach resolution and understanding rather than just raise the volume. Unfortunately, the Internet doesn’t seem to facilitate that type of interaction.
Funny story about Petri that has some similarities. Early on a Saturday morning I was contacted by a prospective client with an immediate need. After jumping on my laptop and quickly ramping up on the issue, I contacted Petri to bounce around ideas. He, like me, operates a 24x7 operation and I know I can reach him literally anytime anywhere he is. After giving him a basic overview of the situation without divulging specifically who the client was, we mutually came to the conclusion that Petri's work on something remotely related probably presented a hint of a conflict. So we ended the conversation. At that point, I asked him where he was. He was on a drive from Houston to Baton Rouge to see ASU play LSU. I was sitting in an auto dealership waiting for my car to be serviced. The point is that PR operates at the speed of light these days, with anytime anywhere access to counsel. Despite the need for rapid action, as APRs, both Petri and I are always careful to examine possible conflicts and ethical considerations. Thanks for your nice words, Petri.
Petri, A nicely written defense of Dan, but you need to get your facts straight. You state rather than hide behind the shield of his counselor-client shield, Dan saw an opportunity to host a discussion about how to ensure ethical practices in the Internet age. Dan introduced the discussion on his own Web site and engaged critics in dialogue. Dan has hidden behind his counselor-client shield. When called on various bits of spin--either from his original postings on other sites or side comments on this page (or for that matter the original title of this page), he's thrown up some variant of I can't discuss that, as I'm now engaged by NoKA. The blogosphere exists as an extended series of conversations. The rules of ethics here are subject to the rules of etiquette. Dan went to several other boards, posted a defense of NoKA which said numerous derisive things about Scott of Dallas Food.org and his writing style, and then, rather than engage in debate, hid behind the shield of counselor-client privilege. That he's set up a forum here is to his credit, but what can be discussed? The original title of Chocolatier Unfairly Attacked for Use of Pronouns has been taken down after I pointed out that discussing pronouns and unfairly would seem germane to the topic. However, the main body of the initial post still includes attack. Why blogger attack rather than critical article or unfavorable review? And why are Dan's own postings on the various blogs (which he can no longer discuss) depicted as my personal opinions rather than derisive sneering or even simply as attacks on Scott of DallasFood.org? There's an awful lot of spin going on here and I'm calling Dan on it. More than that, there's disinformation. In the initial posting, there's this quote: I find anonymous journalism troubling because it leaves unanswered questions about possible motivations, conflicts of interest and lack of expertise. If the reader is comfortable with it, so be it, but I'm not comfortable with it. How is the 10 article series by Scott of Dallas Food.org in any way anonymous? Because the author uses a single name? Is the music of Bono, Sting and Madonna anonymous because they use a single name? And Scott isn't even using a pen name, as with Dear Abby, Miss Manners, Voltaire, etc. I encountered Scott's article via BoingBoing, a blog based on a print publication I encountered some ten years previous at a small press expo in San Francisco. Very little of any of this is anonymous and even the faces beneath the pen names can be turned up with very little effort. As for lack of expertise, are we talking about Scott or NoKA? The inverse of What does someone whose sole publication credit seems to be an article about chicken fried steak know about about chocolate is What do Canadian accountants know about chocolate? That sword cuts both ways depending on how you spin it, and the plain fact is that expertise and knowledge are not reliant on past laurels and accolades. Anyway, on the subject of ethical considerations of posting comments to blogs, everyone should remember that a blog is a weblog and the point of such is not to post press releases and then run away, but engage in a dialogue and discourse. To do otherwise is rude, which I find both unethical and also counterproductive.
Kevin: Thanks for your thoughts. Under normal circumstances, I would have continued the discussions at the various blogs where I posted comments, but once a PR person engages with a client, that kind of ongoing discourse isn't appropriate. My own views are no longer relevant because the client makes decisions on what is communicated. As for anonymity, my thoughts have to do with conceivable conflicts, motivations, etc. of the writer. It's also important to note that I'm not alone in pointing out these concerns. There's a terrific discussion at http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/355000 about these same issues.
Please list other instances when you felt Morally Compelled to rescue a misrepresented company, through numerous and lengthy web bloggings, without any thought of compensation. Especially helpful would be those times when your pro bono work did not culminate in your signing on as their pr flack. thank you
The Wal-Mart flogging issue was the latest. I posted on numerous blogs and, in the process, developed the point-of-view that eventually became the article post on this site that's been referenced repeatedly. It's one way I (used to) work through issues and see counter arguments in the process of writing an article either for my site or for publication. For instance, the Wal-Mart story was subsequently posted to the PRSA site (http://www.prsa.org/supportfiles/news/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=640) as a commentary. In the Wal-Mart case, I similarly was bucking what was the conventional arguments about Netiquette and I was always careful to disclose that I am a shareholder (although many blogs chose not to include that disclosure). I don't have a record of where those posts are, but one I do remember is on John Wagner's blog, On Message on a post entitled (here it comes), PR people, start using your common sense when it comes to disclosure. Hoo boy. I know this will just send people over the edge. Yes, I used my full name and posted my Web site because these were PR-related blogs.
Dan, I'm glad you changed the title of this thread. Not only was the original not what you apparently want to talk about, but it read as spin. Now on to the ethical considerations. In private email, I mentioned blog etiquette, including how most blogs allow all but the most flamey posts to stand. I can understand it not being in the best interests of your firm to have a public forum where your clients can be flamed, but by the same token, if they can't be flamed, they can't be honestly defended either. But on with etiquette. While you're of course free to host your own forum how you like (though will be judged by visitors if it isn't terribly open), if you visit other forums, there are some things that are simply wrong, namely sockpuppeting and astroturfing. Sockpuppeting is when someone creates an online persona who exists solely to say wonderful things about them or bad things about somone else or both. You didn't exactly do this when you showed up on other forums, since you did actually use your own name, but the tone was so chirpy one-sided it sounded an awful lot like a sockpuppet. For example, the Loooongggg bit: chirpy, and begging the question of why anyone with a short attention span would actually want to read a ten-page essay series unless perhaps being paid to do so or otherwise having a stake in the outcome. Probably the most famous sockpuppet is Mary Rosh: http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/ Take a look to understand why such practices are not just frowned on but ridiculed. That leads to the other blogging sin of astroturfing, what happens when some usually political PR firm decides it would be a good idea to set up a fake grass roots group and begins to repost the same boilerplate press-release-phrased-as-letter-from-concerned-citizen everywhere they can print it. Does this begin to sound familiar? Of course you could have just been inspired to spam your personal outrage across multiple blogs prior to being engaged by NoKA, but the situation certainly begs askance. For more reference, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing To avoid appearance of either, as a general rule, use your own full name wherever you post and do not repost the same text block as you've posted elsewhere. Rather, tailor your response to whatever people are talking about. You might also want to counsel your clients to prepare press releases which contain more information than indignation. Any factual inaccuracy or obvious bit of smoke and mirrors will be picked apart on the blogosphere in very short order. And continually refering people to a press release will ring rather hollow if the press release doesn't address the concerns raised.
Kevin: I appreciate your comments. I am learning a lot. I have never heard of sock puppeting. I'm sorry if what I did came off as spamming.
Honesty is a really funny thing. Somebody can say something that is truthful yet not accurate. Truthiness really comes to mind. But I guess people in the PR business specialize in truthiness don't they? Truthiness seems to best describe both you Mr. Keeney and the folks at Noka. First my opinions on Mr. Keeney: It's not like it was some concerted campaign regarding Noka. Yes, it was. Although it was not a campaign to save Noka it was campaign to get yourself a job. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we all need work but I feel your statement regarding this lacks honesty. But it worked and that's half your win/win right? Your title of this page Unfairly attacked for use.. Scott @ dallasfoods.org did not unfairly attack noka. I think one could say he fairly attacked them. He set out to determine if Noka's products are worth the ridiculous prices being charged. I think it is undeniable that he proved, for most consumers, himself and myself, that Noka is *not* worth the price. Your inherently flawed arguement regarding value, price and worth is meaningless because value and worth can not be measured (and you know this you just wanted to make your potentional client seem more reasonable under the circumstances) so that is why Scott concentrated on price. All high end chocolate should taste great as Noka probably does. Now on to Noka. (DAN's NOTE: I'm taking out Shawn's comments about NOKA because they aren't relevant to this topic.) So good luck Mr. Keeny on your future campaigns looking for other clients with questionable business practices and self created crisises and good luck to Noka on selling its overpriced chocolate. Shawn in Toronto
Shawn: Thanks for the comments. Whether you believe me or not, NOKA was not aware that I had posted the comments. They selected my firm because of our extensive experience in the food industry and specific past work with other handcrafted food brands. This includes work on behalf of Saint Arnold Brewing, the oldest craft brewery in Texas. While at another firm, I also introduced U.K.-based Wholesome Sweeteners organic, all-natural sugars to the U.S. Additionally, I have worked on behalf of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Kroger, Giant Eagle, Subway Restaurants and helped Shiner Beers grow into a powerful national brand. It is common for a growing small business to secure the help of a public relations firm and we look forward to helping NOKA to educate the public about the fine points of chocolate quality and purity as well as about the optimal chocolate tasting experience.
As a matter of interest, how did you know to stop posting your pro-Noka pieces a couple of hours before you were hired?
I'm not going to get into a timeline, although I will say that my wife was looking at her watch and both our stomachs were rumbling. I will point out that the nature of my firm is to provide access 24x7 and we turn work around quickly out of necessity. For instance, I've written and spoken about the 10-minute window in which an organization needs to think through and issue a basic statement. This is all I'll say on this subject.
Are comments closed on this discussion?
No...just trying to get some work done! Keep 'em coming. I'm bloodied and down on my knees, but I can still take another punch.
Dan posted a comment on my owne website, at http://james.cridland.net/blog/2006/12/29/noka-chocolate-and-you - curiously, before Noka did (though from different IP addresses, so don't go jumping to any conclusions). I think Dan's done a good job as a contractor to Noka: he read my blog posting (which was talking about the media, not about Noka) and responded to the points I was making. The 'pears' thing got copy/pasted- but it was relevant to the answer. He's done a great job. However, I think he's done a lousy job at pretending that he was entirely unconnected to the company. In fact, in my reply (at my blog, above), I use the words 'barefaced lie'. Sorry.
Now I'm beginning to understand why some clients think I'm nuts when I suggest opening up a public feedback loop when an issue arises. It can be painful.
Dan, regardless of how well identified Scott at DallasFood.org is, you did not clearly identify yourself or inconsistently did so. I never asked you to go back and make corrections, I took issue with your assumption in the first place that the internet is an anonymous place, and even if many people behave that way, is that a reason for you to do so as well? (Please go back and read your own article about WalMart.) Tossing it back to say that you are only behaving as Scott did is no defense, especially for someone in PR. (And you patronizing use of French is, well, patronizing.) You have profiles at each of those websites you're posting on and yet you do not use your website url? (Well, I've seen your profile at C&Z and DallasFood.org - I don't know how you identified yourself in other comments on blogs.) In my experience talking to chocolate makers and chocolatiers - the chocolatiers have always been willing to talk about where they get their raw goods. It is the chocolate makers are usually not allowed to. (In a conversation with a fellow at Guittard, he was surprised to hear my list of the chocolatiers that use their product, but he was not able to confirm any of them ... I suspect that many companies have this style of NDA.) You seem to think that because I don't know enough about Scott that I should ignore his article is silly. I'm a savvy enough person to read through it and see some places where he's jumped to conclusions without knowing his full name and CV. I'm also savvy enough to see how the statements Noka has issued are not addressing all of the issues he's brought up. I appreciate that you seem to be learning as you go along, but your personality and actions aside, in the grand scheme of things, I have as much interest in Noka's actual products today as I did a week ago.
When I originally posted comments, I had no interest and therefore no reason to disclose my identity. Later, on the advice of this board, I DID go back and clarify the change of status. I never suggested IGNORING the writer, just explained why I think it's reasonable to ask questions. The French was meant to be light, not condescending. Sorry that you took it that way.
Dan said: When I originally posted comments, I had no interest and therefore no reason to disclose my identity. I really don't believe you on this one. As someone who posted a NUMBER of very similar comments on all of the top-ranked blogs covering this story, and taking the shots you did at the credibility of the reporter, I find it highly suspect that you did so just, ya know, because. A couple of theories that immediately come to mind... A) you saw the story, did some commenting, approached NOKA, pointed them out, and then got hired. b) you were already talking to them, pointed to your posts are evidence of your worth, and got hired. I've been in this blogging world since it began and I've NEVER seen someone post pretty much the same comment to a number of different blogs, under a number of different names, and make an argument that includes ad hominem attacks and defend a company whose products have been painstakinly exposed as wildly overpriced. You simply cared too much, and put in FAAAR too much effort for it to have been, ya know, just like, your opinion.
I can say with certainty that the folks at NOKA were unaware that I posted my personal comments until AFTER we had been engaged to work on their behalf. I DID NOT call their attention to these personal comments UNTIL it became clear that my personal actions -- prior to being engaged -- were prompting suspicions of NOKA. We have been honest and forthright from the start. As stated elsewhere on this page, I frequently post comments about issues related to journalism, public relations, crisis communications, issues management and reputation management. Frequently, these posts become articles either for my site or for publication in various trades. Don't you find it ironic that there are numerous examples ON THIS FORUM of people who are hop scotching around the blogosphere posting comments in which they suggest that it is inconceivable that I would have done the very same thing? It's not uncommon at all for a person to get energized by something they believe is right or wrong and want to scream from every rooftop about it. That's all there was to it. I am sorry that you don’t believe me, but I do appreciate your comments and the fact that you took the time to add to the discussion.
Dan, -- I’ll point that very thing out…that there have been scads of people hop scotching from blog to blog flaming me ABOUT doing the very same thing and seeming to have not a bit of self-awareness of this contradiction. -- There is nobody doing the very same thing as you. For you to make the assertion that it is just a coincidence that you posted negative comments about the story, the author, and the whole idea of getting decent value for your money AND are now being paid by the company you defended...well...that's a bit of a stretch. Considering that both events transpired with a 24 hour period, it stretches beyond the breaking point IMHO. -- It’s not unusual at all for a person to get energized by an issue and want to scream from every rooftop about it. -- I don't know who is screaming here, but I do think it is rather unusual for people to espouse the idea that something has more value BECAUSE it is ridiculously expensive when they aren't on the receiving end of some of that money. If this is your opinion, I have a very valuable (worth about $40) five dollar bill in my pocket that you might be interested in. The way I boil this down is....it's very difficult to get someone to understand something they are being paid to not comprehend. -- But when it’s a PR person who does it, it’s inconceivable that it could be motivated by anything but $$ and client interest. -- You are overplaying the victim card here. -- I’m sorry you don’t believe me, but I can tell you with certainty that NOKA knew absolutely nothing about my posts until days later… -- That has nothing to do with my criticism. What you could try and convince me of is that you posted said comments *before ever hearing from* NOKA. Are you even going to attempt that? It would be difficult because you have already posted information that would seem to be contrary to that assertion (all your it's very complicated posts). The only way your comments could be considered valid is if they came from directly reading the article...and that's it. As it stands, it is beyond evident that other factors influenced your personal opinion. -- They [NoKa] are not out there slogging through the blogs, which is one of the reasons they did not offer a response more rapidly. -- You should go back and visit some of those blogs. A number of them now include comments from NOKA Chocolates. Was that you as well? Or was that them? Is there a difference at this point? Anyway. Good luck with this one. There's a reason people have a generally low opinion of the professional ethics in PR. Your article, and your actions, are a good example of why they are rational to do so. Enjoy the Day. -Roy NOTE: This is a reply to an email with the same substance as the above post.
Disclosure: I edited Roy's note to take out the word sinister. I had used it to describe what the blogosphere thinks of client motives and Roy had suggested that I was calling my clients sinister, which I obviously do not. And YES, the the NOKA Chocolate statement was posted at various places by DPK Public Relations. We used NOKA Chocolate as the screen name to make clear that it was the Company's statement. Thanks for your feedback.
Dan, I have to echo kitchenmage's feelings about blogger anonymity. Your characterization that people on the internet are anonymous is incorrect, especailly in the foodie arena. Many of us use our real names and those who don't are quite consistent with screenames (not everyone can have such a rare first name as I). I found out who DallasFood.org was within three clicks. Your reply above to Kitchenmage regarding these issues is unsatisfying. Her points have nothing to do with Noka and any engagement you have with them but everything to do with your actions and interactions as an individual. I think you might need to hire your own crisis consultant. You're certainly not practicing what you're charging for.
I've done what she suggested and returned to disclose retroactively the change in my status. I'm sorry if this seems insufficient. As for anonymity, I guess you have better detective skills than moi. The issue regarding qualification has to do with the dismissal of the notion that the couverture used is made to their specifications as to what's in it, where it is sourced and the process used, which it is. The writer dismissed this and called the chocolatier a liar. He used some wriggle words to protect himself (perhaps) from libel, but he made this incorrect assertion based solely on his palate. Without some indication of how skilled his palate is, it seems reasonable to question it. Hey, if you're satisfied, based on your finding out who the author is, then that's great.
It would be extremely simple for Noka to prove how flawed DallasFood's palate-based assumptions are- all they need to do is disclose the supplier of their couverture, as any other chocolatier does anyway. What was that about transparency?
For NOKA's position on that issue, I'll refer you to the company's statement at Dallas Food (below): http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=142
But as DallasFoods points out http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=83 this is a very unusual position for a chocolatier to take. It seems that Scott would be in no danger of incurring a libel case, as if Noka will not disclose the facts, they certainly would not be able to prove a libel case! They really should consider just telling the truth. Can you imagine, for example, a fast food company refuting a story about the provenance of their meat with a blanket statement of supplier confidentiality? And why does the supplier need confidentiality? Aren't they proud to be supplying the purest, most expensive chocolate in the world?
Thanks for your comment. Their statement will need to speak for itself. I'm not at liberty to expand upon it.
I for one, tracked the debate with interest - my original starting point was Boing Boing's reference to the Dallasfood article. I read it and was impressed - so I referenced it in Webmetricsguru.com, as I have done some research on buying demand via Search Engine queries. I'm also surprised NOKA chocolate are as expensive as they are - based on what I read - it's clearly a status symbol for people who want one - but is it really better than what you can buy for 1/10th the price?
I'll refer you to the company's statement at Dallas Food: http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=142
Ahhh Dan. So you got hired by Noka after writing the comments at my site? It seemed obvious that, if you didn't work for Noka yet, it was only a mater of time. It's not clear from your comment here what you new relationship with Noka is--you could have started dating an owner. When did you get hired? Transparency and all. (and you could have told us it was a job interview if you really wanted to be transparent, say: I don't work for them...yet) As for the anonymous bloggers, well to begin with, you overestimate our anonymity. There are few truly anonymous food bloggers out there, most of them are writing under open pseudonyms. Like me. Anyone who really wants to figure out who I am can, it takes about 60 seconds. But I write (non food) under my 'real name' and am trying to keep the two aspects of my work somewhat disconnected. Having never been to Dallas Food before reading the series, I am not sure who writes the site content; others, however, seem to be able to pin a name and identity on the writer fairly easily. But I am confused as to what expertise or credentials you find lacking. The writer did research, presented many easily verifiable facts (some with links) and did a taste testing. the first two of these stand on their own and the latter is utterly subjective, even from a professional food critic or chocolatier. I have read the articles at all of your links, and I don't see any evidence that any of your comments were deleted from any site. Yet your rather snarky comment about differing opinions indicates that you feel that you were specifically censored. Were you? I know that I censored nobody: not you and not the people saying that you were all over the Noka posts. And, as I mentioned, I see no evidence that anyone else did either. I also notice that, while you went to each site you found with a story and posted a similar comment, you have not returned to any of them to continue the conversation or address questions asked of you. Questions that included do you work for Noka? Your lack of response, and primarily in forums where you've never been seen before, makes it seem like you are a Noka'er. And now you are. See why people are suspicious? In any case, I invite you to come back and continue the discussion with me, since apparently only my commenters hit your radar as unfair and I did not attack Noka's use of pronouns. *grin* I also invite you, as I did on my site, to send me the best representation of the presentation of Noka that you say is much of what makes it worth the premium++ price for an unbiased critique. You say the entire experience counts. I say, provide the experience. I'm not guaranteeing what will be said, or even that it will be at all nice, but I will happily gather some people (b&b owners, world-traveler entertainer friends, a vintner) together and unwrap the box in front of them so we all get the full effect of the presentation before we taste.
I only hesitate BECAUSE my status has changed and, as the company's advocate, my personal opinions no longer are relevant. If you are interested in NOKA's position, I will be sure to come back and share it with you and your readers.
Dan, for a guy who touts transparency, you sure don't practice it. I have some specific questions: When were you hired? Be precise, please. Within an hour or two of contract signing would be good. What were the circumstances under which you were hired? Did you know either/both of the Noka owners before you started posting? If so, how? If not, how did they come about contacting you to do PR? (Did you pitch to them or did they follow your comment trail? If you pitched, when?) Have you bought Noka chocolates? Before the kerfluffle? How does Noka chocolates expect anyone to confirm or believe their claims, which are their reason for the price, if they refuse to disclose the information needed to verify them? Where's my chocolate for tasting? *grin*
I thought my level of disclosure has been pretty remarkable, so I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. But I'm satisfied that you're not satisfied. I will simply say that my personal posts played no part in getting the business.
Interesting quandary. I think it all comes down to intention, personally. Why did you feel the need to come to the aid of Noka, specifically, and why so aggressively? It does seem a little suspect that Noka retained you so quickly after you came to their aid. If you were courting them at the time of your comments, I think you should have disclosed. If it's a bit of a coincidence, or if it's owned by someone you know, etc., then I don't think disclosure is necessary.
Thanks for your thoughts. I probably got a bit carried away because I saw them taking a pounding and I thought the posts were missing some key points. I don't want to suggest that I had no knowledge of them before posting the comments, but I was not engaged to do the work and was not working on their behalf or with their knowledge.
(Just to clarify, me and 'Samuel' aren't the same person. The top link is mine; none of the others are)
So noted. Thanks for your thoughts.
While I can see where you're coming from, and I at no point said that you were representing Noka (much though I suspected it), you have to admit that your posts on the many sites involved were very similar. The pear thing is duplicated almost word for word at least once, for instance. The tone of most of the comments indicated that you were seeing the issue for the first time, that you had just arrived by chance. You also used at least three aliases (Dan, Danno and AvidReader).
Thanks for your comment. I can see your point and apologize if it came off spammy. As you noted originally, I posted in a pretty tight time frame and really had just finished reviewing the series, so it was sincere and wasn't meant to mislead.
Mr. Keeney: As someone who claims an APR and allegedly is concerned about transparency, you should go back to each of your prior posts and disclose your connection to NOKA. Whether you were working for them at the time you posted, or you were hired subsequently is immaterial. Your ethical stance seems to be very closely tied to your semantics.
Kirk: Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it and will consider doing exactly what you say. I'll give others a chance to chime in. Requiring a disclosure of an interest that did not exist at the time of the post is something I've been considering, but since there was no interest at the time, I'm not sure I'm clear on why such a disclosure would be necessary. I'll watch to see if others agree.
You're either arguing a technicality (i.e., they had not yet signed your contract), or you are taking an Interesting approach to attracting new business, Dan.
Kirk: I've done what you've suggested, although I can't help but feel that such retroactive disclosure is an unreasonable standard. It suggests that as a PR person or attorney or stock analyst adjust course, disclosure of that fact needs to ripple through all prior posts. But in the interests of satisfying those who have raised concerns (hopefully), I've posted the clarification as you suggested. Thanks for your constructive feedback.
If a stock analyst writes a report defending a company hours (or a day or two) before his firm is hired to do investment banking, he or she DEFINITELY has to disclose the connection -- prospectively and retroactively -- as does the investment bank in everything they do. That's an SEC requirement. And most media disclose any corporate or family connections to businesses or politicians they cover, too.