Not-so-well-known social media expert victimized
June 3rd, 2008 |
I was just victimized by a blog post titled “Social Media Experts Jaffe + Verdino Victimized.”
Lori Laurent Smith charges that Joseph Jaffe, Greg Verdino, and Chris Brogan were “victimized” by a charity they are promoting, and that this damages their reputations, as what she somewhat derisively refers to as “social media experts,” simply because she believes the listing on eBay does not comply with the site’s regulations for charitable auctions.
There is no evidence that these people were “taken in,” and no actual damage has been documented, so the headline is deceptive. Smith’s warning of the potential for damage is based on a rambling discussion of eBay’s rules for charitable campaigns, creating the illusion of a set of supporting facts, but they are facts irrelevant to the claims made in the post.
The post is so rifled with logical fallacies that I am wont to choose any single one, but “non sequitur” comes to mind. Smith warns, for example, “every [one] of her ’social media guru’ auctions are directly violating eBay’s policy and are likely to be pulled,” and goes on to say she has not brought this to eBay’s attention, but that she is “just using my blog to poke my colleagues so they can fix the problem before it tarnishes their reputation because frankly, they should have known better.”
In other words, nothing has actually happened, but it could.
I hope the post was merely a well-intentioned piece on the perils of charitable solicitation online, but if that’s the case, it should not have been written on the backs of Jaffe, Verdino and company.
Frankly, I feel manipulated. If any harm has been done it is to Smith’s credibility for using sensationalistic tactics to draw traffic to her blog and to “stir the pot” with some well known figures in the world of social media; to Joseph, Greg and Chris for having to step up and defend themselves against this attack; to me for having wasted so much time on this; and to the charity which is probably perfectly legitimate and genuinely in need of support.
Tags: Joseph Jaffe, Greg Verdino, Chris Brogan, Lori Laurent Smith
| Sphere This |
You completely missed the point of my post, which is evident by the many errors in your post.
I never claimed they were victimized by a charity. What I clearly stated was: And at least two of them are victims of their own advice.
Jaffe and Verdino have both gone on the record as stating clients need ask the right questions of people who claim to be social media experts before allowing them to represent their brand.
Yet, they let their ‘brands’ be represented by an ebay newbie with no feedback in an auction that looked fraudulent because it did not adhere to the rules of the community.
I never said they were ‘taken in’ nor did I even question the validity of the charity in the body of the post. The opening paragraph acknowledges this is a good cause and everyone participating is doing a great thing.
And I most certainly did not use the post to draw traffic to my site. If I had wanted to do it to raise my personal profile, as you allege, I have access as a guest blogger to a site read by marketers with far more traffic than Brogan, Jaffe, Verdino — actually all of the experts’ blogs — combined. Frankly, I’m glad you haven’t heard of me. I prefer to keep a low profile, something that cannot be said of most in this space, including you.
Suggest that next time you build a rebuttal based on facts rather than your distorted (and incorrect) ranting.
Comment by Lori Laurent Smith — June 5, 2008 @ 6:52 am
I’d be happy to address any errors in my post if you would kindly point them out. That I didn’t understand your post is clear.
Your post was overly long, rambling and incoherent, and I could not understand your point. That was my point, and I am pleased you now understand that.
Prior to writing my post. I left a comment on your blog to that effect, to which you did not respond. Here is the first sentence of that comment:
“Have re-read this several times and don’t understand what Joseph, Chris and company have done wrong, unless it is to support a cause that appears not to have dotted all the regulatory i’s for eBay.”
Doesn’t sound antagonistic to me.
I found the headline of your post, and the way you promoted it on Twitter, to be manipulative and sensationalistic. It is not possible for that statement to be incorrect. It is an expression of how I feel about it.
I was not building a rebuttal as you call it. I was genuinely confused by your post and given the strength of the headline and high profile of the players, trying to understand what of such dire consequences had happened and how Verdino, Jaffe and Brogan had contributed to its occurrence. That nothing “happened” and that there were no dire consequences only confirms my contention that the piece was sensationalistic.
And the “not so well known media expert” I was referring to was me, not you.
Comment by joel — June 5, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Joel - I commented on my post this evening that I overlooked your response because it looked like a trackback. I’ve been on typepad since 2005 and only recently moved over to Wordpress.
Regarding the errors in your post — I addressed them in my original comment.
I don’t usually write long posts. But due to the subject matter, I needed to validate my point-of-view with facts, otherwise I would have gotten hammered with hundreds of comments (which, as I stated earlier, was not my intention with this post). Clearly you come from the other school of thought where uninformed opinion is only what matters. Your (very long) post on the weasels makes this point very well.
Don’t know what to tell you about the title. That’s my style. It’s classic direct marketing technique and it works. Look at my other recent posts (that have generated far more traffic, by the way): Buy a Car and Get a Gun; Marketing in the Nude; Dark Side of Social Media…
I get that the not-so well known expert was you.
My comment was addressing the line in your post: ” to draw traffic to her blog and to “stir the pot” with some well known figures in the world of social media”. That was never my intention — it was just to bring it to the attention of those involved and use it as a cautionary tale.
Comment by Lori Laurent Smith — June 5, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Sigh
Comment by joel — June 9, 2008 @ 3:37 pm