Ann let me know about a Twit from Michael concerning several evangelists for the V1, a three-wheeled alternative energy vehicle, organizing themselves and attacking a blogger that they felt painted their beloved V1 in a negative light.
While this movement to “defend the honor” of the V1 no doubt made its evangelists feel good, I seriously doubt Marshall minded very much, in fact I’m sure the attention the article drew gave the site a nice traffic bump.
But this does raise an interesting question: What if companies begin targeting bloggers that criticize them, by encouraging their evangelists to respond as those for the V1 did? Evangelists by their very nature are extremely passionate, and even a subtle encouragement from a representative of the company they are so passionate about would probably set them off.
For a blog/site that gets several thousand visitors a day and depends on traffic as an ad revenue source, a flood of responses from evangelists might not be a bad thing. But what if companies begin encouraging their evangelists to target criticism from “everyday” bloggers?
Or on the other hand, what if we begin to see more instances of these “sponetanous attacks” from evangelists of a product, toward a blogger that the evangelists feel have wrongly criticized their beloved product/company? If your first exposure to a product/company is a result of the dustup from evangelists attacking a blogger, it could give you a negative impression of the company or product, not the blogger.
In either event, I think this is another reason why companies need to know who their evangelists are, and stay in constant communication with them. Evanglists might believe they are helping the company’s cause by orchestrating a passionate response to perceived criticism, but they might actually be hurting the company’s perception to outsiders.
Companies need to be actively engaged with their evangelists at all times to ensure that their biggest fans put both their, and the companies’ best foot foward.
Of course I agree that companies shouldn’t encourage their passionate customers to attack others, but I also think that there is a fine line of “communicating” with them and telling them what to do.
The second you start to tell you r community what to do is the second that you have lost the true reason you created a community in the first place. Let’s always remember that you, as a company, are not in control. You cannot control your communities actions and if you try to, you’ll get spanked for it in a big way.
When your evangelists attack someone voluntarily, of course you can communicate to them that you don’t condone that type of actions, but again, you need to walk a fine line.
Companies don’t pick their evangelists. It’s the other way around. Like you said, open communication is the key.
Nice post.
Companies certainly should know who their evangelists are and communicate with them. While their materials should provide ammunition (reasoning) to attack the argument, unless the article in question already has public traction, I don’t see how siccing evangelists on the author (or their argument) would do much good, since it will bring attention to a point of view not already considered. If the argument is to be addressed, the company has a vested interest in ensuring it is on its own terms (say, sounds like a job for a corporate blog).
In any case, wherever the critical discussion goes, I would encourage elevating the debate to a higher plane. Attacking arguments is one thing. Attacking people for expressing a reasoned (if not reasonable) opinion is distasteful.
“Of course I agree that companies shouldn’t encourage their passionate customers to attack others, but I also think that there is a fine line of “communicating” with them and telling them what to do.”
Bingo. It’s a fine line to walk, and companies need to let their evangelists have a sense of input into the direction of their company, but at the same time, the evangelists need to know what the ‘the best foot’ is to put forward, when they are acting as representatives of the company, by evangelizing them to others.
As always, the more communication between company and evangelists, the better.
In many ways this is a question of leadership … a company should set the agenda by carefully leading the discussion — even where you don’t agree with a competitor or a critic there is the potential to learn something.
I agree with Spike. No matter the pros and cons of Web 2.0, it takes on a life of its own. It empowers average people to voice their opinions, whether beneficial to the companies they adore or not.
If I were a CEO who discovered my company evangelists attacking a blogger because of a negative comment, I’d add my own voice to the blog in question, indicating that the blogger has the right to express his/her opinion and that I don’t condone negative attacks by company evangelists that fall outside the realm of debate and discussion.
The whole point of dialog is to respect each other’s opinions. Companies may try communicating with their evangelists, but it’s likely impossible to control the message.
It’s probably not a great idea to stir up your own customers, in an effort to blast a blogger.
ESPN employees allegedly left numerous negative comments on The Daily Planet Blog, after the author spent the better part of this summer being highly critical of ESPN’s NASCAR coverage.
The negative feedback caused the blogger to close his comments. In effect, blogger hammers brand, brand fights back, blogger shuts down feedback, community suffers, brand wins.
What the heck happens to Daily Fix if Mattel, Skype, Whole Foods, Macy’s, Jet Blue, Live Earth, BMW, McDonalds and any other brand criticized over the past two months wanted to “fight back”? What would the response be?
Of course, they won’t fight back. And their actions prompted what was written about them.
I can’t help but think that we’ll see more brands “fighting back” over time, like Mr. Daly is seeing at The Daly Planet Blog.
Well Praise God!!!!
So now I am going to be painted as an evangelist!(or extremist) You might as well say!
Hello everyone,
I am the man that alerted the other Venture vehicle forum members to Matt Marshalls article! Let me start off by getting something straight I have no problem what so ever with informed journalism. In fact your article brings up a very good point! However the reason The flytheroad forum members and myself went after Matt is because his article was slanted NOT WITH FACTS BUT OPINIONS! His bias comments are what sounded the trupets! It was very painfully obvious to anyone that had done any reading on the Venture One, that this man was not writing facts merely making his uninformed observation and calling it a legitimate piece of journalism. I am very sorry if you do not understand but the facts speak for themselves. If you read his article through you will find pieces of truth scattered about his nonscence. One of these facts is that the V1 will out accelerate a porche. That alone to many car people will infact be enough to want to put a deposit down! He compared it to a glorified scooter and called it high price, if you look at the V1’s web page you will see that the V1 is in no way a glorified scooter. The only thing that a glorified scooter and the V1 have in common is that they both tilt! As for being high priced and will be comparable to other more mass appeal hybrids, Well all I can say is find me one mass produced hybrid starting at $18,000 that is capable of doing more then 45 miles per hour.
I like what jennifer had to say at the end of the comments. She claims to be suprised to find out that it wasn’t an editorial. Most Real journalist write the facts and let the readers make up their own minds. Matt did not do this at all and tried to make up the mind of the readers for them. That is no way to gain respect in journalism! I sorry if by starting this bragade against Matt has in some way cause any writer to feel that freedom of speech is dead. All I am saying is investigate and print the facts and if you want to add your opinion thanks to freedom of speech you can do that but if it isn’t well recieved then expect others to utilize that same freedom and attack your comments! I would however put it under the category of editorial and not try to masquerade it around as real journalism.
Just to clarify… It was I who started the brigade not Venture Vehicles. I am a consumer and plan to purchase this vehicle when it is released. I for one would take exception to anyone trying to slam a new company that is at least trying to put a quality product on the road that will help combat our dependancy on foreign oil!
Brian – I appreciate what you’re saying, and I agree reducing or eliminating our dependency on foreign oil is a good thing.
However, not every method we try is going to work, and we should do our best to encourage companies to create workable solutions. If we endorse something the marketplace cannot countenance, then we lose credibility in the long run.
Ringing endorsements of something that the public doesn’t like aren’t going to create a sustainable business model. They’ll just hurt our credibility, and like the boy who cried wolf, it will reduce the chances that when something good does come along, people will believe us when we sing its praises.
Note: I’m not saying this product isn’t good. I don’t know enough about it to level such a judgment one way or the other.
Thank you for your feedback.
As the one who created the tweet Mack refers to, I’m glad to see this getting increased attention. Thanks should go to both Ann and Mack for that.
I’ve been in touch privately with Venture Vehicles’s founder, Ian A. Bruce. In the interests of further transparency and fairness, his comments to me support Brian’s. The company didn’t start the attacks, and he immediately jumped in to try and steer the tenor of the conversation in a more calm direction. I publicly commend him for his attempts to correct the situation.
That said, though, I disagree wholeheartedly with the personal attacks that the company’s fans engaged in on the reporter. It was disgusting and reprehensible.
As I wrote in my comment on VentureBeat, people are more than entitled to their opinion. Go ahead and disagree with the merits of the article (and believe me, there is plenty there to disagree with). But to go after the guy in such a personal manner crossed the line from passionate evangelism and into vigilantism.
Hell, I’m a passionate Chicago Cubs fan. I read negative reviews of the team’s performance all the time. You don’t see me offering to “slam” the reporter, or calling into question his credibility or ability as a journalist.
Brian, you led the virtual equivalent of an angry lynch mob. Plain and simple, it’s wrong. While you may be flippant here, I hope you had the decency and common sense to apologize to the man.
To echo Cam’s thoughts, this is a sad situation. Now the whole torrid affair lives forever in Google. This may be a legitimate answer to the energy crisis. But when people search for info on the vehicle later, they’re going to see this fracas front-and-center. Who would want to step into *that* minefield?
—-
Michael E. Rubin
Arment Dietrich, Inc.
Call me — 312-787-7249 x212
Tell a friend — fight destructive spin! http:///www.spinsucks.com
See what I’m up to — http://twitter.com/merubin
See a picture of an orangutan — http://tinyurl.com/yosceb
I will not apologize for my actions nor my comments! I still am waiting on a retraction! Let me BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE! A GOOD REPORT WRITES FACTS AND KEEPS HIS OPINION TO HIS OR HER SELF! I NEVER ASKED FOR A GLOWING RECOMENDATION FOR THE V1! Do not misunderstand I am fully aware of credibilty issues and in my opinion Matt’s are brought to the forefront, not mine. If the V1 does become the NEXT BIG THING! Matt isn’t going to look credible at all in fact as much slamming as he does in his article I would think that your pal Matty would hang it up! As for attacking Matt personally well where I come from if want to get a responce call somebody an @$$hole. But Poor little Matty never had the balls to back his comments, all he could do was yell they are picking on me! Support your comments with facts and you won’t look like such an idiot! The simple fact is if you have an opinion BASE IT ON FACT! write things that support your opinion. Don’t just rattle off at the mouth and expect not to have something happen. Matt reminds me of a kid in second grade who could run his mouth all the time, the kid could also run his legs off. Man was he fast. One day it took three of us be we caught him on the playground and each one of us punched him in the face. The kid actually became pretty cool after that day and he stop smarting off to people. It amazes me that reporters think that just because they have freedom of speech that they shouldn’t be attacked for make bad calls. Sorry but we have freedom of speech as well and I will most definatly use that freedom when anyone makes uninformed bias comments about Venture Vehicles and the V1! Also Let me be clear about another issue that I think need some clarification I was not “lead” by Venture Vehicles in any way when I orchestrated the attack! I found the article just as I found this one! So if poor little Matty once me to apologize for charcter bashing him tell him to show some charcter and write a retraction, I don’t care if the retraction tells people everything the V1 can’t do… fine so long as it is all facts and not some opinion of an uninformed pathetic excuse for a journalist. Then he will get an apology from me but only for the charcter bashing I will not apologize for the attack itself, like the kid in second grade he had that coming!
People today wonder why kids are out of control. This is the same reason journalism has turned shock jock! There are no reprocutions(sp) for their actions no one is held accountable for what they say or do. Hell case in point the President of the United States is a shining example of what happens when you are not held accountable for your actions! Whether or not I went about it the wrong way maybe questioned but the point is we should all be held accountable. I got sent to the princpals office for punching that kid and I got a swat! Accountibilty in journalism is all we have left and with guys like Matt ruining that for other reporters, what are we going to have left. I understand that some of you may find my actions reprehencible but I think if you are a journalist then you should find Matt’s actions just as reprehencible as mine! Journalism is ment to be objective and non bias and after years of dealing with this administration and fox news, whenever I see biased journalism it allows current anger and passed anger to intermingle, resulting in going overboard. But I would not change what I did and I would suggest to any journalist to write Matt and ask him to retract his comments and base an article on fact not opinion. In my opinion Matt has made journalist look bad by placing biased uninformed opinions in an article and it will make me question any article I read from now on. I will have to ask myself does this guy or girl know anything about the product or are they just rattling off without investigating, like matt did?
The whole point is to communicate–share ideas, agree or disagree, inform or criticize–create a dialogue and move it forward.
Decidedly, what has happened here is a failure to communicate.
None of this attaches to the makers of V1.
Every one, alone, is responsible for him/herself. We’re all grown-ups here.
What one says or does, and how one goes about saying or doing reflects the person one is.
Messrs. Marshall, Fields, et al speak from themselves.
The whole point is to communicate–share ideas, agree or disagree, inform or criticize–create a dialogue and move it forward.
Decidedly, what has happened here is a failure to communicate.
None of this attaches to the makers of V1.
Every one, alone, is responsible for him/herself. We’re all grown-ups here.
What one says or does, and how one goes about saying or doing reflects the person one is.
Messrs. Marshall, Fields, et al speak from themselves.
“I will not apologize for my actions nor my comments! I still am waiting on a retraction! Let me BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE! A GOOD REPORT WRITES FACTS AND KEEPS HIS OPINION TO HIS OR HER SELF! I NEVER ASKED FOR A GLOWING RECOMENDATION FOR THE V1!”
Brian you also have to consider that the article on Venture Beat, and the comments from you and other evangelists for the V1, might be the very first time some of us have ever heard of the vehicle. And whether it’s right or wrong, when you guys are slamming Matt, the casual reader that has never heard of the V1 (and has no idea if Matt’s article is right or wrong), is going to see you guys starting an argument. That is all they are going to remember.
Now why are you guys starting an argument? Because you are fans of the V1, and you feel that Matt misrepresented a product that you love. I get that. But again, since the V1 IS a product that you love, you have to view yourselves as representatives of Venture Vehicles when you talk about the V1.
What is the ultimate goal here? Is it to make Matt print a retraction and apologize to all of you, or is it to get the rest of us that have never heard about the V1, to be as excited about it as you are?
What you say, and the way you say it, reflects on the image we will have of Venture Vehicles. Might not be fair, but that’s the way it is.
Mack Collier I understand what you are saying but I do disagree. I think that most people today see someone spout off and if nobody goes after those comments then the guy must be right. How else do you explain the Bush admin. winning two elections? I stand up for what I believe in and I don’t think what I did in anyway will paint a bad image of V1 for anybody! Not to get off topic but the V1 will speak volumes for itself when it hits the market! I want a retraction from Matt that is the goal. Maybe I chose the wrong approach but I will not apologize for my actions when Matt had to expect them in some way. I say that for a few of reasons!
1)if you go to the venture beat website and pull up that article… look at the url address you will see how it says nifty electric car, but when you read his title it says high priced scooter.
2) as you have pointed out already he probably enjoyed the traffic bump, from what I see he only has a few comments to each article, which leads me to beleive traffic is down.
3) even some of the comment here have suggested that Matt’s article is way off base even if he is entitled to his opinion!
You are a good example Mack Collier, I made a comment on your site that disagrees with what you wrote, and what did you do???… you wrote back and addressed my comments directly. This is a sign of good reporting. Matt has chosen to remain silent instead of expressing his opinion and having some evidence to back it up! I am pleased that you are standing your ground and expressing your opinion and making clear it is your opinion. however due to the fact that we are speaking on this topic coming from two entirely different view points show that respectable journalism will always be met with respectable reactions from its readers but when reports cross a line then they to should deal with the reprocutions(sp).
Brian – There’s nothing wrong with addressing the comments, but when anyone attacks the author personally, he steps over the line and increases his chances of being perceived as unreasonable and bitter.
That’s probably not something you want for yourself, so I would just advise elevating the discussion to a plane that allows you to address the argument, not the author. If Matt choses to not respond to that, then you stand a much better chance of convincing others of your position.
Brian you have to understand, I’m not worried about whether Matt was right or wrong. What I am looking at is, ‘How can we handle this so that more people get as excited about the V1 as Brian is right now?’ You have to step back and look at the big picture here; what’s more important, having Matt be proven wrong and seeing him apologize, or creating MORE fans for the V1 like yourself?
I think you’ll agree that the more people we can get as excited about the V1 as you are, the better. This is why you need to view yourself as a representative of Venture Vehicles. You need to see your ‘job’ as being to give everyone that has never heard of the V1, a reason to be as excited about it as you are.
This is why I think you are doing more harm than good by attacking Matt, and encouraging other V1 fans to do the same thing. Look at what has happened with the Venture Beat article, the arguing has become the story. We aren’t talking about the V1, we are talking about whether the tone of the comments were appropriate.
We need to be talking about the V1. And I think we get to that point, by having you and other fans of the V1 countering Matt’s article with FACTS, not insults. If 20 of you from the Fly The Road forum had shown up and commented with FACTS about how Matt was wrong (with no insults or attacks), then to the average reader, it gets THEM excited about the V1. It makes them wonder why they have never heard of this amazing vehicle before, and probably encourages them to get more information about the V1.
Make the case for why the V1 is the most amazing vehicle ever created. Don’t worry about making the case for why you think Matt is wrong. That’s small potatoes, the big idea is making me as excited about the V1 as you are.
That should be your ‘job’.
to mack and beck
Emotions may have got the best of me and other forum members however if you read our comments many of us do address the facts behind the V1, mind you, while slamming matt for his ignorant comment. “ignorant is not a slam here it is by definition lack of knowledge.
I am sure after this article came out that the two of you did some investigating of the v1 yourselves and I ask you does anything you have learned about the V1 give you the same impression as matt’s? I seriously doubt it! I beleive Matt’s soul purpose was to slam V1 and cause an uproar. Looking back that is easy to see and he got what he wanted. Don’t get me wrong looking back I regret allowing his pathetic excuse for a colunm get the best of me(i gave him exactly what he wanted traffic) However I still don’t think that Matt deserves an apology. Some of us view the V1 as a means to an end. End of dependancy on over priced oil! I don’t know about you but I spend almost $400.00 a month for that crap. I live in a remote area in the mountains of AZ and I go to college about an hour away. My wife is a school teacher and I work part time as a dispatch officer. The money we bring in is aways tight and there have been times when it was buy gas to get to school or buy food. I know that some people don’t face these problems but many do. What the Venture Vehicle company is trying to do is create a quality fuel efficient vehicle that is fun to drive and affordable to the masses! Currently the hybrids on the market our priced high enough that they honestly are saving anyone money. If you think about it a prius is similair to a focus in size and performance but it cost $10,000 more because it is a hybrid meanwhile not even doubling you fuel economy. There is virtually no savings. Now the venture one has the performance of a high end sport car and cost less then a third of the price on top of that it get almost seven times the fuel economy of a high end sports car. I don’t know about you but I already see a signifacant savings!
now that I have said my piece i would like to also ask you a serious question.
His article also raises another question what can we do as consumers to stop bloggers from writing comments designed to cause an uproar and increase their traffic? In my opinion this is a question of ethics. what is to stop other bloggers who are experiancing low traffic and need to increase it or lose sponsorship from writing articles design to purposely slam something that has been well recieved only to increase traffic? This is a question that does not bold well for consumers or companies. Being able to depend on informed unbias reporting as a means of knowing what my options are when I want to purchase an item or service is a big deal. If we can’t count on that, then what are we the consumer to do?