Bacon's Information & Cluelessness ("it was an error in judgement..." says Bacon's Senior VP)

A final, final, installment of the Bacon's & Cluelessness series that started here and continued here...

In this segment: Bacon's SVP admits error and inadvertantly attaches email from underlings begging Bacon's SVP to call off the Desirable Roasted dog.

Back home in South Carolina, you can still hear old folks, when confronted with something so astounding that even they can't remember the like, utter, "I swan........."

Don't ask me the origin (it has nothing to do with aquatic fowl; I do know that), but it's usually accompanied by slow head-shaking and an expression of disbelief. Sometimes the next line is "Well, the lights are on over there, but ain't nobody home."

That's me, thinking of Bacon's. And by the time you read this long post, that's going to be you, too.

Yesterday, I posted, at the end of Cluelessness & Bacon's -- to finish the story, this promise:

I've sent a mail to Christine Birkner asking a) how my information got on their database and what that information is and b) asked for an explanation of the similarity between the Bacon's blog survey and the Edelman/Technorati one.

I'll keep you posted.

Many hours later, I had not gotten an acknowledgement from Christine Birkner or her boss, Karen Ericksen. Frankly, I didn't expect an answer, per se, but had hoped for a "ok, we'll get back to you" You know, just to know if someone was home over there.

I follow up...

So I followed up in an email to Christine Birkner and her boss, Karen Ericksen:

"I am sure you are aware by now the Bacon's Information Blog Survey is becoming somewhat of an embarrassment for Bacon's. A brief search on Technorati or Google Blogs or even Google itself will reveal that I am not the only blogger disturbed by the survey and how it's been handled.

 Let me repeat my questions:
 
1) How did I get into your database, and what information do you have about me?
 2) Did Bacon's Information copy the Edelman/Technorati survey?
 3) If so, why?
 4) If not, why did Bacon's Information apologize to Edelman?
 
I hope you will answer by the close of business today, since you have had a full day. If not, I will begin asking higher up in Bacon's, and report my progress daily on my blog.
 
Or you could just say "you know, this blog survey was a really, really terrible mistake & we apologize to all PR bloggers for it".
 
As always, you are welcome to contact me & I will naturally be happy to publish whatever reply you decide to send."

OK, I will plead guilty to cattle-prodding, just a little. But, see, while Bacon's wasn't responding, they were reading my blog. All day, I got several pops a minute from Bacon's or MediaSource -- moreover, they were doing Google and Technorati searches on almost any permutation of "Bacon's", "Information", "Blog", and "Survey" they could manage (some blogged their own names, but let's put that down to Blego). So it wasn't as if my email had fallen through the cracks.

Bacon's Replies and Admits "an error was made..."

Finally, I received this email, from Ruth McFarland, Senior Vice President and Publisher of Bacon's Information (in response to her underlings, Birkner and Ericksen). Let's read and parse!

Mr. Jenkins –
I have attached all information Bacon’s has about you and your blog in our database.

Ruth McFarland attached a PDF file with my info... quite sparse, actually, with my email address (which is public) and my blog address (ditto) and an accurate assessment of what I cover. So far, so good; I provide far more information on my blog.

We obtain blog information from a variety of websites and other sources such as our clients requesting certain ones to be added.  I cannot tell you who/what suggested you be added to the Bacon’s database.

That's trouble for Bacon's. Cannot or will not?

More trouble:  Fooled, apparently, by a dot.com address and American English, Bacon's assumes I am a US resident. But I am not. And it is illegal -- yes, illegal -- for US companies to register information about EU residents in US databases without their permission. The US and the EU have a treaty about this, and it's taken very seriously here. However, since Bacon's doesn't operate in the EU, it's hardly worth the effort to file charges.

The Edelman issue is between Edelman and Bacon’s.  If you wish further information, please read Phil Gomes’ blog, as he works for Edelman and can provide you with all of the details you wish.

The astute reader will have already noted that I quoted Gomes in my email to Birkner, so... that's circular. McFarland forgets I am a savvy PR blogger and can spot deflection at a thousand yards. But I have asked Gomes to comment, though I think he would be fully justified to say "buzz off, it's Bacon's fish, let them fry it."

Here comes the mea culpa:

It was an error in judgment to send out an e-mail attachment to bloggers, as it should have been an online survey.

The passive voice used in this deflection is a gem. Herman Wouk gets this just right in The Caine Mutiny when he has Lieutenant Keefer instruct young Ensign Willie Keith on how to write perfect Navy memos: "It was not thought necessary to contact fleet command. It is regretted if this thought was in error."

Who made the bad judgement call at Bacon's? It doesn't matter. An error in judgement was made....

Good enough! Bacon's need not eat more crow on my account.

But...a reward for your patience, reader!

Ruth McFarland, when she wrote to me, inadvertantly included the internal correspondence that prompted her interesting reply. So, as a reward for your patience, and for your amusement, and as a cautionary tale to cut off the tail of your email trail, I leave you with this plaintive cry for help from Christine Birkner's boss, Karen Ericksen, to Ruth McFarland:

Subject: Allen Jenkins again...

Hi Ruth,
He sent Chris (and I) another e-mail about this. Please see the note below.  I know you don't want to reply to him at all but what do you think of Chris sending a simple reply informing him that she has forwarded his comments on and her only role was to provide a point of contact to those that chose to respond. It really sounds like he's not going to let this rest.
- Karen

Technorati tags: Bacon's Information
Bacon's
Bacon's Blog Survey

Posted by Allan Jenkins on November 2, 2005 at 01:03 AM in Bizarre & Amusing, Communication Skills, Is Tedious in the House?, Public Relations | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c215853ef00d83425b23353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bacon's Information & Cluelessness ("it was an error in judgement..." says Bacon's Senior VP):

» Why Don't These Companies Get It?? from On Message from Wagner Communications
The hits just keep on comin' ... The "conversation" between Allan Jenkins and Bacon's -- that I wrote about here and here -- continued yesterday. And got weirder, if you can believe it. Click here to read Allan's latest installment. You don't wan... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 2, 2005 2:44:26 PM

» Liners: TypePad's healthy again from Blogebrity
Surveyor Bacon's (mentioned earlier) responds to Allan Jenkins, forgetting to redact an internal note. Now I know what research company not to hire. Doc Searls finds snark, snark, snark. Google presents its book scanning program with a save the public... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2005 4:58:07 AM

Comments

You have become an urban legend - you actually received one of the infamous The Bedbug Letters! (http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/bedbug.asp)

That is too classic to say anything about, but PR should have been involved in the beginning, and would have likely seen the mistakes that were being made and stopped them before it blew up in their face.

But, I have to say that I am a Bacon's fan, the directory is a good thing. And, sorry for giving them your name (j/k).

Posted by: Jeremy Pepper | Nov 2, 2005 7:52:31 AM

Too, too funny! I laughed so hard milk came out my nose. And, I wasn't drinking milk at the time. Go figure.

Posted by: Robert French | Nov 2, 2005 8:10:40 AM

It's the stuff of sitcoms, I agree.

What's amusing is that it's really a minor thing that became a big thing because of Bacon's ham-handedness, hubris, corporate paralysis, poor quality control, internal ass-covering... you name it.

I'd use this as a case-study, but I fear no one would believe it. Would you believe a case-study so replete with bad management clichés?

And the result? Well, it must bite to Google your company name and see these posts come up. And to know the "offended party" is not even offended -- he's shaking with mirth.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Nov 2, 2005 8:34:21 AM

>I'd use this as a case-study, but I fear no one >would believe it. Would you believe a case-study >so replete with bad management clichés?

Actually yes, but only because I used to work there. I never realized how real the movie "Office Space" was until I experienced Bacon's. I literally had like 8 bosses, each more clueless than the next. I'm not surprised at all by anything from your story, but it still amazes that these people at Bacon's still have their jobs.

Posted by: Dave | Nov 2, 2005 5:36:45 PM

This has certainly been an exciting few days.

My main motivation for my post was to ensure that people knew that there was no relationship between the Bacon's study and the Edelman/Technorati one. The latter, (and I'm among the first to admit that it's less-than-perfect in the various ways that Robert French and others have thoughtfully pointed out) was nevertheless property that appeared to be misappropriated for an inelegant exercise. (The MS-Word attachment was an unfortunate move.)

I thought my response was somewhat charitable, since I tried my best to avoid any loaded terms. The Phil Gomes of as recently as a year ago might have been a lot more... severe.

The funny parts are as follows:

- I filled out their database inquiry a while back. I asked to be contacted by reed-etched clay tablets, preferably dry ones. Instead, I received the attachment-laden email.

- The *one* person (me) who would catch the similarities received the survey.

- Bloggers love catching this kind of thing. If I didn't, someone else would have. Guaranteed.

Posted by: Phil Gomes | Nov 3, 2005 12:12:09 AM

Thanks for posting the final installment.

I'm glad you followed up. I received no reply to my email, but couldn't bear to embarrass Christine further.

It would be nice to think that Bacon's has learned something from this experience. Bloggers don't like wasting time on lost causes after all. :)

Posted by: David Lawrence | Nov 7, 2005 4:19:01 AM

Since I started the series, I've received emails from one Bacon's employee and four former ones. I haven't investigated their credentials, since I'm not posting their mails, but the mails seem credible.

What emerges is a pattern of corporate disorganization, a tradition of senior VPs taking credit while ensuring blame never besmirches them, an itch to launch projects, such as the "blogger survey" without proper thought, but with only an eye to business development.

None of which makes Bacon's unique, of course. But the episode could be a cautionary tale for companies whose managers think as Bacon's' do.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Nov 7, 2005 7:50:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.