Talk It Up!

Real beauty and why it matters

Three days ago, Dove launched a new part of its Campaign for Real Beauty: a forensic sketch artist drew women as they described themselves and then a second time, as others described them. The differences are shocking.

Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty has been running successfully since 2004, sporting images of women of all colors, shapes and sizes celebrating their life, experiences and wrinkles as beautiful. This week, the company ran a campaign showing the results of a recent experiment.

Dove's PR firm, Ogilvy & Mather, hired Gil Zamora, an FBI-trained forensics artist, to sketch women as they described themselves and then a second time, as other women described them. As you might imagine, the sketches were vastly different. Women often described themselves using negative attributes, such as "freckled," "scars," "fat," "starting to get crow's feet" and so on. However, when they described others, the terms used were more neutral or positive.

The video and sketches have been making the internet rounds today, and many women are finding the portrayal of women's deprecating self-talk moving.

However, others didn't. Some critiques of the campaign have arisen. They seem to take two major forms of objection:

1. The women portrayed aren't diverse enough.
2. Self-esteem is all well and good, but the focus is still on physical beauty rather than intelligence or talent.

The most popular reaction piece making the rounds on Tumblr was posted by JazzyLittleDrops, who makes both of the above arguments articulately:

When it comes to the diversity of the main participants: all four are Caucasian, three are blonde with blue eyes, all are thin, and all are young (the oldest appears to be 40). The majority of the non-featured participants are thin, young white women as well. Hmm… probably a little limiting, wouldn’t you say? ...Out of 6:36 minutes of footage, people of color are onscreen for less than 10 seconds.

Objection #1: lack of diversity

From the 2006 Campaign for Real Beauty

And I'm going to make an unpopular argument here: in order to make the point that all women are harsh critics of their own appearance, it's optimal to show traditionally attractive people doing that very thing. In fact, I would argue that showing women who are traditionally attractive criticizing their own appearance brings home the point: every woman needs to have compassion in her self-talk. What does come across loud and clear is that even thin, white, blue-eyed blondes describe themselves in negative terms and have something to learn about the damage that does to oneself.

There is power in realizing that the women you envy for their attractiveness experience the same negative self-talk as you. And this often leads to the realization that hey, maybe my own self-critiques aren't as accurate as I think they are.

Story: I used to spend my summers working at a chainmaille booth at the local Rennaissance faire. (Yup. I was a Rennie geek. Commence the mocking.) I spent all day putting fantasy chainmaille on moms, sisters, new wives and older women. I loved it, and I'll tell you why: for almost every woman I dressed, I saw an immediate transformation in her face as she looked in the mirror. It was as if, suddenly, she remembered that she was more than a mom, more than a competent project manager, more than the sum of her task list. I would see faces turned on by a kind of joy, and I'd say, "Yup. You are beautiful. You always were. That's not the chainmaille. That's YOU."

Women can get a hard rap in this life--we shoulder a lot of responsibility and often forget to take care of ourselves. My job was to remind women that, in addition to being capable and responsible and talented, they were also allowed to think of themselves as beautiful and have that be OK, too.

This isn't about you. And I'll make a second argument here: this particular campaign is about how women see themselves, not about how you see them. You see a lack of color; I see real women discovering the limits they are drawing on their own self-esteem. You see a lack of age representation; I see one real woman questioning the perception of herself she's held for years. You see a lack of body size diversity; I see a woman realizing that she is harder on herself than she would ever be on anyone else, and that she's been teaching that principle to her daughter.

Objection #2: Beauty is still physical

So let's take a look at the second objection: the campaign still focuses on external appearance as "beauty" rather than on personality traits, accomplishments, intelligence or talent. As Jazzy puts it,

Because the message that we constantly receive is that girls are not valuable without beauty. 

Brave, strong, smart? Not enough. You have to be beautiful. And “beautiful” means something very specific, and very physical. Essentially every movie and tv show and commercial shows us that, right? It doesn’t matter what other merits a woman posses, if she is not conventionally attractive, she is essentially worthless (go watch Miss Representation for more thoughts on this). And my primary problem with this Dove ad is that it’s not really challenging the message like it makes us feel like it is.

OK, essentially, this is true. She's right. The focus is on physical appearance and how women perceive their physical appearance and its relation to the word "beauty."

And here comes the part where I'm going to lose my girl card. Guys, come on--this is an ad campaign from a cosmetics company. Their goal wasn't to change the definition of beautiful, noble as that might have been; it was to create awareness about self-perception of beauty. This is a good thing for a cosmetics company to do and is a helluva lot better than what its competitors are doing! Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that a company has opted to focus on something that is important to women--their negative self-talk and how it affects their self esteem--rather than bashing the company for not meeting every point of our own agendas?

This is one of those cases where I believe we should celebrate an organization taking the first few steps in trying to make a difference in women's self-esteem rather than bashing them for not meeting a specific agenda. In my opinion, this was a good step. Will women still think they need to change their appearance to be beautiful? Probably. But will these videos give some women pause and bring awareness about their own negative self-talk about their appearance, perhaps even lead them to change their behavior. Maybe. And that's a damn fine step if it does happen.

What do you think? Did the videos and sketches move you, or did they anger you? Did you find them relatable or alienating?

 

Klout: who the frak cares?

Klout has changed its influence algorithm again. But does anyone care?

Yesterday, Klout changed its influence algorithm again in the face of user complaints that the online measurements didn't accurately reflect real-world influence. And critics have been strangely silent of the change. Can that be because no one cares about Klout anymore? (Probably.) Or is it more likely that most key influencer's Klout scores increased this time instead of decreasing like last time, so users can't be bothered to be outraged?

I was amused to see that my Klout score went from a so-so 54 to a more respectable 66 (and I have no entry in Wikipedia, FYI). Spoken's Klout score likewise saw a respective uptick, even though we don't have a Facebook presence and only just initiated a Google+ presence.

The changes

Klout now takes into account Facebook mentions, likes, comments and subscribers; Twitter mentions, lists, followers and replies; Google+ +1s and comments; LinkedIn connections and recommendations; Foursquare tips done; even +Ks and Wikipedia mentions. The full list is here; over 400 signals are included in the super-secret, mysterious calculations this time around.

Much has been made of the fact that those with real-life influence are now more accurately graded as opposed to those who have simply gathered a lot of Twitter followers. Obama's score is now a healthy 99, higher than Justin Bieber, 92. And all is right with the world.

The change is credited to the inclusion of Wikipedia as a signal, which begs the question: now will everyone have a Wikipedia entry to increase their Klout scores and get better customer service?

The results

The truth is that some people care about Klout; most don't. As long as the metric is owned and operated by a private entity that has a vested financial interest in people attibuting value to their scoring system, it will not be considered an impartial and accurate tool for measuring influence. It's a nice number, and it's not bad as a motivation to participate more actively in your social networks of choice.

But let's not lose any sleep over it, shall we?

Social media ethics: is it your job to keep someone from being a jerk?

Was it unethical for Melissa Stetten to Tweet about Brian Presley's hitting on her during a flight?

Last week, young model Melissa Stetten Tweeted a conversation she had on an airplane with a handsome man named Brian, during which the man had a few drinks, claimed he had called off a recent engagement and proceeded to hit on the young model, saying their meeting was "like divine interception."

When Stetten reported that the man next to her was working on a movie with McConaughy, a follower Tweeted her a photo of actor Brian Presley to confirm the man's identity. When Stetten Tweeted that Presley had imbibed three beers, a follower replied with a link to an article in which Presley is described as a recovering alcoholic, now sober for 18 months. When she Tweeted that he said he was engaged but broke it off, a follower replied, "Ask him how his wife Erin and son Jackson are." See her Tweets as reported by the Huffington Post.

It turns out that Presley is actually married with a son, and Stetten's funny-turned-annoyed Tweets to her 30,000 followers resulted in an uproar in his personal life followed by talk show appearances to address and defend his actions.

Not the first celebrity to be caught with his pants down, this seemed to be just another story of a

celebrity case of boys behaving badly. I wonder if fictional Seinfeld character George Costanza were out and about today, would he have been able to perpetuate his alter-ego Art Vandelay? Probably not. One Google search, and any woman he was talking to could Tweet, "This guy told me he's an architect--HA!" Sorry, George!

But was Stetten wrong to Tweet her experience as it happened?

Where can a celebrity go for a private conversation?

A thought-provoking article came out today on Social Media Today in which Stetten's social media ethics were questioned. David Amerland writes:

Now here comes up an entire truckload of issues including the sense of implied expectation of a measure of confidentiality of what is a private conversation, the responsibility to perhaps stop a self-acknowledged recovering alcoholic from having a drink by at least asking if he thought that would be a good idea, and a display of a lack of empathy for one person, however boorish, simply wanting to connect with another for the duration of a flight.

Let's take a look at these, the final two first:

• Stopping an alcoholic from drinking. I have a few issues with putting this ethical imperative on Stetten. First, she didn't know he was a recovering alcoholic until a follower Tweeted her such. Second, in our society, it is socially inappropriate for a stranger to say, "You've had too much to drink" just as it is to say, "Really? A second slice of pie? Aren't you a little tubby already?" or "You're fat enough to be diabetic--should you be eating that?" If Presley were acting inappropriately, it was up to the flight attendant to stop serving him, if anyone. For a passenger, it is an inappropriate and possibly dangerous confrontation to have with a stranger.
• He simply wanted to connect during a flight. Perhaps it's because I'm a relatively attractive woman and have been hit on in a variety of ways during my life, but I find it hard to believe Presley was "simply [wanting] to connect." Puh-leeze! It's highly unlikely that a man who is speaking to a model about their meeting being "divine interception" and lying about being married is looking for anything other than booty. If he was simply looking for a polite conversation, why lie about his marriage, huh?

Now Amberland's first point, about the conversation having an expectation of privacy, has some legs. Is there an expectation of privacy on a plane? On the one hand, I would hope so--I've had some weird conversations on planes in which I probably revealed too much about myself. Have you? There is something about talking to a complete stranger that is somehow liberating and can inspire bizarre and inappropriate confidences.

On the other hand, with at least a dozen people within earshot, can a conversation really be considered private? If so, why do so many people have privacy screens for their laptops to avoid prying eyes seeing confidential information? And why are people required to wear headphones to listen to music or movies? It is precisely because the space isn't entirely private, much as we would like to pretend it is.

The ethics: to Tweet or not to Tweet

Next, Amberland brings up the ethics question: was it wrong for Stetten to Tweet the conversation at all? Was she unethical for not trying to stop the drinking or lying but rather for reporting it? He writes:

Social media however is a tool which has the ability to create radical transparency in every situation it is applied in. As a tool, it should not be exempt from the same degree of responsibility which governs our use of almost any other tool in our world and this means accepting some ethical standards.

Let's be clear on this count: any ethical standards that were broken were by Presley, not Stetten. Stetten simply reported on something that was happening to her live in a truthful and somewhat opinionated manner. That is what Twitter is for. Could she have chosen to be discreet and not report the conversation? Sure, that's always an option. But it's not an obligation. Stetten reported what she experienced while her followers fact-checked for her.

Presley is the one who was caught in a lie. He is the one who chose to drink even though he was a recovering alcoholic. If we question anyone's ethics, we should question his.

No one is questioning the veracity of Stetten's Tweets, only whether it was ethical to post them. I say yes, absolutely. She doesn't have any obligation to save the marriage of someone she only just discovered was lying to her--that's his job.

Why Mike Daisey needs to apologize

Mike Daisey created a popular one man show outlining labor abuses perpetrated by Apple in China. There was just one problem: the stories he told were riddled with factual inaccuracies, and some didn't even happen to him. Instead of apologizing to his fans, Daisey circled the wagons and claimed dramatic license. When will people learn that a sincere apology is the best path to the public's heart?

Update 4-3-11: This morning, I received a link to this blog post by Mike Daisey from an email address that appears to belong to Mr. Daisey. There was no greeting or commentary attached.The blog post contains a defense of Daisey's actions and, in the ninth paragraph, an apology to his theater colleagues and then the journalists he deceived. At no point does he apologize to his audience or the public for deceiving them.

When a segment of Mike Daisey's show The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs aired on my favorite podcast, This American Life, I was torn. I like Apple. I admire Steve Jobs. I want to like Apple, and I want to believe that its business practices aren't any more heinous than that of any other American corporation taking advantage of cheap overseas labor. Like most others who heard the broadcast, I believed that most of what Daisey claimed happened to him was true.

But the media appearance ended up spawning more controversy than anticipated when it came out that much of what Mike Daisey reported was either not true, not experienced firsthand or patently exaggerated for dramatic effect. A Slate reporter summarizes his surprise at some of Daisey's claims as well as Daisey's unwaveringly defensive reaction to them. And worse (at least for Mr. Daisey), Ira Glass and the TAL team did something unprecented: they aired a one-hour retraction of the original segment, in which they explained the fact-checking and follow-up process and cop to their original mistake in airing the story. One could argue that the retraction is far more enlightening than the original piece and a coup de grace for the This American Life team, whose journalistic ethics and prowess remain nearly spotless through the kerfuffle.

The theater vs. journalism debate

What has been fascinating as this controversy has unfolded has been the philosophical debate over whether Daisey's piece is journalism or theater. The arguments go something like this:

• Theater: Daisey is an artist. He took artistic license when creating his piece so it would play better to the theater crowd.
• Journalism: But wait... the basic facts presented are still true, right?
• Theater: Essentially, yes.
• Journalism: What do you mean, "essentially"? Did Daisey actually talk to a person whose hands were shaking uncontrollably from xxx poisoning?
• Theater: Well, no. But he read reports of it, and they seemed credible. And it was more powerful to relate them in the first person in the show. I mean, when a comedian says, "This is a true story," everyone knows it isn't a true story, just a relatable one, right?
• Journalism: So the most powerful moment in his show didn't actually happen to him even though he says it did?
• Theater: We're pretty sure it happened. And the story needs to be told. That's what the power of theater is for.
• Journalism: Wait... what about the 13-year-olds working in the factory? Did he really talk to them?
• Theater: Well, he saw some girls that looked 13, and he assumed they were. That counts, right? The message is still valid.

The 60-minute retraction that TAL produced goes into far more detail, but it turns out that Daisey deliberately lied to the journalists who were fact-checking his segment by telling them his translator, the only one who could verify the events in question, was unavailable. He even lied about her name. Despite the fact that the journalistic team impressed upon him that in order to be aired on the original show, the content would have to survive journalistic standards rather than theatrical ones, Daisey asserted (and still does) that everything in his production is essentially true.

It's PR, not theater vs. journalism

While the artistic license vs. journalistic integrity debate is a fascinating one that we intellectuals love to mull over and debate, those arguments actually only serve to complicate and obscure the heart of the matter in the Daisey controvery. And, not surprisingly, it comes down to PR: the public who heard Daisey's stories, whether in the theater or on NPR, feel lied to. And with good reason.

And what does one do in this age of transparency when one's public feels deceived? One apologizes. Sincerely and honestly. Describe the initial intent, promise to do better in the future, but always apologize.

What Daisey fails to understand is that in the age of transparency, opaqueness doesn't fly. Even if Daisey insists on sticking to his "artistic license" guns, he's making a fatal PR error by not apologizing to consumers who feel wronged. Much in the way that Susan G. Komen fans were unimpressed with Nancy Brinker's frigidly rational defense rather than a sincere apology on the hot button issue of women's reproductive rights, theater fans and NPR listeners alike felt they deserved an apology, regardless of Daisey's intentions were when creating his stories.

Even when an organization's intentions are pure, fans can still feel wronged. The best move is almost always to apologize for the misunderstanding, acknowledge the emotions that the users are feeling and, if absolutely necessary, explain the initial intent of the communication. Promising to consider future changes is the frosting on the apology cupcake.

Daisey has failed on all PR counts. Foolishly believing that sticking to his guns will somehow boost his credibility, he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any regret or make any apology to his audience for the deception, even if it was unintentional. Bad move. Fans don't tolerate it when corporations refuse to apologize, and they don't tolerate it when actors do, either. Like a corporation caught with its pants down, Daisey should have the courage and conviction to apologize to his fans. Because soon, he won't have any.

Papa John's: A lesson in coordinating crisis communications

Yesterday, a journalist discovered that the receipt for her pizza from a Papa John's franchise in New York referred to her as "lady chinky eyes." What ensued was a storm in a teacup that teaches valuable lessons on public response when a franchise employee makes a gaffe.

This weekend, one Harlem resident got her pizza order with a side of racism.

Saturday, Minhee Cho Tweeted a photo of her receipt from Papa John's in which her name was specified as "lady chinky eyes" with the notation, "Hey @PapaJohns just FYI my name isn't 'lady chinky eyes'."

Papa John's corporate responded swiftly, posting an apologized on Twitter within hours:

And they hit Facebook as well, currently with over 1,000 Likes and 57 Shares:

Conflicting messages

And this would have been an ideal case of swift and appropriate crisis response, but conflicting messages quickly arose. As much as the corporate office speedily addressed the gaffe, the local franchise seems to be brushing the whole incident off as one oversensitive customer making a fuss over an unintended gaffe by a well-meaning employee. A manager named Jerome reportedly told the Post:

“I think the lady [Ms. Cho] put it out there just to get some attention—some people like that type of attention. I truly don’t think it’s fair. It’s been taking up all our time. It’s been very disruptive.”

Since Ms. Cho is the community manager for an investigative journalism site and the victim of the racist remark, it's pretty fair to say that yes, she did post the Tweet to make others aware of the unacceptable behavior. And as Christoforo of Ocean Marketing discovered last week, yes, it IS disruptive to be called out for your bad behavior. And one could argue that racism is a tad disruptive as well. I wonder if Jerome would like being called "fat bald slob" on his receipt. (Note: I've no idea what he looks like.)

Unfortunately, Jerome and an assistant managers gave interviews to the press, undercutting the timely and sensitive apologies by corporate headquarters. Yes, it gets worse:

An assistant manager at the store told us that the teen meant no harm with the slur she used to identify Cho: "We're all of different races here in this store. So she didn't mean any harm, didn't mean to stereotype against her, to discriminate against her, but that's how she took it." Jerome agreed with her, saying employees use slang to identify customers: “It’s a busy place, and it was a way to identify her and her order. You know, we do stuff like that sometimes. We’ll write ‘the lady with the blue eyes’ or ‘the guy in the green shirt.’ ”

While I'm a huge fan of the Avenue Q song "Everyone's a little bit racist," which brings our racist proclivities into the open and encourages acknowledgement that the best of us do make judgments based on race, I don't believe that we live in a world where one can make a racist comment and not get taken to task for it. "I didn't mean anything by it" is the call of the bigot, and it's a poor excuse for bad behavior. Better to own up and say, "I'm so sorry. I guess that was insensitive of me."

I don't mean to bash on this poor employee. She was reportedly 16 and undoubtedly making minimum wage. There is only so much training a company can do and so many expectations a company can have of such a young, underpaid employee. So what lessons are organizations to take away from this kerfuffle?

Coordinate the message

The racism question aside, the PR could have been better coordinated here. Papa John's had a good message going out--until the local managers were interviewed and chose to defend the employee instead of making a humble apology.

Frank Reed of Marketing Pilgrim suggests that there isn't really much organizations can do to prevent behavior like this. Would additional screening for racism or additional training on attitude adjustment will help the underpaid, under-20 crowd? Probably not, but that's not really the issue.

Mistakes will happen. Random acts of insenstivity and racism are hard to avoid, especially with independently-run franchises that tend to employ the young and inexperienced at low wages. I don't believe this incident is Papa John's fault in the slightest; the corporate office address the issue promptly on Facebook and Twitter, with a sincere apology and termination of employment for the employee.

However, what can be avoided is conflicting messages during crisis communications. Papa John's corporate did an excellent job of responding swiftly and sincerely on Twitter and Facebook. However, the managers who were interviewed for the Gothamist article above were in desperate need of some coaching. Saying that the employee "didn't mean any harm" and blaming Ms. Cho for taking the remark as racist when it wasn't intended that way comes across as backpedaling and minimizing, and claiming that Ms. Cho only posted the remark to get attention all come across as defensive tactics, which are rarely useful in crisis communications. Jerome's comments seriously undermined the effective public apology made by Papa John's corporate.

The takeaway here is that in such a crisis, national and local representatives should be coordinated. The local managers should have been instructed to admit fault and offer sincere apologies without commenting on the nature of Ms. Cho's posting or attempting to defend the employee in question.

What do you think? What is your takeaway from this?

Verizon exhibits flat learning curve with $2 fee

After customer outrage at Bank of America's $5 fee forced the policy withdrawal, you'd think organizations would take notice and avoid implementing nickel-and-dime fees for customer convenience. Verizon has not yet caught up to the learning curve.

Update 12-30-11 2:43 PM: Faced with consumer backlash,Verizon has rescinded the proposed fee.

Yesterday, Engadget reported and confirmed a leaked memo from Verizon that as of January 15, the company will be charging customers a $2 convenience fee to pay via IVR and online. Customers paying their bills using AutoPay or electronic check will not be charged the fee.

It's difficult to sympathize with the wireless giant, which claims to be trying to reclaim the cost of providing IVR and online support with the fee, especially in the wake of the recent decision by Bank of America to retract its wildly unpopular proposed $5 monthly debit card fee. Did Verizon learn nothing from Bank of America's woes? Did they not see customers flocking to credit unions, even after the proposed fee was lifted?

We live in an age in which consumers are empowered not only to switch brand loyalties but also to communicate those shifts loudly and publicly. No longer are consumers forced to sit and helplessly accept a ridiculous fee; now they can communicate transparently about it, even when the organization doesn't. Engadget comments:

Tactical differences aside, the leaked memo shown above details what has to be one of the most consumer-unfriendly policy changes since the carrier boosted its early termination fee for "advanced devices."

If Mashable's Topsy curated list is any indication, the consumer backlash to the unjustified fee will be mighty.

And it might have been wise to wait until the "most reliable" network was not experiencing its third 4G outage in a single month, leading users to wonder if the company is going to nickel and dime them on fees, would they also be providing refunds for their inability to deliver the purchased 4G coverage in December?

Fee justifications aside, the timing of the announcement was not optimal. Announcing petty fee hikes when in the midst of network outages is a perfect formula for customer backlash.

And backlash there is. Interestingly, @verizonwireless has not responded to any Tweeted complaints today, but @VZWSupport has been making valiant efforts to calm complaining consumers:

However, since the @VZWSupport handle is rather klunky and has only 25,000 followers versus @VerizonWireless' 677,000 followers, it might have been a good idea to either empower the @VerizonWireless team to respond or at least use CoTweet or the like to pass on complaints to @ZVWSupport.

One lesson here is that the channel the organization prefers to use might not be the one the public prefers to use for response. Anticipate consumer response and cover your bases!

How to become a PR laughingstock

When Ocean Marketing's Paul Christoforo went off on a PS3 customer via email, he probably thought no one else would ever read his boastful, bullying and highly misspelled rant. As a lesson to customer service and PR pros everywhere, he was wrong.

In a PR debacle that must be heightening schadenfreude everywhere, undoubtedly PR pros and customer service aficionados are saying, "Our service may not be that great, but at least we're not Christoforo at Ocean Marketing." If there were a PR blooper reel entitled How to Frak Up Your PR Career, this guy would be all over it.

The kerfuffle began blandly enough, with a customer Dave emailing Paul Christoforo at Ocean Marketing to determine if his pre-ordered and fully pre-paid PS3 controllers would be shipped in early December as promised. However, at Christoforo's first cryptic response of "december 17" and following messages, it became clear that not only would Dave not be receiving his pre-paid order by Christmas, but Ocean Marketing would not be handling the query with aplomb. Christoforo tore into Dave in response to his questions:

so put on your big boy hat and wait it out like everyone else. The benefit is a token of our appreaciation for everyone no one is special including you or any first time buyer . Feel free to cancel we need the units were back ordered 11,000 units so your 2 will be gone fast. Maybe I’ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself. Have a good day Dan.

The email dialogue escalated, with Christoforo telling Dave off:

You just got told bitch … welcome to the real internet check kotaku in 2 weeks when they are reviewing free PS3 Avengers we send them as well as G4 and all the other majors hell yeah , don’t forget to check Amazon, gamestop.com, play n trade , Myers , Frys and a ton of other local stores coming your way you think you speak for billions son your just a kid you speak for yourself no one cares what you think that’s why were growing and moving 20-50 thousand controllers a month. We do value our customers but sometimes we get children like you we just have to put you in the corner with your im stupid hat on. See you at CES , E3 , Pax East ….? Oh wait you have to ask mom and pa dukes your not an industry professional and you have no money on snap you just got told.

At this point, Dave had already forwarded the email conversation to Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade, who got involved, saying "Dave, if this guy has a booth at Pax east we will cancel it." Christoforo's response to Krahulik (also the producer of PAX) was, predictably and yet incredibly, still more posturing and bullying threats:

Were in 6 countries and you’re not going to take my money for a booth that’s a crock I can guarantee I’ll get a booth if I want one money buys a lot and connections go even further.  He’s a native Bostonian from Little Italy . Who are you again ? [Note: he's writing the organizer of the PAX conference]

I’ll see space where ever I want , with who I want when I want and where I want so many ways around you and so many connections in this industry its silly. Anyway , I have no issue with you Sean Buckley Engadget, Scott Lowe IGN and the list goes on and on. Little kids unhappy with a PRE ORDER starting trouble and you email that to us , he’s a customer unless you’re his boyfriend then you should side with the company not the customer. Be Careful

Christoforo would have done well to take his own advice. Every name he dropped (including Kotaku and IGN) has disavowed him, and David Kotkin, the inventor of the controller that Dave originally ordered, has publicly fired Christoforo and Ocean Marketing: “We apologize for our poor representation from Ocean Marketing. We wanted to give Paul a chance. He was rough around the edges, but he had drive and enthusiasm. However his behavior was unprovoked, unnecessary, and unforgivable. We are no longer represented by Ocean Marketing.”

Not surprisingly, Christoforo did not show wisdom or restraint in response to IGN's public disavowal:

The Examiner has an excellent timeline of the kerfuffle, which is still unfolding. In spite of half-hearted apologies Christoforo ended up making to both Dave and Krahulik, he continues to spew braggadocio from his public Twitter account (since changed to @OceanStratagy), rising to the bait that his detractors throw at him. Christoforo's take all along seems to be that he is important and well-connected and therefore under no obligation to treat end users with any level of respect. He is out making these big deals, so anyone who disagrees with him is a nobody. Um... except every name he's dropped has dropped him. The Examiner concludes:

Regardless of how savvy or connected one thinks they may be, the internet has a way of leveraging enough fury to shatter even the most foolproof business plan - even if that plan seems centered on defrauding customers of their pre-purchased products and then being a complete asshat about it when failing to deliver.

I don't know about you, but I'm wondering if there is any defense for Christoforo's actions. The initial email exchange could be written off as having a bad day and presumably a lack of education regarding grammar, punctuation and basic communication skills. But to stick to one's guns, even after the entire Internet, gaming blogs, gaming conference organizers, and his own cited sales connections have gone against one is a little crazy. What could he be thinking? He told Gamerfront that his job "isn’t really to deal with individual customers like Dave, but rather to strike deals with companies like GameStop and BestBuy. Those companies are buying his wares, so he 'doesn’t care about anyone else.' Why? Because as long as his products are on store shelves, people will buy them." 

That may be true, but they won't buy you. Your reputation is all you have, because no one is buying the bluster any more.

Even after insincere apologies to Krahulik at Penny Arcade/PAX, Christoforo just doesn't seem to get that he did anything wrong. After begging Krahulik to "make it [the Internet] stop," Christoforo pulls out his wife and newborn as a reason for his actions--a dirty and unconvincing tactic. I have to agree with Krahulik's assessment of the situation:

I think there is a big difference between being sorry and being sorry you got caught. I have a real problem with bullies. I spent my childhood moving from school to school and I got made fun of everyplace I landed. I feel like Paul is a bully and maybe that’s why I have no sympathy here. Someday every bully meets and even bigger bully and maybe that’s me in this case.

It's not just you; it's public opinion in general. Sometimes, putting a bully's idiotic actions in the spotlight is exactly what needs to be done.

Update 12:20 PM 12-28-11: There is now a meme based on Christoforo

Update 12:26 PM 12-28-11: In response to a query from Joel Johnson, editorial director of Kotaku, Brandon Leidel, director of marketing at Avenger Controller, wrote:

Hi Joel,

I have been following this story since this morning when someone notified me about what was going on. I did not write that response to you.

Yes, in the past I received email at [email protected] but even then we were an outsourced marketing agency for N-Control. I no longer receive email at that address because we fired N-Control as a client about 8 months ago due to constant shipping delays (which we had to deal with) and their association with Paul Cristoforo who is a street thug masquerading as a self proclaimed "Marketing Professional". This guy is a complete fool and somehow strong armed his way into working with the company so we walked away. I am not surprised in the slightest bit by what's going on right now. In fact, we told the owners of the company on many occasions that this would eventually happen.

I wasn't going to chime in but since he is replying as me, I can't resist. I personally can't stand him.

Brandon

_____________________________________________________________________

Brandon Leidel - CEO, Director of Operations
The HAND Media, Inc.

Update 1:35 PM 12-28-11: Geico riffs on the kerfuffle, turning the PR laughingstock to their own PR advantage (via Twitter, of course). Now this is how to have a sense of humor via social media. PR folks, take note.

Update 1:41 PM 12-28-11: Now Cheezburger has its own dedicated Paul the PR Guy site. Seriously.

Update 4:37 PM 12-29-11: I wrote a follow up to this post at Spoken Communications from the customer service point of view with suggestions as to how to chose a marketing/customer service rep to avoid big fails like this one.

Update 9:51 AM 1-2-12: Christoforo is still at it and still doesn't seem to understand that no, NOT all publicity is good publicity. He's taken to holding N-Control's social media and internet sites hostage, trying to extort a settlement from the company's new (and far more ethical) PR rep, Moisés Chiullan.