Pierce Mattie and their trouble with the truth
I was very excited when Ben Casnocha invited me to attend this quarter’s two Silicon Valley Junto lunches - Thursday’s on the peninsula and today’s in San Francisco. I had intended to make the one yesterday, but sadly had to bow out due to my ridiculous schedule here. I’m so very glad that I went to the one today, though, and I’m going to blog about that later (perhaps with some of the video clips I shot during the conversation).
What I wanted to blog about first was a great conversation I had after most of the other Junto attendees had left. I got to talking with Tim Taylor, and eventually Kristie Wells and Ben joined in; before we knew it, a good 30 minutes had gone by.
It was a deeply interesting half hour, and covered everything from female genital mutilation, racism, and sexism to the question of whether or not morals exist (Tim doesn’t think so). The impetus for our conversation was the fact that Pierce Mattie PR is trying to smear me because I called them out for fraudulent blog comments. (It’s a long story and one I’m tiring of, but by their own admission, they instructed employees to post anonymous comments about their clients’ products on blogs.) I don’t think that their actions have anything to do with me; I was just the person who shone the light. It’s up to them how to respond and how to change (if at all).
Tim - while telling me that he hopes Pierce Mattie’s character assassination attempts don’t stop me from continuing to shine my light (they won’t) - thinks that the firm would have been less likely to go down the defamation route if I hadn’t attached a value judgment to my exposure of what they were doing. To paraphrase my friend, the journalist Cathy Seipp: I got the values, so I’m making the judgment.
Judgment may lead to conflict (Tim thinks it always leads to conflict), but I think some conflicts are worth having. This conflict with Pierce Mattie was worth having, and if they change how they do business, they will be better for it - whether they care to acknowledge that or not, whether they choose to continue attempting to slander me or not. Any shift they make from unethical practices to more open ones will also be very instructive for other PR agencies and companies. But frankly, the larger issue is much more interesting and worthy of discussion. Adriana Lukas sums it up very well:
PR companies have a ‘genetic’ problem here. They are intermediaries desperately trying to engage in conversations with bloggers, customers and anyone who will listen. What they don’t understand is that you can’t have a conversation on somebody else’s behalf. Hence the old and tired PR techniques appearing in the new, not always friendly, context. Square hole meet round peg…
What I find quite intriguing is that all of the people who have sent me supportive emails or left supportive comments on various blogs about this mess all get this. They know that it’s not about the blog format or about ‘best practice’ or ‘brand advocacy,’ but about transparency, humanity, and the value that comes from both in conversation, both online and offline. My mistake was in assuming that this would be obvious to everyone, and I was genuinely surprised to see that it wasn’t. This is clearly a meme that needs to spread further and more powerfully. I’m grateful to Pierce Mattie for showing me that common sense isn’t quite as common as I’d thought, and to Tim Taylor, Ben Casnocha, and Kristie Wells for an intensely gratifying - and unexpected - conversation.
Filed under: Blogging, Communication, Friends, Life, Manners
Sounds like an interesting conversation. Since I am working on my Ph.D in Political Philosophy, I could probably write continuously to the point of starvation/heart failure about the existence, or lack thereof, of morality. I could present various arguments and discussions while boring everyone but myself and a few odd ducks like my assistant Fritz. I am sure you have read some of his comments on Amy Alkon’s blog.
Rather than do that, I will just mention a few things that are better suited to the format of blog comment.
First, I believe and I understand that morals do in fact exists. That is my way of saying that I both have “faith” (in the sense of non-reasoned but revealed self-evident information, but not in the sense of a particular faith) and “understanding” (which is to say that reason tends one in the direction of the existence of morals, but that knowledge of morality and what the “rules” are eludes me) that morals exist, a confluence of the reason/revelation dichotomy of you will.
Second, your interlocutor actually began down the path of violating the law of self-contradiction when he posited that “Judgment may lead to conflict (Tim thinks it always leads to conflict), but I think some conflicts are worth having” and “while telling me that he hopes Pierce Mattie’s character assassination attempts don’t stop me from continuing to shine my light.”
His comments show that one he doesn’t value conflict and that he does value your argument against the PR firm’s practices are expressions of “values” that he has in common with you. Though that in itself isn’t what hints at the law of self-contradiction. No. It is the fact that a) he used the word “light” and b) he respects his values, above those of say the PR firm, to believe you are making a “correct” argument “in his opinion.” If it is only his, and your, opinion, why does it matter? How can it be a light? Is his opinion better than that of others? If so, that implicitly means that there is a way to judge one value judgement as more worthy or “better” than another and that contradicts the point that there is no such thing as morality. After all, “morality” is correct value judgement. If you can have “better” value judgement, than you can have correct value judgement. I would also venture to guess, though I am sure he would never admit it, that Tim believes that he has correct value judgement in all things he does.
Never mind the fact that “there are no absolute truths” and like comments are self-negating illogical strings, as that is not what he said. He said, “judgement leads to conflict” and it is obvious that Tim despises conflict. I would say that is his highest virtue, a fact that would horrify classical man.
Second, I am always reticent to use the word “values” when discussing morality. I value my comic book collection. I hold moral positions. I believe certain moral absolutes, or tendencies, to be true. Value is a word that describes the fluid and subjective nature of the attachment it describes, it is an aesthetic word and not a “solid” word. Thus when one says “my values” vs. “your values,” one is conceding that morality is about “values” and not “right action.”
Sorry to be pedantic, but you keep shining the light!
BTW, even if there aren’t “morals” there are certainly sentiments and mores. That being the case, just getting the word out about the PR firm will discredit them with consumers, journalists, customers, and their peers and that is something indeed.
I hope you won’t mind me reposting what I posted on Jack & Hil about this. And hi, Christian!
Here’s my Jack & Hill post, followed by a “call to action” for Pierce Mattie:
The real story wasn’t at all hard to find out. It took me three minutes. I guess they were really asking for the opportunity to spin this before you posted it. Sorry. Nuh-uh.
They’re lucky they didn’t comments-spam me, because I’m not quite as adult as Jackie about such things. No, I like to call people who do that at home at 3am and yell at them — for hijacking a site I pay for in hopes of getting free advertising (in my book, that’s vandalism and theft). Oh, and no, I don’t call the “intern” who posted it. I call the head of the company.
And FYI, I’m responsible for what my employees do on the job. Of course, the notion that my assistant would, for her personal amusement, get on people’s web sites and start leaving fake comments…well, I just can’t fathom it happening.
The “real story,” after three minutes of research, follows:
Posted on the blog Product-Girl.com:
http://www.product-girl.com/2006/08/creme_de_la_cre.html
This comment:
I saw that you’re curious about Bond No. 9 products… were you able to find them yet? Well, let me just tell you that Bond No. 9 is my new FAVORITE line of fragrances. Not only are the bottles cool and chic, but the eaux de parfum are absolutely delicious, and each one that I’ve smelled is unlike any other scent that I’ve come across. I currently own The Scent of Peace and I love how light, fresh, and girly it is - the purple bottle is really pretty too (and it’s my favorite color!) This weekend, I sampled their upcoming West Side and placed the blotter that I spritzed with the scent in my pocket book… it’s still wafting up strong 4 days later (and so yummy too!) I heard that for the holiday season they offer certain fragrances in specialized Swarovski crystal-crusted bottles… I think I know what will be on my wish list :) I’m not sure where they might be found in your area, but maybe their website can help (www.bondno9fragrances.com) Once you try them, let me know if you’re as in love with them as I am!
Posted by: BellAmore | August 09, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Posted on the blog AllAboutThePretty:
http://allaboutthepretty.typepad.com/all_about_the_pretty/2006/07/my_mom_and_i_ha.html
This comment:
If this site is truly dedicated to all things pretty, I have to mention what I think is the prettiest display of a fragrance line that I’ve ever seen… I recently discovered the Bon Bon Box by Bond No. 9, and I can honestly say I have never seen such beautiful/elegant packaging. The Box is gorgeous and comes complete with 18 pocket-sized sprays of eaux de parfum. Each is individually wrapped in multi-colored foil, creating this sparkly box of candy-like perfumes…and who doesn’t love things that sparkle? I splurged a bit and bought myself a collection, and the box has made such a pretty (not to mention stand-out) addition to the cluttered mess that is my vanity. The scents that I’ve tried so far are sooo yummy, but I’m trying to keep a few wrapped-up so I don’t destroy the look of the packaging (I’ll admit, I’m in love, if not a little obsessed with it.) It’s better than any box of candies I’ve ever come across… and with a sweet tooth like mine, that’s saying quite a lot!
Posted by: BellAmore | Wednesday, August 09, 2006 at 11:58 AM
And here we have the good news:
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SPIFAS.story&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2006/0004400525&EDATE=THU+Jul+20+2006,+09:00+AM
Bond No. 9 Announces Pierce Mattie Public Relations as Agency of Record
Quelle surprise!
PS Pierce Mattie-ites, I think you should go on every blog BellAmore-Free-Advertising posted on and donate through the blogger’s PayPal or Amazon button. It’s about accountability. Advertising isn’t free. PAY UP!
And no, a simple apology isn’t good enough. You’ve taken something of value from these bloggers — reader trust, first of all, since their objectivity may be questioned now, and then there’s the ad space. I pay and work very hard to maintain my own blog, and it’s so I can put out my thoughts on issues that mean something to me. It is absolutely, positively NOT for companies to offload their advertising costs by using my sweat and site for free.
I hope you will show accountability the only substantive way you can - by paying for what one of your employees apparently tried to take for free.
Christian,
I would be happy to share more context on any and all of my views on things. I admit that at times I do think I have correct value judgment (if I understand what you mean by that).
For me the nice thing is I can feel when I’m there because it’s not where I’m meant to be.
I’ll also admit that at times I make incorrect value judgments as well.
For me the nice thing is I can feel when I’m there too (because I’m usually judging myself and/or letting others judgment get to me).
Christian, this is where I come from. When I held my beautiful brand new born baby daughter, I felt the power and presence of agape that beautiful unconditional love that we all have within us.
If I were to have laid her down next to an Iraqi baby, a boy baby, a black baby, etc. etc. and all the parents left the room, the babies would simply love and accept each other. They have no need for values or ethics, they vibrate pure love because they are.
All of us are also pure love when we allow it. And, for me, rules to feel that confuse me.
Finally, I’m no better or worse than anyone else. I’m not right or wrong and don’t believe that you, Jackie or anyone else is either.
I respect and appreciate your perspective and invite you to email me if you would like more context on any issue or even respond to what I’ve written.
Thank you again for helping me understand myself better.
Peace and Love,
TT
What divides most people these days is the irrational belief in god, and the “my god is better than your god” thinking that naturally comes with it: “We’re the chosen people and you suck!” “You killed Jesus” (which kids actually said to me growing up). (Me: “I’m six. I don’t even kill bugs.”) Imagine if everyone stopped believing in god at this minute, how much killing in the world would stop. If not for irrational belief in god, we could do as Ken Layne suggests, and move all the Israeli Jews to Baja.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49353,00.html
We all know the fighting there is never going to stop. And with the value for human life that’s supposed to be part of the Jewish religion, is an old wall with a bunch of gum wrappers with wishes stuck in it in Jerusalem, and all the rest, really worth all the children who will be killed defending it?