Exposing The Communist BlogifestoPosted by Amanda Chapel An Open Letter to Jeff Jarvis Dear Jeff: Saw your interview on Beet.tv, "Wake up Corporate America, You're Being Watched." Excellent how it summed up the burgeoning blog "revolution." Found it very poignant with regard to the Dell mess, as well. First, a little humorous aside: the whole thing reminded me of my father; God rest his soul. My father was a humble man. He was a stonemason by trade. He built real things, monuments that stand today. He believed that character was inextricably tied to the sweat on one's brow and an honest day's work. For him, the light was either on or it was off. Truth was tangible or it wasn't true. Contracts were a handshake. His word was his bond. He didn't have any time for sales people, lawyers or politicians. As I ended up in PR, I was the consummate disappointment. Anyway, he's long dead now and I've come to that age where we ironically become our parents. As I watched your interview yesterday, under my breath I could hear myself mouth a particular phrase of my father's. He'd say these words whenever he saw a Kennedy, or whenever anyone privileged with "smooth hands" was using the bully pulpit to lure the weak toward some false socialist promise. "God damn commie bastard," he would say.
And that's it! This is all really about audience and venue. The "revolution" you promote is about a mob and leveraging its disappointments, hopes and fears. Gawker's Nick Denton hit the nail on the head. About the blogging "revolution" he said, "The hype comes from unemployed or partially employed marketing professionals and people who never made it as journalists wanting to believe. They want to believe there's going to be this new revolution and their lives are going to be changed." And to quote Marx in opening line of the Communist Manifesto, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." And like all successful subversives, you've been able to tap into that. What "Wake up Corporate America, You're Being Watched" is all about, is inciting a riot and boldly trying to hold the theatre owner hostage. The message is clear: "Surrender your property, or else!" Okay, let's put aside the arrogance and look at the shear fallacy of that. See, you think the owner is on the premises, probably upstairs someplace in a little office off the projection room. NO! He's not even there. See, the real owner is the bank. As it relates to Dell, you think Michael Dell gives a shit about you. He doesn't. He reports to the bank. He cares about Wall Street. I, the stockholder, am his main concern. Granted, you can cause some havoc. But to think your "Dear Mr. Dell" letter was even seen by Michael is just silly beans. As to your advice to him: "1. Read blogs; 2. Talk with your consumers; 3. Blog; and 4. Listen to all your bad press and bad blog PR and consumer dissatisfaction," that's shear nonsense. It's just NOT in his job description. Alright, I know that in your "full disclosure" you claim to own a little stock: Time Warner, Viacom , Sirius, Microsoft, and Intel. But apparently you've never been to a corporate annual meeting. I recommend you attend one. You'll find then very structured and for good reason. In business, "control" is a fiduciary responsibility. Stock is property. Management is paid to increase the value of shareholder property AND to act as custodians. It is a "duty." Simple as this: this whole "ceding control" and "open borders" mentality, at the very least, threatens shareholder property. Hype aside, the downsides of your revolution are fairly predictable and surely greater than the yet-to-be-measured upsides. Imagine shareholder activist(s) sharing the podium fully with the CEO. That's just plain silly. It will happen the same day the CEO decides to blog the annual meeting. NEVER! Here, this is the linchpin to your whole argument. You grossly overestimate the value of the customer relationship. Excuse me, businesses don't really want "relationships" with their customers. It's too expensive, it's too messy and the return is nominal at best. Not even the most prolific hooker wants a personal relationship. Our job is to anticipate needs/wants/desires and then present clients with something special. If I did my homework, I will be rewarded; if not, I will be punished. The money is on the dresser. End of transaction. But what you are proposing is actually more than an added burden of a personal relationship... it's a platform that actually servers to organize the wackos. It gives them (you) a big microphone to express social retribution. You expect me to let you and your mud-booted-torch-bearing mob into my house?! If I run out of shotgun shells maybe. Which brings me to how I, the stockholder and Michael Dell's boss, would have responded to you, Edelman and friends, and your reaction to Dell's new blog. I'd have ordered the thing shut down immediately. I'd fire the idiot who launched it in the first place. As you noted in your letter to Mr. Dell, he closed down one of his consumer forums and has a corporate policy of not talking to your customers on blogs. Michael's smart. And he's doing exactly what we pay him to do. Sincerely, - Amanda Chapel Bookmark This
 Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
One point: the bank doesn't own a public company; the shareholders do. The largest ones are usually institutons like investment banks, mutual fund companies, pension funds, etc. Your point about the CEO being the custodian for the owners is well taken.
Problems always arise when management forgets this and runs the company for its own benefit. One needs to look no farther than Enron.
Great commentary, Amanda, and right on the money, no pun intended. As a fellow Dell shareholder, I am quite concerned about the state of the company, and about the fallout from this recent debacle. We will say how it plays out, and what Jarvis's rebuttal to the above is, if any.
I agree with your first point, Amanda. As a PR person in the interactive industry, I'm constantly preaching about the power of blogs, etc., but when self-righteous power-trippers start yelling "we're in charge," that's when the 'blogosphere' loses any credibility that we have built up.
I still don't know what I think of the Dell blog - I would never in a million years buy a Dell product myself, so my interest in it is strictly fleeting. I do, however, disagree with your point about customer relationships. It could be that they don't want relationships with their customers, but customers are beginning to expect relationships with the companies they buy from. As johns start realizing they want a more than just a physical relationship with their whores, they'll take their money to where they can find a more emotional bond. I think this is a good opportunity for Dell to turn itself into the hooker with a heart of gold.
With regard to customers expecting relationships with companies... I think that is a convenient myth. When I go to the grocery store, I don't later call my grocer to tell him how the picnic is going let alone invite him to it. I will contact him if the eggs are bad or the apples are rotten. I just want them replaced, or my money back. But if he's negligently sold me something toxic, I do want more. I want damages and legal fees, too.
That's all. - Amanda
Possible that it's a myth, but I would say that it's anything but convenient. Your example is perfectly valid, but when you're trying to create long-term customers, a personal touch is a good thing. Grocery stores are about geographical convenience. Buying a computer, something that I'm going to have to do very frequently, is about trust. The big mistake that overzealous bloggers make, however, is equating "trust" with "blog."
I own a Mac (which comes standard with a smug sense of self-righteousness), and I will always buy Mac because, rationally or not, I trust them. They don't blog, but they do come clean when they screw up, and they have fantastic customer service. That's my relationship with them. With Dell, the constant streams of people complaining about their customer service necessitated a forum for coming clean, because previously, they haven't. If they had stuck their fingers in their ears and continued shouting "Dell is the best, Dell is the best," I think they would have started losing more and more customers. I have no relationship with Dell, but after reading their blog, I would be less apprehensive that that relationship would inevitably become abusive. We'll see. I have my own predictions as to how this thing will play out.
"Trust" is another highly overused marketing term. Listen, I trust product quality. Simple.
The root of any/all complaints about customer service is in product quality. If the product was 100 percent, they would not get complaints. Well, I take that back... bloggers would still complain. Bottom line: A mob blog isn't going to give me a better computer. An engineer might.
One simple comment on your 'trust' post - instead of buying shares and living off of the value created by others, try to start a business with a customer facing component and then, just then, you might be in a position to comment on 'trust'. Until that day, get off the podium, because you aren't qualiied.
Oh pshaw. Listen to yourself. Power to the proletariat! Might as well be 1917.
Michael Dell may very well not give a shit about me or his customers. Seems so. But if that is the case, then he won't have much of a company anymore and he will ill serve his stockholders (not bankers).
No, you're wrong, the customer is ultimately in charge. It's my money. I won't give it to Dell because I don't trust Dell. I know more people who won't either. He doesn't run a monopoly; he's not in charge of the cable company, phone company, or even newspaper. We have choices. That is the ultimate power. That, in, fact, is what makes capitalilsm capitalism: choice. I was just reading Chris Anderson's book this morning as he quoted Boris Yeltsin going to an American supermarket and realizing that communism was dead. Why? Choice. Choice puts the customer, the citizen, the comrade in charge. Michael Dell is not my boss. I fired him long ago. Any company that does not realize that the customer is in charge is a doomed company.
"Michael Dell may very well not give a shit about me or his customers. But if that is the case, then he won't have much of a company anymore."
- No. That's a fallacy. He should care about a good product and an identified market. That does NOT necessarily mean individual customers. "No, you're wrong, the customer is ultimately in charge. It's my money." - Yes. You singular. You have one vote. I suggest then that you don't buy Dell. Period. Anything more than that is an attempt to hold Dell and its shareholder hostage. We don't owe you anything! "I was just reading Chris Anderson's book this morning as he quoted Boris Yeltsin going to an American supermarket and realizing that communism was dead. Why? Choice." - No one is taking you choice away. We are suggesting that rather than inciting a riot, you exercise it. "Michael Dell is not my boss." - Correct. He was only ever a purveyor of a product/service. You didn't fire anyone. "Any company that does not realize that the customer is in charge is a doomed company." - Again with the threat and hype. "Give us your company or else!" No. Bottom line: ironically, any company CEO that gives into that threat is surely doomed.
I agree that blog evangelism is out of hand, and I especially enjoy reading Strumpette for its witty take on all the PR blogs that pretend to analyze the blog trend disingenously for the purpose of drumming up business.
However, I've not had a problem with Jeff Jarvis' posts on this topic, because I have taken his points as being essentially descriptive more than proscriptive. Yes, I know, you can point to the number of times he uses the word "should" with regard to Dell and other companies, but I think he's being intellectually honest about it. His real point could be restated in physical, rather than political terms. The blogosphere has changed the chemical nature of customers with respect to the companies that sell to them. Customer dissatisfaction is a far more corrosive agent now. Whereas before, it would hardly leave a chip on the sidewalk in front of your headquarters, now it can melt your reception area and potentially burn down your building. You must now treat this physical entity, your customers, differently. Their new potency comes in large part from blogs and other Internet outlets. You might want to consider, Mr. CEO, whether preventing damage from legions of dissatisfied customers might involve you changing your chemical properties as well, perhaps through some kind of blog alchemy of your own. I don't think that means "ceding control," literally. I'm not sure if any corporation or PR agency has figured out the formula, certainly not one that's replicable and will get consistent results. But the discussion is, I think, vital to some companies' future prospects. On the other hand, it's like any other PR problem. Usually it's not a PR problem at all. It's a shitty company problem. If Dell or AOL or other companies with poorly run customer service operations just fixed the obvious problems, much of the PR spend, on blogs or anything else, could be avoided.
"I've not had a problem with Jeff Jarvis' posts on this topic, because I have taken his points as being essentially descriptive more than proscriptive."
- I think you need to watch the video. He's crossed the line. As far as intellectual honesty... he may indeed actually believe in that stuff. "The blogosphere has changed the chemical nature of customers with respect to the companies that sell to them. Customer dissatisfaction is a far more corrosive agent now. Whereas before, it would hardly leave a chip on the sidewalk in front of your headquarters, now it can melt your reception area and potentially burn down your building." - Indeed, the net has been a tremendous tool for radical groups. "You might want to consider, Mr. CEO, whether preventing damage from legions of dissatisfied customers might involve you changing your chemical properties as well, perhaps through some kind of blog alchemy of your own." - No. That is absolutely a myth. And as I just responded to Jeff, negociating with a mob is not only costly and distructive, that may curtail the companies' future. "On the other hand, it's like any other PR problem. Usually it's not a PR problem at all. It's a shitty company problem." YES! Fix that and stick to the fundamentals.
"Indeed, the net has been a tremendous tool for radical groups."
The net has been a tremendous tool for individuals, radical or otherwise, to take power that radical groups once took as their birthright. Just a few years ago, if I wanted to help a client get third party support from a "consumer" group, I knew who to call: One of the small but well-funded organizations that the media deemed representative of consumers, but which actually had a political and litigious agenda -- and few actual members. Working with such groups was a process of negotiation, and it wasn't always so pretty. Those groups' power has not increased thanks to the net. What the net has done is provide a platform for actual consumers, the ones who aren't looking to join a class-action, or to overthrow capitalism, but who just want their friggin' widget to friggin' work better. They can say "Dell Hell" enough times and before you know it, they start showing up near the top on search engines. One guy can do that. Obviously, Dell's PR people think that one guy, for them, is Jeff Jarvis, who is neither radical nor a group. And no one at Dell is about to negotiate with him, or 2000 like him. If a shitty company fixes its shittiness, it will want to demonstrate this change to people. A press release announcing the new post-shitty incarnation won't persuade anybody anymore, if it ever did. But a blog in which the company can demonstrate over a length of time through actions, not just words, that the shittiness is all gone -- maybe that's persuasive. Before the opportunity to blog came along, the company just had to do a better job, and hope over time that people would notice. That doesn't work. Proof: How many people do you know continue to observe boycotts that the boycotting organization long ago dropped? I knew lots of smart people who wouldn't eat grapes for years and years, just to keep their conscience safe. Say it once, hope the newspapers pick it up, and then wait for the results? Or say it and demonstrate it every day, and perhaps get results sooner. A stockholder-focused CEO has to at least consider the latter. C'mon Amanda, it's at least possible!
You're definitely on to something, John. But I don't think you go far enough. I acknowledge a benefit to blogs, of course. But I also predict a backlash to all the hype.
Freedom of speech is precious. Democracy is a gift from God. But hyper free speech and a fractured and flattened democracy where arrogance and self interest are predominate... that's called Hell. Go watch the video and really listen to Jeff's words. I find them absolutely chilling. "Surrender your property or else!" He's a TV critic for Christ's sake! Mark my words: The owners of Corporate America are going to give him "else."
Suggesting that blogs give consumers more power is far from communism; it's pretty meek if you ask me.
In fact, consumers feels powerless in the U.S. -- compared to Western Europe, for example -- precisely because our overly deregulated capitalist markets give us very little recourse except to belly-ache in the style of Jeff Jarvis. As for Jeff himself, sure, he's a bit full of himself -- and yes, I too think of him first and foremost as a TV critic reviewing "Full House" for People magazine. But again, welcome to capitalist America, where you are what you say you are, as long as you say it loudly and convincingly enough. America has a pretty good tolerance for blowhards, and if you consider Jeff's views extreme (and yes, I watched the video -- yawn), you're obviously not watching 24-hour cable or listening to talk radio very much. Good for you; it'll rot your brain. It's already rotted mine.
At first blush, it looks like you need to brush up on your trend-tracking skills, Amanda. The trends that Jeff describes are so obvious that you'd have to work hard to ignore them. But on a second reading, the stridency of your protest proves Jeff's point. Michael Dell may not give a shit about Jeff Jarvis (a dubious assertion), but you make it obvious you do, or you wouldn't get so worked up over the Jarvis Effect that you say doesn't matter.
Dell's management has made it clear that they care about Jeff's views, having bent over backwards, tardily, to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the goods and the services couldn't keep up with their belated damage control. The history of big business is littered with the hulks of companies that forgot their customers. No Amanda, What Dell is learning is what everyone but you has concluded: Things aren't true just because you say them loudly and expensively enough. That is the intellectual bankruptcy at the core of Managerial Capitalism and its tawdry little camp follower, PR. Embracing that metaphor, maybe we should call the dying PR business "Strumpettism." Then there'd be a way to remember you after your 15 minutes are up.
Britt,
I understand that you were an advisor to the Dean Campaign. How did that work out? As to the "intellectual bankruptcy of Managerial Capitalism," you make my point. Absolutely a page right out of The Communist Blogifesto. - Amanda
Amanda,
I am astounded that you and Dell doesn't give a crap about it's customers. You have obviously been putting out a flawed product for a while now, but that's not really your biggest problem(s). You biggest problems are: 1. You won't acknowledge that your product has sucked by helping your customers get the satisfaction they need from you, which is to get the problem solved. How can you get the problem solved if you won't even talk to them after they spent money buying your crap. 2. Your Corporation has become arrogantly inflated. Just because you sold X amount of units a few years back does not mean that people will continue buying your junk. The arrogance of the people at Dell is being noticed across the whole consumer base, and if you can't see the price you are paying, then you deserve to fail as a company. Customer service in any business, at the end of the day, is all you have. Your product means nothing of people won't buy it. And your product, just like the BS that you are spewing.....well, I'm not buying it. Jeff Jarvis, as wacky as he may seem, is right on this issue. You, ma'am, are not. I've been a Dell customer for 10 years, and I will never send you another cent. And trust me, I'm not the only one. Can I suggest a new Dell motto? "Ticking off our base, one buyer at a time."
THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT YOU IDIOT!!!
You are so Jeff's people: geeks and suggestion-box nut cases. Get a life! Listen, I own a Dell. It's fantastic! Not a glitch! I love it. And when it's not those things, I will buy a different computer. I won't be writing love letters to Michael Dell wondering why he doesn't love me any more. Geeeze. - Amanda
Ehm, what is your problem. You just shouted at one of your visitors. A visitor you invited (by writing the enty) into your house (read: this website). All he did was respond to your post.
Is that a generic response, if people do not agree with you? Having read your post and now Jeff's, I think you are missing his point. Also, I think you are missing the point about capitalism and I am amazed that you actually wish to go on record with these views. And really, I don't think this is about how much one hates or loves his or her Dell computer.
Michael,
I understand Jeff's premise totally. And I understand capitalism, as well. The two concepts are not that difficult. I do not want Jeff socialistic world. I do not want to be part of his mob "storming castle Dell." I think it is immoral to try to hold a company hostage by yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do not want to leverage the fears and discontents of a group in order to take someone else's property. That's all. - Amanda
I still do not believe you understand capitalism.
I am not american, but come from a (western) european country. I obviously have not had your extensive experience with socialism and communism, but having had to deal with their propaganda - and worse - for many years, I recognize little of them in Jeff Jarviz' posts and interviews. Rather I see him as an Adam Smith'ian ideologist. Try reading his posts again, he is not advocating giving control of companies to its customer's, rather that a succesful company has to listen to its (future) customers. You may be misunderstanding the term "relationship", thinking about close, inter-personal relationships. I do not believe that is Jeff's point. What you have been advocating above seemed to work for a couple of years back in the dot-com bubble, the New Economy and such like. It may work again for short periods of time... I am glad I am not one of the companies you "own" - especially when you compare those to prolifics hookers. But perhaps you are misunderstanding your own role in that relationship; yes, you "own" those companies but in the case of most publicly traded companies you are in fact just filling out a role of customer.
"THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT YOU IDIOT!!!"
They aren't "fucking" buying. You don't like what people are saying. Don't "fucking" listen, "you idiot". You don't like the fact that people are badmouthing the company you own stock in? Tough! Welcome to the freedom of speech. It goes hand in hand with free markets, deal with it. By the way, what made you think that you could insult people, call them Communists and not get criticized yourself? You seem to be rather thin skinned.
They're not buying? Exactly. They are outsiders with NO vested interest that want to "storm castle Dell," so they (Dell) "hand over control of their company."
That's not free speech. It's called extortion. - Amanda
"They are outsiders with NO vested interest that want to "storm castle Dell," so they (Dell) "hand over control of their company.""
No, they simply don't want to see other customers screwed over. To that end they tell the tale of their bad experiences so that other future buyers of Dell products can be forewarned of potential bad consequences of choosing Dell. Secondly, point out what they think is wrong so that Dell can treat their customers better. "That's not free speech. It's called extortion." That's not an argument that's hyperbole. It's not about control of the company. It's merely feedback. Dell's corporate structure will always make its own decisions, but just as they rely on market studies, real live feedback also helps them make those decisions. If you see corporate leaders as some special breed of human who can divine what is needed without any extrenal feedback save from Wall Street, you are out of your mind. The phrase "The Customer is Always Right" is a cliche, and not an absolute, but the customers are authorities on what they want, and how they want to be treated. That's not extortion, it's negotiating the terms of a sale. Saying, "Take it or leave it" to dissatisfied customers is a sure losing scenario. What experience in sales (not Public Relations or "Marketing Communications", I mean face-to-face selling) do you have? I'd bet none, or at best maybe a stray retail job in your youth where you were very frustrated with customer demands. Fortunately you are not in charge of Dell, or their marketing. They seem to want to address problems, not "turn over control of the company", nor ignore matters and hope they go away (though it seemed for a while that was the strategy). But you've put down your manefesto, and have invested in it so much that I doubt you'll ever change your tune. So let's look at this from your perspective and assume Jeff and other blogged consumer complaints is a threat. What are you going to do about it? Can you shut them up? Fat chance. Can you threaten them with legal action? That'll backfire with greater bad publicity in the short run, and in the long run the 1st Amendment won't allow such action to be successful. What else can be done? Unless you have any ideas, you have to deal with the situation as it exists. If that means "extortionists" get their way, I guess you'll just have to be unhappy while events don't go your way. Or... If you can't beat them, join them. Instead of whining about other's whining, (a case where two negatives do not make a positive), talk about your positive experiences with Dell. Find the consumers who love Dell, and encourage them to tell their tales. Link to others who share your opinion of Dell. Make the focus on "accentuating the positive," as opposed to "eliminating the negative". This tactic would also prove to be more influential, as it could persuade people that that Jeff is wrong without resorting to insults that inflame and piss people off. No one ever changed their mind by being told to shut up, or seeing others told to shut up. Calling Jeff an "extortionist" and a "communist" will do nothing to influence opinions, just piss people off (as you can readily notice). Persuasion works better than confrontation. Conversations work better than name calling. Hey... wait... You claim to have "15 plus years experience in marketing communications" in you bio. Why should I have to be telling you this? This should be lesson #1 in marketing communications.
"They simply don't want to see other customers screwed over. To that end they tell the tale of their bad experiences so that other future buyers of Dell products can be forewarned of potential bad consequences of choosing Dell. Secondly, point out what they think is wrong so that Dell can treat their customers better.
That's a myth. This is about power and control. Jeff and friends are not some holier than thou do gooders. That's just silly. This is a political platform and Dell is a rung in the latter. "You see corporate leaders as some special breed of human who can divine what is needed without any extrenal feedback save from Wall Street." That, too, is a myth. Corporations absolutely get and incorporate a plethora of tool and methods to get customer feedback... in a controlled fashion. That's standard business. "Fortunately you are not in charge of Dell, or their marketing. They seem to want to address problems." Of course, they want to address problems... as long as it makes business sense. Having said that, the blog is a pressure valve only. "What are you going to do about it? Can you shut them up?" No. But I'd certainly put the noise in perspective. I'd also likely hire external groups to challenge Jarvis. I'd reframe the picture properly, i.e. "extortionist" and a "communist." "Persuasion works better than confrontation." Tell that to Israel.
Yep. Dean adviser. Didn't work out.
Also awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross - 3 times - and shot down in Vietnam. Another project that didn't work out. Grownups do things that don't always work out, rather than talking tough while pandering for attention. As we see here. As an Air Force officer and a real estate developer, I employed lots of people like your dad. I love those guys and wouldn't trade them for half of Congress. But the reason he laid bricks is that he couldn't see the shades of gray that are visible if you look for them. You would honor your father more by growing up and joining the conversation of adults, trying to improve things rather than living off the margins of the productive economy. Take it from a dad and grand-dad. I'm done here - real work to do.
Britt,
Capitalism is based on the rule of law and good accounting principals. This is a dollar. Not a lot of gray area there. With regard to the "conversation," it is inextricably tied to the "flat world" concept. And that is rife with problems. Here, there's a Nobel Prize winner that lives in my building. I intimately know a man who has taken college level physics classes. Now in academic circles (very hierarchical) the system can very readily differentiate between the two. In flat world, it just can't. Slashdot is not an educated jury. However, the flat world can rally Jeff's 6 million people with pitch forks and torches very well. But there's no depth. That, by definition, is a mob. Mobs like takin property. Mobs like hangins. - Amanda
"Capitalism is based on the rule of law and good accounting principals. This is a dollar. Not a lot of gray area there."
The rule of law and accounting principles are needed to prevent capitalism from falling prey to fraud. Lawyers and accountants don't create wealth, they defend it. Capitalism is based on making the sale. No sales, and you go out of business. Business that fail to make sales die. That's the natural order of things in capitalism. If Dell can't make sales, it doesn't deserve to survive. Welcome to the jungle. Again, supposedly you should know this basic truth about business. I hate to resort to this cheap shot... But you put the information up in your bio... Is the only talent you performed in the business world the willingness to sleep with bosses and clients? Being "involved in award winning campaigns", seems rather vague, not knowing exactly what that involvement is. I find your capitalist credentials starting to look a bit thread-bare.
Shawn,
"Supposedly you should know this basic truth about business." This is what happens when you come to class late and have not done your homework. We reviewed this material in detail. The arguments here are much further down the line and I am afraid that reiterating them now would only be disruptive to the others. I suggest you stay after and review the material. - Amanda
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I own no Dell stock, have no idea who Strumpette is, and based on past history, can hardly be called a Strumpette Apologist.)
Shawn: "The rule of law and accounting principles are needed to prevent capitalism from falling prey to fraud. Lawyers and accountants don't create wealth, they defend it." Actually, lawyers are accountants don't defend wealth: they leech off of it. Rule of law and fiduciary diligence are not productive in and of themselves, but are a necessary evil warding off the greater threat of pandemic consumer mistrust. When the buyers are too wary, everyone suffers. The Jarvis camp wants to believe they are the new breed of accountability -- able to leverage their issues through new technologies (and in a crazy irony, using the social media and tactics that some would call "New P.R.) The problem with this "mob," and that's exactly what they are, is a lack of definition of their true motive. Accounting firms have an employer, and a reputation to uphold. Attorneys have clients, and you know the moment one gets involved that they DO have a slant AND a dog in this hunt. The hungry mob of bloggers? Are they in it for the same reason? You can't tell. For all we know, some of the big "social-media corporate raiding" might even be Astroturfed by a competitor. You can't deny that possibility. When accountants put their stamp of approval on a balance sheet, Adam Smith's wheels of efficiency grind a little slower, but the measure has been made and agreed by all. When lawyers rattle sabres in filings and briefs, we know there is a system that will adjudicate penalties that at least try to stay within the magnitude of the offense. You piss off one influential blogger, and suddenly have to answer to Mr. Linklove? In the realm of a flat world and information moving more freely, Jarvis-and-ilk have great power to inform -- but with great power comes great responsibility. One of those duties is to not injure innocents with a ham-fisted internet campaign. ESPECIALLY when most of the torch-bearing crowd is only in it for self-gratification. You shall know them by the hair on their palms.
Okay, I did miss a paragraph that shows you do understand the Seling portion of business.
Here, this is the linchpin to your whole argument. You grossly overestimate the value of the customer relationship. Excuse me, businesses don't really want "relationships" with their customers. It's too expensive, it's too messy and the return is nominal at best. Not even the most prolific hooker wants a personal relationship. Our job is to anticipate needs/wants/desires and then present clients with something special. If I did my homework, I will be rewarded; if not, I will be punished. The money is on the dresser. End of transaction. But you miss the important part. The hooker who doesn't perform the expected services, or give their customer the clap, will not get repeat business. The relationship isn't the same as a true personal relationship but a commercial relationship does come with some expectations of the service provider. I know Apple computer doesn't love me. It loves my money. But they give me a good computer and good service. They keep my business. It's not a communist agenda to have customers demand such a "relationship" from companies. Service of defective merchandise is not a communist demand. Jeff has not called for control of the business, just not to screw customers and be callous to it. You are attributing motives purely out of imagined agendas.
"But you miss the important part. The hooker who doesn't perform the expected services, or give their customer the clap, will not get repeat business
Shawn, we've reviewed this, too. See grocer example above. "It's not a communist agenda to have customers demand such a "relationship" from companies." Sure it is. I don't own you anything but what you paid for. Get a dog. "Service of defective merchandise is not a communist demand." Shawn, we've reviewed this, too. See grocer example above. "Jeff has not called for control of the business, just not to screw customers and be callous to it. You are attributing motives purely out of imagined agendas." Not at all. Read his online statements. What the video linked at the beginning of this story. That's ABSOLUTELY an inappropriate and anti-business agenda.
I've been reading his statements for years.
If there is any agenda he is playing, its to build his reputation as an expert on Internet media. He has professional relationships with media companies, that is his bread and butter these days as I understand it. Hardly the calling card of a communist. I'll watch the video. I doubt I'll find anything new. You should do your homework too and read the original "Dell Hell" saga. This was all born out of Jeff's own personal problems with tech support. Which leads me to your grocer metaphor that you pointed out: "I will contact him if the eggs are bad or the apples are rotten. I just want them replaced, or my money back." That was the point. Dell gave Jeff "rotten eggs". Dell then gave him a hard time in getting the computer repaired or replaced. They have ignored this problem, not only for Jeff, but many many other customers. Dell's been notorious for its bureaucratic, ineffective service department. By the way, Dell advertises servicing the computers sold as part of the package with its computers. If memory serves, Jeff even had bought a service contract to supposedly get extended service, so the "Service" was also a product that turned out to be rotten.
"With regard to customers expecting relationships with companies... I think that is a convenient myth. When I go to the grocery store, I don't later call my grocer to tell him how the picnic is going let alone invite him to it. I will contact him if the eggs are bad or the apples are rotten."
I don't need to repeat the objections to your argument, the ones above are fine. But I will say this: if you don't talk on a cordial level with your grocer, it doesn't make you a typical consumer, it makes you an asshole. And I don't mean that as an insult, but as a fact. And you can be an asshole if you want, but don't think that's what the majority of people--consumers--are like.
The majority of consumers, when dealing with their OWN reputations, and when enacting commerce with a name and a face, are not assholes.
Human nature tells us that the majority of consumers, when given a chance to vent anonymously and in crowds, ARE assholes. They will say things and advocate actions they would never do under their real names. They will act more flippantly and with unbridled venom when they do so from the safety of a mob. Jarvis isn't the evil. It's the mob of "Me Too's" who get into a competition to see who can one-up the next with hatred and invective for Dell, or whomever happens to become the Corporate Patsy du Jour. One complaint from a customer can be the start of a great conversation if the company is listnening. Ten-thousand people shouting at once is a little harder to discern, because they are all competing with one another to be the loudest and nastiest, and the value of their input decreases. The torch-bearers end up killing a weed with a forest fire, and nothing is accomplished. Strumpette may have gone too far in making the Communism analogy, but there is one respect where it is valid: a political movement of proles attempting to take over the means of production without buying their way in.
Amanda: you are totally on the mark! Thanks for a commentary that doesn't involve sucking up to some "A-list" blogger.
"In business, 'control' is a fiduciary responsibility. Stock is property. Management is paid to increase the value of shareholder property AND to act as custodians. It is a 'duty.'"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. In business, management treats shareholders as shoddily as you concede they treat customers. The art of management is to make as much as you can for yourself, not for sharholders. Fiduciary responsibility. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Did this post compare John Kennedy with a communist? Wow, I didn't know this was another right-wing, swift boat, rush, hannity, fox news channel? Perhaps this line of thinking is limited to this post...we can only pray.
Add Comment
|
Jeff, you've crossed a line. You're no longer a Newmark-like dis-intermediary hero set out to circumvent your former media bosses and radically improve a business. You are now sounding like some malignant corporate subversive. Listen to yourself: "behind me a mob with pitch forks and torches storming castle Dell;" "we are the bosses now;" "companies have the opportunity to hand over control to customers." That's not inspiring a "conversation" comrade; you're yelling "fire" in a crowded peasant theatre.
Our Resident Philistine, having taken a licking from Strumpette, ratchets his petulant populism up another notch: "Forget consumerism," he tritely trills, Smith&Hawken stainless-steel pitchfork in hand. "We are customers with our money in our fists, spending it wisely and joining together to spend it more wisely." That's Marxism not as tragedy but as farce. "And we are producers who can compete with the companies that thought of us as mere consumers." Hey, Mr....
Tracked: Jul 17, 16:19
While I'm in a "reality check" frame of mind, this post from Strumpette is worth reading. Exposing the Communist Blogifesto: Excuse me, businesses don't really want "relationships" with their customers. It's too expensive, it's too messy and the return is nominal at best. Not even the most prolific hooker wants a personal relationship. Our job is to anticipate needs/wants/desires and then present clients with something special. If I did my homework, I will be rewarded; if not, I will be punished. The money is on the dresser. End of transaction. Do we really want "I'm not buying from them anymore" to be our only means of influencing businesses? Or is that more than enough for most customers?...
Tracked: Jul 18, 08:44
Not often that I like to Strumpette, as it's mostly crap, but in Exposing-The-Communist-Blogifesto she really gets so much right. Things really come alive in the comments, such as this one: With regard to the conversation, it is inextricably tied
Tracked: Jul 18, 09:42
If you got your jollies out of the earlier scrap between the Naked Conversations authors Shel Israel and Robert Scoble, and Amazon CTO Werner Vogels, you might want to head over to the Buzzmachine. Jeff’s starting to open up the throttle a little...
Tracked: Jul 21, 06:05